Margaret Thatcher's Funeral

robroy1234

It is a British problem. They still have an anachronism of a monarchy and aristocracy, corruption throughout its political environment as well as in the banking sector and have an antiquated class system - so it serves them right if they have to pay for her funeral and for all the damage that she caused to the British people. The British people were stupid enough to vote for her, supported her terrible policies and still go on about how great Britain is despite the mess they are in. With the increase in money to the royals plus the gift of the crown estates ( +£250 million) and the increase in their royal protection and military pomp (+£200 million) and the waste of this funeral at £10 million, not counting the waste from the previous royal wedding and jubilee., Britain is living way beyond it means and therefore the ruling class has to squeeze more money out of the British people. The British people are so stupid that they accept this and even though some may complain - as a country they do nothing.

Fratton Fred

robroy1234 wrote: »

It is a British problem. They still have an anachronism of a monarchy and aristocracy, corruption throughout its political environment as well as in the banking sector and have an antiquated class system - so it serves them right if they have to pay for her funeral and for all the damage that she caused to the British people. The British people were stupid enough to vote for her, supported her terrible policies and still go on about how great Britain is despite the mess they are in. With the increase in money to the royals plus the gift of the crown estates ( +£250 million) and the increase in their royal protection and military pomp (+£200 million) and the waste of this funeral at £10 million, not counting the waste from the previous royal wedding and jubilee., Britain is living way beyond it means and therefore the ruling class has to squeeze more money out of the British people. The British people are so stupid that they accept this and even though some may complain - as a country they do nothing.

And to think Thatcher gets called a racist bigot because she called the Irish liars.

FTA69

If the British people are "stupid" because of the above then by your logic the Irish are the thickest bastards to ever have lived; positively Neanderthal in comparison.

corruption throughout its political environment as well as in the banking sector

A bit like Ireland so, only not half as bad. While the ruling class in any country are fundamentally crooked, the Brits generally don't tolerate ridiculously excessive corruption the same way the Irish do. David Blunkett had to resign over claiming expenses for his girlfriend's train ticket, meanwhile we have the likes of Michael Lowry topping the poll in Tipp and rallies going on for the likes of Sean Quinn. As for the Irish banking sector, that was once declared the "Wild West" with examples such as Anglo shareholders signing of loans for themselves while the Irish people then had to pick up the tab for the recklessness of the banks.

and have an antiquated class system

And Ireland doesn't? The rich/poor divide in Ireland is bigger than in most countries. Despite the "we're all in it together" b*llocks from Fine Gael and the false pseudo-egalitarian nationalist bullsh*t from Fianna Fáil, the fact remains that Ireland has a divide between those who have and those who have nothing. If you think there isn't a financial and political elite in Ireland you're codding yourself. And if you think there is no difference between those who work for a living and those who get rich off the back of them then you're positively deranged.

You are correct in the sense that the British working class are under sustained attack in every aspect. But unfortunately that's the case in Ireland, the USA ans numerous other countries across the world. The notion that it's unique to Britain because they're "thick" is just myopic nonsense to be honest.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

A bit like Ireland so, only not half as bad. While the ruling class in any country are fundamentally crooked, the Brits generally don't tolerate ridiculously excessive corruption the same way the Irish do. David Blunkett had to resign over claiming expenses for his girlfriend's train ticket, meanwhile we have the likes of Michael Lowry topping the poll in Tipp and rallies going on for the likes of Sean Quinn.

While I generally agree with your point, it should be pointed out that people in positions of authority in the UK are often hounded out of their jobs by the tabloids at the mere suggestion that they may have done something wrong.

FTA69 wrote: »

And Ireland doesn't? The rich/poor divide in Ireland is bigger than in most countries.

I'm really not convinced by that at all. I mean sure, Ireland has it's problems in that regard, but they pale in comparison to the divide between London and the rest of the UK in terms of wealth distribution.

Fratton Fred

djpbarry wrote: »

While I generally agree with your point, it should be pointed out that people in positions of authority in the UK are often hounded out of their jobs by the tabloids at the mere suggestion that they may have done something wrong.
I'm really not convinced by that at all. I mean sure, Ireland has it's problems in that regard, but they pale in comparison to the divide between London and the rest of the UK in terms of wealth distribution.

London is unique though. Its position as a major global city means that a lot of uber wealthy people live there. Some of the world's largest companies have a significant presence or head office there as well and this all distorts the figures.

London also has some of the poorest areas of the UK.

djpbarry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

London is unique though. Its position as a major global city means that a lot of uber wealthy people live there. Some of the world's largest companies have a significant presence or head office there as well and this all distorts the figures.

But isn't that the point?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

London also has some of the poorest areas of the UK.

Absolutely - not denying that.

FTA69

While I generally agree with your point, it should be pointed out that people in positions of authority in the UK are often hounded out of their jobs by the tabloids at the mere suggestion that they may have done something wrong.

True. And I'm not saying for a second that British politicians are pillars of virtue. They're as much a part of the rotten system we have as anyone else in the national elite. My point to your man is that they certainly aren't unique in that regard and in general the average Brit is replused when they see a hint of corruption or impropriety. In Ireland, however, large groups of people love a stroke from a politician. When it transpired Bertie Ahern was running around with suitcases of cash or Haughey was zipping around on a yacht people admired them for it.

"Erra isn't he one of our own?"
"Sure we'd have nothing if it wasn't for Lowry."
"He has the common touch."

The latter pointt is probably the most pertinent. The British upper classes can often be more sheltered from the ordinary pleb than their Irish counterparts. They attend highly exclusive private schools, talk like gobsh*tes and often have a wooden demeanor; George Osborne is a good example of this. Our crowd on the other hand, are adept at pretending to be "an ordinary man" because they enjoy a pint of Bass and watch the hurling and have a modicum of charm you wouldn't get from a stuffy old Tory.

This then allows them to gloss over things like the developers' tent at the Galway races, putting limos on expenses and hobnobbing with the financial elite. It's Irish gombeenism at its best.

I'm really not convinced by that at all. I mean sure, Ireland has it's problems in that regard, but they pale in comparison to the divide between London and the rest of the UK in terms of wealth distribution.

London is the financial capital of the world and has disproportionate amounts of extremely high-earners. As a city it also has a higher rich-poor divide than most places in the western world. The life of a Bangladeshi fast food worker is a far cry from the City trader. Besides, the original point made was that Britain as an antiquated class system; you're on about regional inequality which is a different topic to be honest.

My point is that Ireland, in economic terms (which is what matters), very much has a class system and it's glaringly obvious to boot.

Fratton Fred

djpbarry wrote: »

But isn't that the point?

Can you really see Lakshmi Mittel, Alisher Usmanov or Roman Abramovic relocating to Hartlepool?

FTA69

Meatloaf owns a house in Hartlepool in fairness.

Death and Taxes

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Tomorrow morning, 17th April 2013, ex-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher shall receive a state funeral costing in the region of 8-10 million GBP. This shall be paid for by the British tax-payer, many of whom's antecedents were made redundant and unemployed by Thatcher's economic policies.

Barack Obama was invited but declined the offer and has instead opted to send a presidential delegation, none of which are active politicians. The US shall send George Shultz and James Baker, who both served as US secretary of state while Thatcher was in power.

Mass protests are planned with Socialists, Anarchists and general opponents of Thatcher set to turn their backs on her coffin, and to register their disapproval of a PM who rewarded the capitalist class and the wealthy elite whilst attempting to destroy the British working class when she was in power.

Shall you be glued to the telly paying your respects to Margaret Thatcher? Or perhaps popping open a bevy and celebrating her demise? Perhaps like many you shall be getting on with your morning and feel completely indifferent to the funeral of a PM who has been described as "a tyrant" and "a witch"?

Your views on Margaret Thatcher's grand and expensive state exit.

The mass protests never haqppened and the former PM recieved a dignified and well deserved ceramonial funeral.

ednwireland

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The mass protests never haqppened and the former PM recieved a dignified and well deserved ceramonial funeral.

not in my opinion, i think state funerals in general are a total waste of money

Madam

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The mass protests never haqppened and the former PM recieved a dignified and well deserved ceramonial funeral.

Ah well, we'll see what happens at the next general election when the conservatives are voted out due to their s/lavish sending off for their ousted ex leader..... Amongs other things.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Meatloaf owns a house in Hartlepool in fairness.

I'm not surprised, I would have thought monkey hanging was right up hos street!

FTA69

WileyCoyote wrote: »

The mass protests never haqppened and the former PM recieved a dignified and well deserved ceramonial funeral.

Dignified? It was anything but, rather a Tory love-in (featuring eejits like Wogan) where her whole toxic legacy was rehashed and rebranded as something positive. The fact that taxpayer's money was used to fund a state funeral for the most divisive leader Britain had in years is ridiculous. The fact that this money was spent in the middle of an austerity campaign where people are facing unemployment and poverty on a daily basis is even more sickening.

I'm not into grave-dancing, but Thatcher was an awful, awful human being who not only decimated the working class in Britain but also was up to her neck in perpetuating violence in Ireland. The fact Irish people are joining in the eulogies and gushing is nothing short of embarassing.

junder

'Dissidents' celebrate thatchers funeral by attacking the fountain


Mediator: No aggression from Protestant side in Fountain estate


by Philip Bradfield
p.bradfield@newsletter.co.uk

Published on the 17 April
2013
09:57


There is no aggression coming from a tiny Protestant enclave which has been subjected to a campaign of sectarian violence in Londonderry since the death of Margaret Thatcher, a mediator says.

Michael Doherty, of the city’s Peace and Reconciliation Group, said that Baroness Thatcher’s death had given dissident republicans the “excuse” that they wanted to attack the Fountain Estate.

Mobs of up to 50 teenagers have been launching petrol bombs almost nightly at the tiny Protestant estate since the former Tory leader died on April 8. The estate is surrounded by a three-mile security barrier in the mainly Catholic west of the city.

Mr Doherty told the News Letter: “Young people throwing petrol bombs at the Fountain is totally sectarian.

“I am supposed to be a mediator but I can’t do anything. There is no aggression coming out of the Fountain Estate.”

Graham Warke, a youth worker in the estate, said Monday night was the first without attacks since Baroness Thatcher died.

“We put that down to the intense media scrutiny and a lot of work being done on the ground,” he said.

“We understand the police are quite worried about Wednesday. We hope it passes off peacefully but we don’t feel any more relaxed.”

Police say adequate resources are in place to deal with any disorder and that evidence is being gathered for arrests.

Dignified, respectful, peaceful yer right

Bertie Woot

robroy1234 wrote: »

It is a British problem. They still have an anachronism of a monarchy and aristocracy, corruption throughout its political environment as well as in the banking sector and have an antiquated class system - so it serves them right if they have to pay for her funeral and for all the damage that she caused to the British people. The British people were stupid enough to vote for her, supported her terrible policies and still go on about how great Britain is despite the mess they are in. With the increase in money to the royals plus the gift of the crown estates ( +£250 million) and the increase in their royal protection and military pomp (+£200 million) and the waste of this funeral at £10 million, not counting the waste from the previous royal wedding and jubilee., Britain is living way beyond it means and therefore the ruling class has to squeeze more money out of the British people. The British people are so stupid that they accept this and even though some may complain - as a country they do nothing.

I spent a year on a British political forum witnessing English people whine and moan about Islam, immigration and the EU. When you point out to them that whining about problems which they themselves are responsible for by electing party politicians who are tied to the EU, whose immigration policy has caused mass immigration and Islamification, and that whining about it on a political forum without taking some direct action at grass-roots level is going to no good whatsoever, they start to call you a "Paddy".

Fratton Fred

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I spent a year on a British political forum witnessing English people whine and moan about Islam, immigration and the EU. When you point out to them that whining about problems which they themselves are responsible for by electing party politicians who are tied to the EU, whose immigration policy has caused mass immigration and Islamification, and that whining about it on a political forum without taking some direct action at grass-roots level is going to no good whatsoever, they start to call you a "Paddy".

Tl:Dr version- those ****ing idiot British bastards called me a Paddy

Madam

“We put that down to the intense media scrutiny and a lot of work being done on the ground,” he said.

How come there's nothing about it in the Irish or UK media it there such 'intense' scrutiny'?

FTA69

You can't tar people with the same brush, it doesn't matter where people are from like. I work with people on a daily basis who are standing up for themselves and their fellow workers in workplaces all over England. People who give huge amounts of their time and effort to campaign on issues such as pay, conditions, education and training etc. Many of these are also fully involved in political and solidarity campaigns outside of the trade union movement. We certainly have a lot of problems, but in general British trade unionism is on a sounder footing, reorganised and committed to fighting back. Which is a lot more than can be said for the Irish equivalents who haven't even got out of the starting blocks.

I spent a year on a British political forum

Let's be honest, that doesn't give you insight to anything. I've spent the past year and a half working with English, Welsh and Scots people who are absolutely world-class when it comes to campaigning and organising.

Working class people the world over are lethargic, or fearful or unorganised; not just in Britain.

There seems to be an unfortunate level of anti-English sentiment in some posts on this thread.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

You can't tar people with the same brush, it doesn't matter where people are from like. I work with people on a daily basis who are standing up for themselves and their fellow workers in workplaces all over England. People who give huge amounts of their time and effort to campaign on issues such as pay, conditions, education and training etc. Many of these are also fully involved in political and solidarity campaigns outside of the trade union movement. We certainly have a lot of problems, but in general British trade unionism is on a sounder footing, reorganised and committed to fighting back. Which is a lot more than can be said for the Irish equivalents who haven't even got out of the starting blocks.
.

I've said on another thread somewhere about this, so apologies for repeating.

I was in the engineer's union, at the time called the AUEW. We took government rhetoric and made it work in our favour. The edict was, pay rises above inflation had to be backed by increases in productivity. We embraced multi skilling, new techniques and practices, such as statistical process control, lean manufacturing etc, cut our scrap rate from 15 to 5% and productivity shot up.

At the annual negotiations the union put their demands in a thought out manner. Inflation is 5%, so we want cost of living, productivity is up which means a cost saving of x to the company. An additional 2.5% On top of inflation means we are sharing those savings.

There was no arguments, because there were none to be had.

It was those sort of changes along with share save schemes etc that To me is what defined that era of change. Them and us became we, because we were suddenly facing competition from Germany, Italy and Japan. It was change or die.

jank

FTA69 wrote: »

Dignified? It was anything but, rather a Tory love-in (featuring eejits like Wogan) where her whole toxic legacy was rehashed and rebranded as something positive. The fact that taxpayer's money was used to fund a state funeral for the most divisive leader Britain had in years is ridiculous. The fact that this money was spent in the middle of an austerity campaign where people are facing unemployment and poverty on a daily basis is even more sickening.

I'm not into grave-dancing, but Thatcher was an awful, awful human being who not only decimated the working class in Britain but also was up to her neck in perpetuating violence in Ireland. The fact Irish people are joining in the eulogies and gushing is nothing short of embarassing.

Whatever about what she did in the north, that conflict was there well before she took power. All sides perpetuated violence, the PIRA chief among them, sure didn't they kill her mentor and try and kill her? The one sided debate I see here typical of some. Whitewashing the past to suit the agenda.

ednwireland

Bertie Woot wrote: »

I spent a year on a British political forum witnessing English people whine and moan about Islam, immigration and the EU. When you point out to them that whining about problems which they themselves are responsible for by electing party politicians who are tied to the EU, whose immigration policy has caused mass immigration and Islamification, and that whining about it on a political forum without taking some direct action at grass-roots level is going to no good whatsoever, they start to call you a "Paddy".

the immigration issues in the uk go waaay back very little to do with the eu imo. my parents were abused when they moved to the uk in the 50's (polish) then the pakistani's came in so they had a new target and so on and so on. it seems to me the english just like to complain about the latest wave of immigrants

djpbarry

ednwireland wrote: »

the immigration issues in the uk go waaay back very little to do with the eu imo. my parents were abused when they moved to the uk in the 50's (polish) then the pakistani's came in so they had a new target and so on and so on. it seems to me the english just like to complain about the latest wave of immigrants

Whereas there's absolutely no anti-immigration sentiment in Scotland, Wales or Ireland at all at all.

Stupid, knuckle-dragging English *****.

walshb

Is complaining about immigration bad/wrong/nasty/not allowed?

Scofflaw

walshb wrote: »

Is complaining about immigration bad/wrong/nasty/not allowed?

When it's reasonable rather than ill-informed bigotry, and on appropriate threads, it's obviously allowed. The problem is that it's rather common for people whose positions are actually ill-informed bigotry to believe that their opinions are well-informed and rational.

moderately,
Scofflaw

jank

I think immigration policy and the welfare loopholes that some people seem to exploit is fair game, but the 'dem took ar jabs' crap belongs somewhere else.

A problem is that bleeding heart leftys will take any discussion on immigration policy or welfare policy as inherently racist, therefore make it very hard to have a discussion about it.

If it were me, I would allow any kind of immigration but at the same time have no welfare state. It's because of the welfare state that we have visas and the like now, just look to the US as an example. 100 years ago you could rock up in New York and work away for as long as you want but there was no safety net, now because of social security and the like you can't have a policy like that. It's no coincidence that the growth of the welfare state in the west has coincided with sticter entry's requirements to these countries.

Not sure what either has to do with this thread though.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

100 years ago you could rock up in New York and work away for as long as you want but there was no safety net...

...and what a paradise that was for everyone concerned.

robroy1234

What has immigration to do with the Brits wasting 10 million pounds on an individual who did as much damage to British industry and nation?

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and what a paradise that was for everyone concerned.

Yeap, it was such a hellhole that between 1850 and 1930 some 35 Million Europeans emigrated to the US out of their own free will. Clearly suckers for punishment or maybe they were onto something.

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

Yeap, it was such a hellhole that between 1850 and 1930 some 35 Million Europeans emigrated to the US out of their own free will. Clearly suckers for punishment or maybe they were onto something.

I thought you were the person who was complaining about 'bleeding heart lefty's' making reasonable debate about imigration 'very hard' and also about 'one sided points of view' yet here we have you making general points without analysisng those figures. How many of that 35 million lived lives of abject poverty and exploitation would you say? How many of them simply left poverty to a life of poverty with a different sky?
What we 'bleeding heart lefty's' want and still want is a society that cares for all not just a select few or a select few lucky enough to have a shot at bettering themselves. MT ultimately regressed society that will be her abding legacy, unfortunately, her legacy is being 'rewritten' by the 'lucky' few. They win...for now.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

Yeap, it was such a hellhole that between 1850 and 1930 some 35 Million Europeans emigrated to the US out of their own free will. Clearly suckers for punishment or maybe they were onto something.

I refer you to Mr Upton Sinclair's seminal work, The Jungle.

jank

Happyman42 wrote: »

I thought you were the person who was complaining about 'bleeding heart lefty's' making reasonable debate about imigration 'very hard' and also about 'one sided points of view' yet here we have you making general points without analysisng those figures. How many of that 35 million lived lives of abject poverty and exploitation would you say? How many of them simply left poverty to a life of poverty with a different sky?
What we 'bleeding heart lefty's' want and still want is a society that cares for all not just a select few or a select few lucky enough to have a shot at bettering themselves. MT ultimately regressed society that will be her abding legacy, unfortunately, her legacy is being 'rewritten' by the 'lucky' few. They win...for now.

I am having a reasonable debate. I made the point about western nations restricting entry to their countries because of the growth of the welfare systems in these states. The point I made about getting the boat to the US and staying there for life with no visa restriction is true. Oscar made some glib remark about how 'bad' these industrial cities were back in the day but made no reference of the conditions or quality of life people had where they were coming from. Why didnt the same level of emmigration occur in relation to Soviet Russia, or communist China?

There was a very fundamental reason WHY so many people opted for that life. They were not made go, they were not chained to the boat like those sold to slavery from Africa. One should always look where people vote with their feet and history is telling us the average person was far better off in terms of wealth, health, freedom and most importantly opportunity in getting the boat to the US from Europe than staying. And I haven’t even brought up the slaughter on the fields of Europe during 2 world wars, god forbid if you were a Jew!

What I do object to is the cry of 'your a racist' when discussing anything to do with immigration, as that is the card many will play no matter what the evidence and facts are presented.

You mention bettering yourself, well there again, why did 35 million Europeans leave their homes and emigrate to the US? At the end of the day it is up to the individual to better themselves. The function of the state is to provide that environment, not to hand out goodies for votes or create a centrally planned economy where everyone can be equal. You may point to Sweden as a model, but do you want to pay half your income to the government, do you TRUST the Irish government with half your money? Sweden is all well and good but the difference is that it’s full of Swedes, they have a very frugal and law abiding outlook on life. Irish people generally do not.

You may say Thatcher regressed society but to what and from what? Should we copy the eastern European model before the fall of the Berlin Wall? What should society be and look like. You want to be like France? Like Germany? All I hear is that she was unfair and mean and uncaring and so on, but no realistic alternative is mentioned. Very easy to be negative when one has no plan or alternative of their own.

Chuck Stone

jank wrote: »

The point I made about getting the boat to the US and staying there for life with no visa restriction is true.

It was true one hundred years ago - if you hadn't noticed the world is a different place now. Comparing societies over large spans of time is work for historians; trying to make a political point of it is effectively useless unless you've some sort of agenda to push.

You wouldn't have an agenda to push would you? Maybe you're pushing an agenda but are unaware of it?

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

I am having a reasonable debate.

What is reasonable or open about 'bleeding heart lefties'? (statments and namecalling to make a point make agendas very clear)

I made the point about western nations restricting entry to their countries because of the growth of the welfare systems in these states. The point I made about getting the boat to the US and staying there for life with no visa restriction is true. Oscar made some glib remark about how 'bad' these industrial cities were back in the day but made no reference of the conditions or quality of life people had where they were coming from. Why didnt the same level of emmigration occur in relation to Soviet Russia, or communist China?

'Hope' has always been a huge mover of peoples, exploitation of that 'hope' has become a way of subjugation, Thatcher implemented the old 'fend for yourself and you will be rewarded' mantra many times. We watched as a section of society got richer and richer and everybody hoped that they could share. But eventually that self consuming model failed as it always will because it was essentially feeding on the poor (the Poll Tax) and she got booted. The expected emigration of the disaffected and hopelessly marginalised and oppurtunity deprived wasn't big enough to release the pressure as it has been here in our recessions. Emigration has served as the safety valve that hinders social revolution here, and the estabishment parties know that.

There was a very fundamental reason WHY so many people opted for that life. They were not made go, they were not chained to the boat like those sold to slavery from Africa. One should always look where people vote with their feet and history is telling us the average person was far better off in terms of wealth, health, freedom and most importantly opportunity in getting the boat to the US from Europe than staying. And I haven’t even brought up the slaughter on the fields of Europe during 2 world wars, god forbid if you were a Jew!

What I do object to is the cry of 'your a racist' when discussing anything to do with immigration, as that is the card many will play no matter what the evidence and facts are presented.

To say they where not 'made to go' is simplistic in the extreme. Emigration and movement will always be with us. Mass emigrations aren't, hence why it is a topic of debate now.

You mention bettering yourself, well there again, why did 35 million Europeans leave their homes and emigrate to the US? At the end of the day it is up to the individual to better themselves. The function of the state is to provide that environment, not to hand out goodies for votes or create a centrally planned economy where everyone can be equal. You may point to Sweden as a model, but do you want to pay half your income to the government, do you TRUST the Irish government with half your money? Sweden is all well and good but the difference is that it’s full of Swedes, they have a very frugal and law abiding outlook on life. Irish people generally do not.

It is not the function of any state to create an environment where only a section get rich, it is the duty of the state to make sure that everybody shares in a boom, and more importantly, that nobody is exploited in that boom.

You may say Thatcher regressed society but to what and from what? Should we copy the eastern European model before the fall of the Berlin Wall? What should society be and look like. You want to be like France? Like Germany? All I hear is that she was unfair and mean and uncaring and so on, but no realistic alternative is mentioned. Very easy to be negative when one has no plan or alternative of their own.

Well we can say with certainty because I am sure no sane person could envy the state of society in Britain at the moment, that Thatcher's way is not the one. Of course those at the trough and benifitting will never admit it, but Britain is in crisis socially, even when that crisis exploded on to the streets just a few short years ago and the feeders looked around, bewildered. Rather than fix what Thatcher broke they have ignored the rot in the state, and are now re-energising Thatcherism. In my opinion, they do that at their peril, can Britain take another Poll Tax debacle? I wouldn't be too sure.

jank

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It was true one hundred years ago - if you hadn't noticed the world is a different place now. Comparing societies over large spans of time is work for historians; trying to make a political point of it is effectively useless unless you've some sort of agenda to push.

It was in reference to changes to immigration policy and the growth of the welfare state in the later half of the 20th century. There is a correlation and I see nobody has yet to prove otherwise.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You wouldn't have an agenda to push would you? Maybe you're pushing an agenda but are unaware of it?

What is my agenda? Please enlighten me.

jank

Happyman42 wrote: »

'Hope' has always been a huge mover of peoples, exploitation of that 'hope' has become a way of subjugation, Thatcher implemented the old 'fend for yourself and you will be rewarded' mantra many times. We watched as a section of society got richer and richer and everybody hoped that they could share. But eventually that self consuming model failed as it always will because it was essentially feeding on the poor (the Poll Tax) and she got booted. The expected emigration of the disaffected and hopelessly marginalised and oppurtunity deprived wasn't big enough to release the pressure as it has been here in our recessions. Emigration has served as the safety valve that hinders social revolution here, and the estabishment parties know that.

You are touching on alot of issues here but it seems to me you are confusing issues. Hope of course moves people but why then was there not mass emigration to the USSR when it offered such a utopian paradise, in fact over time it was the opposite. Do you deny this? Even today people are fleeing the socialist Cuban paradise for the US. There is always nonsense perpetuated that a free market capitalist system is a zero sum game. The reality is that two parties can benefit from the exchange or goods, labour or services. That is the thing about the free market. It works and it improves the lives of everyone involved. The guy on the dole in ireland has comforts and luxuries kings wouldnt have had 400 years ago. There is no other system that has lifted millions if not billions out of poverty. Compare and contrast North and South Korea for example. What system has been proved to work there? Where is the average Korean better of living?

Emmigration in Ireland has been a fact and its sad that some people have to leave because of the political system but that proves my point. People will always go where the action is so to speak. Ireland experienced dymanic immigration up to some years ago, although this was due to a state sponsored property bubble it proves where there is a high level of economic activity and prosperity people will be drawn in. If the state got out of the way and stopped feathering its own nests for its own end, people and ireland will be alot better off in the long run. That also means a sharp cut to its spending!!

Happyman42 wrote: »

To say they where not 'made to go' is simplistic in the extreme. Emigration and movement will always be with us. Mass emigrations aren't, hence why it is a topic of debate now.

Where are these people going to today? Are they going to the Canada's, New Zealand's, Australia's, USA or god forbid Tory UK or are they going to North Korea and Cuba?

By the way, I was talking about 100 years ago but if you want to talk about today then fine.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is not the function of any state to create an environment where only a section get rich, it is the duty of the state to make sure that everybody shares in a boom, and more importantly, that nobody is exploited in that boom.

The 'duty' of the state? No, the state has no duty to make anyone conform to their agenda of the day. There can be no freedom or liberty if the state makes people do things they don't want to do en mass. Your comment is right out of Orwells Animal Farm!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well we can say with certainty because I am sure no sane person could envy the state of society in Britain at the moment, that Thatcher's way is not the one. Of course those at the trough and benifitting will never admit it, but Britain is in crisis socially, even when that crisis exploded on to the streets just a few short years ago and the feeders looked around, bewildered. Rather than fix what Thatcher broke they have ignored the rot in the state, and are now re-energising Thatcherism. In my opinion, they do that at their peril, can Britain take another Poll Tax debacle? I wouldn't be too sure.

What are you saying? Some young entitled scumbags who rioted a few years ago, looted the shops because they wanted some new sports shoes and the latest mp3 players is a reaction to Thatchers Britain? Why not blame her for the Boston bombings while you are at it!

Again, I see that you offered NO alternative, not even one. Just negativity!

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

You are touching on alot of issues here but it seems to me you are confusing issues. Hope of course moves people but why then was there not mass emigration to the USSR when it offered such a utopian paradise, in fact over time it was the opposite. Do you deny this? Even today people are fleeing the socialist Cuban paradise for the US. There is always nonsense perpetuated that a free market capitalist system is a zero sum game. The reality is that two parties can benefit from the exchange or goods, labour or services. That is the thing about the free market. It works and it improves the lives of everyone involved. The guy on the dole in ireland has comforts and luxuries kings wouldnt have had 400 years ago. There is no other system that has lifted millions if not billions out of poverty. Compare and contrast North and South Korea for example. What system has been proved to work there? Where is the average Korean better of living?

Emmigration in Ireland has been a fact and its sad that some people have to leave because of the political system but that proves my point. People will always go where the action is so to speak. Ireland experienced dymanic immigration up to some years ago, although this was due to a state sponsored property bubble it proves where there is a high level of economic activity and prosperity people will be drawn in. If the state got out of the way and stopped feathering its own nests for its own end, people and ireland will be alot better off in the long run. That also means a sharp cut to its spending!!



Where are these people going to today? Are they going to the Canada's, New Zealand's, Australia's, USA or god forbid Tory UK or are they going to North Korea and Cuba?

By the way, I was talking about 100 years ago but if you want to talk about today then fine.



The 'duty' of the state? No, the state has no duty to make anyone conform to their agenda of the day. There can be no freedom or liberty if the state makes people do things they don't want to do en mass. Your comment is right out of Orwells Animal Farm!



What are you saying? Some young entitled scumbags who rioted a few years ago, looted the shops because they wanted some new sports shoes and the latest mp3 players is a reaction to Thatchers Britain? Why not blame her for the Boston bombings while you are at it!

Again, I see that you offered NO alternative, not even one. Just negativity!

What Thatcher created was not a 'free' market. She in fact created a very confined market and she managed to exclude a great many from it's benefits. What happened on the streets a few years ago is a direct result of that. A symptom of an illness at the heart of British society, eveidence of which is everywhere. Call them what ever you want, their motivation is fuelled by disaffection. Thatcher condemmed generations to that.
The alternative is a society that treats everybody with respect, which looks after it's minorities, etnicities and seeks to minimise disenfranchisement. Thatcher never came close and chose to do the opposite, as is plainly evident.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

What Thatcher created was not a 'free' market. She in fact created a very confined market and she managed to exclude a great many from it's benefits. What happened on the streets a few years ago is a direct result of that. A symptom of an illness at the heart of British society, eveidence of which is everywhere. Call them what ever you want, their motivation is fuelled by disaffection. Thatcher condemmed generations to that.
The alternative is a society that treats everybody with respect, which looks after it's minorities, etnicities and seeks to minimise disenfranchisement. Thatcher never came close and chose to do the opposite, as is plainly evident.

What Margaret Thatcher choose was a society where people stand on their own two feet instead of looking to the government (read other tax payers) to support them throughout their life.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

People have grown up with a entitlement complex. They are lazy and dependent just as they were in 1979 and Thatcher went a long way towards changing that culture. Now all I hear from you is talk about equality. Screw equality! Thatcher made everyone better off, including the poor. Who cares if the poor gain less then the rich as long as they are gaining. Let's hear from the woman herself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHA7YXsu110

As the top comment in that very video says "Focusing on the income gap is all about envy, not prosperity." I couldn't agree more. Now I hope this will be the end of this nonsense but I doubt it. The socialism is strong in this one.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What Margaret Thatcher choose was a society where people stand on their own two feet instead of looking to the government (read other tax payers) to support them throughout their life.

No she didn't, what she did was deprive great swathes of communities of the ability to stand on their own two feet. And then further impoverished them by stripping away their benefits and consequently any route out of their, or their childrens, predicaments. It is the result of that which is still coming back to haunt Britain.
People have taken advantage of benefit systems all over the world, just as people have taken advantage at the top of the system (bankers, MP's etc) that is not an excuse to label everybody as the same. I feel sad for anybody who thinks that everybody unfortunate enough to be on benefit is out to rape or plunder the system, the figures don't support that theory in any way shape or form. The asset stripping and greed at the top of Maggie's system has done the most damage in fact.

Iwasfrozen

Let's dissect this because there's no point responding to it in bulk.

Happyman42 wrote: »

No she didn't, what she did was deprive great swathes of communities of the ability to stand on their own two feet.

What she did was force great swathes of the community to stand on their own two feet instead of relying on taxpayers (read other people) to support them. If you rely on government support or subsidy then you are not standing on your own two feet. You are dependent on someone else to look after you. Multiply this across the whole country and you arrive at a lazy dependent population lacking the incentives to work damn hard for their money.

Happyman42 wrote: »

And then further impoverished them by stripping away their benefits and consequently any route out of their, or their childrens, predicaments.

Here again you make the assumption that it's somebody else's responsibility to those who refuse to help themselves. Workers are paid a wage based on the value of their produce. If their sector is unprofitable or their work inefficient then they should lose their jobs, otherwise the inefficiencies will spread to the entire sector.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It is the result of that which is still coming back to haunt Britain.

Really? The city of London is the most important financial centre in the world. Even Labour saw the benefits of the free market system when they reformed into new Labour. Here's an image to illustrate this more clearly to you:


What were those results that still haunt Britain again?

Happyman42 wrote: »

People have taken advantage of benefit systems all over the world, just as people have taken advantage at the top of the system (bankers, MP's etc) that is not an excuse to label everybody as the same. I feel sad for anybody who thinks that everybody unfortunate enough to be on benefit is out to rape or plunder the system, the figures don't support that theory in any way shape or form. The asset stripping and greed at the top of Maggie's system has done the most damage in fact.

The rest of this is all just strawman. And I see you haven't replied to most of my points on my last post. Probably because you have no answer to them. That's fine if you don't just be rational admit it and change your views.

me wrote:

What Margaret Thatcher choose was a society where people stand on their own two feet instead of looking to the government (read other tax payers) to support them throughout their life.

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

People have grown up with a entitlement complex. They are lazy and dependent just as they were in 1979 and Thatcher went a long way towards changing that culture. Now all I hear from you is talk about equality. Screw equality! Thatcher made everyone better off, including the poor. Who cares if the poor gain less then the rich as long as they are gaining. Let's hear from the woman herself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHA7YXsu110

As the top comment in that very video says "Focusing on the income gap is all about envy, not prosperity." I couldn't agree more. Now I hope this will be the end of this nonsense but I doubt it. The socialism is strong in this one.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Let's dissect this because there's no point responding to it in bulk.


What she did was force great swathes of the community to stand on their own two feet instead of relying on taxpayers (read other people) to support them.

Oh she did? The north of England must be a lefty plot then. You cannot simply stand on your own two feet, that's a myth.
Why wasn't the same attitude taken with the City? Why did she intervene there, it was losing to competitors etc etc, did she shut it down?
Measures were taken to make it capable of standing on it own two feet, she and her government didn't do that for large communities.

If you rely on government support or subsidy then you are not standing on your own two feet. You are dependent on someone else to look after you. Multiply this across the whole country and you arrive at a lazy dependent population lacking the incentives to work damn hard for their money.

So the answer was to shut down those places that provided employment and replace them mostly with nothing? And then further eradicate their independence by cutting benefits? Are you mad, that could only end where it did. Generational disaffection and disenfranchisement.

Here again you make the assumption that it's somebody else's responsibility to those who refuse to help themselves. Workers are paid a wage based on the value of their produce. If their sector is unprofitable or their work inefficient then they should lose their jobs, otherwise the inefficiencies will spread to the entire sector.

There never seemed to any probem shoring up the income opportunities of her class.

Really? The city of London is the most important financial centre in the world. Even Labour saw the benefits of the free market system when they reformed into new Labour. Here's an image to illustrate this more clearly to you:


What were those results that still haunt Britain again?

You show a graph of how successful the City is??? You do know what happened unemployment within a year of this woman taking office? People who never worked again, whose families would never work again?

The rest of this is all just strawman. And I see you haven't replied to most of my points on my last post. Probably because you have no answer to them. That's fine if you don't just be rational admit it and change your views.

Thatcher's government was unique, there is nothing wrong with free market politics, but anyone can see that MT's government created unique divisions in the society she sought to 'save'. She had people on the streets celebrating her death, where else in western Europe would that happen?
It is not what she done...it was HOW she did it.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Oh she did? The north of England must be a lefty plot then. You cannot simply stand on your own two feet, that's a myth.
Why wasn't the same attitude taken with the City? Why did she intervene there, it was losing to competitors etc etc, did she shut it down?
Measures were taken to make it capable of standing on it own two feet, she and her government didn't do that for large communities.

She didn't target the north of England in particular it's just that that area had a higher percentage of subsidised jobs. She didn't wake up one day and say "by Jove I'm going to píss off half the country!" She cut government subsidies to inefficient industries and the country as a whole prospered.

Happyman42 wrote: »

So the answer was to shut down those places that provided employment and replace them mostly with nothing? And then further eradicate their independence by cutting benefits? Are you mad, that could only end where it did. Generational disaffection and disenfranchisement.

To shut down inefficient industries and provide incentives for workers to retrain in more profitable sectors. In a competitive market the worker should be paid equal to his produce, if his produce is so low it's not worth keeping him on then his employment shouldn't be artificially maintained by government subsidy. You or I shouldn't have to pay so some guy can keep his job in the mine.

Happyman42 wrote: »

There never seemed to any probem shoring up the income opportunities of her class.

What class? The woman was a grocers daughter who fought her way to the top. Like everyone in a position of power should have to do.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You show a graph of how successful the City is??? You do know what happened unemployment within a year of this woman taking office? People who never worked again, whose families would never work again?

It's a graph of the country as a whole, source.

"In 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister, out of the 4 major European countries, the United Kingdom was the poorest. It had a lower gdp per capita than Germany, France and Italy.

But the U.K subsequently grew faster than the other European countries. By 2008, the latest available year, the U.K was the richest out of the 4.

White the U.K in per capita terms was 7% poorer than France in 1979, it was 10% richer than France in 2008.

This graph shows real per capita GDP (from OECD) for the U.K, and a population weighted average of the other 3 major west European nations: Germany, France and Italy. As you see they start of richer than the U.K in 1979, but by the end of the period the U.K is richer than the average (and richer than any individual country)."



Oh and while we're on the subject of unemployment perhaps you could explain this to me?



Yes unemployment increased when she took office but there was a huge dip in the latter half of her term. Slightly increased unemployment is a very good price to pay for stabilised inflation and dramatically increased GDP.

But hey don't let facts get in the way of a lefty rant.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Thatcher's government was unique, there is nothing wrong with free market politics, but anyone can see that MT's government created unique divisions in the society she sought to 'save'. She had people on the streets celebrating her death, where else in western Europe would that happen?
It is not what she done...it was HOW she did it.

It happened because she had the balls, ironic phrase when talking about a woman, to stand up for what she believed in and follow her own policies for the betterment of the economy. Yes some people lost, and they were angry they did, but everyone overall gained. Oh how I wish we had a politician like her today to break the unions *wistful gaze*

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

She didn't target the north of England in particular it's just that that area had a higher percentage of subsidised jobs. She didn't wake up one day and say "by Jove I'm going to píss off half the country!" She cut government subsidies to inefficient industries and the country as a whole prospered.

And in a nutshell that is were the nub of it lies, she never thought of people, never had compassion and did it all the wrong way. That is why people want to tramp the dirt down on her grave, that is the uniqueness of her term and just how bad she was as a PM. Every other country in Europe (including Ireland) modernised itself in the face of globalisation and the rise in living standards, nowhere has the same level of bitterness and division as a result. Bitterness and division that might yet come home to roost in a debilitating way. You dismiss them as 'angry' I think it goes along way beyond 'anger'.
We can argue figures and statistics and graphs all night and day, but that fact, that particular and unique legacy can not be ignored. (well it can, by Tories intent on doing the same compassionless thing and those stupid enough to buy into the spin)

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

And in a nutshell that is were the nub of it lies, she never thought of people, never had compassion and did it all the wrong way. That is why people want to tramp the dirt down on her grave, that is the uniqueness of her term and just how bad she was as a PM. Every other country in Europe (including Ireland) modernised itself in the face of globalisation and the rise in living standards, nowhere has the same level of bitterness and division as a result. Bitterness and division that might yet come home to roost in a debilitating way. You dismiss them as 'angry' I think it goes along way beyond 'anger'.

She was a strong leader who did what was best for her country even if they didn't understand or respect her for it. from the microcosmic view of a northern miner she must have seemed like the anti Christ but you and I have the privilege of viewing her from an ivory tower and making an informed opinion of her legacy based on the facts and figures. History will be kind to Maggie. After the people she affected have died off and future academics will view her from the same detached position.

"Because she's the hero Britain deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So, we'll hunt her, because she can take it. Because she's not our hero. She's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A Dark Knight."

Happyman42 wrote: »

We can argue figures and statistics and graphs all night and day, but that fact, that particular and unique legacy can not be ignored. (well it can, by Tories intent on doing the same compassionless thing and those stupid enough to buy into the spin)

The legacy that her policies made sense. That they were affective. So much so they turned her most bitter rival?

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The legacy that her policies made sense. That they were affective.

Problem is, that 'miner' you where patronising would STILL beg to differ with you.

So much so they turned her most bitter rival?

Labour couldn't resist the greed and nouveau riches, an awful lot of people couldn't, the 'I'm alright Jack' generations.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Problem is, that 'miner' you where patronising would STILL beg to differ with you.

Jesus did I really write affective? I'm ashamed of myself. *effective.

Of course he would because he works in an industry that loses from free trade. Free trade benefits the economy, that is a fact, the graphs I pointed to earlier support this. But while it benefits the economy as a whole it does not benefit each individual person. People employed in inefficient industries are inevitably going to suffer and they are going to complain. Naturally. But the rest of the economy cannot be held back because one sector refuses to retrain.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Labour couldn't resist the greed and nouveau riches, an awful lot of people couldn't, the 'I'm alright Jack' generations.

You mean they knew a good idea when they saw it. Politicians are people too Happy, and like all people they are genuinely good at heart. Given the choice they would undoubtedly see the economy flourish rather then hold it back. I disagree with your assumption that all politicians are corrupt and money hungry. That's just not human nature.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Jesus did I really write affective? I'm ashamed of myself. *effective.

Of course he would because he works in an industry that loses from free trade. Free trade benefits the economy, that is a fact, the graphs I pointed to earlier support this. But while it benefits the economy as a whole it does not benefit each individual person. People employed in inefficient industries are inevitably going to suffer and they are going to complain. Naturally. But the rest of the economy cannot be held back because one sector refuses to retrain.

You obviously (despite the abundant evidence in Britain)don't know or don't care about the chaos and vivious circle long term unemployment of an individual and a community brings.
The Tories never cared about that as they unleash another Thatcherite round of cuts designed to get the poor to pay for their excess.

You mean they knew a good idea when they saw it. Politicians are people too Happy, and like all people they are genuinely good at heart. Given the choice they would undoubtedly see the economy flourish rather then hold it back. I disagree with your assumption that all politicians are corrupt and money hungry. That's just not human nature.

You say that as our own Labour party are selling out the working class they are supposed to be protecting, but sure, it's good for the economy, what do people matter.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You obviously (despite the abundant evidence in Britain)don't know or don't care about the chaos and vivious circle long term unemployment of an individual and a community brings.
The Tories never cared about that as they unleash another Thatcherite round of cuts designed to get the poor to pay for their excess.

What huge long term unemployment?



Unemployment was around 5.8% when she came into power and when she left it was 8% that's a rise of 2.2% hardly huge long term unemployment.

On the other hand take a look at inflation.



A drop from roughly 17% to 8%. A drop of 9 points of inflation in exchange for a drop in 2.2% employment is very impressive. And of course lower inflation means higher GDP because investors are more confident on a return of profit so that went up too.



I'm afraid the only one ignoring facts is you because the facts don't agree with your preconceived notion of the woman who rightly told terrorists you worship that their actions would not be tolerated.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You say that as our own Labour party are selling out the working class they are supposed to be protecting, but sure, it's good for the economy, what do people matter.

People are the economy that's what you fail to grasp. Increased gdp means a country can devote more money into health care, education, police, roads, infrastructure, all these things that either make people's lives easier or attract foreign direct investment to provide them with jobs.

I know it's a bit small but take a look at this to prove my point. It shows a positive correlation between HDI and gdp per capita. source

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What huge long term unemployment?



Unemployment was around 5.8% when she came into power and when she left it was 8% that's a rise of 2.2% hardly huge long term unemployment.

On the other hand take a look at inflation.



A drop from roughly 17% to 8%. A drop of 9 points of inflation in exchange for a drop in 2.2% employment is very impressive. And of course lower inflation means higher GDP because investors are more confident on a return of profit so that went up too.



I'm afraid the only one ignoring facts is you because the facts don't agree with your preconceived notion of the woman who rightly told terrorists you worship that their actions would not be tolerated.


People are the economy that's what you fail to grasp. Increased gdp means a country can devote more money into health care, education, police, roads, infrastructure, all these things that either make people's lives easier or attract foreign direct investment to provide them with jobs.

I know it's a bit small but take a look at this to prove my point. It shows a positive correlation between HDI and gdp per capita. source

More graphs and figures that obscure what happened to real people, which is the point. She wasn't a 'strong' leader, nor was she a morally 'good' politician. She sided with other tyrants, cared little about real people and since you mention N.I. - tried to con republicans and the Irish government and sold the Unionists down the river and prolonged the conflict an which more people died.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

More graphs and figures that obscure what happened to real people, which is the point. She wasn't a 'strong' leader, nor was she a morally 'good' politician. She sided with other tyrants, cared little about real people and since you mention N.I. - tried to con republicans and the Irish government and sold the Unionists down the river and prolonged the conflict an which more people died.

The facts don't lie, that's why they're called facts. There's a positive correlation between GDP per capita and HDI, and a negative correlation between inflation and GDP.

"Oh you and your bloody facts. Can't you see I'm trying to hate someone here?!"