Thread: Margaret Thatcher To Be Honored

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the old bat was a drunk

So was Churchill but he did not buggar the country.

Originally Posted by stroller

And a colonial supremacist to boost. Still thinks civilisation in Pakistan or the ME ceased to exist when the Empire withdrew.

Didn't it? I haven't done the entire colonial trip but of the former civilisations visited, though remnants of the Empire exist they are neglected and in abject disrepair, barely allowed to survive as a tragic memory of better times. Read this as empirical observation rather than a subscription to colonialism, and of course the era of European colonisation of much of the world was viewed very differently than they are today.

That the Brits (read much of Europe) nicked what they could while they could is one matter, but there's no doubt at all and the proof lies everywhere in ruins, that their retreat to familiar shores from much of the Empire signalled the resumption to natures of backwardness, despotism, overt corruption and the degeneration of entire social structures.

A fair argument is that times have changed and some nations simply couldn't keep up, but when one looks at the map objectively, so many of these lands are so wealthy in natural resources that the only excuse they have for kneeling towards economic and through this social dysfunction is an inate inability to cope with any movement forward. Common humanity aside, this is why they need to be carried, as part of today's politically correct demand for a permanent guilt trip; we are the cause, therefore we must make good.

Exploitation is one thing, and true that it did and to a lesser extent still exists, but this cannot fairly be used to mitigate the suspension of progress and develpment across vast tracts of the world.

Rant for today.

Originally Posted by William

...And I never I understood why the Liberals were not (and still aren't really) [post 1940] taken seriously in the UK

Didn't it have something to do with their gay leader in the 60s, which set them off to where they belong in a long and cold wilderness? Come to think of it so many of their leaders have been gay, is that a job requirement?

Defected from passionately though misguidedly Labour to confessed Tory, without a glance at the ditherers.

Originally Posted by dirtydog

People do complain about maggie but she was better than what we had before her, ie you could go on holidays and not break UK laws getting money out of the country to actually be able to eat at your holiday destination, she sorted the greedy miners out, it was a business that the UK could not compete at anymore anyway due to labour prices, a business has to make a profit otherwise it is just ridiculous, yeah things got more expensive, but that happens every year in every country,

And then the North Sea oil revenues started coming online.
Maggie had her shit together...

At the end of the day, Maggie made the tough decisions that needed making. Britain had to modernise, but this was at the cost of manufacturing industries. Modernisation meant that we could no longer compete as a manufacturing nation, as we were too expensive. Now Britain is a world beater at technology, finance and service, mostly due to the Tories in the 80s.

People have the right to bemoan her on an individual basis, but on the whole, the country owes her so much, and you'd be ignorant to ignore it.

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by William

...And I never I understood why the Liberals were not (and still aren't really) [post 1940] taken seriously in the UK

Didn't it have something to do with their gay leader in the 60s, which set them off to where they belong in a long and cold wilderness? Come to think of it so many of their leaders have been gay, is that a job requirement?

Defected from passionately though misguidedly Labour to confessed Tory, without a glance at the ditherers.

I've never really understood why sexual preferences are so important to some.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Now Britain is a world beater at technology, finance and service, mostly due to the Tories in the 80s.

Sorry mate but this is total bollocks.

Of all nations in the world, post 1600, the UK has been at the forefront of technology and banking & finance. Had Maggie invested half as much in technology as she did in cars, Silcon Valley would be just south of Heathrow and not in the USA.

Originally Posted by William

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by William

...And I never I understood why the Liberals were not (and still aren't really) [post 1940] taken seriously in the UK

Didn't it have something to do with their gay leader in the 60s, which set them off to where they belong in a long and cold wilderness? Come to think of it so many of their leaders have been gay, is that a job requirement?

Defected from passionately though misguidedly Labour to confessed Tory, without a glance at the ditherers.

I've never really understood why sexual preferences are so important to some.

Each to his own as long as they keep me out of it, but the 60s happened some 40 years ago, and as I recall in those days people were less than tolerant to gays in office. Also consider, around that time buggery was frowned upon. Come far, haven't we?

Originally Posted by William

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Now Britain is a world beater at technology, finance and service, mostly due to the Tories in the 80s.

Sorry mate but this is total bollocks.

Of all nations in the world, post 1600, the UK has been at the forefront of technology and banking & finance. Had Maggie invested half as much in technology as she did in cars, Silcon Valley would be just south of Heathrow and not in the USA.

So why is the UK still a rich country?

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by William

Originally Posted by keda

Originally Posted by William

...And I never I understood why the Liberals were not (and still aren't really) [post 1940] taken seriously in the UK

Didn't it have something to do with their gay leader in the 60s, which set them off to where they belong in a long and cold wilderness? Come to think of it so many of their leaders have been gay, is that a job requirement?

Defected from passionately though misguidedly Labour to confessed Tory, without a glance at the ditherers.

I've never really understood why sexual preferences are so important to some.

Each to his own as long as they keep me out of it, but the 60s happened some 40 years ago, and as I recall in those days people were less than tolerant to gays in office. Also consider, around that time buggery was frowned upon. Come far, haven't we?

Agreed - at the time buggery was a criminal offence

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by William

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Now Britain is a world beater at technology, finance and service, mostly due to the Tories in the 80s.

Sorry mate but this is total bollocks.

Of all nations in the world, post 1600, the UK has been at the forefront of technology and banking & finance. Had Maggie invested half as much in technology as she did in cars, Silcon Valley would be just south of Heathrow and not in the USA.

So why is the UK still a rich country?

The UK is a rich nation - that's news to me. But any wealth they had, came from North Sea oil. Unfortunately that also contracted, in economic term, Dutch Elm disease

They were at the forefront until the early 20th century, then increasingly lost it, down to the sad fact they failed to design trains which could not break on tracks with autumn leaves, or which doors could still be opened in below zero temperatures late last century.
I guess there still is plenty of wealth and influence from colonial times, not to forget the finance market in the City of London. Some perks from poodling along with big brother US and their war-profiteering comes in handy as well...

^ You forgot to mention building houses with not insulated water pipes outside of the house.
So they could easily replace them in the winter when the water turns to ice and shoots the pipes

Not to mention there were still houses in cities without a bathroom in the late 80s.
Them folks aren't called soapdodgers for nutting.

Originally Posted by stroller

Not to mention there were still houses in cities without a bathroom in the late 80s...

Yeah, but they were the ex-miners. We don't talk about them.

Originally Posted by danbo

...Arthur Scargill and Maggie Thatcher are very similar ...

Scargill's comb-over was nowhere near as good as Maggie's bouffant.

Originally Posted by Itchy

I threw eggs at Thatcher, I missed the bitch but I got her boddy guard.

I got Heseltine at Molesworth and Faslane. Never managed to get near Maggie
though.

Originally Posted by danbo

It took people a while to realise that driving way over on the right-hand side was only suited to a few people, the very rich or slightly mad, so we found ourselves, shakily, moving back towards the middle....where it's nice.

It took some people a while. There were plenty of us who knew
from the start that her policies were designed to favour the rich and the
powerful.

Her main constituencies were the stupid, the bigoted, and the greedy,
(a majority in any country). She pandered to people's fears of poverty
and alienation, she demonised immigrants, destroyed the unions, and
sold the nations infrastructure to her friends. She turned Britain into a nation
of selfish, squalling, greedy brats and her legacy lives on to this day.

Unfortunately anybody who tried to point this out at the time
got a swift kicking from the riot police or the SPG.

When she dies I'll happily dance on her grave.

^I have to say, I was always suprised that Maggie's power-base came from the working class...

Originally Posted by William

^I have to say, I was always suprised that Maggie's power-base came from the working class...

I wasn't, she convinced many of them that she could make them middle class.
Hence the council house sell-offs and shares in public utilities being
sold off.

The thinking went that if you're a home-owner and a shareholder you're no
longer working class.

^true.

Remember that Maggie didn't entice the working class away from a workers' utopia where everyone lived contented co-operative happy sharing lives - The country was in a sh1t state. If the Labour party had ditched the 'red flag' nonsense in the 70s instead of the 80s then she would have remained a back bench Tory novelty.

I didn't like Maggie, but if I had to choose between her ilk and Scargill's running the country....well, I'd probably emigrate.

^I have to say, I was always suprised that Maggie's power-base came from the working class...

I have a very solid working class pedigree, but there is no way that makes me a natural 'socialist'. I want the opportunity to better myself and I want to be rewarded for my efforts - with consumer goods, not medals. It is possible to want a nice television and also want a decent national health service - The important thing to realise that you can only watch one television at a time, and that however much you would like it to be so, your local hospital can not treat every sick person in the world.

It is all a question of balance and moderation. When I finally get into power I will make bloody damn sure that everyone realises and agrees with this.

Originally Posted by danbo

I have a very solid working class pedigree, but there is no way that makes me a natural 'socialist'. I want the opportunity to better myself and I want to be rewarded for my efforts - with consumer goods, not medals. It is possible to want a nice television and also want a decent national health service - The important thing to realise that you can only watch one television at a time, and that however much you would like it to be so, your local hospital can not treat every sick person in the world.

It is all a question of balance and moderation. When I finally get into power I will make bloody damn sure that everyone realises and agrees with this.

I've never understood why, in the face of all the evidence, people
persist in thinking that the working class is the "radical" class. Almost
all socialist or revolutionary movements have been broadly middle class
and, in general, have been strongly opposed by the workers.

I'm curious as to why you think socialism wouldn't reward effort with
the ability to buy consumer goods, are you getting it confused with
communism?

Balance and moderation, exactly what's required but surprisingly rare
in politics. I vaguely remember a song Billy Bragg used to sing with
the lines

"sweet moderation, heart of this nation,
Desert us not between the wars"

Always liked that.