PDA

View Full Version : Thatcher Dead


inflatable dalek
2013-04-08, 01:13 PM
The most contentious British PM of the last century (especially now everyone seems to have come down on the side of Blair being a dick, you'll still find people who'll defend Maggie to the hilt but it's actually staggering how far his repuation has fallen from the euphoria he was elected with) has gone to the big school with endless supplies of free milk in the sky.

So, on the negative side, the decimation of long standing British industries (with stuff like coal being something we could desperately use today) and corrosponding disastrous effect on communities, breaking of the unions, section 28 (God forbid any kids find out about the existence of dirty gays), 3 million unemployed, attempts to wreck the BBC (and what was done to ITV wasn't much better) For Your Eyes Only and shiting both Mark and Carol Thatcher out of her vagina and so on.

On the positive... proved we're marginally better than Argentina at war.

Yes, personal bias, as a single parent family the only way my mother would have been treated more like a piece of shit by the governments of both Thatch and her successor would be if she was also a gay coal miner.

electro girl
2013-04-08, 06:33 PM
She was kicked out just before I was born but being working class she was like our bogey-man growing up . My Dad always said he would host a party when she died so now I'm holding him to it, not the kinda thing I would do but I never had to live through her tyrannical reign. I'm biased for sure but I'm not exactly gleefully shouting that she deserved a stroke, people already knew how I felt about her, nor will I shed a single damn tear for the evil woman. It was a great thing to become our first female leader but a terrible shame it had to be her.

Clay
2013-04-08, 07:45 PM
First thing I thought of.

VKqCknCOllg

Denyer
2013-04-08, 08:23 PM
“I grew in Thatcher’s Britain. We would look out of the window every morning to make sure the bitch hadn’t put Daleks on the streets yet.” -- Warren Ellis

I can't really find it in myself to hate Nazi war criminals in their twilight years either, but certainly can for many of the things she stood for.

Skyquake87
2013-04-08, 09:30 PM
Yes...I don't know how I'd assess Thatcher's Legacy. Privatisation hasn't brought many of the improvements hoped for and has actually erroded our ability to look after ourselves as all our industries were sold off to forgeign investors and multinationals and all the rest whom generally ran things into the ground leaving us relaint on imports (is there anything more pathetic than us relying on importing coal and gas and our innability to get new nuclear power stations built, along with this dismal fracking business that's going to make a mess of the countryside and perhaps exacerbate geological faults...hooray).

The only industry that has actually benefitted has been the water industry, although government had to pass legislation in 2003 to force private companies to invest in our decrepit network.

She also put us on the path to where we're out now where every organisation has endless tiers of management and not enough people actually doing things...we're a country full of folk incestuously managing each other and doing very little.

Denyer
2013-04-08, 10:24 PM
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/northern-britain-already-hammered-2013040865062

Cliffjumper
2013-04-08, 10:36 PM
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/people-with-no-idea-who-thatcher-was-ecstatic-that-shes-dead-2013040865066 nails it better.

Denyer
2013-04-08, 10:44 PM
Section 28 had quite a pronounced effect on a lot of people under 35.

edit:

But yes, waste of energy celebrating when her political spawn are currently in office.

inflatable dalek
2013-04-09, 12:24 AM
As a result of all this I've discovered I'm only one Facebook friend removed from Jamie Offa Doctor Who.

Slayer-Fan123
2013-04-09, 07:16 AM
The confusion with the tweets "nowthatcherisdead" were pretty comical.
I don't know much about Thatcher since I'm an ignorant American and don't know much about British politics. Some people seemed to hate her, and, from a little research, I guess I see why. I'm gonna look up more stuff later though on her before I make a final judgment.
Anyone want to try to convince me of what side I should take?

Skyquake87
2013-04-09, 09:04 PM
Depends on er, your politics I guess.

There's no doubt that the Britain Thatcher inherited was a mess. We were on 3 day weeks, had rubbish mountains, strikes, a failing economy and had generally made a pig's ear of things.

Her solution was to break the Unions to stop them holding the country to ransom and to open up some state owned assets to the private sector. Most notable coal and steel production, followed by the utilities and then British Telecom (in the UK, pretty much all our infrastructure was state owned). A lot of banking reforms were introduced (amusingly foreshadowing today's crisis was some 'light touch regulation' which lead to black Monday in 1987) and there was a lot of reform to the benefits system too, although the unemployed were helped through such schemes as the Enterprise Initiative. And there was all the Clause 28 stuff.

The problem with privatisation is that it invariably leads to a lot of scaling back of industry, and the pit closures really did a lot of damage in the North of the country where large working class communities suddenly found there was no work for them.

Basically, if you were in business it was a good time.

Internationally, she came to prominence over the Falklands War in 1982 where we fought to keep some islands at the other side of the world that were still part of what was left of our Empire. Presumably for strategic sheep purposes, although there's apparently oil offshore.

She also involved Britain in the emerging European Union and helped end the cold war, thanks to her championing of Gorbechov (er, however you spell it). Didn't do so well with the Irish question though, which would take until 1998 to get anywhere.

Her downfall largely came through her political instincts failing her, and the introduction of the Poll Tax - a massive shake up of the former local government rates system whereby taxes to local government were collected- which led to the largest peace time protests prior to our involvement in going to war in Iraq in 2003. A lot of these protests were extremely violent and were symptomatic of a population who'd endured too much significant change over the last decade that had, for the majority, left them much worse off.

Hound
2013-04-09, 09:43 PM
If I'm remembering my British history correctly (I really wish I had my books with me here) Thatcher pretty much saved the country from being way farther to the left than was at all good for the UK.

Now I don't know everything about what was going on at the time and I certainly didn't have to live through it but from what I understood the government was responsible for running nearly everything and the unions were out of control.

Perhaps she went too far to the right (again I wasn't there, I don't know) but she did save the country from economic collapse.

Cliffjumper
2013-04-09, 10:48 PM
Internationally, she came to prominence over the Falklands War in 1982 where we fought to keep some islands at the other side of the world that were still part of what was left of our Empire. Presumably for strategic sheep purposes, although there's apparently oil offshore.

Umm, no - a big factor is exactly what continues to keep them in our hands now - tax-paying citizens who determine themselves to be British, and therefore deserving of the nation's military protection when aggressors invaded. The Falklands is the one thing Thatcher did that was absolutely, indisputably right. Galtieri was an extreme-right dictator whose crimes were only limited by his country's military capabilities; that the lefties keep characterising Argentina as the wronged party compared to the UK just shows how little perspective they have (it is, incidentally, worth remembering that we might still have a few elements of the old colonies but that Argentina is full of Spanish people who butchered the genuine natives). He invaded British land, interred British subjects and attacked British troops.

It wasn't some satire-friendly "oil war" or anything like that. It was Thatcher's duty to respond with whatever means possible. We were offering diplomatic packages right up until the actual counter-invasion, Argentina just didn't listen. Yes, the war benefitted Thatcher's political standing both at home and abroad, but that was pretty much because she was doing her job properly.

Addl
2013-04-10, 12:17 AM
"Germans are aggressive, egoistic, scared and full of inferiority complex"

This highly academic opinion of her being true, I still find it sad she acted actively in the US and Russia to prevent our reunion with east Germany. Good she did not succeed.

Tetsuro
2013-04-10, 09:05 AM
If you browse other forums, you can pretty easily tell who's from the UK by whether they're doing the usual "RIP" and condolence bullcrap, or basically going "good riddance".

Skyquake87
2013-04-10, 09:47 AM
Umm, no - a big factor is exactly what continues to keep them in our hands now - tax-paying citizens who determine themselves to be British, and therefore deserving of the nation's military protection when aggressors invaded. The Falklands is the one thing Thatcher did that was absolutely, indisputably right. Galtieri was an extreme-right dictator whose crimes were only limited by his country's military capabilities; that the lefties keep characterising Argentina as the wronged party compared to the UK just shows how little perspective they have (it is, incidentally, worth remembering that we might still have a few elements of the old colonies but that Argentina is full of Spanish people who butchered the genuine natives). He invaded British land, interred British subjects and attacked British troops.

It wasn't some satire-friendly "oil war" or anything like that. It was Thatcher's duty to respond with whatever means possible. We were offering diplomatic packages right up until the actual counter-invasion, Argentina just didn't listen. Yes, the war benefitted Thatcher's political standing both at home and abroad, but that was pretty much because she was doing her job properly.

All quite correct :) (apologies for my flippancy) The potential for oil exploration is one of the things that's got Argentina twitchy again. Always seemed odd that the Argentinans want these back so badly, when everyone whom lives there is,er, British.

And what Hound said is pretty much on the money.

I think that's why its difficult to come down one way or the other on whether what she did was right. She did lift us out of the gloom, but the path she set us on hasn't worked out well for the country, but that's largely due to successive Tory and Labour governments pushing through deeper and further changes to our infrastructure and public services to the extent where we have the fiascos in railways, health and education and so on that we have today.

If there had been some proper enforcement of what private industry was doing with all out former state assets, then we might not be in such a mess. I've often thought that things like the utilities would have been better as not for profit outfits, so that true investment in such vital necessities could have perhaps come about.

Jaynz
2013-04-10, 01:38 PM
From my 'outsiders' study of history, I think the main problem with all the people demonizing Thatcher is that they forgot what was going on in the UK before her - just like how so many people who now think it's fashionable to demonize Reagan forgot what the 1970s were like...

Denyer
2013-04-10, 05:54 PM
The positions they succeeded may also have been awful, but history's rarely kind to politicians -- Blair was quite popular before taking the country to war under false pretences. Doesn't make him any less evil or misguided on some subjects, and it's those things that tend to be remembered.

By this point it's hard to tell the parties in this country apart.

edit:

Of some mild interest (sources are in the comments) --

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/dispelling-the-thatcher-myths/

Cliffjumper
2013-04-10, 06:34 PM
I can't really get into all this celebrating crap, mind. Whether you liked her or not it's been 20 years since she was anything other than an old retired woman. If someone thinks she did damage there's no cause to cheer because the damage was long done (typically when the people celebrating were six or something).

tl;dr the Guardian is largely owned, written and read by contrarian hipster c*nts.

Jaynz
2013-04-10, 06:46 PM
I can't really get into all this celebrating crap, mind. Whether you liked her or not it's been 20 years since she was anything other than an old retired woman. If someone thinks she did damage there's no cause to cheer because the damage was long done (typically when the people celebrating were six or something).

You know, when you're really dealing with largely-political disagreements now 30 years in the past, celebrating her death is a pretty ****ing evil thing to do. I've said before, and this bears repeating, the English population today would not have, and could not have, won World War II (with or without American assistance).

I seriously doubt that the United States could either, mind you - perhaps one of the theaters, but not both. This is what happens when you look at your country as nothing more than borders of your entitlement state. :(

tl;dr the Guardian is largely owned, written and read by contrarian hipster c*nts.

Yeah, weren't they the rag that was shitting on Churchill recently? See above.

inflatable dalek
2013-04-10, 07:20 PM
I can't really get into all this celebrating crap, mind. Whether you liked her or not it's been 20 years since she was anything other than an old retired woman. If someone thinks she did damage there's no cause to cheer because the damage was long done (typically when the people celebrating were six or something).

Surely by that logic no fans of hers should be mourning her death as whatever good she did for the country was equally far in the past?

I don't really get the mockery of peoples views because of their youth either, there's been a lot of it on Facebook (where it usually comes across as folks disagreeing with the idea Thatcher was a bad person but not being able to come up with a counterargument beyond "Huh, what do you know kid hey?"), even the usually excellent Daily Mash seems a bit dickish on that score.

I'm sure there's no shortage of people under 35 (or whatever you want to make the cut off point) will ill informed political viewpoints, but that's in no way a problem limited to youth. Certainly just about everyone in this thread seems either capable of making their views based on the facts or fully admitting what they don't know about, despite the fact that presumably we're all on the younger side of 40.

The whole idea seems a bit of a strawman argument, especially as there's more than enough comfortably middle aged people who think she was a ****.

I really don't get the idea of her having a "State" (just calling it that for ease of reference, there's a few options in naming but it basically boils down to the same thing), even if you're a fan of hers is she really on the same level as the last PM to get that honour, Churchill? If anything it's insulting to the various PM's in-between the two of them who didn't get one.

Indeed, the only reason I can think for having a publicly paid for big funeral for her is that Cameron wants shot of Scotland and is keen to piss the Scots off as much as possible before the referendum.

The only real advantage I can see in it is it would legitimise the inevitable protests. Picketing a private funeral would be icky, on the same level as that nutty American family. A state funeral, by its very definition, is a public event. And we're all paying for it. Might as well join in and get the placards out.

RE: The Falklands, whilst I generally agree with Cliffy on that, I can see the counterarguments. Playing Devil's advocate, it's the job of the government to protect the interests of the majority of the British people, not those of every single individual. Is protecting the right of the relatively small number of Falklanders to farm sheep in a wilderness worth the cost of a war in lives and money on the rest of us? We use compulsory purchase orders in order to move people against their wills so as to build things like high speed rail links, why not to prevent a war?

Mind, I've never got the complaint she only went to war in order to win the following election. I'm fairly sure most politicians do what they think will win them elections, the opposite would be rather odd.

I've said before, and this bears repeating, the English population today would not have, and could not have, won World War II (with or without American assistance).

But the UK population at the time really shouldn't have won World War II either, it's one of the great feats of British history that we did win the Battle of Britain and thus kept the Nazi's out long enough to be on the winning side.

Though we were mainly helped by Hitler making his big mistake and giving up to a certain extent on us and turning his attention to Russia, with disastrous results (forgetting the mistakes of Napoleon and the World War One Germans, showing he had less understanding of history than the people the Daily Mash was mocking). If he'd have kept up the pressure he would have successfully invaded Britain, we didn't have much more left to throw at him.

So under broadly similar circumstances, I could see the UK population today doing exactly the same. Even now we're remarkably good at just knuckling down and getting on with it when it really matters.


Yeah, weren't they the rag that was shitting on Churchill recently? See above.

In what way were they attacking him? The thing with Churchill, and what makes him fascinating as a historical figure, is that he was a deeply flawed man with a frankly poor record outside of World War II.

He efforts during the first war were infamously poor and his record as a peacetime Prime Minister were frankly dismal. He was a bastard really, but was in exactly the right place at the right time when we needed a bastard in charge. That shouldn't prevent discussion of his mistakes and slip ups as well though (and telling, after the war he was voted out almost straight away despite what he did, his victory lap in the '50's shows why this was generally a good thing).

Cliffjumper
2013-04-10, 07:47 PM
I don't think she should necessarily be celebrated either. She hasn't been a significant factor since 1992.

On the Falklands, you don't show weakness to people like Galtieri. If someone invades somewhere that does not belong to them you don't just evict people. What if Spain was to invade Gibraltar? Or France to invade Jersey? Or Ireland to invade Northern Ireland? Or Norway to invade Scotland? Where exactly do you draw the line on this?

You cannot abandon people because defending them might be expensive or inconvenient, especially if they're being threatened by an extreme right-wing government. The Falklands conflict not only repulsed Galtieri's immediate military aims, it gave his whole regime a black eye. A fascist dictator was removed from power as a result, sparing God knows how much of the indigenous population.

Off-Topic:
Regarding World War II, geography saved us as much as any other factor. The Luftwaffe would never have been able to acheive the air supremacy necessary to prevent the Royal Navy from annihilating an invasion fleet (we basically had the capital ships to clog the Channel and blow apart any invasion force even if there were 75% losses to aerial attack); Fighter Command was never seriously close to collapse (we had a lot of forward airfields knocked out but the way the network was laid out meant that this simply wasn't a crucial factor).

The Battle of Britain saved lives because the casualties the RN would have sustained stopping it would have been enormous but the English channel was basically impregnable; the 'Few' is partly a propaganda thing designed to disguise that Churchill was happy enough to let the Germans bomb the **** out of the civilian population.

Denyer
2013-04-10, 08:41 PM
Surely by that logic no fans of hers should be mourning her death as whatever good she did for the country was equally far in the past?
Basically. "Bill, quit talking about Kennedy, man. Let it go..."

And yes, Churchill's immensely popular in spite of his record. Jingoism and knowing very little about history apart from the bits we can be argued to have won are fundamental to the British character.

would not have, and could not have, won World War II
Not sure a close equivalent is possible in a similar frame, unless instigated by religious nutters with unprecedented support or a significant collapse of Western civilisation. People are a lot less inclined to die because of political cluster****s and concepts such as national borders. Succeed in totally blacking out all world communications, and maybe.

Jaynz
2013-04-10, 09:44 PM
Not sure a close equivalent is possible in a similar frame, unless instigated by religious nutters with unprecedented support or a significant collapse of Western civilisation. People are a lot less inclined to die because of political cluster****s and concepts such as national borders. Succeed in totally blacking out all world communications, and maybe.

Empires tend to collapse not due to external armies marching through their streets (though that does happen) but largely due to internal discord and what we now call 'Balkanization'.

When your (the generic 'your') people see that government as nothing more than a broker of entitlements, which is a plague in the entire Western world, and you've undermined your cultural identity in that pursuit, you're more than ripe for collapse and fragmentation.

In the US, we're seeing a massive rise of nullification of our Federal Goverment due to our increasing cultural split between certain areas of our country. This is an early sign of "Bad Things" (TM). That's not irreversible, of course, or even new, but is very much a sure sign that reform is necessary. While a nation is in this stage, it's almost impossible to have a strong unity against more serious threats - be they Hitler, Al Queda, or the more-usual unpayable debts.

The only thing that seemingly saves us now is that we have a long, long way to fall and our relative luxury is immense. But as Detroit shows us, it's not at all impossible to fall from a high perch.

Denyer
2013-04-10, 10:01 PM
In the US, we're seeing a massive rise of nullification of our Federal Goverment due to our increasing cultural split between certain areas of our country.
What's substantially different to a quarter century ago except for new forms of media and people having to be a bit more coy when being racist or defining "the deserving poor"? To the outside world as well as many locals, there's relatively little difference between the two prominent parties in US* politics. They're backed by the same financial interests, and both have overseen a race to the bottom with production tending to go overseas. Each promises all things to all when it's campaign time.

It's easier to get webbed into recursive loops due to the way media has developed -- people mostly follow things that they agree with -- but any divisions have been there a lot longer, and arguably a lot fiercer in the past.

*Not that the US is in any way alone in this.

Addl
2013-04-10, 11:57 PM
But the UK population at the time really shouldn't have won World War II either, it's one of the great feats of British history that we did win the Battle of Britain and thus kept the Nazi's out long enough to be on the winning side.

Though we were mainly helped by Hitler making his big mistake and giving up to a certain extent on us and turning his attention to Russia, with disastrous results (forgetting the mistakes of Napoleon and the World War One Germans, showing he had less understanding of history than the people the Daily Mash was mocking). If he'd have kept up the pressure he would have successfully invaded Britain, we didn't have much more left to throw at him.

.

More O. T.
No, our Wehrmacht would have surely never invaded Britain and more, it was never planned to do war against fellow Germans in a racial term ( all the invasion preparation was just for propaganda during the BOB).
As France mainly is settlement of the German tribe Franken ( mixed with romans and celtic) who's core area is still upper Bavaria it is the same for Britain: the German tribes Angeln and Sachsen (core area sachsen in east germany) came to the island, settled and mixed with Normans (Germanic) and the already being there Celtic.

It was Britain and France that declared war on Germany after the attack on Poland.
The "wonder" of Dunkirk" was again a sign of nazi regime, that Britain is not the enemy and Rommels tanks were stopped by order.

North Africa was only the aid for our ally Italy, as they attacked British controlled Egypt but failed.
This was never the interest of hitler, as only Rommel with a small force mostly less than 100 tanks was dispatched, as British were there ten times in numbers.

And of course the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain to negotiate peace in 1940. But rather to listen, Churchill never spoke to him and he spent the rest of his life in jail until he died in 1987 only because he made the error to fly to Britain.

It was the commonly known goal, as written in "mein kampf" that Jews together with Bolshevik are the focus of nazi party and war.
The war was planned for roughly 1947 with jet fighters and bombers and rockets available. Stalin also planned for war against Germany, so this showdown was inevitable, but hitler (as strange to some it might seem) wanted and undertook serval actions to make peace with France and Britain during to war.

Also, 75% of the Wehrmacht was fighting in Russia, only 25% to cover France, Balkan, Italy, Scandinavia, so no wonder the west allies won, once they landed, but the war in our west was never planned goal.

And: the First World War ended with a surrender due to a real war in the west while the reichswehr had already won against Russia in 1917. Germany's declared war goal in the east was reached, but the west front could not be recovered.

Cliffjumper
2013-04-11, 12:54 AM
Yep - Hitler would rather have had peace with the UK than invaded, especially once Chamberlain was out of power. No big genetic beefs and no grudge match like there was in France (in Versailles the UK and the Americans were the voice of reason) and not even that many idelogical ones (not long before there was Edward VIII and Oswald Moseley). Failing that he would have settled for simply neutralising Britain as an offensive threat.

Plus strategically we've always been a nightmare to invade. The British coast is relatively easy to police (which is why the Channel Dash of Scharnhorst, Gniesenau and Prinz Eugen was so acutely embarrassing); the amount of battleships that could have been pulled back had home base been threatened is astonishing. Similarly the amount of aircraft in reserve units and the amount of reserve airfields avaliable - even in the Battle of Britain the RAF was barely scratched. We learnt very quickly from the French and Belgians too - there were no real fortifications erected in the UK, instead defence units were made flexible and ran along almost guerilla lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_anti-invasion_preparations_of_World_War_II)

We lost a certain amount of top-line fighters (i.e. Hurricanes and Spitfires) and a fair few cream pilots but mass numbers were never an issue. By then lend-lease and the Empire Training Scheme were toting up considerable numbers of second-grade aircraft (American stuff like the P-40, early Mustangs and Buffalo that were largely shipped off East but would have been used in the UK if necessary) and pilots that would have made a big difference in a war of attrition. There was also the sizeable Auxiliary Air Force using semi-retired pre-war machinery and most of our trainers had the capability to fight if needs be. IIRC analysing the figures from about midway through the Battle of Britain our losses were beginning to be overtaken by the number of replacements being introduced while the German losses were doing the opposite.

The Luftwaffe simply didn't have the machinery to operate far enough North in the UK to neuter the RAF - no genuine heavy bombers, no long-range single-seat fighters - whereas British aircraft could operate from the North and still cover the South. The Wehrmacht would basically have to get a serious foothold in the South - enough to get airbases operating - while holding off the RAF, RN and the Army with only limited air and naval cover. Sea Lion always looked somewhat half-hearted, a show of force to try and convince Britain to keep out of things rather than a serious invasion plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_:_The_Sandhurst_Wargame is worth a read.

It's worth noting D-Day took place four years later; that's four war years, with some astounding advances in technology - the UK & US waged strategic bombing campaigns with four-engined planes that delivered several times the payloads of the German machines, all covered by long-range escort fighters; Allied engineers spent years developing special equipment for the raid.

Barbossa/Russia is less of a turning point for the UK than made out because Britain was never going to be an easy nut to crack anyway - force of numbers wouldn't work in the same situation due to the crossing; chances are the battle in the West would have developed along similar lines if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, if the initial progress had been maintained and so on. If the battle hadn't started the Eastern front numbers would have been needed to prevent the Soviets invading; if it had been successful they'd have been needed to police the territory.

Cyberstrike nTo
2013-04-11, 02:02 PM
Basically. "Bill, quit talking about Kennedy, man. Let it go..."

And yes, Churchill's immensely popular in spite of his record. Jingoism and knowing very little about history apart from the bits we can be argued to have won are fundamental to the British character.

I think that is a fundamental character to almost every country in the world as well.

Jaynz
2013-04-11, 03:32 PM
Seriously, guys? In an effort to make sure Thatcher and Churchill remain defamed, you're going to rehabilitate The Nazi Regieme? Really, there's not much room left for discussion at that point...

Hound
2013-04-11, 04:34 PM
Yeah! How dare you muddle up his jingoism with an objective evaluation of the historical facts!!! Grr! [/mean face]

Denyer
2013-04-11, 05:58 PM
Seriously, guys? In an effort to make sure Thatcher and Churchill remain defamed, you're going to rehabilitate The Nazi Regieme?
Against airbrushing out the ways in which a majority of political leaders have been ****s, personally.

not long before there was Edward VIII and Oswald Moseley
Mmm. It's not well-recorded by this point because most people try to keep a lid on what they or their families were doing if it involved admiration for Hitler, but there was quite a lot of popular support for him in other countries prior to the outbreak of hostilities. And with far less media it took time to sink in, even without actively positive coverage such as the Daily Mail under Lord Rothermere.

edit:

Other bits and pieces...

Margaret Thatcher's Funeral: Her 9 Friends Who Sadly Won't Be Able To Make It (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/10/margaret-thatcher-funeral_n_3053015.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular#slide=2321381)

http://i45.tinypic.com/29uw1ok.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/29uw1ok.jpg

Sixshot
2013-04-11, 08:27 PM
there's relatively little difference between the two prominent parties in US* politics. They're backed by the same financial interests, and both have overseen a race to the bottom with production tending to go overseas. Each promises all things to all when it's campaign time.


Or promise all things to 53%, if you're a ****ing idiot.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people." - Mitt Romney.

It's quite surprising how many people believe they aren't dependent upon government and take it in the literal sense of cash/benefit receipts without considering education, NHS etc. Even people who can afford to go private for those services will still be dependent on infrastructure, civil order and a population who have the means to trade. I wonder how many politicians benefit from Maggie's great big social housing sell-off? Hasn't changed much for the people in receipt of housing benefit, but that funding is now going to private landlords rather than Local Authorities.

Denyer
2013-04-11, 08:59 PM
Yeah... pulling something old out of the quote file...

This morning I was woken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Dept of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Dept. of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Cyberstrike nTo
2013-04-11, 10:01 PM
Or promise all things to 53%, if you're a ****ing idiot.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people." - Mitt Romney.

It's quite surprising how many people believe they aren't dependent upon government and take it in the literal sense of cash/benefit receipts without considering education, NHS etc. Even people who can afford to go private for those services will still be dependent on infrastructure, civil order and a population who have the means to trade. I wonder how many politicians benefit from Maggie's great big social housing sell-off? Hasn't changed much for the people in receipt of housing benefit, but that funding is now going to private landlords rather than Local Authorities.

As an American voter and speaking for only myself I know damn well that I rely on the government because I'm disabled and live on Social Security and Medicare. Without it I would be at best homeless and at worse dead. I can say that almost 3/4th of my check goes to paying my rent and by the time I pay the rest of my bills and get my meds and food, I lucky to have about $40 a month to live on. At least I know that my income comes from the govenement and admit it.

Summerhayes
2013-04-12, 09:57 AM
Well, thanks to my tonsilitis I've come to the party super late.
The bit that bugs me is everyone saying how disgraceful it is that Labour MPs didn't show up to get tribute thing. I think they did absolutely the right thing. If you don't like someone, you don't go to their funeral. It's not like they were picketing it...

Addl
2013-04-13, 12:18 AM
Yeah... pulling something old out of the quote file...

This morning [...] anyghing right.

Perfect Quote Denyer, similar to what I always like to explain to all the people who think German government is only corrupt and does nothing right.
In fact, after living in a couple of countries abroad for years, Germany is the only country I want to live in while growing old, using the benefits and security and honesty of public services, something very wrong and corrupt lying here in china.

But people will never know how good it is at home, if they never leave it.

@Jaynz: what?
Where is it rehabilitated?
Even if we are discussing, there is much more to the political and ideological structure of my country 1933-1945 than you see on the documentary channel or play in return to castle Wolfenstein.
The media of the last 70 years has painted a simple black/ white image for the masses to easily to point at the bad ones, the Germans Nazis, ignoring all other topics during those 12 years and reducing it to the holocaust. If I read things here like ( the nazis would have invaded britain) I always think they are talking about our prussian Wehrmacht including my grand parents, just because they happend to live at that time, fight in the Luftwaffe and army for our country. It would not have been a bunch of political and ideological blinded maniacs swimming across the channel.

Skyquake87
2013-04-14, 08:02 AM
Caught the news last night...protests in the street from the National Union Of Mine Workers and violent scuffles with the police elsewhere. If it weren't for the internet campaign to get 'ding dong the witch is dead' to number 1, it'd feel like the 1980s all over again.

Carole Thatcher made a wee speech and whatever else I think of her and her ridiculous brother Mark (whom I thought was in jail after that bungled coup ) let alone her mum, I did feel a bad for them as the death in the fmaily is difficult enough without the circus that's currently going on around them. Perhaps if we weren't so keen on having a ridiculous state funeral then this wouldn't be a problem.

I don't think there's been this much out pouring of public sentiment since Diana died and the Iraq war protests. You'd think our politicians might have learnt something by now, but noooo....

Cyberstrike nTo
2013-04-14, 10:30 PM
You'd think our politicians might have learnt something by now, but noooo....

Politicians learn?! :lol: :lol:
Well not some (mostly the Republicans and a few Conservative Democrats) in the USA anyway.

I don't know about Britain though.

Skyquake87
2013-04-15, 07:36 AM
The thing that frustrates me about politicians is this unwillingness to learn from history and properly tackle problems.

For example; Its been 21 years since the Bristol NHS heart scandal broke (child mortality rates were found to be alarmingly high due to a series of botched operations, lack of specialist care, trained nurses and a management culture that turned a blind eye to the problems). We are still no closer to properly dealing with problems like this because of the political fall out the solution involves - creating fewer larger specialist centres throughout the country rather - which sees the public up in arms because all they hear is that part of their local hospital is closing.

Its a times like this that you do need someone (like Maggie) with the courage of their convictions to push through changes like this, instead of the endless t*tting about that goes on.

Tetsuro
2013-04-15, 04:51 PM
I lucky to have about $40 a month to live on.
I might be able to live with $40 for a week if I only buy food.

I can't even imagine what kind of food you'd have to eat to be able to make $40 last a whole month :sick:

Cyberstrike nTo
2013-04-16, 05:21 PM
I might be able to live with $40 for a week if I only buy food.

I can't even imagine what kind of food you'd have to eat to be able to make $40 last a whole month :sick:


Spaghetti & Spaghetti sauce, Milk, Butter, Mac & Cheese, Instant Mashed Potatoes, and a ton of frozen breakfasts and dinners.

Summerhayes
2013-04-16, 07:58 PM
That's what I was like when I first left home. Can no longer stand dried noodles or tinned meatballs.

Tetsuro
2013-04-17, 05:50 AM
Spaghetti & Spaghetti sauce, Milk, Butter, Mac & Cheese, Instant Mashed Potatoes, and a ton of frozen breakfasts and dinners.
I suggest adding some fresh veggies to your diet. Something like a clementine or a banana a day will go a long way.

Skyquake87
2013-04-17, 09:30 AM
Or even frozen veg :)

Kungfu Dinobot
2013-06-29, 08:43 AM
Yeah, weren't they the rag that was shitting on Churchill recently?


I know I'm late, but I really want to say this:


"Liek OMG if Churchhill didn't provoke Hitler then Germany would never had bombed Britain!"