Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 8 2013, 12:41 PM

Finally she is gone.

Understand I would virtually never celebrate the death of anyone, but I am struggling to feel bad about the passing of the woman who ruined the life prospects of millions of ordinary people in Britain.

How about you? Happy, sad or indifferent to todays news?

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 8 2013, 12:50 PM

I wonder if you are old enough to remember the state the UK was in when she came to power.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 8 2013, 12:53 PM

Yes I am.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Apr 8 2013, 01:25 PM

Have some compassion lads, that's what Thatcher was all about, compassion.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 8 2013, 01:48 PM

Having started work in 1970 and endured the Heath / Wilson / Callaghan years - like it or not she gave our self respect as a Country back. We were seen as the sick man of Europe and in the States, a sick joke. Her politics were harsh and weren't always right, but the alternative didn't bear thinking about. Sadly, she walked into the usual trap big leaders fall and failed to manage her succession.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 8 2013, 01:51 PM

I think she was one of our greatest ever leaders, whilst people didn't always agree with her, there was no pretence, she was up front and honest.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 01:56 PM

I wasn't really old enough to even know or give a crap so it makes little difference to me.

Funny how it's OK to insult or berate dead people when you feel like it.. maybe I could call her an idiot and see what happened there...

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Apr 8 2013, 02:00 PM

Generally it's probably wrong to speak ill of the dead. But since that didn't stop Thatcher after Hillsborough, I'll take my lead from her thank you very much.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 02:32 PM

I find the whole debaccle about being nice about people when they are dead fake.
If you think they're stupid in their life then their death doesn't change that.

There's nothing worse than hypocrisy.. In my death if people thought I was a knob then I'd rather them say so then be all nice "because it's the polite thing to do".

Posted by: Blake Apr 8 2013, 03:16 PM

As Margaret so sagely said herself "There is NO alternative".

Her legacy was remarkable; we saw a massive increase in upward social mobility, the defeat and ultimate roll-back of world bolshevism and the defeat of old style socialism and undemocratic trade unionism at home.

And don't believe the false narrative that she was responsible for the "collapse" of industry. I suppose that is why Nissan and Toyota invested here! We are still the six largest manufacturing state in the world. Not bad when there are over 190 states.

We need someone equally uncompromising to put the country back on its feet again now. There are always winners and losers. On balance, Margaret made this a country of winners again and gave the country back its self confidence and respect in the wider world.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 8 2013, 03:17 PM

She was an inspiration to hard working decent people.

She was unliked by the feckless and something for nothing brigade.

Maggie - I for one salute you.

Posted by: desres123 Apr 8 2013, 03:23 PM

So from your bold statement you are saying James Callaghan would of done a better job???? I bet the Falklands Islands would be flying the Argentina Flag by now and the unions running this country

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 8 2013, 03:35 PM

No that is not what I'm saying.

And the demise of British manufacturing is anything but a false narrative. Neither is her oh so enthusiastic deregulation of the banking industry. Remind me, how did that one work out?

We have a massive housing shortage, millions of poverty pay jobs in lieu of decent manufacturing jobs, and gigantic national debt thanks to the GFC. All as an absolutely direct result of Thatcherite policies.

Thanks Maggie.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 8 2013, 03:36 PM

Yep 3 day week, Rubbish Not collected, Hyper inflation, Power Cuts, Dead not being buried, 40% pay rises. What could you possibly not enjoy about that?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 8 2013, 03:36 PM

The lady that allowed a class of people to buy their own home who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford it, yet now their children cannot move out of the same place because the price of a house is too high for people on the modal average wage to afford one.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 8 2013, 03:37 PM

Dont forget the Milk. I bet she snatched it off you!

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 8 2013, 03:39 PM

Oh dear, the old 'selective memory' kicking in then?

Just to put you straight.......the Three Day Week took place under a Tory government.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 8 2013, 03:41 PM

I stand corrected. I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong.

Posted by: desres123 Apr 8 2013, 03:42 PM

Well she may have started the ball rolling for the banking industry but cant remember Blair/Brown doing anything from 1997 to prevent what happened apart from spending and selling the nations gold reserve at the lowest price

Posted by: The Doctor Apr 8 2013, 03:43 PM

How pompous. She can't hear you and I doubt if anyone here particularly gives a tos5 who you salute. Big Head.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 8 2013, 03:44 PM

You must be used to it.

Posted by: Blake Apr 8 2013, 03:51 PM

You cannot possibly heap blame on her for present day maladies.

There is the small matter of the crap governments we had since; anyone remember a Prime Minister who unambiguously claimed to have "put and end to boom and bust!" or Tony Blair's serial ineptitude on everything from giving us a flood of unnecessary immigrants, a failure to build new homes and much else.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 03:52 PM

Lol how weird is that, my username on another forum is Dr Doctor, maybe we can be friends.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Apr 8 2013, 03:53 PM

Can everyone just calm down?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T17VzztS60M

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 8 2013, 03:55 PM

You cannot possibly be serious.

Blair/Brown were a disaster. No argument there. That doesn't excuse Thatcher. Many of the problems we face today are directly attributable to Thatcher. The fact that subsequent PM's have also failed is hardly the point.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 8 2013, 03:58 PM

Pr!ck

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 8 2013, 04:02 PM

Where as you are right ALL the time about everything. It must be nice to be perfect.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 04:04 PM

Oh aren't you nice.

Posted by: Blake Apr 8 2013, 04:05 PM

I am totally serious.

Nobody is going to be giving eulogies like those today for Tony Blair, and certainly not Gordon Brown when they are dead.

We will be living with the wreckage New Labour inflicted on us for a very long time.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 04:06 PM

Oh seriously bugger off.
The country is screwed to a variety of factors and to blame the Labour Government for everything is stupid.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 8 2013, 04:07 PM

Any chance that the people to really 'blame' for anything good or bad any prime minister has done, is themselves and the people around them.

"The public gets what the public wants."

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 8 2013, 04:08 PM

You swear too? Wow!

Posted by: Samantha Apr 8 2013, 04:47 PM

Love a man who can argue his case with erudition, facts and wide ranging vocabulary.

Sadly, this doesn't seem to be one. TDH, you were being pompous, you were called out. You resorted to foul language.

#thethingsloserssay.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 8 2013, 04:52 PM

I thought that was an OK reply to a crass comment.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 05:23 PM

It's not crass if it's true.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 8 2013, 05:40 PM

I associate the 80's Zeitgeist of conspicuous consumption and greed with Thatcherism, mainly because of the images of champers-quaffing yuppies getting-rich-quick on the floatation of public assets and deregulated financial institutions. Thatcher was responsible for the privatisation, but I don't know how much she was responsible for the consumption and greed. I think that's more easily seen as a reaction to the naff dreary 70's, and quite possibly has more to do with Dallas on the TV than domestic politics.

For me Thatcher's legacy was the closure of the uncompetitive heavy and manufacturing industries without any replacement. British industry had virtually stood still since the Great War and certainly since the thirties, so while Europe and Asia had been modernising and reconstructing since 1945, Blighty went into the 70's still coming to terms with the loss of Empire. Thatcher defeated the unions who had dogged the decade, but she did nothing to reconstruct and modernise British manufacturing, and the social despair that created in Wales and the North is still an appalling legacy.

Britain has some of the best universities in the world and Brits have a long tradition of invention, innovation and imagination, yet we're still waiting for a government to embrace that and give us something more than call centres to work in, though again this is as much a problem of our class-bound society with chinless public school wonders assuming the reins of industry and government irrespective of their ability to lead. That was the promise of Thatcherism, a classless society and country of opportunity, but Conservatism reigns and we're sill a nation of Lions led by Donkeys.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 8 2013, 05:41 PM

Someone can say something crass whether it is true or not.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 05:56 PM

Yes, at the expense of diluting the truth.

Something Maggie would not have done.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 8 2013, 06:57 PM

Well actually TDH there were a good few people who thought Ted Heath was a Socialist anyway!

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 8 2013, 06:59 PM

For those banging on about how she saved the economy:

Unemployment was under 1.5m in 1979. Over 2m in 1990, peaking at well over 3m.

GDP was lower in 1990 than 1979

Interest rates were 12% in 1979, 14% in 1990

House prices more than doubled during the Thatcher years

(source: BBC website)


Not exactly a stellar economic performance.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 8 2013, 07:08 PM

That's spot on.

Posted by: motormad Apr 8 2013, 07:16 PM

And is that her fault and only her fault?

Posted by: blackdog Apr 8 2013, 08:37 PM

Probably more socialist than Tony Blair.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 8 2013, 08:55 PM

Just a view.

The key fault of the 'Thatcherisim' bit for sure. If the outdated manufacturing industry and mining could have been replaced with other economically valuable and commercially viable work then its highly unlikely that we would have been so bitterly divided. For instance, if a mine could have been closed and all the miners quickly redeployed, on similar wage rates in cleaner jobs, they wouldn't have gone on strike.

She didn't want what many thought was the obvious solution to the replacement of rates; a local income tax, preferring instead a poll tax. Probably fairer in concept than the rates, but in reality almost uncollectable.

She was brought down by Europe. Arguably because she was one of the few who have ever stood up to it. However, beware of your friends; particularly the inadequate. Geoffrey Howe did for her, ironically at the behest of another strong woman, his wife!

She certainly brought back the nation's self respect and more, stood up to the Soviet Union. We have quite forgotten that constant threat and worry. Indeed, some of our political / union leaders at the time were actually in their pay!

In personal terms, she was a conviction politician, firm and forthright and stood her ground. Like all of us, she had personal foibles, and came across as bossy and prim. Just the sort of woman most public schoolboys love - reminds them of Matron.

What drove her? Like many daughters, she idolised her dad. He was an Alderman on Grantham Council who got bounced in the Labour landslide in 1945, and stripped of all his committees. That's why she hated socialists. If you have a look at the Conservative Party aims and objectives for the 1945 election - they look remarkably similar to the vision she delivered!

Anyway, one things for sure she was necessary in 1979 - we could not have carried on as we were and there was no one else up to the job at the time. When all said and done, she was a great leader and great leaders inspire great love and great hatred. Dare I say, there were people who hated Winston Churchill with an absolute venom.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Apr 8 2013, 08:56 PM

I don't quite follow you here...

Why is it a debacle?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 8 2013, 08:57 PM

I didn't know Tony Blair had any political convictions Heath was certainly more socialist than darlin' Arold!

Posted by: Jayjay Apr 8 2013, 09:10 PM

John Smith, the Labour party leader who died in office, had a private funeral and a memorial at Westminster Abbey. Why is Margaret Thatcher getting a ceromonial funeral like Princess Diana and the Queen Mother?

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 8 2013, 09:19 PM

God only knows. Last cost estimate was £5million. Apparently we can't afford anything other than a benefits cut for the disabled though.

As Frankie Boyle put it, this will be the first time the 21 gun salute blows up the coffin.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 8 2013, 09:33 PM

Thatcher was more Liberal by conviction than Tory so the Socialist comparison with Heath isn't particularly enlightening. Blair continued with the deregulation, but allowed the Big Fat State to rebound out of control. What we have now is Dave who is essentially an anti-Thatcherite - he has no conviction politics but believes in the Big Fat State; Milliband doesn't know what he believes in, and the Lib Dems don't believe in anything but power for its own sake, and they'll tell you what they think you want to hear.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 8 2013, 10:23 PM

John Smith was a Labour party leader for a couple of years in opposition, Thatcher was Prime Minister for over 11 years, and was the first/only female PM - hardly the best comparison.

Not that I'm in favour of an OTT funeral - will we have to do the same for Tony Blair?

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 07:28 AM

..and was caused by striking coal miners whose union wanted to hold the country to ransom. The same union that Thatcher had to later take on.

Indeed, during the subsequent miner's strike, I can remember Comrade Scargill urging all union members to switch on every electrical appliance they had at 6pm, so as to overload the network in an attempt to cause blackouts again. It didn't work as he did not have the support he thought he had and the power stations had built up huge reserves of fuel before the strike.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 9 2013, 07:46 AM

Even Kinnock thought Scargill was a loon

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 08:30 AM

The last I heard of Scargill was him losing a court case to the NUM where they stopped paying for the posh apartment in the Barbican. The NUM said no more was he to use union money like a personal bank account!

So I looked in today's Guardian to see who would be slating the late Margaret Thatcher. They were:
George Galloway
Gerry Adams
David Hopper (Durham Miners Assoc.)
Peter Tatchell
Ken Livingstone

Posted by: Blake Apr 9 2013, 08:43 AM

What a surprise.

The Guardian can only ever be relied on to be full of fairy tales by pinko loons.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 9 2013, 09:05 AM

Some people on these threads continually bang on about democracy and the will of the people being paramount. Heath called snap general election directly as a result of these actions.

Perhaps you could tell us the outcome of that election and what it showed in terms of the peoples attitude to the coal miners?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 09:23 AM

I'm not sure, Wilson won more seats, but with fewer votes than Heath.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 09:50 AM

More ad hominem, and a nice homophobic slur too, well done.

Peter Tatchell was quite right of course, Thatcher introduced the first anti-gay legislation in 100 years.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 11:53 AM

What is homophobic about the term "pinko loon"?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 12:23 PM

In truth, Blake wasn't, but Blake is wrong to say Peter Tatchell was lying, and being that Peter Tatchell is a well known gay rights activist, it could be considered that a person who is against his philosophy has anti-gay sentiment.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 9 2013, 12:43 PM

Could it? Really? Doubt anyone could justify that as a serious proposition

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 12:51 PM

I think Simon Kirby, in his eagerness to be offended, thought "pinko" a derogatory term for gays. Of course it is not, it is a term used to label a "leftie" or "communist", and was used as such. Simon should apologise if he has made a false allegation.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 01:08 PM

Calling Peter Tatchell out for telling fairy tales was the homophobic slur, being as how Peter Tatchell is the most significant gay-rights campaigner in the UK and fairy is one of the many homophobic slurs used against gay men. pinko loons was the ad hominem, a tired epithet for left-wing idiocy.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 01:13 PM

Absolutely spot on.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 01:15 PM

That's nonsensical, and you know it.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 01:17 PM

How do you know he was referring to Tatchell? There were several names listed in the post to which he was referring. So the phrase "fairy tale" is now banned too? I thought it meant a fantasy or a tall story.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 01:18 PM

So now only gays can use the word fairies? A example of how some people try to subvert the English language to their own ends.

Posted by: motormad Apr 9 2013, 01:21 PM

I showed this thread to a gay person and he said to stop being a bunch of poofs.

No word of a lie.
Pathetic the lot of you sometimes.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 01:24 PM

LoL! Some of the 'worst' gay jokes I ever heard came from a gay guy I used to work with, priceless.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 01:26 PM

Of course they 'could', the proof is in front of us; whether it is correct is another matter.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 01:28 PM

Actually, you are wrong, so I don't know it. Just because you don't agree, doesn't make it a nonsense.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 01:37 PM

I trust this gay friend is the official spokesman for all gays of the world? Perhaps while you vent your spleen, you might explain exactly where we are pathetic? My post was a suggestion, rather than what I truly thought. I think Simon wasn't correct, but I double guessed his idea nonetheless.

Posted by: Gazzadp Apr 9 2013, 02:04 PM

Well being young enough to be one of her victims, when she robbed young children of their free bottle of milk at nursery/primary school when she secretary of state for education. Not forgetting being old enough to remember the poll tax...

But more important is people remember that in 1984 she issued an ultimatum to the Argentine government in which she ordered that their Naval ship the General Belgrano stop heading towards the falklands. Well that ship did what it was told and turned away, Thatcher ordered a Royal Navy sub to SINK that ship, even though the subs captain reiterated the FACT that the General Belgrano had turned away!

Some may see that as an act of war, but many see that as an act of nothing more than COLD BLOODED MURDER!

Either way yesterday she will have had to answer for that and many other acts, another of which was BLACKENING the names and memories of those football fans that died at Hillsborough.

I hope she is burning in ****.

Posted by: Newbelly Apr 9 2013, 02:11 PM

Hmmm, methinks you tell the fairy tale, Simon.

BTW, also never heard the phrase "pinko loons" and dictionaries and Google don't help - are you sure it is a "a tired epithet"?

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 02:18 PM

I don't agree, it was nonsense and your refusal to recognise that shows you in your true colours.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 02:19 PM

Yeah yeah. Heard it all before. Getting boring now.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 02:25 PM

I postulated an opinion that may or may not be true. Just because Turin Machine thinks it is nonsense, doesn't mean it is.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 02:28 PM

I can understand that, only you have genuinely interesting things to say.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 02:35 PM

Considering the major health problem of childhood obesity in this country, I don't think free animal fat is the answer, do you?

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 02:36 PM

Doesn't mean it 'ain't either.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 02:38 PM

Indeedy

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 02:56 PM

Lovely warm free animal fat too!

Posted by: motormad Apr 9 2013, 03:05 PM

My gay friend is more a spokesperson than you? I know a few gay people of both genders, but I do not claim to know many. But I have met many and never once have I met one who is overly sensitive to gay comments/jokes/statements. You can normally tell who is because they start rabbiting on about injustice straight away.. most people can take jokes.

Instead of questioning it how about accept it.

I think you lot can be pathetic because you moan/whine about irrelevant things that are not even related to the actual subject. It's not so much the fact you are arguing, it's the fact you're arguing about dog balls.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 03:12 PM

I can still remember the stink of the bottles that were left to fester in summer - there was an awful lot of waste.

Funnily enough, it was Harold Wilson's Labour government that stopped free school milk to secondary schools a couple of years before Margaret Thatcher stopped it for those aged 7+. But the Left don't remember that bit.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2013, 03:20 PM

can someone remind me what was unfair about the community charge?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 03:32 PM

Are they now?


What the heck are you on about?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 03:44 PM

Not much, but it weren't 'arf unpopular, unless you were well-off.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2013, 03:46 PM

you mean all those old ladies living along in 5 bedroomed houses?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 03:51 PM

Was it unfair? What mattered is that it was unpopular with a militant section of society who felt themselves alienated and disenfranchised from the Tory establishment.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 03:55 PM

It was actually fairer than the old rating system in saying that 6 people sharing a house used local services a lot more than one old lady living alone next door, and therefore the 6 sharer household should pay more. However, moving tax from property to people proved hugely troublesome, especially with transient occupancy (e.g. accommodation used by "students"). It was difficult and expensive to collect and required every adult to register, which for some was too much like a Big Brother ID card system.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2013, 03:55 PM

It was unpopular with those who might have to start paying their way...

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 04:06 PM

Exactly.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 04:11 PM

As far as I'm concerned there's no problem with the word fairy for a tutu-clad pixie that lives at the bottom of people's gardens, and neither is there a problem with fairy story for a tall tail, but I don't like homophobic slurs and I don't like to see fairy used as such. It's always going to be problematic referring to Peter Tatchell's pro-gay campaigning as loony pinko fairy stories when there's nothing about his activism that engages the tall tail idiom because it leaves little room to understand the comment as anything but the homophobic slur.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 04:11 PM

* double post *

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 04:14 PM

Yes, and it was politically naive of Thatcher to try and impose the tax in the face of that popular and militant opposition.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 04:21 PM

Have a read of what Blake actually wrote and try and understand the context. Where was he referring to "Peter Tatchell's pro-gay campaigning"? He was referring to Guardian news stories, its reporters and/or readers. The person who has brought up sexuality is you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 04:22 PM

I meant those people that were well-off which might have included them too. It depends if they were well off or not.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 04:26 PM

Two big problems were that it was expensive to collect, so those that avoided paying were subsided by those that did. Also, many bills were a lot higher than when rates were paid, so less well off households were hit harder.

Posted by: GMR Apr 9 2013, 04:33 PM

Margaret Thatcher was what this country needed after years

of incompetence, years of unions out of control and economic stagnation. What

people don't realise is that the Wilson Government (in the 60s) and the Heath

Government in the 70s both wanted to curb the unions and have stronger

policies. When Thatcher came to power she had watered down a lot of policies of

Wilson and Heath's Governments. She was popular because the people were sick of

the 60s and 70s failures. As one Labour politician eventually said; "If

Thatcher hadn't done what she did then somebody would have done it, but it would have set Britain back 20 or 30 years.

To prove that point when Labour got into power in 1997 they didn't remove her

policies but strengthened them.





I do agree that Thatcher should have gone by 1987 has she out lived her usefulness.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 04:49 PM

I have to admit, I didn't see anything there that was overtly homophobic; I think the link is tenuous at best. The problem with being too ready to use words like homophobic and racist, is that they start to lose their meaning and became catch-all words for people to describe others who they don't like. A cheap way way of making people seem nasty.

This is probably something along the lines of what motormouth meant, but chose a vulgar way to do it!

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 05:46 PM

Quite agree.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 06:04 PM

But there's always one who wants to ride to the rescue when no rescue has been sought nor needed.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 06:21 PM

You posted:

Blake responded:

You ask "Where was he referring to "Peter Tatchell's pro-gay campaigning?". Peter Tatchell is a gay rights campaigner, that's what he does, that's all he's known for, that's why he was quoted in the Grauniad, because Thatcher had introduced the first anti-gay legislation in 100 years.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 06:22 PM

+1

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2013, 06:24 PM

Your bold letters, not mine.

How does Blake's post only refer to Tatchell?

You really are clutching at straws aren't you?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 06:25 PM

I guess that can happen, but you wouldn't expect me to apologise just because I'm the only one to see things a particular way would you? If I couldn't defend that opinion with reasoned argument then fair do's, but I have, so it's just a case of different points of view. No harm in that.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 06:38 PM

Fair enough.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2013, 06:44 PM

People didn't like things being evened out.

So, the little old granny in her 5 bed house sees her bill fall to much less than her rates bill, whilst the Boswells down Kelsall St got a bit of a shocker....

Posted by: spartacus Apr 9 2013, 06:50 PM

I for one will not shed a tear over that decision... With three close members of my family and lots of friends on board the Task Force as they sailed southwards, I wanted that ship sunk...

For me, Margaret Thatcher should be remembered with huge gratitude for four main things:

1. She emboldened Ronald Reagan into winning the Cold War by drowning the Soviets in technology they could not afford, and thus freed us all from the shadow (and costs) of Soviet aggression.

2. At home she broke the stranglehold of Communist- and Fellow-traveller-led Trades Unions which had destroyed British car manufacturing and shipbuilding and she freed up all the basic industries of the country by privatisation. In this way she freed us from the dead hand of Socialism which had so impeded our recovery from the war and constrained our competitiveness thereafter.

3. In spite of the dead weight of wets bearing down on her she, supported at a critical juncture by Henry Leach, ordered the recovery the Falkland Islands from Fascist aggression - and in the process curiously also freed Argentina for democracy (!)

4. She faced down our enemies in Europe and at least reduced the hideous Danegeld we are forced to pay the European Napoleonic dictatorship into which we had been betrayed by Edward Heath.

RIP the second greatest Prime Minister of all time, after Churchill. Would that we had her like in No 10 nowadays. A courageous leader in difficult times. The last Prime Minister driven by conviction rather than focus groups.



Ma'am, I salute you!





.....and for stopping Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot from becoming PM, she should be forever praised.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 07:01 PM

Did you read my reply, or did you just randomly select my post to reply too. I ask because your posts seems to have little in common with mine.

How many little old ladies in 5 bed homes were there compared to two parent families I described? Especially as the 5 bedroomed granny had an option to downsize but the two parent family I referred to more than likely couldn't.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2013, 07:05 PM

I did read it.

You said that as a tax it was difficult to collect, and that some people found their bills went up.

I guess it depends on whether one thinks the better off should contribute more towards society than the less well off.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2013, 07:10 PM

Do you contest it?

Bear-in-mind, when I say bills went up, many households saw bills that approached double the old rates system. As for difficult to collect, that is a fact, so more had to be gleaned from those that did pay.


Or put another way, if the poor should pay as much as the well off.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 9 2013, 07:13 PM

I'd broadly agree with all of that. I think her role in ending the cold war was more subtle than just lending weight to Regan, I think she reached out to Gorbachev in a way that allowed the fall of communism with grace and order - it would have been an unholy sh1t-storm for us if it had folded up like Libya.

I don't have any misgiving either for the sinking of the Belgrano. War is not glorious, and even though it was steaming away from the Falklands it was a military threat. It was reckless of Argentina to invade the Falklands and Britain had to defeat that aggression.

But I don't know about Thatcher defeating Foot - Foot was the architect of Labour's defeat.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 9 2013, 08:14 PM

The Belgrano issue was clutched to the bosom of those wanting to find fault with a (British) life-saving action.
In times of war (and even Exercise) every surface vessel will zig-zag en route to the ultimate destination. Two purposes - confuse the enemy as to that destination and make life difficult for any enemy planning a pot-shot (hoping to have turned away before the shells/torpedoes strike. Even in the 80's torpedoes were not that clever to be able to home in from distance on a target.
Any decent submarine captain will observe the target to determine the core route, and the behaviour of the target in terms of timing and angle of deviations (zigzags) to know the best time for the killer shot. (no shoot to wound).
Thus, whether at a particular moment a vessel is going in any particular direction is of little evidential value when considered alongside intelligence, capability, overall direction etc.

A robber on his way to the target bank might drive down a road that is not on his way to the destination (or even travel south on the 'old A34 to Tothill when on his way from Headley to Oxford). Maybe he wants to shake off any tail, maybe he is just obeying the 'One Way' sign, but his destination is still the bank. Stop him on the way and prevent the crime, or grieve over the dead cashier while waiting for the deed to be complete?

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 08:31 PM

Hear hear!

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 9 2013, 09:45 PM

So, since neither We or Argentina ever actually declared war, and since the 'exclusion zone' was just an arbitrary area We put in place, with no legal maritime backing how does that differ, apart from scale, from the illegal war carried out by Blair? Or does it just depend on your political viewpoint?

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 9 2013, 10:02 PM

I would have thought that an armed amphibious invasion of the Falkland Islands after occupying South Georgia might possibly be construed as an act of war, the rest is just paper work.

Posted by: motormad Apr 9 2013, 11:56 PM

Racism or homophobia is a hatred of the groups described, a joke is not hatred... I'm a white guy but I can drop the n-bomb with my black friends... because the word itself is not the problem, it's the context, the capacity - And yes that does work both ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-mNjh2y_rM


I very much doubt the dude who said what he said was thinking "I hate gays" at the time of writing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 10 2013, 12:25 AM

Just be cautious when filling out a Youth PCC application form!

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 10 2013, 07:58 AM

I agree, but to the politically correct gestapo what the accused was actually thinking does not really matter, it is the perception of the "offended person" that counts and supplies all the evidence needed. Look at the contortions our resident accuser has gone through when asked to justify his allegation that another poster is homophobic.

In our hate crime/thought crime aware society, the truth seldom matters - it is the continuing suppression of free speech that is the key.

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 10 2013, 08:10 AM

I always thought a "phobia" was a fear of something?
If you are "homophobic" then surely by definition this means you have a fear of homosexuals not a "hatred" of them??

Posted by: On the edge Apr 10 2013, 08:34 AM

What is a 'legal' war? There is no such thing! Legality is something defined by a nation state. We have no world government, so we have no world laws.

Posted by: motormad Apr 10 2013, 08:59 AM

By the definition, yes, but as you have a brain you know that's not the case.

Posted by: JeffG Apr 10 2013, 09:04 AM

So how would you classify a United Nations resolution? Or the International Criminal Court? Or the Geneva Convention? The closest thing we have, surely?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 10 2013, 09:44 AM

Close but not real. The UN is a treaty organisation and has no powers on its own behalf, similarly the ICC and certainly the Geneva Convention.

Simple tests:-
1) there are no International Criminal Court gaols.
2) we not be able to stop extradition of English jurisdiction offenders to other Countries on the grounds that their legal systems and penalties were unsafe.

In the case of the wars we fight, only the Sovereign can declare war. Which she does on the advice of the Prime Minister. In the situations mentioned in this thread, the United Kingdoms internal constitutional and legal processes were followed; therefore the wars were legal. Ironically, for a subject, to suggest otherwise, might in itself be an offence...

Posted by: Biker1 Apr 10 2013, 10:13 AM

Thank-you.

Posted by: motormad Apr 10 2013, 10:30 AM

And what are you trying to prove? Your post has no sense or motive



Just like Racism is the hatred of fear of a particular race of people.......................

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 10 2013, 10:56 AM

I believe many people who throw around allegations of homophobia and racism do not actually know the true definition of the terms they use.

As Andy Capp has said, the terms are overused and misused. It is all about having a label to put on a stick that you can beat someone with.

Years ago, I remember a serial complainer at work - she could find offence in the printed instructions on a ready meal. Everybody had to tiptoe around and double check everything so it did not offend. We eventually got rid of her.

Posted by: CharlieF Apr 10 2013, 12:36 PM

Not wishing to be a pedant the OED gives ‘aversion to ——’ as well as ‘fear of ——’, for -phobia.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 10 2013, 01:32 PM

Why not make Thatchers funeral pay-per-view, that way we could see just how loved she was.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 10 2013, 02:26 PM

Not sure that would work. Plenty of us would pay just so we could make sure she really is dead.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 10 2013, 02:28 PM

And how sad is that. If one of your family members croak we'll have a party outside your house.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 10 2013, 02:42 PM

Yes, yes, we all know how much you loved the old witch. It's also obvious that you've been unable to supply one rational, non self serving reason why.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 10 2013, 02:49 PM

I did not "love her" you imbecile. I just respect someone who has led a Country for 11 years. Especially one who savaged the left wing and left it broken and irreparable. Marvellous.

Posted by: Rusty Bullet Apr 10 2013, 02:56 PM

That pretty much covers Blair as well. Now we know.

Posted by: Squelchy Apr 10 2013, 03:00 PM

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Thatcher should be accorded EXACTLY the same respect as she showed for the dead at Hillsborough.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 10 2013, 03:00 PM

You also respect Hitler then? He led Germany for longer than that. How about Pinochet? Maggie loved that murderous b@stard too.

I have just spent an amusing couple of minutes trawling some of your previous posts. I am forced to accept the sorry truth that you are quite possibly not very bright.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 10 2013, 03:27 PM

You have a lot of spare time chap. How about getting a job or perhaps working at it (if indeed you have one which I doubt). Trawling through my previous posts? What a sad little man.

Posted by: Blake Apr 10 2013, 03:27 PM

I am starting to think Leon Trotsky is alive and well and has taken over the souls of some of the people of Newbury.

The Maggie haters are in a minority. She would not have got in with three landslide election triumphs if she was not backed by a democratic majority each time. Socialism was still seen as toxic after she left as even in 1992, Socialists were totally incapable of being elected!

One of the best things she ever did was to order the SAS to liberate the Iranian embassy in 1980. The best place for terrorists is to be buried.

Posted by: motormad Apr 10 2013, 03:31 PM

He has a point though. You're probably less bright than me and I have an IQ of some number.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 10 2013, 03:31 PM

No mention of Stalin and his Gulag's I note!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 10 2013, 03:33 PM

You must be highly intelligent. Or a Walter Mitty type character?

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 10 2013, 03:37 PM

I do indeed have some spare time right now. As it seems do you. I also have a job too. It pays rather well. I am my own boss however. So I will work at that job when I, rather than you, see fit.

You come across as a very angry, bitter little fellow. You should head on down to your local conservative club. I suspect you may find some like minded people there. I think of it as a holding pen for idiots.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 10 2013, 03:42 PM

The question I would ask the Maggie haters is which Labour Prime Minister would they celebrate?

You would have to go back a long way to find one, I think. Callaghan was useless and subjugated by the unions, Blair was more right wing than many Tories and brought us the disaster of Iraq, Brown was universally hated.

Attlee?

I think it might be jealousy.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 10 2013, 04:00 PM

That much is a given. Shame the number doesn't seem to be a big one.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 10 2013, 04:12 PM

Why does contempt for Thatcher depend on support for Labour? Personally I hate Blair and Thatcher in equal measure.

Sadly we'll have to wait a while before we can dance on his grave.

Posted by: motormad Apr 10 2013, 04:18 PM

Fam.

Posted by: Squelchy Apr 10 2013, 04:37 PM

Re-built us after the war and started the N.H.S, yeah...I'd say he's one of the best. Thatcher was mean, petty, spiteful and vindictive. and I suspect, after this present circle-jerk is over and the papers start to be released, history may not judge her too well.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 10 2013, 04:42 PM

It doesn't. Labour is way too right wing for some of the people whose bile and hatred has appeared in the media in the last 48 hours or so.

Posted by: Squelchy Apr 10 2013, 04:49 PM

This would also include the 'rabid right' having a go at those who don't follow their slavish devotion to the Iron Lady wouldn't it?

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 10 2013, 05:03 PM

Put your mum in the ring vs Maggie and I know who would've walked away.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 10 2013, 05:56 PM

I haven't seen bile and hatred from the "rabid right" over the death of Thatcher. Some rose-tinted memories perhaps, but not the nasty behaviour seen from the ever-angry extreme Left.

Thatcher is the focus for the anger emanating from a political standpoint that has lost just about every political argument in the last 30 years.

Posted by: desres123 Apr 10 2013, 08:37 PM

Are you speaking with hindsight regarding your contempt for maggie and blair or back in 1979 and 1997 did you vote for either of them??

Posted by: spartacus Apr 10 2013, 08:41 PM

If that's true I've got a spare icepick that needs blooding...



Careful,... as well as coming across as a smug git that needs a smack you're also doing a reasonable impression of one of Mrs T's greatest products.... loadsamoney.... Underneath the veneer of false hate you're obviously hiding a secret crush on her....

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 10 2013, 08:47 PM

I don't do manual labour. And as for smug, I was simply responding in kind to shortbaldandugly. Sorry if that was lost on you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 10 2013, 10:07 PM

After reading the Thatcher 'tributes' here and else where, I'm left wondering if she was actually responsible for dividing the country, or perhaps simply exposed it?

Posted by: motormad Apr 10 2013, 11:00 PM

Posted by: x2lls Apr 11 2013, 12:53 AM

You should have left off the winky thing. You were right...

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 11 2013, 10:38 AM

So, following the logic shown here, and following next weeks precedent, if Manchester United win the league, Liverpool and Manchester City fans will have to attend the parade.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 11 2013, 10:50 AM

No but if Alex Ferguson died, would you expect Man City fans to smash up the city and disrupt his funeral?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 11 2013, 10:53 AM

Good point, but such are some football yobs, yes I would 'expect' them to.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 11 2013, 11:04 AM

State funerals for Princess Diana and the Queen Mum were appropriate because neither represented a partisan view and both were hugely loved and respected. Thatcher could hardly have been more partisan, and while half the country might respect her, half the country hates her. Giving Thatcher a state funeral where half the population hate her is triumphalist politics, and I don't doubt that will make very many very angry.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 11 2013, 11:15 AM

Is she getting a state funeral?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 11 2013, 11:23 AM

In all but name. It's a ceremonial military funeral paid for by the state with the queen and other worthies attending. It's most certainly not a quiet private affair, which I think everyone could have respected.

From Wikipedia:

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 11 2013, 11:25 AM

Nobody in the corridors of power is willing to term it a State Funeral. The mechanics of it are exactly those of a state funeral, minus the 'lying in state' bit.

So to answer your question - No she isn't. Yes she is.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 11 2013, 11:34 AM

Lets be honest it will be like Mrs Ghandi's a 'summit funeral' - world leaders in one place can use as an excuse for a 'chat'. A political ploy really.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 11 2013, 11:39 AM

And will give a focus to those members of the loony left to have a jolly good riot and throw a few more rocks and bottles at the police.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 11 2013, 11:53 AM

Yes, that's what divisive looks like: two tribes of yahoos, one parading the body of their dead leader, the other throwing rocks, for all to see on the world's stage.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 11 2013, 12:54 PM

Absolutely, one bunch treating the dead body of a leader with respect, and the other bunch lifting their knuckles far enough and long enough off the ground to throw a rock.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 11 2013, 01:17 PM

That's fitting, because it was that lack of empathy that so characterized Thatcher. There were two sides to the argument, and she was on just one side. A quiet dignified funeral would have been a fitting way to recognise her achievements and failures, because there were both. Glorifying her in a state funeral stokes hatred and alienation.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 11 2013, 01:30 PM

Its almost as if 'the other side' arranged the funeral, which will now inevitably turn into a circus. This must have been foreseen unless those at the top are so out of touch.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 11 2013, 01:38 PM

Oh, I'll empathize when they stop behaving like Neanderthals. Still, what can you expect from people who are paddling in the shallow end of the gene pool?

Posted by: motormad Apr 11 2013, 04:07 PM

Well, what do you feel is expected of you then?

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 11 2013, 04:36 PM

Just casting my eye over the guest list for the funeral.

Sobering to think that if these events had happened two years ago, Jimmy Savile would have been there.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 11 2013, 07:15 PM

She had real taste in friends did she not.

Just read the guest list. Reads like a who's who of Britain's most punchable people. Jeremy effin Clarkson, Jeffrey effin Archer. Dear God, that building will need an exorcist by the end of the day.

If North Korea is looking for some pre armageddon target practice, may I suggest St Pauls on Wednesday.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Apr 11 2013, 07:28 PM

1) There was no such person as Princess Diana - despite the best efforts of the tabloid media. She was not of royal birth; she was Diana, Princess of Wales

2) Neither Queen Elizabeth the Queen mother, nor Diana, Princess of Wales had state funerals.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 11 2013, 09:13 PM

You're right, but she is popularly known as Princess Diana, and as that's what people call her that's a suitable name to use.


Right again - apparently their gun carriages would have needed to have been pulled by sailors rather than horses, so what Princess Diana and the Queen Mum had were royal ceremonial funerals, but again the distinction is technical and to my mind pedantic.

Posted by: Darren Apr 11 2013, 09:35 PM

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 11 2013, 09:49 PM

30% of the council houses sold offthen now owned by private landlords. Any housing shortages your way?

Take out a 2nd mortgage to buy a rail ticket? Nice?

When we lost our rating last month Moody's said that the U.K's underlying problems started with the de-regulation of the city (a.k.a The Big Bang) - this was under Thatcher. How's your banks and banking ? alright?

Electricity cheap enough? Gas cheap enough? all sold off and profits going to shareholders. Happy?

Posted by: Strafin Apr 11 2013, 10:46 PM

Forgetting the politics for a minute, Margaret Thatcher was at the very pinnacle of her profession and remained there for 11 years. Her profession happened to be probably the most male dominated environment and to accomplish this alone is something very special.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 12 2013, 07:03 AM

Compared to the power cuts of the 70s, and a 6 month wait for the state owned telephone monopoly to allow me a phone line, yes.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 12 2013, 07:08 AM

Yes, I was there!! Must have been in a different place,

Living in a Council Estate where you weren't even allowed to repaint the front door, let alone choose the colour....
Having to start married life with Mum & Dad because you'd didn't have enough 'points' to get your own house...
A mortgage out of the question at 15% interest and not a white collar job...
Trains?, only for holidays, then not getting back because of a 'sympathy strike'....
The smell of paraffin, simply because you couldn't afford electricity or gas for anything other than back ground heating...
Loud mouthed gits telling you to 'down tools' at the drop of a hat...
Driving cars, that's if you could get them to start....
Mending cars, or patching up the rust holes created by poor build quality...
Having union dues which were more than NI contributions deducted from your wages, even if you didn't want to be a member...
Not being able to post letters because the box was sealed, due to a strike....
Never knowing what the price of anything was because they went up on a day to day basis...
Receiving harrowing letters from friends in Eastern Europe about their even worse lifestyles
Worrying about being called up because European war was a constant threat...
Being treated with distaste by European or American visitors to the workplace as we had nothing to teach them...
Having to go cap in hand as a beggar nation to the IMF for funds to bail out the economy....
Banks that only worked middle of the day and certainly not Saturday....
Trades Unions lead by people subsidised by unfriendly foreign governments...
Waiting years, (literally) for even quite serious operations....

Certainly the place to be if you liked to be told what to do!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 12 2013, 07:42 AM

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 12 2013, 07:49 AM

Fine, thank you. I use 2 banks for business and personal banking and a building society as well, and they give me good and efficient service.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 12 2013, 08:03 AM

I've actually been in the Conservative Club as a guest. The beer is cheap and they have some nice Snooker tables. The people don't appear to be political animals as I have never heard politics being discussed. Perhaps you ought to set up a communist club and see how many members you could attract? Then again you are probably not old enough to drink judging by your posts.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 12 2013, 08:36 AM

How times have changed.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 12 2013, 08:39 AM

Excellent, good for you. the "I'm alright Jack" syndrome writ large. She'd be proud of you.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 12 2013, 09:28 AM

I think Maggie would find greater pride in that even in death she still annoys and worries the paranoid Lefties.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 12 2013, 10:24 AM

Yes. Found it. The one statement on the internet I'm least surprised by.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 12 2013, 10:34 AM

Yes, one of the things we saw the back of was the 'I'm al-right Jack I'm part of the Union' syndrome. Those who didn't even have the self respect to do things unless their Union told them. Wasn't necessarily their fault, we'd been told 'they' would look after us from cradle to grave; regrettably, that meant some never became adult.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 12 2013, 10:36 AM

The left only have themselves to blame for Thatcher's years as PM.

They made usch a ham fisted job of things in the 1970s that the nation was traumatised by that decade to the point where anything else was better. The nation was still traumatised more than a decade later - so much so that we voted in one of the most forgetable PMs of the 20th C, rather than a man who stood for the old, traditional left.

The left had to go away & re-brand themselves & become, basically, tories under a different colour to get elected.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 12 2013, 10:45 AM

Just to lighten this....a little.

With the amazing suggestion that we should name somewhere after Mrs T, I was wondering if we could offer to rename Thatcham as Thatcher? It would be a very cheap change, as only a few letters would need re writing?

OK I'll get my coat.....

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 12 2013, 10:50 AM

If enough of us post on here in agreement, RG will get a letter in next weeks NWN demanding an enquiry, and then when the town is......

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 12 2013, 11:05 AM

Perhaps just a part of Thatcham. "The Margaret Thatcher Memorial Sewage Farm" has a nice ring to it.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 12 2013, 11:24 AM

Pretty good summary!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 12 2013, 11:26 AM

Be careful what you wish for; the spin lads might well call it 'The Margaret Thatcher Memorial Sustainability Plant' making a profit from the products!

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 12 2013, 11:30 AM

thank you.

That's why the true left despise Thatcher - she was their own ******* child.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 12 2013, 12:23 PM

So, how is the window cleaning business these days?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 12 2013, 12:34 PM

Don't know about anyone else but my nephew hasn't looked back. He's north London and is now looking to expand into shop cleaning. Claims its the best move he made; post redundancy from Lloyds Bank of all places.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 12 2013, 12:43 PM

You have no idea how wide of the mark you are, but for the record I would much rather be a self employed window cleaner than be calling somebody else 'boss'. How does that feel? I wouldn't know, having not worked for anyone else since the age of 18.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 12 2013, 12:51 PM

Yes, we all address each other as 'brother' or 'comrade'


(sorry couldn't resist)

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 12 2013, 01:17 PM

Yes, I can see how no one would want to employ you.

Posted by: stewiegriffin Apr 12 2013, 01:21 PM

Well that may or may not be true. It is however pleasingly irrelevant since I have the capability to generate an income for myself.

But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 12 2013, 01:29 PM

Yeah, that's me. Wallowing in a mire of poverty, under the lash of the management whilst squirming in envy at all the posh people. Sigh, knew I should have taken that job as a Saturday paperboy. Least I would be self employed!

Posted by: Darren Apr 12 2013, 02:44 PM

No housing shortage for me. Did away with 'Council Housing' but saw the birth of Housing Association which fill a broadly similar role and meant a reduction of rates in real terms.

British Rail was dogged by union interference, just like most of the UK manufacturing. Just like Leyland, the constant battle between RMT and ASLEF held the railways to ransom.

My bank is very well thank you. De-regulation allowed the country to grow and make money. It also allowed higher wages and an increase in the tax revenues. Without de-regulation and a 5-hour time difference, cities like Frankfurt would have taken on the position of the 3 key financial markets.

My shares in gas (ask Sid) and other privatised utilities are doing very nicely, thank you.

While Thatcherism may not be popular now, it was a policy of it's time where Britain was a very sick, nearly dead country and if Labour had won in 1979, maps the world over would show Islas Malvinas

Posted by: Squelchy Apr 12 2013, 03:29 PM

Right.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 12 2013, 03:58 PM

Indeed, today is the anniversary of the 1984 NUM National Executive meeting in Sheffield where moderate local union bosses challenged Scargill over there not being a national ballot for strike action by miners.

Scargill vetoed a national ballot and anounced this to the crowd outside the building. Later, when the moderate union leaders left the building they were attacked by a now worked-up mob. It was such anti-democratic and violent yob behaviour that had come to symbolise many disputes at the time and a tough response was required.

Posted by: Weavers Walk Apr 12 2013, 06:07 PM

Well I've seen and heard some funny stuff recently, but by golly, this is the best.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 12 2013, 06:46 PM

Please explain? I could do with a giggle myself!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 12 2013, 07:39 PM

Do you live in a parallel universe or just another planet?

Posted by: Darren Apr 12 2013, 09:15 PM

You're Neil Kinnock and I claim my £5

Posted by: motormad Apr 12 2013, 10:43 PM

Lol this thread is too funny.
Middle aged, miserable people slagging each other off on the internet, over someone who's dead and who's actions were 20 years ago.

For the record I'm pretty confident I'm the only twenty-something person on the forum, not a student and I couldn't really give a crap
I hope this insults continue to fly as I have another 3 bags of popcorn to eat.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 12 2013, 11:29 PM

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 12 2013, 11:47 PM

And you, by contrast, are insult free?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 13 2013, 06:29 AM

Now then MM, we'll be there soon. You just sit quietly in the back and watch the cars!

Posted by: x2lls Apr 13 2013, 10:41 AM

That is a prime example of every younger generation , later to become leaders and managers who ignored history. They subsequently make the same mistakes as previous generations.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 13 2013, 12:19 PM

He does have a point though.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 13 2013, 12:19 PM

So, you have no interest in why you need to buy a German car.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 13 2013, 01:34 PM

Can you elaborate?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 13 2013, 06:04 PM

Yes, MM makes a good point.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 13 2013, 06:07 PM

I shall decline to do so as I fervently believe the statement was self explanatory.

Posted by: x2lls Apr 13 2013, 08:22 PM

Well we obviously see the 'point' differently.

It's unfortunate you haven't the time to back up the 'point'

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 14 2013, 08:02 AM

I don't think he makes a good point. Thatcher has been out of office for over twenty years, but her legacy is still felt today. He uses the forum to complain of people slagging people off but while doing so, does the same thing himself. While it might appear people are arguing about a person who has been our of office for a long time, I believe the argument is just as much about people's personal politics than it is about a former prime minister.

The problem with the debate up to now is not only the bad mouthing, but that both sides are simply indulging in confirmation bias.

Posted by: Roost Apr 14 2013, 10:11 PM

With Thatcher simple fact is that she did some good, she did some bad. But she did SOMETHING!
She was a leader and a politician without peer in the day. If not, why the heck does she stoke up so much debate 23 years after being forced from office.

Posted by: motormad Apr 15 2013, 07:18 AM

Yes, because there are "young" generation of leaders.. basically every single MP is in their 40s and they clearly don't learn from the past, are all still liars and cheats..

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2013, 09:26 AM

Every one?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Apr 15 2013, 10:00 AM

Isn't Pamela Nash 28?

Posted by: motormad Apr 15 2013, 10:22 AM

basically.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

Average age of an MP is 50.
Youngest one is 28???????

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2013, 10:27 AM

And are all liars and cheats?

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Apr 15 2013, 10:47 AM

Obviously!

Guy Fawkes anyone?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 15 2013, 11:13 AM

Ah, bless. Still, I think someone who's actually had a proper job would make a better MP rather than someone who went straight into politics from school, but then that's socialist for you.

Posted by: motormad Apr 15 2013, 11:32 AM

Well they are hardly honest are they?

Most come from money and rich families ergo are not able to understand the struggles of or a normal person, and are so far up their own ****'s they are out of touch with reality and are all so old they don't understand even simple texting lingo EG David Cameron and the whole "LOL means LOLTS OF LOVE" thing.

Which you already know, you're just being a pedant.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/11/rebekah-brooks-david-cameron-texts-lol

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2013, 12:33 PM

Do you have to be so cheeky? I ask because you were making broad generalisations, something you often complain of.

I don't think a failure to understand 'text speak' is proof of being out of touch. At the end of the day LOL is ambiguous. As for understanding the struggles of 'normal' people, I suspect they do in part (or as much as you know anything about international diplomacy, trade, etc), it is just they are not in a position to wave a magic wand and make everyone wealthy. To that end they have to cut the cloth accordingly.

Posted by: motormad Apr 15 2013, 01:49 PM

Oh, it's nothing to do about wealth. I'm fine with classes. There have to be some poor, some rich and some inbetween. I think there are perhaps ways to make it more even, after all 50% tax on 5million leaves you 2.5million... which is a **** of a lot of money still. Where as if you are on 15k a year and get taxed on that, that leaves you under 1k takehome, which is a lot less to get by on.. Whether I could possibly come up with a better way? Who's to say, but I would just question it.

The thing is I think it is out of touch, "sorry your mum died lol", I mean what?? We need some serious fresh, young, exciting and energetic people in politics which we have not had, well, certainly not as long as I've been alive. The majority of MPs came from money, were born with money, privated schooled and went to the very best Universities. David Cameron's father was a tax dodger, yet he PUBLICALLY called out on Jimmy Carr for example - I bet Jimmy Carr brings Joy into the lives of more people than David Cameron does, doesn't that count for something?

I do not claim to know about trade but I don't care about those things. I care about issues which affect people on a daily basis. Which people who we stupdily put in power do not understand those because they are not effected by them. Ergo the cannot understand.

You are right, I dislike when people make broad generalisations. Mainly against young people. Often prejudiced. I think my generalisations about politicians are fair, we all know what most of them are like.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2013, 02:00 PM

Perhaps if you did understand those other issues, it would help explain to you why things are as they are.

Posted by: motormad Apr 15 2013, 02:04 PM

That is true Andy. Unfortunately it can go both ways. The issues I do not understand, trade, world politics etc, I do not really care about. If I were the PM my concern would be this country. I wouldn't be sending 700m to Kenya for example when there are homeless people on our streets who are there because of unfair job loss or being in abusive relationships.

Posted by: motormad Apr 15 2013, 02:06 PM

That is true Andy. Unfortunately it can go both ways. The issues I do not understand, trade, world politics etc, I do not really care about. If I were the PM my concern would be this country. I wouldn't be sending 700m to Kenya for example when there are homeless people on our streets who are there because of unfair job loss or being in abusive relationships.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 15 2013, 02:44 PM

Until one gains power, we will remain ignorant of all the issues at hand that affect the decisions governments have to make.

Posted by: massifheed Apr 15 2013, 02:47 PM

It's responses like that that make me think that xjay is on a wind-up.

Posted by: motormad Apr 15 2013, 03:12 PM

Think what you like.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 15 2013, 04:03 PM

The thing is MM, is that we have all been young, but you have not been a politician. Therefore slurs against youth are more valid!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 15 2013, 05:39 PM

Totally with you MM about David Cameron criticising Jimmy Carr about his tax avoiding scheme. I don't think MPs are best qualified to comment given their own track record in personal financial probity. At least Carr's scheme was legal!

Posted by: motormad Apr 16 2013, 08:22 AM

That's exactly it! They make the laws, you must ask why there are the legal loopholes.. so they can do it, come on!!!!

Posted by: blackdog Apr 16 2013, 11:26 AM

Not that easy. EU rules mean that governments cannot tax people outside their national boundaries - so they cannot tax earnings on money kept abroad. Serbia is currently planning to tax Serbians living abroad - a plan they can go ahead with because their chances of joining the EU have been knocked back for a few years.

In Carr's case I believe his cash was in Guernsey - moot point whether this is abroad. The UK government could remove the special tax status of Guernsey, Jersey, Isle of Man, etc - which would shatter the islands' economies and make little or no difference as tax avoiders would simply move their cash to another tax haven outside the governments jurisdiction. It's worth noting that the Germans are pushing for these tax havens within the EU to be closed down.

An alternative is to return to the restrictions on the flow of money to stop the money going abroad in the first case - as used to be the case. However, this would probably cost the government dearly as the City would, presumably, move to somewhere unrestricted.

Another possibility is a wealth tax (the French have this) which is an annual levy of 0.5% or so on a person's wealth. I suspect there is a lower limit, but above that everything counts - and can include investments/cash held abroad. Ironically there is a huge scandal in France at the moment because the minister responsible for combating tax evasion was found to be regularly hiding money abroad and still had €600,000 stashed away in Singapore. Of course this would also mean that many of the most wealthy would move abroad to avoid the tax.

Overseas wealth is a real problem for tax collectors.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 16 2013, 11:36 AM

As usual, always too hard! Message to PM; if you can't put up, shut up. Our treasury and taxation advisers are supposed to be clever that's why we pay them so much. I have to say I think its an amazing situation that the economies of our own in house tax havens rely so much on Tax avoiders; is the PM suggesting we should boycott them for holidays to teach them a lesson.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 16 2013, 11:36 AM

You missed an option: Don't tax investments. Simples.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 16 2013, 07:43 PM

I'm suspect I missed many options. Not taxing investments is an interesting option - not so sure that those on PAYE would be so impressed that the wealthy can sit back and live off their investments without paying any tax on their income. However, it would make the UK a tax haven and could pull in huge amounts of capital to boost our economy. Somehow I suspect it would be in breach of some EU treaty obligation.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 16 2013, 08:12 PM

Those on PAYE would be doubly-miffed when they realized that the rate of income tax would have to rise to cover the loss in revenue, but the idea still has some merit.

For starters HMG is already not taxing investments in off-shore tax-havens so allowing that capital to be banked in the UK and not taxing it here is no change, though that increased investment would improve the UK banking system (to the detriment of the off-shore tax-havens - m'eh!). Like you say it would also make the UK a tax-haven which might be good for us.

If the money in the tax-havens is earned income then it will already have been taxed as income, so I don't think it's fair to tax the interest it earns because that interest is doing little more than preventing it from depreciating in real terms, and if it isn't earned income it will have been at some point so the same argument applies.

And if we just abandon capital gains tax then that's a whole bunch of HMRC clerks we don't need to employ who formerly would have been collecting, investigating, and chasing after CGT in an attempt to fill the loop-holes created by an equally large army of administrators who we can also dispense with.

Income tax would have to go up, but if you increase the top rate a notch or two then the PAYE proles won't notice any change and only the top-earners will see a significant difference and they're the ones saving on their CGT anyroad.

Bonnet de douche, as they say in Jersey.

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Apr 17 2013, 09:42 AM

Along with many others I am currently watching the funeral of Baroness Thatcher. I have to say that as a nation we do 'pomp and ceremony' rather well.

Whether one liked or disliked the former Premiers politics, she was certainly a unique and imposing character in modern British history, and it is in my opinion fitting that Baroness Thatcher is being afforded such a send off, although the realities of Thatcherism should and will be debated long into the future.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Apr 17 2013, 10:01 AM

Mange tout as they say in Peckham.

Posted by: motormad Apr 17 2013, 10:27 AM

What the eff? as they say in Newbury.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 17 2013, 07:02 PM

Posted by: Squelchy Apr 18 2013, 06:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHBRjERga38

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 18 2013, 06:56 PM

Very good.