Maggie

[Libero]

How condescending! So, according to you anyone who opposes this person must be macaronic. The same argument, could just as easily be directed at you. Clearly you have been brainwashed by the tory dominated press and their blantant attempt to white wash this woman's political and economic legacy.

It can be as condescending as you want it to be, your choice. If you read what I have said, I am stating that equal numbers of people to those who feel that the sun shone from her rear are people who had no experience of her premiership. Therefore, it is macaronic in my opinion for people of 20 to be dancing around in the street when they have no idea what on earth they are dancing for.

If you think that is condescending then crack on. I am not brainwashed by anything, I believe she was generally good for this country but I am also aware of her faults too and she is not above criticism.

So in closing, it is better to actually read what I have said. At no point have I said that anyone who opposes her ideals or legacy are macaronic, everyone will have different opinions on her impact upon them and the country as a whole. What is macaronic is people who have no concept of what they are protesting about/celebrating being involved in something that is in bad taste as it is.

 

[Libero]

That's an unfair comment to make. I'm 19, I still have a right to an opinion. After all, Thatcher rose child poverty to the highest levels it's ever been at and I and many other people my age have grown up in that. When you grow up with your parents working as hard as they can but still struggling along to afford food for you every week, and you witness your mother in tears because it's becoming so hard to make simple ends meet, I think it kind of does give my generation a right to an opinion.

Living in the moment of the government is important yes but I think your forget that the work a government does carrys on much longer after that and ends up affecting people who wern't even around then.

Craig, I fully understand that you will have an opinion and of course, just because someone has not lived through doesn't mean they cannot know what they are talking about. What I am saying is that celebrating her death is already in bad taste and having seen plenty youngsters getting involved in that, I would question just how many of them really understand whay they are doing what they are doing.

I can't validate the child poverty quote point although I would be surprised if it was fully accurate across the board. I lived through a period that saw my fathers industry within the building/roofing game get absolutely smashed towards the end of her time in charge and we as a family nearly lost our house so I am well aware of the hardships she caused but I still try to see past them and in the main I support alot of things she did but it wasn't all positive outcomes for my family either.

 

[thfcsteff]

To be honest Peach was asking for it, he was a provocative bastard. What sort of bloke comes over here stealing our jobs, educating our children and going on protest marches without even having a skull thick enough to take the weight of a police radio used as a cosh while the copper holds it by the aerial?

I digress, as has already been mentioned Maggie wasn't in power, they were Uncle Jim's Bootboys at the time.

Indeed. The cheeky sod...

I remember that day well...christ I fudging HATED the NF and John Tyndall as well as his next in line, wasn't it Martin Webster? The fudging scumbags...

 

[Libero]

Fair play mate, that I did not know. I grew up seeing them in enormous prominence one day as a lad and immediately thought they were her legacy! As for 'the incident' I remember it well as I went on Anti Nazi League marches and wore my ANL badge to home & away games on my blue v-neck sweater with Spurs crest sewn on! I'll give you the election one too, but let's be fair, we are talking literally 3 weeks between the two occurances and by that time Thatcher had already got her claws in so-to-speak (those massive Saatchi & Saatchi billboards)...

To the second bold point, absolutely, I agree that good debate with people we don't always agree with can be an excellent thing and everyone comes away with some new perspectives! So yes mate, happy to discuss and debate! again, appreciate this post as I learnt something I didn't know.

Ah she may have had her claws in via Charles Saatchi but would she have been setting policy?! :lol:

Thankfully, that sort of thing had really been highlighted when I was growing up especially with the press that the TSG was getting in the very early 90s so it became quite rare to see.

Steff, we always have good debates and seem to agree on alot of things to do with Spurs. Obviously we are different ends of the political spectrum but I respect your point of view and how you bring it to the table as it promotes good debates rather than pure argument.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

It can be as condescending as you want it to be, your choice. If you read what I have said, I am stating that equal numbers of people to those who feel that the sun shone from her rear are people who had no experience of her premiership. Therefore, it is macaronic in my opinion for people of 20 to be dancing around in the street when they have no idea what on earth they are dancing for.

If you think that is condescending then crack on. I am not brainwashed by anything, I believe she was generally good for this country but I am also aware of her faults too and she is not above criticism.






So in closing, it is better to actually read what I have said. At no point have I said that anyone who opposes her ideals or legacy are macaronic, everyone will have different opinions on her impact upon them and the country as a whole. What is macaronic is people who have no concept of what they are protesting about/celebrating being involved in something that is in bad taste as it is.

Yeah, I read it and I stand by my criticism of of it. No, you didn't state outright that anyone who opposed Thatcherism without living
through it was macaronic, but you implied it. How do you know that the people under twenty had no idea what they were protesting about? Prejudice, pure and simple. No evidence, just more stereotyping and generalizations. A bit like me saying half of Thatcher's supporters were tax evaders. About as valid as that.

 

[Libero]

Yeah, I read it and I stand by my criticism of of it. No, you didn't state outright that anyone who opposed Thatcherism without living
through it was macaronic, but you implied it. How do you know that the people under twenty had no idea what they were protesting about? Prejudice, pure and simple. No evidence, just more stereotyping and generalizations. A bit like me saying half of Thatcher's supporters were tax evaders. About as valid as that.

How do you know thats what I implied as opposed to what you perceived? I will say it here for you to understand in the most basic terms and then I won't discuss it further with you. People who oppose Thatcherism as you call it are not macaronic, that is entirely their call and freedom of opinion. People who celebrate the death of a woman they know nothing about other than second hand information is macaronic. Notice that I haven't said all people celebrating her death know nothing and that is the key. Having said that, celebrating her death or generally anyone's is pretty macaronic regardless.

Hopefully that was simple enough to clear up any future misrepresentations or breakdowns in understanding.

 

[Gordinho]

Wasn't going to post in this one anymore, but......................and please remember, at the start of the thread i made it clear I wasn't bothered either way about Thatchers passing or her policies,............................but both sides of the argument here need to stand back, re-read what you are writing, view it from the opposite stance, and then have a little think.

You are ALL posting condescending thoughts, while accusing the "other side" of just that. Seriously.

Some of the pro-Thatcher stuff is taking no account whatsoever of what some may have been through as a direct result of her policies. While some of the anti-stuff makes a lot of assumptions about people and their lives and what their thought processes should be based on how the "left" (couldn't think of a better word) view it.

There are some down-right patronizing posts above which actually have no bearing on the period under discussion. BOTH sides.........I'm not in favour either way.

Anyway.

Most will ignore this post, so carry on. :lol:

I'm not and I feel it's rather condescending of you to imply I am.

 

[Sheffield Spur]

Thatcher.....

Well she has gone and much has been said. The huge difference in opinion, as displayed around the country yesterday with the funeral (and shown on TV) really reflected comments on here. Whether anyone has changed their mind about her is another issue.

The Key Issues

The Falklands War.

Have a read of the essay below. A good read. Not definitive, but informative and well researched, IIHO. Sources are named. The long term view of the issue of The Falklands is covered. Galtieri got into power in 1976. Some surprising information in there too. Oil is the overriding issue in my opinion; large untapped stocks in the South Atlantic. Both sides know it and the Falklands are ideally placed.

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/military/falklands-war.php

What it doesn't cover are two issues that I remember.

First was...and I have this at the back of my mind. I'm sure I remember this happening. Back of my mind job. Does any one else remember? 1977? Callaghans government put together a task force (which actually set sail? Recalled?) because of the rising problem with Argentina.

Second was the decomissioning and removal of the last supersonic, fixed wing jet fighter aircraft carrier in the Royal Navy. With Phantoms and Buccaneers. Thats the Ark Royal. Decommisioned in February 1979. Just before Thatcher got in power, and done by Callaghan's Labour Government. That gave the Argentinians a huge message that we were unable to fight at such a distance. This scrapping was so recent in the start of Thatchers reign, that to not see it as an issue really reflected badly on her. Or did she? Did Carrington and the Foreign Office see it as critical, but Thatcher ignored it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(R09)


Then. HMS Endurance. Arctic survey and support ship. The only real Royal Navy presence in that part of the world in the early 1980's. It was to be withdrawn too. My mates' brother was in the Antarctic Research Survey Team at the time and through the Falklands Conflict. This was supplied by Endurance. He got that message at the time. Post Falklands, Endurance got a reprieve.

We really hung out the white flag to Argentinian ambitions. But Thatcher saved the day? She was very, very lucky. Thank GHod for Sea Harriers. Without them it could not have been done. She was also lucky we still had some Royal Navy at the time. Now? I don't think we could do it at all. Our armed forces are too depleted. Plus we don't have any aircraft carriers for years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/23/ian-jack-falklands-navy-fleet

And what happened to the shipyards, Margaret?

Sorry, I guess in some peoples eyes of economics and thats it, we could get new warships made in China or India... I'm sure it would be cheaper. Or maybe in Argentina.

Incidentally, the Falkland Islanders have enjoyed a very high standard of living since the conflict, partly due to the huge and disproportionate amount of UK taxpayers money being poured into it for decades. It would have been nice if some parts of the UK itself had got similar treatment from Thatchers Government back in the 1980's.


The Home Front. The North - South Divide.

Much simpler. Much.

Still some people think Thatcher made Britain 'great' again. Absolute flimflam. She divided it like it never has been before, and that is still so, now, 30 years later. You only had to watch the news on TV yesterday i.e. the funeral to see that, clear as day.

The leading 'light' on the divide is Prof. Danny Dorling at Sheffield University. The guy has done much research on this and has had numerous articles published and appeared in various TV programmes. The leading TV program is:

The North - South Divide. Made by the BBC (BBC4) in 2009. An hour long and definitive study into the divide. The aftermath to Thatchers actions and impact in the 1980's. Presented by John Harris (the music journo, and a Manc IIRC). Its very well researched and put together, interviewing many people of many backgrounds. It was shown on BBC4 back in 2009; many programmes at the time - and now - are shown on BBC3/4, and then shown later on mainstream BBC1/2. This never was, as far as I am aware. I wonder why? It would tinkle off many people if it was.

Key points from Dorling:

in the 1980's, the country lost 4 million jobs. Mostly manufacturing/industrial, and mostly in the north and midlands of course. In the same period, 6 million new jobs were created but in finance/services largely, and mostly in the south.


Dorling compares the N/S Divide in Britain with "the only other comparative one in existance: the divide between West and East Germany, pre-unification". Jeez, that is frightening. The division between those two was huge.


Does anyone truly believe that the North - South Divide does not exist? Or that a solution is for millions of people to move south. Absurd. And impractical. Impossible, for many.

That is Thatchers long-term legacy.

She ruined the job base in a lot of the north. May she burn in hell.

 

[Gordinho]

Does anyone truly believe that the North - South Divide does not exist? Or that a solution is for millions of people to move south. Absurd. And impractical. Impossible, for many.

My own experience is that those saying that there's plenty of jobs about, those lazy norven bastards should get off their arse and move for work are the very same people who want immigration banned because we're already overcrowded down south.

 

[Crawley]

Does the same North/South divide not exist everywhere though?
(East/West in some cases).

Germany, Italy, Korea (kidding)

 

[Sheffield Spur]

My own experience is that those saying that there's plenty of jobs about, those lazy norven bastards should get off their arse and move for work are the very same people who want immigration banned because we're already overcrowded down south.

There is far more choice for work in the south than the north mate. In the north its totally different. Thats Thatchers legacy.

I'm sure you are right in your thoughts though, its down to peoples perceptions. If people think its overcrowded in the south and therefore immigration should be banned, then look at the north.... immigration here has a much bigger impact on the already depleted job base, and frailer economy. The stronger economy and job base of the south can absorb it far, far more.

Immigration needs to be limited because the whole country is overcrowded, and why allow it when we have 2.5 million unemployed? Thats madness.

 

[Sheffield Spur]

Does the same North/South divide not exist everywhere though?
(East/West in some cases).

Germany, Italy, Korea (kidding)

No mate, I don't think it does. Not like here. Its a known entity worldwide now.

And no, I'm not rising to the bait with Korea. :lol:

 

[Gordinho]

There is far more choice for work in the south than the north mate. In the north its totally different. Thats Thatchers legacy.

I'm sure you are right in your thoughts though, its down to peoples perceptions. If people think its overcrowded in the south and therefore immigration should be banned, then look at the north.... immigration here has a much bigger impact on the already depleted job base, and frailer economy. The stronger economy and job base of the south can absorb it far, far more.

Immigration needs to be limited because the whole country is overcrowded, and why allow it when we have 2.5 million unemployed? Thats madness.

I think you missed my point I was making the point that some of those unthinking people who feel that northerners don't want work because they can't or feel unable to move to the more prosperous south are the same people who would ban people from uprooting themselves and moving to the more prosperous south.

 

[Sheffield Spur]

I think you missed my point I was making the point that some of those unthinking people who feel that northerners don't want work because they can't or feel unable to move to the more prosperous south are the same people who would ban people from uprooting themselves and moving to the more prosperous south.

Yes. With some people, you just cannot win. Want it both ways, in other words. 8-[

Some people just like to dislike.... its a form of racism, and I thought that was frowned on, including on this MB?

 

[thfcsteff]

My own experience is that those saying that there's plenty of jobs about, those lazy norven bastards should get off their arse and move for work are the very same people who want immigration banned because we're already overcrowded down south.

A brilliant point.

 

[thfcsteff]

Ah she may have had her claws in via Charles Saatchi but would she have been setting policy?! :lol:

Thankfully, that sort of thing had really been highlighted when I was growing up especially with the press that the TSG was getting in the very early 90s so it became quite rare to see.

Steff, we always have good debates and seem to agree on alot of things to do with Spurs. Obviously we are different ends of the political spectrum but I respect your point of view and how you bring it to the table as it promotes good debates rather than pure argument.

Tio the first point, I genuinely believe she 'invented' the likes of Stephanopolous (Clinton's strategist and then Bliar's)...she understood that the quickest way to most people is a perfect sondbite and a jarring image, with context to be damned. Those 'Labour Isn't Working' billboards were (if we can possibly look at them without judgement -I find it tough!!!!) pieces of modern art, on the level of Warhol or Damien Hirst in the sense of their brute bluntness (and in that specific case, IMO, total and utter shameless lying). But she recognized that with soundbites you can govern the masses.

As to the second bold point, let me say 'right back atcha'...it's great to be able to discuss and debate with you, and again, I see your discussion points as thoughtful and open for exchange which is a great thing! Long may it continue and, indeed, perhaps spread!!!

 

[Crawley]

No mate, I don't think it does. Not like here. Its a known entity worldwide now.

And no, I'm not rising to the bait with Korea. :lol:

Got to disagree with you there then.

There is a massive North/South in Italy. The North being the prosperous, modern progressive region, the south being more agricultural and basic in its outlook.

I'm sure there are more examples out there. Anyone?

 

[Jurgen the German]

Got to disagree with you there then.

There is a massive North/South in Italy. The North being the prosperous, modern progressive region, the south being more agricultural and basic in its outlook.

I'm sure there are more examples out there. Anyone?

There definitely is a big North/South divide in Italy. The North being affluent, Milan is a mecca for fashion plus other cities like Verona and Venice are expensive to visit. People in the North look down on people from the South. Naples is notorious for crime. Basically the mafia reside in Sicily (Southern Italy) and the government want to keep as much revenue from them as possible.

I'd say there is a divide in America also, people from the North think Southerners are hicks/hillbillies/rednecks. Economically there are some differences, New York prices seem extornionate if you've been to places like Florida for example. But then again you've get the same thing if you went to Vegas. I wouldn't the divide is big, but it's somewhat noticeable.

But I do also agree with Sheffield Spur, Thatcher is at least partly responsible for the divide in this country that is still here today. Makes me laugh when people bang on about no one having any national pride anymore, they're probably the same people who can't stand Northerners. I'm sure some Northerners do have a chip on their shoulder, but I've been to places like Liverpool and found the people to be nothing but welcoming and friendly.

 

[Craig_J]

Couple of things here (bear in mind my neutral stance, again)

1) Have you got stats to prove that claim?
2) When was Thatcher last in power, and have successive governments (both sides) not had plenty of chance to ammend this issue?



Also, and please note, this is not aimed at you personally, the problem many hard working, tax paying individuals have with people "struggling to put food on the table" is they see these same people smoking 40 a day, getting slashed up frequently down the pub, and possesing better material goods than themselves.

But, that does not detract from the fact that there are genuinely people out there who DO struggle to support their families or indeed themselves.
This is where the whole issue of taking care of our own first should now come into play.

But that is another topic again.

"When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of 30% in 1994 during the Conservative government of John Major, who succeeded Thatcher.[41]

While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Mrs. Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe."

Taken from wikipidea: Before anyone says it's unreliable I think it is as it has a refference directly to the Wall Street Jounral. Only problem is you have to be a subscriber to get on there so I can't get on, though if anyone has a subscription by any chance you should be able too as it looks like the article is still in existence.

Thatcher was in power a long time ago, and yes I agree every government since her has had a chance to deal with it. I'm unsure on the latest statistics in recent years (though as a sociology student I perhaps should be!) but I'd guess it's either the same or it went down slightly since Thatcher. Under the early new years of New Labour I'd guess it was probably lower than under Thatcher but then higher towards the end of New Labour's time and till today. But your right, governments aren't tacklng this right at all. New Labour is really a different labour all together and their "thid way" seemed to be mannaged terribly with ideas capable of winning elections but ones that didn't work in practice.

But the way the current Conservative government is going about things is awful now. On one hand you've got them whacking people with a stick saying "lazy welfare scroungers, get back to work now!" and on the other hand you've got them making little or no effort to actually create jobs for these people to do. A asda opened up recently near mine and there were jobs going but there were 1,000 applicants for it. Same happened when they opened a Premier Inn. 50 or something jobs and 800 applicants. I don't see how anyone on benefits is supposed to go back to work under these circumstances. And the government is choosing the worst time possible to try and get people off welfare, it is indeed a big problem in sociey (though I'd contest how big it is in comparsion to what the media and government seem to think it is) but with the way things are now I know university graudates, and even one or two master degree graudates, struggling to find work. They're having to take jobs at Tesco's working on tills and stacking shelfs if they can because there's no work about, or doing casual work for agencies. If these uni graudattes can't get work then how the bloody hell is someone who's been living on dole their whole entire lifesupposed to get one?! If they think it might be a bit risky to give a job to a university graduatte wha are the chances of them opening up their arms to someone who has never worked a day in their life?! Create jobs for these people to do and then you can start getting them back to work, otherwise don't be suprised when people aren't finding jobs.

There's also some calls from some to scrap welfare all together. I don't think this is the case for the majority but I can't think of a worse idea. I'd rather drag along a few people who are preapared to live on welfare their lifes, which is a minority, then turn to an american style system where we see an increase in gang crime, burglary and mugging and people left without a safety net with increasing segregation in citys. It's all well and good to say "we're not going to give you this and that anymore" but if those people really are that lazy your not going to be to happy when they're breaking into your house to nick your tv's and any valuables they can lay their hands upon to make up for the loss in benefits. Yeah some people are lazy which is why if you take away their dole they're just going to find another easy way of making up their losses by taking away YOUR luxuries. Even then some would say "well get alarms, CCTV etc." which is fine for those who can afford it. It would deter crime, it would deter it so much so that these people looking to rob a house will just go and rob a working class person's seeing as they can't afford the target hardening.

 

[thfcsteff]

"When she resigned in 1990, 28% of the children in Great Britain were considered to be below the poverty line, a number that kept rising to reach a peak of 30% in 1994 during the Conservative government of John Major, who succeeded Thatcher.[41]

While credited with reviving Britain's economy, Mrs. Thatcher also was blamed for spurring a doubling in the poverty rate. Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe."

Taken from wikipidea: Before anyone says it's unreliable I think it is as it has a refference directly to the Wall Street Jounral. Only problem is you have to be a subscriber to get on there so I can't get on, though if anyone has a subscription by any chance you should be able too as it looks like the article is still in existence.

Thatcher was in power a long time ago, and yes I agree every government since her has had a chance to deal with it. I'm unsure on the latest statistics in recent years (though as a sociology student I perhaps should be!) but I'd guess it's either the same or it went down slightly since Thatcher. Under the early new years of New Labour I'd guess it was probably lower than under Thatcher but then higher towards the end of New Labour's time and till today. But your right, governments aren't tacklng this right at all. New Labour is really a different labour all together and their "thid way" seemed to be mannaged terribly with ideas capable of winning elections but ones that didn't work in practice.

But the way the current Conservative government is going about things is awful now. On one hand you've got them whacking people with a stick saying "lazy welfare scroungers, get back to work now!" and on the other hand you've got them making little or no effort to actually create jobs for these people to do. A asda opened up recently near mine and there were jobs going but there were 1,000 applicants for it. Same happened when they opened a Premier Inn. 50 or something jobs and 800 applicants. I don't see how anyone on benefits is supposed to go back to work under these circumstances. And the government is choosing the worst time possible to try and get people off welfare, it is indeed a big problem in sociey (though I'd contest how big it is in comparsion to what the media and government seem to think it is) but with the way things are now I know university graudates, and even one or two master degree graudates, struggling to find work. They're having to take jobs at Tesco's working on tills and stacking shelfs if they can because there's no work about, or doing casual work for agencies. If these uni graudattes can't get work then how the bloody hell is someone who's been living on dole their whole entire lifesupposed to get one?! If they think it might be a bit risky to give a job to a university graduatte wha are the chances of them opening up their arms to someone who has never worked a day in their life?! Create jobs for these people to do and then you can start getting them back to work, otherwise don't be suprised when people aren't finding jobs.

There's also some calls from some to scrap welfare all together. I don't think this is the case for the majority but I can't think of a worse idea. I'd rather drag along a few people who are preapared to live on welfare their lifes, which is a minority, then turn to an american style system where we see an increase in gang crime, burglary and mugging and people left without a safety net with increasing segregation in citys. It's all well and good to say "we're not going to give you this and that anymore" but if those people really are that lazy your not going to be to happy when they're breaking into your house to nick your tv's and any valuables they can lay their hands upon to make up for the loss in benefits. Yeah some people are lazy which is why if you take away their dole they're just going to find another easy way of making up their losses by taking away YOUR luxuries. Even then some would say "well get alarms, CCTV etc." which is fine for those who can afford it. It would deter crime, it would deter it so much so that these people looking to rob a house will just go and rob a working class person's seeing as they can't afford the target hardening.

You said you're 19. Well mate, you have written words there hitch give me GREAT hope for th future. As long as there are peopl like you hi still care about others, nd as long as there are people like you who see the bigger picture, I think we'll be OK.
A great heartfelt post.
Thank you Sir!