By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Brilliant, how do the Thatcher supporters on here feel about being sharing common philosophical outlooks with the hardcore Millwall thugs?
There's some irony in millwall fans supporting thatcher tomorrow bearing in mind it was their behaviour against Luton in 1985 that led to thatcher virtually trying to outlaw being a football fan in the 1980's. those that remember going to Rangers in the mid and late 80's will remember it being a very different world to what it is now. Have a look at average attendances for some of the big clubs then. 20000 was going some
"...and in the black and red corner, we have a coalition of anarcho-crusties and activists. And in the blue corner, we have the lumpenproletariat, freshly tanked up after their day out at Wembley".
Good article from Glen Greenwald a few days ago by the way, which is relevant to those saying "respect the dead" etc:
"But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren’t silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person’s death to create hagiography. […] Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death.
[…]
And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, “across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted — and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown.”
To demand that all of that be ignored in the face of one-sided requiems to her nobility and greatness is a bit bullying and tyrannical, not to mention warped. As David Wearing put it this morning in satirizing these speak-no-ill-of-the-deceased moralists: “People praising Thatcher’s legacy should show some respect for her victims. Tasteless.”"
"...and in the black and red corner, we have a coalition of anarcho-crusties and activists. And in the blue corner, we have the lumpenproletariat, freshly tanked up after their day out at Wembley".
Those figures are wrong. We didn't have that many mines. Nowhere near. But the basic point is right: mine closures were not greater in number in the 80s than in the 70s and 60s. The difference was that in the 80s they were closed in a much shorter span of time, and no provision was made for retraining or re-employing the people who were laid off in the 80s, whereas there had been in the 60s and 70s. So the miners who lost their jobs in the 60s and 70s were helped into finding a future. The miners who lost their jobs in the 80s were told: f*ck you.
This is one of the better NATIONALy relevant posts, unrelated to how much your house is now worth, which is based on a few more things than 80s housing policies ffs.
COMMUNITIES, Londoners, were WRECKED. Whole sections of the UK that could have participated in a dense, vibrant, economy were TRASHED in favour of a plan that, just recently, turned into a bag of utter kunt.
There's some irony in millwall fans supporting thatcher tomorrow bearing in mind it was their behaviour against Luton in 1985 that led to thatcher virtually trying to outlaw being a football fan in the 1980's. those that remember going to Rangers in the mid and late 80's will remember it being a very different world to what it is now. Have a look at average attendances for some of the big clubs then. 20000 was going some
It gets worse. The Metropolitan Police will also have to launch a massive operation to keep the protestors apart from Wigan's seven traveling fans, two of whom are insisting on breaking away from the main group to get a bite to eat, thus stretching the Met's resources even tighter.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
We’ve debated on here the pros and cons of Thatcher’s policies and whether she was a net force for good or evil all to no avail, those of you who liked her, still like her, those of us who didn’t, still don’t. For some it’s all about the end justifying the means, for others it more about what you do rather than why. I’ve also seen it argued that if you’re not a miner you can’t complain about mine closures, others have more empathy for their fellow man. Ultimately, I think what it all comes down to is simply how we, as individuals, feel about her death, so I thought I’d let you know how I feel.
I had thought that when she went I’d raise a glass in celebration and then hunker down to endure the inevitable orgy of sycophantic garbage that would dominate the media coverage, and that would be it. What actually happened was, I heard late on Monday afternoon near the end of a busy day and quite literally jumped for joy. Looking back I’m truly surprised at just how much it has cheered me up, and keeps cheering me up.
There is a whole range of sycophantic garbage in the media as expected, but there is a refreshing and unexpected balance. I’m even enjoying some of pro-Thatcher coverage - every time some tosser comes on the box saying how upset and outraged he is by the Thatcher’s dead parties and “Ding, Dong the Witch is Dead” rising up the charts, I’m cheered up even more! These are same people that profited by Thatcher’s policies and didn’t give a toss about the real pain it caused others, and now, albeit in a small way they, they are suffering and I’m bloody loving it. I know deep down most of them are just going through the motions to look good and claim, for once in their lives, the moral high ground, but I live in hope that at least some of them are experiencing real pain. I know it won’t balance the suffering of others that they’ve ignored over the years, but it’ll just have to do.
I'm disappointed that the Queen will attend her funeral (but no big deal, I'm no great fan of the monarchy). She is legitimising the prime ministership of a person who has demonstrably divided the country, and at argumentable cost and benefit. The last PM's funeral she attended was Churchill's - how does Thatcher's legacy compare with his?
I saw Churchill lie in state. The queue was five miles long and I still remember the queue beside the river and the incredible pomp and pageantry in the hall where his coffin lay. I loathe the Tories, but he saved the country, and very possibly the civilised world. I am proud to have been there. Thatcher doesn't come within spitting distance of that, except the next time I'm in St Paul's.
I'm disappointed that the Queen will attend her funeral (but no big deal, I'm no great fan of the monarchy). She is legitimising the prime ministership of a person who has demonstrably divided the country, and at argumentable cost and benefit. The last PM's funeral she attended was Churchill's - how does Thatcher's legacy compare with his?
I saw Churchill lie in state. The queue was five miles long and I still remember the queue beside the river and the incredible pomp and pageantry in the hall where his coffin lay. I loathe the Tories, but he saved the country, and very possibly the civilised world. I am proud to have been there. Thatcher doesn't come within spitting distance of that, except the next time I'm in St Paul's.
The British Public legitimized the prime minister ship of Margaret Thatcher by voting her in three times. If the majority had wanted her out so badly they would have voted tactically to get her out rather than splitting their vote across completely noneffective opposition parties.
Whether it was Thatcher or one of the other parties, the mines would have shut, and those areas would have been devastated anyway, it would just have been accomplished in a more sensitive manner whilst pandering to trade unions who held the power. Whether financially the result would have been any different is pure speculation.
The country was on a downward spiral when she came in. Years of ineffectual leadership completely unable to deal with the Monster of the Trade Unions had reduced this country to a laughing stock where manufacturing output was on the decline anyway simply because of the number of man days wasted on the picket line.
Whether she had a positive effect or negative effect is down to divided opinion, however the only people with valid alternatives to what she did weren't the opposition parties at the time otherwise the British Public would have voted them in. It appears the only people with alternative solutions are sitting on 20 years worth of 20-20 hindsight.
The British Public legitimized the prime minister ship of Margaret Thatcher by voting her in three times. If the majority had wanted her out so badly they would have voted tactically to get her out rather than splitting their vote across completely noneffective opposition parties.
Whether it was Thatcher or one of the other parties, the mines would have shut, and those areas would have been devastated anyway, it would just have been accomplished in a more sensitive manner whilst pandering to trade unions who held the power. Whether financially the result would have been any different is pure speculation.
The country was on a downward spiral when she came in. Years of ineffectual leadership completely unable to deal with the Monster of the Trade Unions had reduced this country to a laughing stock where manufacturing output was on the decline anyway simply because of the number of man days wasted on the picket line.
Whether she had a positive effect or negative effect is down to divided opinion, however the only people with valid alternatives to what she did weren't the opposition parties at the time otherwise the British Public would have voted them in. It appears the only people with alternative solutions are sitting on 20 years worth of 20-20 hindsight.
I'm not going to argue with any of that.
You missed the point. She divided the country (to argumentable costs/effects; and you have to concede that, since you wish to argue this in spite of obvious opposition).
The point is, she wasn't Churchill, she wasn't within cooee of Churchill.
I think there *is* a parallel with Churchill. Both leaders thrived on crisis.
Both failed in their ultimate goal. Churchill failed in his goal of preserving the British Empire. Thatcher failed in her goal of reviving the British economy.
I think there *is* a parallel with Churchill. Both leaders thrived on crisis.
Both failed in their ultimate goal. Churchill failed in his goal of preserving the British Empire. Thatcher failed in her goal of reviving the British economy.
You'd have to concede that overwhelmingly preserving a free Britain was above preserving the British Empire and he succeeded with that.
As for Thatcher reviving the British economy, it 'happened', you just have to argue over cause-and-effect/ cost-and-benefit.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
