Thatcher's Dead.

[Grand Moff Tim]

objective as in how I view it, not how the person stating views it.

Still a little off there. You want "subjective."

EDIT: ie something is objectively true if it's true regardless of who's viewing it, whereas something is subjectively true if its thruthiness (heh) is dependent upon the person viewing it. The person like, say, you.

More or less, anyways. I didn't feel like copypasta-ing the dictionary, haha.

 

[Dan]

Can we get back on topic guys? You are as bad as the Tories when it comes to avoiding facts

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

I wouldn't say the ability to distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity is entirely irrelevant to the topic/tone of this thread .

 

[djentinc]

Can we get back on topic guys? You are as bad as the Tories when it comes to avoiding facts

NO AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU'RE A MARXIST!

Edit: you probably wouldn't have got that joke if you hadn't heard about what Michael Gove and George Osbourn said about people who opposed the education reforms...

 

[mcd]

Still a little off there. You want "subjective."

EDIT: ie something is objectively true if it's true regardless of who's viewing it, whereas something is subjectively true if its thruthiness (heh) is dependent upon the person viewing it. The person like, say, you.

More or less, anyways. I didn't feel like copypasta-ing the dictionary, haha.

Well Ex-fucking-scuse me!

 

[Jakke]

There is a distinct lack of facts here. Let me just show you a small list of the things she did in power, and the reasons why people dislike her:


1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands
10. The poll tax
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War
13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control
18. Section 28
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"
20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany
23. She invented Quangos
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%
31. BSE
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion
38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions
42. 21.9% inflation

1. There are many politicans who support capital punishment
2. Well, they were not making any money at the time, was she supposed to keep them as charity?
3. Yes, she was a social conservative
4. And the money saved was used to repair school buildings
5. Opinion, some would say that increased freedom is a good thing.
6. So? Wasn't she a politician? As for opening for the National Front, that's an unsupported extrapolation
7. Housing Act of 1980
8. Yes, that was because the unemployment was hidden in unprofitable industrial jobs. When she cut the money pits that this industry was, the true uneployment became visible. It should also be noted that unemployment was falling pretty powerfully by -87.
9. Evidence for this?
10. Yes, that was an unfortunate tax.
11. See my answer to nr. 2. They were not making any money, and the unions decided they were worth sacrificing to win over Thatcher.
12. Yes, we've already established that she was a politician.
13. Opinion again, many would say that it was a good thing.
14. ^Dito
15. ^See above, and sources that they cost more money than a state alternative?
16. Opinion
17. Not necessarily a bad thing
18. As I have suggested, this might have been a pass to the Tory, or a slave-grab...
19. She opposed sanctions because she believed that that would make the South African authorities even more heavy handed, she did however demand the end of apartheid, as the rest of the world did. I also hope that you know that Mandela co-founded "Umkhonto we Sizwe", which was a terrorist organization connected to the ANC. Their favoured method of excecution was filling an innner tube with gasoline, putting it around the neck of the victim, then lighting it.
20. Under heavy pressure from Kissinger, does not excuse it, but explains it.
21. Same as the above, minus Kissinger.
22. I would imagine because she was afraid that the communists would take over East Germany as well.
23. This can also be considered opinion on your part.
24. So? We've got a 25% VAT.
25. And? She had still been elected.
26. I fail to see the problem, isn't her personal life her own?
27. The UK already sold arms to Saudi Arabia. The corruption was unfortunate of course, but harldy something she could be blamed for. Mark could of course have been involved, but western juridical tradition stipulates innocent until prove guilty.
28. Because Pinochet's government had been the only one from South America to stand with her in the Falklands War. It wasn't a good thing to do, but that's politics for you.
29. That is true, but social unrest is not a good way to measure the effectiveness of a government.
30. So?
31. She has said afterwards that she acted to the best of her abilities with the information she had at the time. New information surfaced later, but we can harldy blame her for that, can we?
32. See nr. 8.
33. Evidence for this?
34. Yes, that is usually how it goes. People earning more money usually gets more back in tax remissions if they are similar in size over the board.
35. Which dropped to 8,2% in -82, and continued to drop after that.

 

[Dan]

Rather than go through each numbered point individually (as we could be here all day) i will highlight a few key points from it all. Also can i applaud your counter argument(s), nice to see a healthy debate here

• Firstly, whilst the housing act of 1980 did give council tenants the right to purchase their homes from their respective local authorities, due to the high unemployment rates many simply could not afford such a luxury. Those who did in many cases took out large amounts of credit to complete such a transaction, which in turn has led to the never-ending spiral of detrimental credit use in this country. I'd also like to point out that many wealthy private individuals who had savings and excess cash bought many of these council properties and to this day charge way over the odds for tenants to live in them.

• Contrary to popular opinion whilst the pits were "not making individuals money" they were however heating the homes of the poor at a cheaper rate and running businesses as a FAR cheaper rate than we pay today. Industries such as shipbuilding were bringing in millions of pounds and keeping people in work. We now live in a state where those lucky enough to still learn these trades can earn you up to £100,000+ a year in countries such as Dubai. Literal BILLIONS of pounds and vital intercontinental trades could have still been created today in this country had she not wiped out a vital part of our economic infrastructure. I'd also like to add if she had not flooded many of the coal mines during her term as prime minister our electricity bills would certainly be lower than they are now, and (then state owned) companies such as BP would more than likely charge a fair amount to the general public as opposed to lining the pockets of foreign investors.

• The privatisation of state companies has dealt a massive blow to our country. Thatcher had initially hoped that UK businessmen would take over the helm and would employ more UK staff (which in an ideal world would be lovely) but the hard fact of the matter is these businessmen got to where they are through hard sell and cost cutting. If a foreign investor is willing to pay over the odds for their share in a company then they are definitely going to sell up, same applies for if work can be sent offshore at a reduced cost. Mindless privatisation is happening again in our country even today. The current government has just sold off our state funded mountain rescue service, which has been told to cut costs in order to earn more money for their investors as they have just spent a fortune on new helicopters that weren't really necessary. State companies are always better IMHO because they look after the interests of their customer base, the people, rather than making money for shareholders. Maggie didn't share this opinion, and as a result many of the jobs and trades that people would still work in today has been sent to places like India, The Philippines and China because private companies will almost always choose cost over national service.

• If a VAT is lower then prices will be lower. Why would you want a high VAT when all that tax doesn't go back into your community?

• Several of the points i mentioned about her having low approval rates and causing civil unrest are in relation to what we are seeing today. Why should the tax payer (most of whom don't wish to pay a penny toward the woman's funeral) fork out for her coffin to be paraded round our nation’s capital whilst people say how she was the greatest thing to ever come out of Britain? Bottom line is, many people (myself included) feel she did more harm than good, why should we pay over the odds for her funeral? I'm sure she had more than enough money to pay for it herself, and I’d rather spend that money on improving things like our NHS, our education system and our local heritage funding.

That's all from me for tonight, i have a train to catch tomorrow If you'd like me to reply to anything else i will monitor this thread but i may not be able to reply until Monday evening.

 

[flint757]

I feel that way about all political funerals as well. Why is it the tax payers job to pay for their funeral when it cost me 6K to do one for my relatives? The president gets a huge paycheck while in the office, gets a nice retirement plan that goes beyond ridiculous, and they release books that end up putting a large chunk of cash in their pockets. They don't need the help.

For Reagan we paid for the funeral I believe, but even if we didn't they had a day of mourning of which people got paid to not be at work (apparently it is tradition). This includes government jobs which inevitably come out of taxpayers pockets on top of everything else. Reagan would be rolling in his grave .

But Paul Light, an expert in governmental affairs at New York University, said it was ironic that the administration closed the government for Reagan. "He was relentless in his criticism of fraud, waste and abuse in government and would have looked on a day off for his funeral as a remarkable waste of taxpayer money," Light said.

Something Thatcher can probably relate to. If she were alive organizing her own funeral she probably wouldn't have allowed for them to pay for the funeral (or maybe she's a hypocrite and totally would ).

Taxpayers Take Hit On Reagan Holiday (washingtonpost.com)

 

[-42-]

When you type: "I'm glad Margaret Thatcher is dead"

I see something like: "Holy shit am I edgy or what"

 

[zappatton2]

The one good thing I can say about Thatcher (or Reagan for that matter) is that she helped galvanize a pretty awesome punk-rock counter culture. Back when youthful rebellion was about taking down the state! Ah, good times.

 

[vampiregenocide]

The more I learn about her, the more I feel my previous post may have been a bit too easy on her. I'm still not going to rejoice in her death, but I'm starting to feel more understanding of those who do.

 

[tacotiklah]

That was one of the most biased things I think I've ever read. If you want to know about things do your own research rather than reading other people's opinions on it.

Fair enough, although I thought it'd be honorable to hear the viewpoints of people that actually live there and possibly during that administration. I guess I assumed incorrectly that doing so would be preferential to some hack American editorial railing against Thatcher for sole purpose of conservatism. Damn me and my open-mindedness to allow for reasonable counter-arguments.

If that site is biased, please explain how so. I'm honestly trying to put personal opinions and feelings aside so as to get the whole truth of things and not knee-jerk reactions from both sides of the aisle. Surely that's not a bad thing, right? It would also be nice to stop the facebook rumor mongering and dead bashing if it came to light that in fact Mrs. Thatcher actually was a friend of the gay community and was bullied into making those policies.

Again, I'm trying to be the neutral party here. At least I'm not wantonly bashing the dead because the cool kids are doing it.

 

[Rook]

Open mindedness and whatever has nothing to do with it. The source you post just cites quotations from people who immediately identify themselves as having an agenda. Politics, as much now as ever has been, isn't determined entirely by what individuals think and believe about things and its not about saving everyone all the time. If you want to be able to achieve something in a democratic society and you want the relevant support in order to do so you have to win favour with the supporters. Thatcher had shown in perviously non-prime ministerial policies that she wasn't 'anti-gay' and short of a quotation of her saying 'I don't like gay people' I think its unfair to label her as such.

Facts and mine or anybody else's opinions aside and to more directly address your question, that article starts with an assertion then presents other interested-vested individual's opinions that agree with that assertion. The fact that those people were around at the time or in the right place has no bearing.

Besides, it'd be idiotic not to remember that the UK (and the rest of the west) was largely homophobic (how's GRID for the name of a disease?) not to mention racist. It's all context.

 

[estabon37]

Man, I hope Jakke and Dan come back. I've really loved watching Crazy Mel Gibson and Sexy Burt Reynolds having a conversation at an intellectual level that I can't help but feel their real-life counterparts couldn't match.

Closer to topic, I think Jakke's point about Thatcher being beholden to party politics is extremely relevant to any discussion of an individual politician. Here is Aus, the ruling party has a Prime Minister who previously supported gay marriage now ruling against it, a gay finance minister who says gay marriage isn't in the interest of the community (having previously supported it), and the ex-lead singer for Midnight Oil is our education minister, having been moved away from being the environmental minister because after spending thirty years singing about shitty politicians and the environment, it looked a little fishy when he had to stand at a podium and support policies that backed the logging industry.

Personally, I hate party politics. It's an easy way to run a country, but a hard way to give politicians and voters alike genuine freedom of choice in a democracy. Is it possible for us to separate Thatcher's personal views and choices from those of her party?

 

[Xaios]

Personally, I hate party politics. It's an easy way to run a country, but a hard way to give politicians and voters alike genuine freedom of choice in a democracy.

This is *very* true. It's frustrating to watch local politicians who I KNOW have personal integrity regarding certain matters being forced to tow the party line, and there's nothing they can do about it. It's true, things get done, but becomes entirely impossible for people within the same party to have a discussion. You have to rely on the opposition (who have their own agenda) to bring up points that need to be talked about, and then it all get swept under the rug in the end anyway.

I guess part of the problem is that, if it doesn't happen, things tend to devolve into regional politics. Instead of politicians fighting for the interests of the party, they're fighting for the interests of the region. While this is technically what they were elected to do, the end result is the same: nothing gets done. EG "My riding of oil tycoons and businessmen wants this pipeline to go ahead," "Well my riding of hippies and environmentalists doesn't." The same thing already happens on a party level anyway.

 

[Dan]

Man, I hope Jakke and Dan come back. I've really loved watching Crazy Mel Gibson and Sexy Burt Reynolds having a conversation at an intellectual level that I can't help but feel their real-life counterparts couldn't match.

That sentence made my evening

I've been in London over the weekend and Jakke is busy researching some facts apparently . We do love a good debate .

In relevant news: Just to make you all aware that the police are to arrest anyone that "upsets mourners" at wednesdays funeral. The whole statement that was made in regards to who exactly should be arrested is VERY vague, and due to the fact that literally THOUSANDS of people showed up to hold a party in Trafalgar Square on saturday evening (i was not present) in the wake of Thatcher's death, it could be interesting what events actually unfold.

A friend of mine who is a photographer was at Trafalgar on saturday, you can read his post and view his pictures here. Not surprised that none of this was shown on our national TV, even though it is highly newsworthy. But thats a bias media for you i guess

R A D I O M O T H S

(be advised there are some NSFW pics in there)

My

 

[Danukenator]

Y'all are so PC on this forum.

Fuck this horrible witch. I'm actively pleased at her death. It excites me.

Funny how people like you come off as an inarticulate moron while the people that point out the need for sympathy combined with skeptical hindsight sound articulate.

 

[Rook]

That sentence made my evening

I've been in London over the weekend and Jakke is busy researching some facts apparently . We do love a good debate .

In relevant news: Just to make you all aware that the police are to arrest anyone that "upsets mourners" at wednesdays funeral. The whole statement that was made in regards to who exactly should be arrested is VERY vague, and due to the fact that literally THOUSANDS of people showed up to hold a party in Trafalgar Square on saturday evening (i was not present) in the wake of Thatcher's death, it could be interesting what events actually unfold.

A friend of mine who is a photographer was at Trafalgar on saturday, you can read his post and view his pictures here. Not surprised that none of this was shown on our national TV, even though it is highly newsworthy. But thats a bias media for you i guess

R A D I O M O T H S

(be advised there are some NSFW pics in there)

My

Police don't need to tell you a reason they might arrest people for whatever reason, that's what 'breach of the peace' is.

'Im arresting you because I don't want you here/don't like you/whatever other reason', you can be held for 24 hours without charge if you're arrested for breach of the peace.

And anyway, define upsetting. People are out to mourn the death of a human being, regardless of how you feel about them you don't have the right to actively go out with the soul wish to cause those people distress. Not in this country at least, and rightly so, otherwise we'd have our own Westboro Baptist Church having the right to storm the funerals of soldiers etc. Protest to the government, not your peers.

 

[Dan]

Police don't need to tell you a reason they might arrest people for whatever reason, that's what 'breach of the peace' is.

'Im arresting you because I don't want you here/don't like you/whatever other reason', you can be held for 24 hours without charge if you're arrested for breach of the peace.

And anyway, define upsetting. People are out to mourn the death of a human being, regardless of how you feel about them you don't have the right to actively go out with the soul wish to cause those people distress. Not in this country at least, and rightly so, otherwise we'd have our own Westboro Baptist Church having the right to storm the funerals of soldiers etc. Protest to the government, not your peers.

That last sentence, "Protest to the government, not your peers": The protests across the country have been protesting to the government. Thatcher was once the head of the government and a vast number of people in this country don't believe that 10 million pounds should have been spent on the funeral of a woman who in the eyes of many destroyed much of what was great about Britains industry.

We've just had £11.6 million "unavoidable" arts funding cuts for this year, yet we can spent £10 million on the public funeral of a woman that many people actually detested. What is fair about that?

I fully agree that causing distress at a funeral is wrong, however with such strong opinions against her i believe she should have had a private funeral, and should not have been paraded around the capital like she was the greatest thing to have ever happened to our country.

Lastly police do need to explain what they are arresting someone for, there should ALWAYS be a reason with which to arrest someone in the first place; otherwise any police officer could just arrest anyone simply because they felt like it. There is a difference between breach of the peace and freedom of speech and expression.

If someone is arrested for turning their back on a parade to a woman they feel caused more harm than help, and it upsets people who never even knew that woman, how can it be classed as disturbing the peace? It's a peaceful protest in my opinion given the nature of the funeral. It all boils down to opinion and taste at the end of the day.

 

[GatherTheArsenal]

I only just found out who this person Margaret Thatcher is only after she died, if i didn't see her name in the news i wouldn't know who she is, surprisingly, because it doesn't exactly sound like she was living under a rock or anything.

I wonder if the same thing happened to Tupac.