Originally posted by Beef Oven
View Post
Margaret Thatcher dies
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Sydney Grew View PostEmily Lau, a former reporter and current legislator, recalled asking Mrs. Thatcher during her 1984 visit to Hong Kong whether it was morally defensible to deliver six million Hong Kong residents - most of them British - into the hands of a communist dictatorship. Mrs. Thatcher replied that she believed most Hong Kong people accepted the arrangement, and rudely and offensively suggested that Miss Lau was perhaps the "solitary exception."
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by eighthobstruction View PostThank goodness she died now and not near to May 2015 elections....(thinking pragmatically as was her wont)....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostExactly.
An "armchair sociologist" writes: actually I don't even own an armchair, apart from which the only substance in your jibe, Beef Oven, seems to be that some prefer to find some objective evidence to support their arguments while others depend on personal anecdotes, which in your case seem to be coloured by a certain bitterness. Like Serial_Apologist I think the cooperative qualities of humankind are more significant than the competitive ones, and I try to live my life according to that principle. However, if I were to cast around for an example of a person whose "cooperative qualities" were stunted to a pathological degree, the name Thatcher would come to mind fairly quickly.bong ching
Comment
-
-
Beef Oven
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostDon't worry. There is plenty (plenty) of evidence that we have evolved as a co-operative species. The same is true of many creatures, but it is especially true of humans. Of course, this is behaviour that developed mainly when we lived in small groups, each member of whom was probably closely related to the rest. Hence our empathy and willingness to collaborate, even though we now live in large groups. We have lived in fixed communities for only a few thousand years or so (as compared to at least 2-3 million years as hunter-gatherers) so we haven't lost our inborn gregariousness. Particular individuals may have lost it, of course, but not most of society as a whole. Oh!...there's no such thing as society? Must be, else what I've said can't be true. And it is.
As for a creator, I've no idea what one of those is, but it probably had no part in the natural process I've described above, since we understand that very well and a creator doesn't get a look-in.
As for the creator bit, just a figure of speech - I have no idea how we all got here. Answers on a postcard please, to someone who cares.
Comment
-
Beef Oven
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostExactly.
An "armchair sociologist" writes: actually I don't even own an armchair, apart from which the only substance in your jibe, Beef Oven, seems to be that some prefer to find some objective evidence to support their arguments while others depend on personal anecdotes, which in your case seem to be coloured by a certain bitterness. Like Serial_Apologist I think the cooperative qualities of humankind are more significant than the competitive ones, and I try to live my life according to that principle. However, if I were to cast around for an example of a person whose "cooperative qualities" were stunted to a pathological degree, the name Thatcher would come to mind fairly quickly.
And it wasn't a jibe about that armchair. Some people prefer to stay in the abstract, because reality (or personal anecdotes as you call it) contradicts the theoretical world they want to live in.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rauschwerk View PostA glance at some figures suggests that Mrs Thatcher enjoyed a good deal of luck during her premiership.
During the 1970s, the price of oil rose from around 15 US$/barrel to nearly 90, peaking in 1980. No government of that period really knew how to respond. It's easy but, in my view, simplistic to blame solely the trade unions for the resulting mess. Fortunately for Mrs T, North Sea Oil began to flow in the early 1980s and the price of oil fell sharply: by 1985 it was US50$/barrel and a year later only $25 (figures adjusted for US$ inflation).
As for economic growth: between the recessions of 1980 and 1991, it was higher than it had been in the late 70s but on average was no better than it had been in the 60s. So much for a Thatcherite economic miracle. Where did all that oil money actually go?
Further strokes of luck for Mrs T included the Falklands invasion, repelled shortly before a general election, and the leadership of the NUM during the miners' strike by a a man who evidently had no political nous.
Under Mrs T, inequality (the gap between the incomes of the richest and poorest 10%) increased by 40 percent, with thoroughly damaging effects on society. No succeeding administration has even attempted to reduce it.
Where did the oil money go ? On paying unemployment benefit for 3.6 million and invalidity benefit for loads of others who were encouraged on the sick to keep the unemployment figures down .
Without North Sea Oil she would have bankrupted us in 1982 - with the stratospheric high pound and high interest rates.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostBut let's not forget she was also surrounded by a band of rogues and psychopaths (much as Cameron is now)Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
Mark Twain.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Richard Barrett View PostIt seems to be hard to separate the anger that many of us still feel about the damage wreaked by Thatcher and her gang in the 1980s (and continued by her successors, of course) from the person herself. Objectively one can understand that it's acts and not people that are "evil". On a more personal level, however, I remember the daily sight and sound of Thatcher on the TV eventually made me feel physically sick, and they still do, and this is one moment when I'm most glad not to live in the UK any more, because I dare say that sight and sound have been much in evidence over the last couple of days.
You refer above to "Thatcher and her gang" and, in a more recent post, you wrote "let's not forget she was also surrounded by a band of rogues and psychopaths (much as Cameron is now) without whom her programme wouldn't have got very far: Tebbit, Howard, Joseph, Parkinson, Ridley, to name a few of the most egregious, plus all the lower-profile scoundrels like "Dame" Shirley Porter"; as a matter of interest - and given both Mrs Thatcher's near-paranoid single-mindedness and the ways in which she was finally disposed of by senior members of her own party - how differently (if at all) do you suppose the 1980s might have played out in Britain had she been unable to attract the support of her henchmen and really had to try to go it alone? In other words, to what extent do you perceive that we're looking solely at Mrs Thatcher and her self-designed legacy or to what extent might we in reality be considering the actions and consequences of a bunch of broadly like-minded people with Mrs Thatcher as their most vociferously obsessive rottwelier-in-charge?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostBlimey, of all the garbage I've read in the last 24 hours, that pretty much takes the biscuit.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahinton View PostNot a sweet biscuit, it would seem, from the way that you write this - but why do you say so? Do you believe that Mrs Thatcher would have said and done what she said and did irrespective of the kinds of people in her entourage that Richard Barrett has mentioned? What you write doesn't really make your view on this clear.Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.
Mark Twain.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostI should have thought it is perfectly clear. To describe Lady Thatcher's cabinet colleagues as "rogues and psycopaths" is not only inaccurate and offensive- although both those descriptions seem to fit much of the venomous bile being spouted on this thread- but it is also quite possibly slanderous.
I'm sure they can take it as they are supposedly "successful" people
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostI should have thought it is perfectly clear. To describe Lady Thatcher's cabinet colleagues as "rogues and psycopaths" is not only inaccurate and offensive- although both those descriptions seem to fit much of the venomous bile being spouted on this thread- but it is also quite possibly slanderous.
Comment
-
Comment