Margaret Thatcher dies

[ahinton]

What is wrong are the melo-dramatic people who charge in sanctimoniuosly with their demands to "delete the RIP" reference, but are happy with "ding-dong the witch is dead" headlines that are purely gender-based stereo-types. And top it all, from people who should know better, claim to be caring people and have no insight into their subconscious mysogyny.

I have no interest in either "ding-dong the witch is dead" as a headline and my only reservation about the appropriateness of "RIP" in it is borne out by the sheer volume of material about her and her legacy that's issued forth from all manner of sources since the announcement of her death just two days ago, all of which demonstrates that the likelihood of her resting in peace (or being regarded as doing so) is about as remote as that of my writing a better quartet than the C# minor one; that, however, makes no difference to my view of her and her legacy. I suspect that she might have had it in her to be one of Britain's greatest prime ministers but, in standing in her own light and most other people's instead, she wreaked havoc for more people than voted Tory in the 1979 General Election.

[Beef Oven]

No answer from Beef Oven again.

That's because I don't take you seriously Richard Barrett.

But so you know, I'm deeply suspicious of people who are armchair theorists. Especially ones that actually fear real life experience and want to reduce such valid existential phenomena to 'colourful anectdotes'.

Those people do not like the real life experiences of real people for two reasons. Firstly, it contradicts their cosy sterile armchair view of the world (it's just too bloody inconvenient to factor in the real world). Secondly, they have no colourful anecdotes themselves and on an individual level, it is an uncomfortable reality to contemplate. Do by all means contradict me with even the slightest interesting tit-bit about your life (a reasonable request since you are still pursuing me on the subject).

Anyhow, I've taken the trouble to lift a bit of wiki for you to get going on existentialism. I'm only trying to be helpful.

" Existentialism is a term applied to the work of a number of late 19th- and 20th-century philosophers who, despite profound doctrinal differences,[1][2][3] shared the belief that philosophical thinking begins with the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.[4] In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.[5] Many existentialists have also regarded traditional systematic or academic philosophies, in both style and content, as too abstract and remote from concrete human experience.[6][7]"

[Richard Barrett]

she wanted to see a peaceful transition from apartheid, a system that she found abhorrent.

If that was the case why did she oppose international calls for trade sanctions against South Africa (which of course the ANC also called for)? Because her cronies were making too much money there. So much for principles.

[Beef Oven]

Hollywood history not your strong suit then, Beefy?

Don't trivialise it Amsy.

".....purely gender-based stereo-types. And top it all, from people who should know better, claim to be caring people and have no insight into their subconscious mysogyny"

[Richard Barrett]

I have plenty of colourful anecdotes and "real-life experiences" Beef Oven, probably many more than you do, I just don't think they have relevance to a discussion of political issues on the larger scale. If colourful anecdotes are what it takes to be taken seriously by you, that's a game I'm not interested in playing, and being as patronising as you are only makes you look more foolish.

[ahinton]

That's because I don't take you seriously Richard Barrett.

Then it's high time that you did; I do not agree with all that he writes, but what he writes is always the product of genuine knowledge and research.

But so you know, I'm deeply suspicious of people who are armchair theorists. Especially ones that actually fear real life experience and want to reduce such valid existential phenomena to 'colourful anectdotes'.

But what does this have to do with discussions here in general and Mr Barrett's contributions to them in particular?

Those people do not like the real life experiences of real people for two reasons. Firstly, it contradicts their cosy sterile armchair view of the world (it's just too bloody inconvenient to factor in the real world). Secondly, they have no colourful anecdotes themselves and on an individual level, it is an uncomfortable reality to contemplate. Do by all means contradict me with even the slightest interesting tit-bit about your life (a reasonable request since you are still pursuing me on the subject).

Which people? And who among them is contributing to this thread in any case, whoever they may be?

What's been widely discussed here is the prime ministerial office and subsequent legacy of Margaret Thatcher, on which opinions will, of course vary enormously in accordance with the pertinent personal experiences and the nature and extent of the political beliefs of each contributor; as it is far from obvious that any "cosy sterile armchair view of the world" has permeated much if indeed any of the now more than 500 posts here (although as I've never encountered a sterile armchair I might be missing something), the purpose of your reference to existentialism in the present context is likewise far from obvious.

[amateur51]

Don't trivialise it Amsy.

".....purely gender-based stereo-types. And top it all, from people who should know better, claim to be caring people and have no insight into their subconscious mysogyny"

Nice try, Beefy. Have a think about who the Wizard is and come back when your face has stopped smarting with embarrassment. Or are you too frightened of eggs?

[John Wright]

Not much been said here about one of the main causes of the high 1980s unemployment (and its rise started with Labour) and that was cheap imports. I mentioned in an earlier post that that's what killed my first employer Courtaulds. Cheap imports flooded into Britain in the 1980s thanks to greedy importers who were not controlled. If the government had installed some strict border product quality checks could that not have slowed down the imports?

Today go into a pound shop, for example, all those work tools, shampoos and cleaning products, toothpastes, home utensils, stationery etc etc before 1970 all those products were MADE IN BRITAIN, but look at the labels in the pound shop and you'll see the vast majority are made overseas. Most of the British factories who made these types of products went bust in the 1980s and 1990s.

I said look at the labels, but also look at the prices - yes most of the items ARE £1. How can Britain compete when a decent wage here has to be at least £10 an hour?

And of course not just in the pound shops, all those imported day-to-day goods are also on sale in Tesco, Asda etc - priced at more than a pound!

Just looking for comment on my last posting. Can't see any.

As well as the cheap imports, people forget (unaware) that the high unemployment of the 1980s was much due to inefficiencies of British manufacturing. Huge changes were necessary and the auto industry led the way - encouraged by the quality culture of Toyota and Nissan (who built plants here) and also BMW who now own the old Rover Cowley plant (new Mini plant).

[ahinton]

Oooh, a dead-giveaway!!!

Er, no; Richard Barrett wrote "real-life experiences". What has life cannot be dead.

[Beef Oven]

Nice try, Beefy. Have a think about who the Wizard is and come back when your face has stopped smarting with embarrassment. Or are you too frightened of eggs?

Amsy, I don't know what you're on about, you've lost me (I know what the Wizard Of Oz reference can mean, just don't get it's relevance here) . Remember, I'm not politicallly correct, or left-wing, or even interested in all that. But do point out anything that I've ever posted that's racist, homophobic or sexist (not that I worry about such things).

[eighthobstruction]

This I respect

What is wrong are the melo-dramatic people who charge in sanctimoniuosly with their demands to "delete the RIP" reference, but are happy with "ding-dong the witch is dead" headlines that are purely gender-based stereo-types. And top it all, from people who should know better, claim to be caring people and have no insight into their subconscious mysogyny.

Trouble enough having insight into my protracted analysis of my conscious mysogynynynynyny....funnily [ha ha] lack insight is something I have thought about you since you graced this board a bakers dozen months ago....jokes and asides limited in humour and content, in fact more like a greasey smear of chip rapper text across the page and interupting many a thread and throwing them off kilter....and people (I for one) ended up having to pay your one line muck attention....attention graber ? (Oh no??!! lack of insight on YOUR part....)
Anyway, at least in the ridiculous post you just made about Richard Barrett (which no one but you will believe)you managed to break past 100words....even though it was entirely unfounded in truth and presuming knowledge that you cannot even possibly know, let alone compute...There you are , a little more attention for you.....satisfied....

[Beef Oven]

I have plenty of colourful anecdotes and "real-life experiences" Beef Oven, probably many more than you do.......

Oooh, a dead-giveaway!!!

[eighthobstruction]

One realises one isn't talking to a child....but something like one....IS IT A BATTLE????........>>>>Oooh, a dead-giveaway!!! , <<<< what an immature shambolic manner in which to post (I won't call it debate)....

I'm sorry BeefOven but it is you that is being melodramatic....but your dying swan act is just DEAD DUCK....everyone can see it even people pro your arguments ....you are bullying RB for no other reason that one you must yoursel know or have imagined....(and yes indeed RB is more than capable of answering you himself)[but how is he to respond to a bizarre word puke of an answer like >>>>Oooh, a dead-giveaway!!! <<<<....

[scottycelt]

I think you are forgetting Pee that there were Para-militaries on both sides.....the Protestant UDF etc (who were aided by the British state [and who knows : condoned....My read ing of History is that the 60's trouble started when the Protestants started to make viloence on the Catholics (Perhaps Scotty knows something about this ?[genuine plea for info])....

My memory is that people of the Nationalist community were attacked by some on the Unionist side which resulted in the British Army being called in ... I even recollect photos of Nationalist women giving the British soldiers cups of tea and cakes in gratitude! However, as we all know, that didn't last long and tribal divisions have been there for centuries.

There certainly has been officially-recognised collusion between the British Army and 'Loyalist' groups. David Cameron recently 'apologised' for that in Parliament. Of course as it was the IRA that was attacking the Army and planting bombs in England maybe such collusion was inevitable in such a dirty war. I once read that 'Loyalist' groups were responsible for around twice as many murders as the IRA, though I don't know whether that is true or not.

A plague on all paramilitaries as far as I'm concerned. Fortunately, things are rather better now and let's hope things get better still.

[Stillhomewardbound]

This is a brief coda to my piece on the failings of the right-to-buy scheme on Pg.48:


it was the Earl of Stockton, Harold MacMillan, who doughtily (but also with wily mischievousness) complained about MT 'selling off the family silver'. He was responding particularly to the various privatisation programmes, not necessarily council housing, but even so, those words have always stuck with me because they contain within the folly of selling off an asset. That is, you can sell it only once. You had something. You sold it, and there is nothing you can do to hang on to a piece of it for those on whose behalf you sold, regardless of how it may bloom and soar in value. MT's argument for privatisations was always, 'the private sector always does these things so much better'. In the years that have ensued I have only seen the private sector excel in one respect and that is making money for the shareholders and directors and doing all it can to minimise its tax obligations. All this, while, applying charges and profit margins that would never have been dreamt of in days of public ownership.