Media's Handling of Thatchers Death - Small comparison within.

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tykonos
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 





Her policies robbed future generations of jobs and prosperity. You want to know where the Jeremy Kyle culture came from i can tell you it didnt happen all by itself.


For a start, I am no fan of Thatcher. As expressed in a previous thread I too grew up in a mining town in the North East and know full well of the damage caused to the working class people through that era.

Is it a clear cut case of one evil woman, tearing away the jobs of whole towns for no reason but to relish in causing pain and suffering to poor people? No, it wasn't profitable anymore. Should we really carry on subsidising an industry at the expense of all tax payers just to keep jobs? What good economic sense is that?

There was little help for those communities once the pits closed but the standard of living has improved in those areas since then.

Were the Unions blameless at all in any way? Yes, they were too powerful and ended up becoming harmful to the economic stability of our Country.

Even our car industry became 'a joke' due to lack of supply, purely down to Union interference making our workforce a joke to outward investors.

There are many policies of hers that I don't agree with. Is it all one sided? No!

Those of us that are sickened at the lack of respect for the dead are labelled as Tory, Thatcher loving toffs who view her time in office through rose-coloured glasses. Not true!

Most people that I've witnessed celebrating her death weren't even alive during that era. Sure, hate her policies but respect the recently dead.



You're right, its not one-sided, but if you put on the box and watch some news coverage it might strike you as if it were. As ive said previously, im not going to celebrate her death but i will challenge the media's representation of her and i think she is wholly undeserving of a funeral with full military honours, never mind being burred in St Pauls.

Perhaps people are forgetting that those people who were effected by her polices have never really grieved properly over the pain she caused, so naturally, it all comes to light in her death. For those who lived through it, it is the end of a long chapter. For the people who are effected by her policies today, it is a time of reflection of what has been lost due to greed. The youth have been sold into slavery thanks to this woman. People have a right to be angry, people have a right to grieve by celebrating her passing and most of all, we have a right to openly criticise her "contribution" to British politics, even if she was a wife, mother and daughter.




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Yes but it wasn't "some" people - It was half the fricking country. Bush STILL got re-elected after his first term and he was an idiot. - Re-election means NOTHING. The britain we live in today - Where living stands have dropped, prices for basic utilities are through the roof, housing crisis, lack of well paid secure jobs can all be traced back to her government. This country has been broken ever since.


Depends how you define some... re-election does mean something, are you serious? Bush got re-elected because people voted for him... not everyone is a conspiracy theorist and thinks like you or I. I live in Britain so I'm not sure why your telling me what I already know but I put the blame on Blair and Brown for spending money they didn't have, check out the facts on this if you want.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
And you cant say that she did this country more good than harm because other area's flourished.


I didn't say that but out of interest why can't I say that?


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
She did so, seemingly without regard for the lives her decisions would effect.


Seemingly yes, but the fact is they were decisions that had to be made.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
I might be more inclined when the media stops kissing her ass like she was the best thing since sliced bread.


I agree with you there but that's the media for you, it's to sell papers etc. I never said she was the best thing since sliced bread but why hold back on considering another point of view because of the media?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I would like to know what alternative was available to her (or anyone) with regards to the state of the economy in the 70's and 80's. Nationalised industry could not continue in its form without change, the simple fact of it is that many were not profitable. Like it or not, business isn't there to provide jobs while ignoring the market conditions in which it operates.


Not all of the nationalised industries should of been privatised or moth-balled.

The internal structures of those organisations and militant driven Union interference all had 'fear of change'. That is to blame for many of those industries not being profitable.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Tykonos
 


Indeed and I am of the mind that privatisation shouldn't be the end target - I have nothing against state owned industry, but it has to be efficient and fit for purpose.

Fact of the matter is though, had the mines not been nationalised during and after the war, we wouldn't have had the problem in the 80's as many would have shut anyway.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by II HAL II

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Yes but it wasn't "some" people - It was half the fricking country. Bush STILL got re-elected after his first term and he was an idiot. - Re-election means NOTHING. The britain we live in today - Where living stands have dropped, prices for basic utilities are through the roof, housing crisis, lack of well paid secure jobs can all be traced back to her government. This country has been broken ever since.


Depends how you define some... re-election does mean something, are you serious? Bush got re-elected because people voted for him... not everyone is a conspiracy theorist and thinks like you or I. I live in Britain so I'm not sure why your telling me what I already know but I put the blame on Blair and Brown for spending money they didn't have, check out the facts on this if you want.


You dont see me sat here defending them either, "new labour" was a right wing farce, although ironically elected into power with the tune of "Things can only get better" - And for many people, they did. Bush might have been re-elected but that's not necessarily because he was the right person for the job, for some people he was just a better option at the time.


I didn't say that but out of interest why can't I say that?


You said i cant say she was bad for the country because many people suffered, i simply flipped your logic to counter this rose-tinted view.


Seemingly yes, but the fact is they were decisions that had to be made.


Absolutely, but you cant just turn off peoples water supply and expect them to know where they're going to get another from. She wilfully put 3 million people in the dole and expected them to help themselves without any jobs actually being available for them. Those people weren't work shy, their livelihoods snatched away from them and replaced with NOTHING.


I agree with you there but that's the media for you, it's to sell papers etc. I never said she was the best thing since sliced bread but why hold back on considering another point of view because of the media?


I'm not dismissing your point of view, but generally i feel she was bad for this country. The way she went about changing things did more harm than good and that is evident when there are people gathering to celebrate your passing as if it really is the death of an evil dictator.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Are people forgetting what life was like prior to her arrival at number 10?

It's like we had no poor working class and all lived in a utopian society before one woman came along and destroyed the core fabric of every aspect of society.

I've no problem with debate on her policies. Like I say, I'm no fan of Thatcher.

However the sight of people publicly celebrating her very recent death is shameful on those who take and took part. The death of any loved one is hurtful enough but to see public celebrations is as twisted and cruel as the 'reasons' they give for their public show of happiness at her death.



edit on 9-4-2013 by Tykonos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
I remember leaving school on a Friday and starting work on the Monday. I and everyone else (all ages) could choose from several industries which were thriving at the time - sewing machinists got paid for piece-work in underwear factories, clothing factories, and hosiery, building industry, steelworkers, coal mines, thousands of jobs for everyone every day of the week, all within walking distance - those days you could walk out of your house and land any job within minutes.

I worked as a skilled machinist in the textile industry for years from leaving school, I would love to go back to it, but sadly all the textile factories and all our industry are no more. Folk didn't HAVE to claim dole money and benefits in those days. There were plenty of jobs for everyone. Then Thatcher came along, and the days of thriving industry and the jobs they provided were finished.

Nowdays, it's the other way around - there are thousands of people for one job which you have to travel miles to get to. There are no local jobs here where I live anymore. It's all agency work who send you all over the district for a few hours of crummy warehouse work - just to rip you off by paying minimum pay, while they cream off the difference the companies are paying them for you.

If only we still had our industries.
edit on 9-4-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


None of what you say can be landed anywhere near Thatcher as a sole recipient of blame.

First off, it's a bit of a spin when you say no one was on the dole - no, many were employed in unprofitable and bloated state industry instead - same thing, pretty much, but costing a damned site more.

Secondly, with globalisation taking off it is inevitable that low-skill, low paid jobs like textiles etc would disappear. This would have happened with or without Thatcher. Unless, of course, you're advocating protectionism?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tykonos
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Are people forgetting what life was like prior to her arrival at number 10?

It's like we had no poor working class and all lived in a utopian society before one woman came along and destroyed the core fabric of every aspect of society.


But she diddestroy the core fabric of society. Her policies shaped the country we have today and although there might be nothing to the visible eye (such as the rubbish being taken care of, bodies being burred) this country is broken because of her and other governments that came after. Was she the lesser of two evils? No, she just invented her own version of it. The way they're air-brushing her you'd think she single-handedly saved this country and MADE it a utopia!


Which is true if you became extremely wealthy from her time in government



I've no problem with debate on her policies. Like I say, I'm no fan of Thatcher.


And im not denying she had a difficult job im just saying it could have been handled better and that the media shouldn't be trying to make the sun shine out of her arse.


However the sight of people publicly celebrating her very recent death is shameful on those who take and took part.


Live by the sword, die by the sword. When you enter public office, you enter public opinion. Guess what? People have something to say so let them be heard.


The death of any loved one is hurtful enough but to see public celebrations is as twisted and cruel as the 'reasons' they give for their public show of happiness at her death.


You cant demand respect from people, it has to be earned. There's a good reason why half of this country doesn't respect her. The problem here is that people refuse to be passive about her death when the well off and the elites want to use her death to highlight her harsh policies to justify the cuts and the attacks they're making on the working poor today. Comes naturally to them to want to silence the great unwashed.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I thought she had funny looking hair.

She probably could have changed the style some to appeal to a broader demographic.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by doobydoll
 


None of what you say can be landed anywhere near Thatcher as a sole recipient of blame.

First off, it's a bit of a spin when you say no one was on the dole - no, many were employed in unprofitable and bloated state industry instead - same thing, pretty much, but costing a damned site more.

Secondly, with globalisation taking off it is inevitable that low-skill, low paid jobs like textiles etc would disappear. This would have happened with or without Thatcher. Unless, of course, you're advocating protectionism?

First off, I never said NO-ONE was on the dole, but it wasn't anywhere near widespread like now. And you can't deny that life for Brits was much better before she came along, although many would have us believe that the majority of people today choose not to work, but are 'living the dream' on benefits


Manufacturing jobs such textiles and hosiery WERE NOT low-paid jobs at all, they paid piece-work rates and we worked damned hard and earned good wages, not some 'minimum pay' pittance which no-one can live on. Women could stay home to raise kids because their husbands then earned a proper wage. Top-up benefits didn't exist because they weren't needed.

Different now though.

I'm not advocating protectionism, but a good Prime Minister should do more than run the country as a for-profit business, there is the society who voted for you to think about and take care of too.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by doobydoll
 


I am sorry chief but what planet are you living on if you think life for the average Brit was way better before Thatcher? Take off the rose tinted spectacles - the 1970's were bloody horrible and a #ty period in our history.

Thatcher did what had to be done and i for one am extremely thankful she did what she did. And, before any accusations start, i grew up in the Selby Coalfield area. I have very abrupt experience of the changes she affected in this country. Frankly, i wish we still had Politicians like her.

However, i digress. Some loved her, some loathed her. There is no need for the rose tinted specs though, it simply doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
I thought she had funny looking hair.

She probably could have changed the style some to appeal to a broader demographic.


Funny, she did actually change her whole image to appeal to the people.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by magma
I thought she had funny looking hair.

She probably could have changed the style some to appeal to a broader demographic.


I think she actually had her hair like that to look softer. No I don't get it either.
Still it was a fairly popular hairdo for woman of a certain age. My Dept Headmistress was the spit of her, hairdo, clothes..You'd have had trouble telling them apart.

She even nailed the voice and the way she'd look at you like you were dog mess under her shoe.

To be fair it's a toss up who I disliked more.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
I would like to know what alternative was available to her (or anyone) with regards to the state of the economy in the 70's and 80's. Nationalised industry could not continue in its form without change, the simple fact of it is that many were not profitable. Like it or not, business isn't there to provide jobs while ignoring the market conditions in which it operates.


WHY were they not profitable ?.....Incompetence or was it part of the agenda to run them down till privatisation was the only viable option, to make more troughs for the little piggies to feed from.

Then selling off all the social housing with right to buy, which was only a ploy to put a ball and chain around peoples necks so they could not afford to go on strike !!.....but now many of these houses have ended up in the hands of more piggies making money from increased rents in the lettings sector that has lead to the housing boom.

Nah, I think she should have a memorial placed over her grave.....

Something like this



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
First off, I never said NO-ONE was on the dole, but it wasn't anywhere near widespread like now. And you can't deny that life for Brits was much better before she came along, although many would have us believe that the majority of people today choose not to work, but are 'living the dream' on benefits



Actually, I can deny that life in 1970's Britain wasn't great. In fact, it was pretty crap - 3 day working week, rampant inflation, shoddy fashion... Seriously, it is totally dishonest of you to try and paint some Utopian picture of 1970's Britain.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Manufacturing jobs such textiles and hosiery WERE NOT low-paid jobs at all, they paid piece-work rates and we worked damned hard and earned good wages, not some 'minimum pay' pittance which no-one can live on.


Exactly - hence why when trade barriers came down, those jobs left. Why pay someone X to sew a shirt, when you pay someone else X/10? Like I said, this would have happened with or without Thatcher, unless of course you're advocating protectionist measures?


Originally posted by doobydoll
Women could stay home to raise kids because their husbands then earned a proper wage. Top-up benefits didn't exist because they weren't needed.


You're conveniently forgetting the fact there was very little to waste your money on! Life was cheaper, because it was simpler. Having said that, it's all relative. Owning a house, for a great many people, was impossible prior to Thatcher, most rented and had little prospect of actually owning their home.There were no mobile phones, fuel was cheaper as pretty much the rest of the world outside Europe and the US was still pre-industrial.

Despite all that though, there are still a great many families around the country who only have a single income and do fine. In one breath, you pass sweeping generalisations while looking at history through rose tinted glasses.


Originally posted by doobydoll
Different now though.


Exactly, times change and we had to in the 80's. We were running the country pretty much the same way from the end of the War up until Thatcher and it wasn't working. Had the miners been constructive, as some Unions were, then the impact would have been massively different. You can thank Skargill for making it personal with Thatcher.

You're also ignoring the fact it was the NCB that proposed such cuts to the mining and had been doing so since the late 1960's. It is again far to convenient to blame Thatcher alone. .


Originally posted by doobydoll
I'm not advocating protectionism, but a good Prime Minister should do more than run the country as a for-profit business, there is the society who voted for you to think about and take care of too.


Exactly, but on the one hand your saying she should have thought about the miners and the other your saying she should thing about Society and who voted for you... Can't have it both ways. Society as a whole was paying hundreds of thousands of miners wages to get a product that was vastly cheaper elsewhere.

The industry was inefficient, it needed reform and the NMU under Skargill made it far worse by fighting change. Thatcher took it personally and went even further than the NCB advised, but make sure when you're having a bitch that you include everyone involved.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by doobydoll
 


I am sorry chief but what planet are you living on if you think life for the average Brit was way better before Thatcher? Take off the rose tinted spectacles - the 1970's were bloody horrible and a #ty period in our history.

Thatcher did what had to be done and i for one am extremely thankful she did what she did. And, before any accusations start, i grew up in the Selby Coalfield area. I have very abrupt experience of the changes she affected in this country. Frankly, i wish we still had Politicians like her.

However, i digress. Some loved her, some loathed her. There is no need for the rose tinted specs though, it simply doesn't reflect the reality of the situation.

I too speak from experience. We had the pick of jobs when I left school, way up until after I got married and had kids. I didn't have one friend who was jobless. In fact, I can honestly say I didn't know anyone who didn't go to work. Now you're telling me that life is better now? Not where I come from it isn't, not a chance.

One thing I willl say in Maggie's favour though, I doubt she would have let the EU force us into taking in Europe's destitute and forcing us to feed, clothe and house them with our taxpayer money, like lily-livered Cameron has.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
WHY were they not profitable ?.....Incompetence or was it part of the agenda to run them down till privatisation was the only viable option, to make more troughs for the little piggies to feed from.


Why? Partly owing to the Unions demanding more and more pay for the miners when the cost of the product was falling, maybe? It could be minded cheaper anywhere else on the planet, the Unions priced the miners out the market over the course of years, it's what they do.

Higher wages mean higher subs for the Unions, which means cosier pads for the likes of Skargill to live in rent free while collecting six figure pensions.. Proper man of the people, real workers champion....



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by ken10
WHY were they not profitable ?.....Incompetence or was it part of the agenda to run them down till privatisation was the only viable option, to make more troughs for the little piggies to feed from.


Why? Partly owing to the Unions demanding more and more pay for the miners when the cost of the product was falling, maybe? It could be minded cheaper anywhere else on the planet, the Unions priced the miners out the market over the course of years, it's what they do.

Higher wages mean higher subs for the Unions, which means cosier pads for the likes of Skargill to live in rent free while collecting six figure pensions.. Proper man of the people, real workers champion....


Oh come on, do you think miners were rich ?.....Look at the conditions they had to work in, they deserved more.

What was at fault was cheap imports, British manufacturing should have been protected. Imports of cheap materials and labour has been detrimental to the British workforce, and Thatchers policies helped in this.

imo of course

Oh and btw Scargill may have been paid too much, but he did his job, he went to war against Thatcher to try and protect and improve the miners standards of living.
edit on 9-4-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
An example of what Thatcher did for us.........

Pre Thatcher, the tax on unearned income (savings, dividends, etc) was 98%. This prevented people from investing in industry. The result? Industry starved of investment, opportunities to grow, etc.

The top bracket of income tax was 83%.

How is history already judging her economic policies? Quite simple - she is viewed as making Britain have a sound economy again and ensuring that Sterling remained a valued currency. This shouldn't be underestimated as, quite simply, by the late 1970's Britain was almost completely bankrupt.





top topics
 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join