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

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Just answered this question in a previous reply to you.


On this we disagree, all I see is one woman being blamed for every mistake of every government since.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
The unions may have had a great deal of power but completely removing them from the equation of politics i feel has done a great deal of harm to the working classes.


I have to tell you that we do still have unions. The difference is that they are not (currently) blackmailing the country and causing massive disruption to peoples lives and harming the financial stability of the country.

I support unions when they have a good argument. I don't support unions when they are greedy, and demanding more than their share at the detriment of the rest of the country.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Riot? No.
Gather? Yes.
Celebrate without violence or damage to property and the like? Yes.


Indeed. I have been highly critical of the police in response to protests in London and elsewhere all my adult life. I do not trust them one little bit.
But, I also know when to call a spade a spade, and many of those partying in the street are ignorant of the facts, and they are causing damage. So I expect the police to do what they are paid to do and maintain public order.

Would we expect any less if it were a radical religious group, a Nazi party or the EDL? No, I would expect the police to do their job and protect the innocent people and their businesses in the area. And that is what they are doing.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Calling people low-lifes is a bit harsh i believe. Working class people now have such a stigma in this country because they cant survive in post-thatcher's Briton - they're being blamed for it like its their own fault.


I am always supportive of a genuine cause. But, in my personal opinion, and from my own personal experiences, Brixton is not the poverty-stricken place those people like to pretend that it is.

I come from a working class family, my parents worked themselves to death to support our family, and I have sisters living day to day with their kids and struggling. But both are now striving to build their own businesses.

My generalization might be unfair, but I refer to those partying in the street more than the general population there. I'm referring to those who destroy their own community rather than get off their lazy butt and work to improve things for themselves.

You know, I was there in Brixton just last month, to see a band play at the Academy, and you know what surprised me the most? For a poverty-stricken place their pubs are heaving! We walked into one pub - and considering this was the middle of a working week - and it was packed to overflowing.

It really did make me question how people struggling so much as we are led to believe can afford to sit in a pub all night in the middle of the week. I could have understood if those people were tourists there for the gig like we were, but they clearly weren't. They were all locals, and the place was heaving.

Where I live no pub is that busy, and we have far fewer of them in a wealthier area than Brixton is supposed to be. So how can an area that's "supposed" to be worse off than where I currently live support that kind of night life in the middle of the week?

It might be unfair, and it might be just a little anecdotal snapshot giving a warped opinion. But nevertheless, it makes me question the reality of that area of London. If it is so bad there, the pubs should not be doing that well, and that's a fact.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Seems to be no difference between left and right these days in parliament.


On that we agree also.
But is that such a bad thing? It's great to see the ConDem's pushing through equality in gay marriage, and it's depressing to the Dems supporting some of the harshest cuts the country has ever seen. It's all swings and roundabouts I suppose.
But, this doesn't change the facts of the debate.
Even as a leftist and liberal all my life, I can understand what Britain was like before her, I can understand the decisions she made economically, and I cannot understand the people who refuse to recognize the facts and like to pretend that she was guilty for everything every government since has done or failed to do.




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by stumason
 





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....

You mean like MP's do now? Except they dip in the taxpayer pot instead of union chiefs dipping in the subs.

Whatever Scargill got out of it, at least we all could enjoy a decent life back then, not just rich folk and MP's.


But that's just it, people were not enjoying a higher quality of life back then! You're rewriting history to justify your animosity towards one woman!
It is a matter of recorded fact that the mining industry had already collapsed, they were holding the entire nation to ransom with blackouts, demanding insane wage hikes and threatening the democratic process!

The nation was in a massive decline, we still hadn't recovered from WW2. You're imagining some utopian existence of economic equality that simply didn't exist!



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by ken10


Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.


Source


Right, and that's the fault of a woman who left power 20 years ago? I don't see Labour or the current ConDem government fixing that.



Actually it is, She sold off most of the council house's and didnt build any replacements, now we have a generation of people unable to move out because landlords are expensive and getting a mortgage on your first house is impossible.



I am one of those people!
But, my parents were able to buy their council house and give our family a home because of that policy. So who do I blame for me not being able to have a house, her for doing that for my parents, or all the other governments since who have done nothing to kick start house building to keep the plan going?

I know who I blame, and I blame all those governments who have failed to renew the national housing stock since then, and have allowed private building companies to buy up land and hold it, preventing development.

Once again, you're blaming one woman for the mistakes of all the corrupt governments since her. And you're ignoring the fact that she was vocally anti-corporation.


Yes but you see she PROMOTED the idea of home ownership and PREVENTED more homes being built - so yes, i AM blaming her!


Yes, she promoted the idea of home ownership, and you think that's a bad thing? Did your parents buy their council house? If they did, what would they have done if they were not given that opportunity?

Because my parents could, we had a home, and when they passed on, my sisters and I had an inheritance that we would not have had otherwise.

And how did she PREVENT homes from being built? Was she controlling all politicians since she left office like some kind of criminal mastermind?

That's absolutely ridiculous. You're seemingly suggesting outright that she is responsible for all the failings of the governments after her, and that's just crazy.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013
Yes, she promoted the idea of home ownership, and you think that's a bad thing? Did your parents buy their council house? If they did, what would they have done if they were not given that opportunity?
Because my parents could, we had a home, and when they passed on, my sisters and I had an inheritance that we would not have had otherwise.
And how did she PREVENT homes from being built? Was she controlling all politicians since she left office like some kind of criminal mastermind?
That's absolutely ridiculous. You're seemingly suggesting outright that she is responsible for all the failings of the governments after her, and that's just crazy.


She made it so that local housing associations couldn't build more, Its a fact. That's why we have such a huge waiting list (Of around 2 million people now)
My parents did not buy their house.

I have no where suggested she is responsible for the failings of governments that came after her - They didn't repeal any of her policies - In fact, labour became right wing!

But as ive said before, i wont be celebrating her death but i will be challenging the image that the media are trying to paint of her as a leader.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
I remember those hideous times, and the hideous crone that killed britain.One thing that never really gets mentioned, is the fact although she was the first women prime minister, (which in it self was an amazing thing). She didnt have any of the traits of a women, that would have made for a fantastic female leader for once. She had no empathy, she had no compassion she was infact cold hard and mechanical. She single handedly slaughtered britain and everthing that was good about us.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 


And I get accused of living in some fantasy land!

Jeebus wept...

Killed Britain? The economy was a shambles and unemployment was almost at 20% by 1979. By 1989, the GDP had grown by almost 30% and unemployment was down to 8%.

Exactly how was that "killing" Britain?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Having seen a good documentary on Maggie last night, it is understandable to see what a divisive individual she was, not just to the nation, but even within her own party.

To be honest I was too young to be a victim or remember Thatchers times. I was still in nappies when she was first elected,So find it hard to have too much of an emotional involvement. I also lived in a community not effected so can't share the understandable animosity by some.

When asked by one journalist, to sum up her greatest achievement in two words she replied "Tony Blair". Which I found to be quite revealing.

I certainly won't be dancing on her grave. I don't take joy in the death of anyone. Not even Saddam Hussain or Osama Bin Laden or any other individual. Maybe if someone killed a member of my family, but its never got that personal.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I agree the economy was in decline. so what? Look at who we are now as a people! money grubbing self interested morons. and that is the culture she created. I saw before and after. and every bit of compassion and fair play , that as a nation we prided ourselves on, has gone. she instilled the # you im alright jack into this countries mindset.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





What? Do you even remember the 70/80's? Jeebus.... It's a time I'd rather have burned from my memory, what a dreary and depressing place it was. Decent life? We had no central heating, we ate the cheapest of cheap foods, my dads car was a rustbucket and we didn't own a family home... It wasn't until 1987 that my Dad finally bought his first house and things gradually improved from the

Oh yes I remember well. I had a full-time job which paid good piece-work rates in return for my hard work, the harder I worked the more I could earn. My sisters had full-time jobs in hosiery, my brother was a miner.

When I was growing up, my family and I went on annual holidays every year, my mum stayed home to take care of the home, my dad was a miner (R.I.P. Dad - I miss you xx), we always had a nice family car, nice Christmases, nice home, central heating. All on one paypacket.

Can't do all that now on 6 quid an hour.

I remember being much better off before HER.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 







You could say that during her tenure she built up the country's 'economic purse' and 'gold

reserves' ...and when she left office the country had a healthy economy and gold


It took Gordon Brown 10 years to deplete the gold and empty the purse!!


What was the note Liam Byrne left for the new in coming government??
"Sorry guys

but the cupboard's bare



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by II HAL II
 



No doubt the North was hit hardest... but she didn't destroy Britain as I keep on seeing people say. This is why opinion is so split on her and all the threads in the world will never resolve this.

If the rest of the country separated from London where would all the money come from? Londoners sure wouldn't care I'm sure.


You have got to be kidding me! So soon after a bailout of a magnitude we have never before witnessed - and will be paying off for decades you can type this? Did you have a straight face?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by christina-66
reply to post by II HAL II
 



No doubt the North was hit hardest... but she didn't destroy Britain as I keep on seeing people say. This is why opinion is so split on her and all the threads in the world will never resolve this.

If the rest of the country separated from London where would all the money come from? Londoners sure wouldn't care I'm sure.


You have got to be kidding me! So soon after a bailout of a magnitude we have never before witnessed - and will be paying off for decades you can type this? Did you have a straight face?






posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 



I cannot dispute that, perhaps, that particular nature has come to the fore in recent years, but I wouldn't tar the whole nation with it - most are still friendly, community spirited folk who just want to lead a quiet life. It has to be said that the "I'm alright Jack" culture has always been around. Personally, I think it has really come to the front since the mid 90's and especially so since the New Labour experiments...



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 



I cannot dispute that, perhaps, that particular nature has come to the fore in recent years, but I wouldn't tar the whole nation with it - most are still friendly, community spirited folk who just want to lead a quiet life. It has to be said that the "I'm alright Jack" culture has always been around. Personally, I think it has really come to the front since the mid 90's and especially so since the New Labour experiments...


Mate i dont do left/ right anymore. Those days are long gone.The 2 party wrestling match is a diversion.Nothing changes no matter torie or labour. They are both as bad as each other now. But Thatcher was an anomaly. She had something to prove, and it has hurt us irrevocabley.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 


What I said had nothing to do with Left or Right - but New Labour had a certain ethos which promoted some of the most distasteful aspects of society, to which you're complaining.

They actively promoted the "entitlement" culture, promoted the overly litigious society which we've all come to help, gave us ridiculous Human Rights laws which have enabled this "I'm alright Jack" mindset, created a client base of voters through encouraging a dependency on the Welfare state, then promptly blew a budget surplus that they inherited in 2007, sold all our Gold at knock down prices and declared an end to "boom and bust" literally months before the biggest bust of all.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Your making the mistake of promoting one side over another. fatal. MPs et al are PR men and women at the beck and call of corporate lobby groups and the financial markets. They will push ANY agenda that will further there career. The civil service and local councils run the country. The politicians appear on the bbc and sell the corpoate, financial, military trends of the day. have you not realised that yet?

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



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by doobydoll
reply to post by stumason
 





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....

You mean like MP's do now? Except they dip in the taxpayer pot instead of union chiefs dipping in the subs.

Whatever Scargill got out of it, at least we all could enjoy a decent life back then, not just rich folk and MP's.


But that's just it, people were not enjoying a higher quality of life back then! You're rewriting history to justify your animosity towards one woman!
It is a matter of recorded fact that the mining industry had already collapsed, they were holding the entire nation to ransom with blackouts, demanding insane wage hikes and threatening the democratic process!

The nation was in a massive decline, we still hadn't recovered from WW2. You're imagining some utopian existence of economic equality that simply didn't exist!


I have not imagined my life. I had a far better life then than I have now.

You can trill all you like that things were so terrible then - but in actual fact they weren't.

A man's wage could solely provide everything for his family, pay rent, food, clothes, car, holidays, treats, pay for school dinners, and still have some left over for family outings. Women could be mothers and housewives if they chose, and many did. You could walk out of one job and straight into another any day of any week, without losing a day's work. This was the norm.

That was my life back then. I didn't imagine it. I lived it.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 


I am not promoting anything over anyone - the latest shower we have winds me up also, but in different ways - lack of infrastructure investment, short sighted economic planning, defence cuts etc.

The two parties are different, they each have their own ways of fudging everything up - but that is what you get when many MP's these days are rarely "real people", but rather career politicians who go straight from Oxbridge into a minor political aide role, then suck their way up the party tree until they get parachuted into the next available seat...



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocker2013
 






I don't think it's a case of a job being 'beneath' them ... but rather that they would prefer not to

go esout every week to work for what they can get for being out of work (basic rates minus

fares etc.)


You have worked yourself from minimum wage and progressed to a better position. As I see

it
No one wants to start at the bottom these days!



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by Rocker2013
 

I don't think it's a case of a job being 'beneath' them ... but rather that they would prefer not to

go esout every week to work for what they can get for being out of work (basic rates minus

fares etc.)
You have worked yourself from minimum wage and progressed to a better position. As I see

it
No one wants to start at the bottom these days!


And No one wants to work for nothing





top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join