Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Thatchers Funeral - Evidence of the Great Class Divide.

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
With respect, this thread is just about highlighting the clear class divide that has shown itself brutally in this country since her passing. What You've quoted regarding the backhanding of youth, was placed in this thread to show how the right has tried to silence the youth, to impose the idea that they know nothing of history or politics, by telling them they weren't around at the time and therefore their view points are mute. But contradictory to the point, if those same people were to have an opinion on Hitler or Saddam's politics, any "disrespectful" remark would be allowed, perhaps even welcomed.
Class divide - Tory's dont want one of their own (that they booted out of office) to go to the grave as nothing short of a martyr to right wing ideology.


In this situation, who is "the right" that you are talking about?

Is it the BBC for what some seem to think is biased reporting? Is it the Monarchy for attending the funeral? Is it a great deal of currently elected MPs for respecting her in death?

Sorry, it probably seems like I am trying to create an argument, I am really not, I just think having some more sources or points to back this up would go a long way to my understanding of the whole situation which I am doing my best to understand from a plethora of different points of view.




posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


She "won" her battles? Did you miss the part about putting 3-5 million people out of work, effecting and destroying many families, the loss of secure well paid jobs where people could actually have a dispute with their employer? The loss of industrial skill sets, such as ship building, steel working?

You dont think there's a little more to it than people feeling defeated by this woman?


Sheesh, I hope you never go into politics or finance. As emotive as the subject is, do you know how many industries were working at a loss? Do you think that should have continued ad infinitum until the UK was completely bankrupt? You come out with socialist worker rhetoric which has no backing in fact - notice how no large private companies took on the opportunity to rebuild those industries in the UK? Why do you think that is?


Ive never stated that there was no need for change, however i am greatly critical as to how her and her government went about those changes. That's where the anger comes from. Do you understand that? Rub the pound signs out of your eyes and wake up.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I absolutely respect what this woman has to say about her reason's for being at Thatcher's funeral procession today in protest.




One group of protester's boo and chant "waste of money" with back's turned during funeral procession.




posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


Because the slave labor is cheaper elsewhere? Places like India have done quite well off the back of it, but now they are faced with workers who are suddenly demanding their rights to fair wages and the like. On the strength of that companies will and already are dropping them like flies to set up shop somewhere else. It will all come full circle of course when we really are completely crushed into the ground and we will work for our gruel.

Plus regardless of how rubbish and unstustainable our industries were, it's funny that the world still turns to us when they need excellence in the field.


edit on 17-4-2013 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by NoMatterNeverMind
 


Of course not everything that is wrong today can be blamed on Thatcher.....but many of today's problems can be directly traced back to her policies - and it's impossible to underestimate the effect and 'inspiration' she was to the current rabble.

However, it is equally correct to point out that every Prime Minister that has followed has in various ways compounded the problems and contributed to the current situation.



Hi Freeborn,

With respect - and this isn't a political point, it's a historical one - your comment above is plain wrong. The policies you are referring to (I think) didn't start under Thatcher, they were fairly much a continuation of those of previous governments. Is there a reason this is fairly much ignored apart from the fact that Scargil, the NUM and the good old socialist worker threw their PR machine at Thatcher as she was Tory and not Labour?

Example -

www.thecommentator.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoMatterNeverMind

In this situation, who is "the right" that you are talking about?



In this situations, "the right" seems to be made up of the conservative party and many influential members of the labour party. Lets not forget, many wealthy people loved her because they made so much money when she was in power. Lets face facts, since thatchers smashing of the unions, the people (yano, your average joe who keeps the country ticking over) has had less and less proper representation in government which became even more painfully obvious with milibands statement to "keep it respectful" during the pompous tribute.



Is it the BBC for what some seem to think is biased reporting? Is it the Monarchy for attending the funeral? Is it a great deal of currently elected MPs for respecting her in death?


Yes, the bbc has a conservative chairmen so im not surprised their reported is biased and in favour of thatcher despite opinion polls. Why did the queen attend when she is suppose to be politically neutral? Has she attended any other ex PM's funerals besides the late & great Sir Winston Churchill? Ive already remarked how the majority of MP's are either on the right or leaning to it - Which does not represent a great majority of people who are more liberal. They can pay THEIR respects as much as they like, but many are not doing so on behalf of their constituency.


Sorry, it probably seems like I am trying to create an argument, I am really not, I just think having some more sources or points to back this up would go a long way to my understanding of the whole situation which I am doing my best to understand from a plethora of different points of view.


That's a big ask. Ive followed the media carefully since her passing on april 8th and ive looked for fair reporting of her death and quite simply - Im just not satisfied with how its all come to pass. I feel that the general population has been ignored for the wishes of the richer few.

Because i haven't really backed up my OP with sources im not going to expect you to change your mind and agree with me. But it would seem that many British ATSers understand where im coming from and what ive stated.

I have told my own version of the truth and you are free to argue with it until your little heart is content. Freedom of speech and all that.
edit on 17-4-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-4-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Most of the people on the streets were tourists according to the news.

The protests were happening but were avoided by the media to make out everyone loved the woman. Plenty of pictures on twitter of people holding signs against the woman, none made it onto the tv.

£18m for all this, maybe a bit more. Straight out of the taxpayers pocket, we wasnt asked, we were told we would be paying for it.

Democracy my arse


Hear Hear, Have you got a link to the twitter pics?


Nice fabrication in your OP. In the 24 hours after her death there were interviews and comments on the BBC from Peter Hatton (chief thief of Liverpool council, radical left wing hypocrite), George Galloway (self opinionated twat), Tony Benn (dinosaur but he does like the sound of his own voice) and Gerry Adams (mouthpiece of the IRA during Thatchers terms as PM). Strangely they didn't have a lot of praise to give. Also, many soundbites from union leaders who expressed in their own unique way how sad they were that the Thatcher government stopped the unions effectively ruining the country. Maybe you were watching a different channel?


No im certain it was the BBC and i didnt see any of what you claimed to have been aired so either im lying or there was more ass kissing of thatcher than there were down to earth opinions on her passing? I suppose i can already tell where you stand on the political scale when you refer to Tony Benn as a dinosaur who likes the sound of his own voice - No respect for the living have you? At least that "dinosaur" has a heart and a greater understanding of the country he has lived in and served, The same cant be said for the majority of the conservative benches



I'm no member of the elite but I'm just about old enough to remember this country as the shambles it was in the '70's - I don't know if you are, but if you had been then you may just be able to understand (unless you were a disciple of chief scum Scargil - the real villain of the piece) why radical change was necessary.


Change was necessary, putting 3-5 million people on the breadline was not. All that was missing from her 11 years in power was gold star's sown onto coats and train cattle carriages to hide the destruction from public view once and for all.


Ah, so, a balanced debate. Trust me, the people I quoted did all comment on the BBC within 24 hours of her death - I'm not saying you are lying, how do I know if you literally watched the BBC for 24 hours.

I'm not sure I understand the 'no respect for the living' comment? I wouldn't wish Tony Benn dead, but I have no respect for his political philosophy for one reason - it doesn't work. Throwing in a cheap comment about 'the tory benches' doesn't substantiate your point, just shows your bias.

As for putting 3 - 5 million on the breadline - it's actually very hard to quantify that and I'm not saying this with any personal political opinion, it is just a fact. How long would any government continue to pay loss making industry until the point comes where it is completely unsustainable?



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


She "won" her battles? Did you miss the part about putting 3-5 million people out of work, effecting and destroying many families, the loss of secure well paid jobs where people could actually have a dispute with their employer? The loss of industrial skill sets, such as ship building, steel working?

You dont think there's a little more to it than people feeling defeated by this woman?


Sheesh, I hope you never go into politics or finance. As emotive as the subject is, do you know how many industries were working at a loss? Do you think that should have continued ad infinitum until the UK was completely bankrupt? You come out with socialist worker rhetoric which has no backing in fact - notice how no large private companies took on the opportunity to rebuild those industries in the UK? Why do you think that is?


Ive never stated that there was no need for change, however i am greatly critical as to how her and her government went about those changes. That's where the anger comes from. Do you understand that? Rub the pound signs out of your eyes and wake up.


Grow up and stop throwing childish comments about - you betray your age. The labour government in the 70's tried the same approach - look it up, it's not that difficult, but refused to stand up to the unions which led to things getting worse rather than better. The joke of this is that I am fairly ambivalent about Thatcher (not sure there are many who can say that), but it's the lack of an educated discussion on this that just peeves me off because there is this wealth of crap that has grown up and become perceived as fact.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Glad this is all over now.

In the end, this whole thing has reminded people just how bad life was back in the 80's, and in a way as made people wake up to what is going on today. The current Tory government are looking like they could be more worse than Thatcher ever was, and people are starting to see that giving them a similar amount of time in power that Thatcher had would be a very bad decision for this country.

In the late 90's and 00's life was pretty good for the majority of the country, Thatcher was out of power and out of mind and jobs were easy to come by, people didn't really care about politics as they had more fun things to do. Now though, there are over 2 million unemployed people in the country, and the current govenment are making cuts left right and centre, people are getting pissed off again. I am a 25 year old from a working class background, and i have never voted in my life, i know many other people lke this also, but next time around everyone will be voting, and the Tories will not win.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Suspiria
reply to post by something wicked
 


Because the slave labor is cheaper elsewhere? Places like India have done quite well off the back of it, but now they are faced with workers who are suddenly demanding their rights to fair wages and the like. On the strength of that companies will and already are dropping them like flies to set up shop somewhere else. It will all come full circle of course when we really are completely crushed into the ground and we will work for our gruel.

Plus regardless of how rubbish and unstustainable our industries were, it's funny that the world still turns to us when they need excellence in the field.


edit on 17-4-2013 by Suspiria because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately, yes, if labour (you call is slave - emotive language doesn't make it fact) is cheap and as skilled elsewhere, it will happen. The company I work for is moving well over 2 thirds of its staff from all over the world to India over the next years, probably myself included. Am I happy about that? No, of course not. Do I blame the company for that? How can I, they are there to make money for shareholders. Do I blame the government for that? How can I, why is it their fault?

Have you ever actually tasted gruel? Do you think it somehow makes your post more clever to say it?
edit on 17-4-2013 by something wicked because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


The deregulation of the finacial sector was a Thatcher policy.
The council house Right To Buy programme was a Thatcher policy.
The privatisation of nationalised industry was a Thatcher policy.
The implementation of The Ridley Plan was a Thatcher policy.

Need I go on?

Sure, some of those policies may have been as a direct result of previous governments policies but they were part of the process of moving away from Keynesian economics towards the more monetarist based economic approach which has become known as 'Thatcherism'.

Those policies were a marked different approach from those of Heath, Wilson or Callaghan.

Of course Thatcher's opponent's used 'propoganda' against her, that's the nature of the beast, but no-one was more efficient or manipulative when it come's to using 'propoganda' than Thatcher.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Deregulation in itself is not a problem though Freeborn. The recent financial problems are more because the powers of the FSA were not used properly - in other words the people running the FSA proved not to be fit for purpose.

The point of the deregulation was to reform the UK economy and whatever anyone thinks of her, in that she was completely successful.

Two very key points from pre Thatcher Britain. Top tax rate on earnings - 83%. Tax Rate on unearned income - 98%.

For those that don't appreciate the significance of those figures, take a look at the unearned income figure. Unearned income is savings, bonds, etc and is what banks use to loan to companies and for general investment. With a tax rate of 98%, people were not investing and businesses were shrinking. It was quite literally destroying the economy with every passing second.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by something wicked
 


The deregulation of the finacial sector was a Thatcher policy.
The council house Right To Buy programme was a Thatcher policy.
The privatisation of nationalised industry was a Thatcher policy.
The implementation of The Ridley Plan was a Thatcher policy.

Need I go on?

Sure, some of those policies may have been as a direct result of previous governments policies but they were part of the process of moving away from Keynesian economics towards the more monetarist based economic approach which has become known as 'Thatcherism'.

Those policies were a marked different approach from those of Heath, Wilson or Callaghan.

Of course Thatcher's opponent's used 'propoganda' against her, that's the nature of the beast, but no-one was more efficient or manipulative when it come's to using 'propoganda' than Thatcher.



Hi, Fair do's (kind of), but even then you are saying that all of those were 100% 'bad'?

"The deregulation of the financial sector was a Thatcher policy."
Of course we can look back in hindsight on this one, but I'm not sure who at the time predicted that.

"The council house Right To Buy programme was a Thatcher policy."
And one that was actually celeberated almost universally. I'll grant you what every government since including hers did not do was use this as a reason to build more affordable homes. I think that has to be a 50/50 as the right to buy in principle was not the issue (IMHO).

"The privatisation of nationalised industry was a Thatcher policy."
And......? Privatisation in and of itself isn't the issue - is it? I think that the lack of any major moves by the Blair government to bring industry back into the public area kind of shows that.

"The implementation of The Ridley Plan was a Thatcher policy."
Opinion on the Ridley plan I guess comes down to who you think should be deciding government policy - the elected government or the trade unions. The Ridley plan only came into being after the crippling effect of strikes to governments in the 70's so arguably the policy is a result of the (more) militant union approach at the time.
edit on 17-4-2013 by something wicked because: cleaned up a little



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 




Deregulation in itself is not a problem though Freeborn. The recent financial problems are more because the powers of the FSA were not used properly - in other words the people running the FSA proved not to be fit for purpose.


And who appoints those 'running the FSA'?

It's possible to argue that if the deregulation had never occurred then the recent financial problems would never have occurred.

A certain amount of deregulation possibly would have benefitted this country but as with most things Thatcher went too far - and look at the culture that deregulation helped foster, it has had a massive impact on every strata of our society.



The point of the deregulation was to reform the UK economy and whatever anyone thinks of her, in that she was completely successful.


Looking at it today is that something to be proud of?



..... people were not investing and businesses were shrinking. It was quite literally destroying the economy with every passing second.


And banks still don't loan money out to people or businesses and the wealthy still don't re-invest their money into this country......and the economy is still being 'destroyed' with every passing second - the only difference is the rich are richer and the poor are even poorer.

Please don't get me wrong, I know all of our ill's are not Thatcher's fault - but she and her policies bear a large portion of the blame.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


quite splendidly put, hats off to you



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by something wicked
 


There is probably a kernel of justification for quite a lot of what Thatcher wanted to do.
But she took everything to the extreme.

Financial deregulation - yes, it needed to happen but she let it run rampant and completely unchecked.
And as is repeated time and time again this was exacerbated by all the following administrations.

People became so brain washed into accepting everything about Thatcherism that no-one dared speak out against it and anyone who did so was / is immediately labelled a left-wing loony who wants to go back to 'the bad old days'.

If those 'bad old days' mean people in jobs earning half-decent money to spend on British made things then bring it on say I.

The Right To Buy.
Great idea and whoever thought of it and implemented it deserves an enormous amount of respect.
But what did Thatcher do?
Take it that step further.
She prohibited spending any of the money raised from council house sell off's to be used to build new, decent but affordable housing for the needy and low-income earners leading to the complete mess we have today.

Again, this has been compounded by successive governemnts who have blindly followed those same policies.

The privitisation of most of the industries that were once nationalised has been an unmitigated disaster.
That there were problems is undeniable and there needed to be drastic and radical re-structuring at every level is beyond debate.
But why couldn't that have happened whilst remaining nationalised?

The Ridley Plan was a premeditated plan to destroy The Union movement in the UK with the sole intention of increasing profitability for the wealthy.
Yes, yet again something needed to be done about Union excesses but Thatcher took it to the extreme.
It's interesting that so many of the tactics used then are being used now - just replace Union with Benefit claimants.

Each of these examples are probably worthy of further discussion on their own as I dare say we could both talk endlessly about them and thus probably derail this thread.

There are so many myths about Thatcher, her policies and their effects etc and those of us who lived through her terms probably have too entrenched viewpoints to look at things with total objectivity - hopefully when the dust settles from her death and all that has surrounded it we'll be able to look back and consider things with a more unbiased, considered and reasoned perspective.
edit on 17/4/13 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Actually, it was Brown and cronies who diluted the FSA powers but as you rightly point out, this was already on a downward spiral.

Banks are to blame for the current fad of not lending though, no one else. The reserves are well and truly topped up following the regulation put in place following the mess in 2008 and yet still little to no lending is happening, despite pressure from the Coalition. This is a complete disgrace.

I don't think we will ever agree over Thatcher to be honest. I am very pro although i will admit that whilst i fully supported (and still do) her economic policies, things could have been handled better (more sensitively).


ETA:

As to the nationalisation of industries, this was completely the correct thing to do (with the possible exception of the Rail industry). Look at the steel industry - as soon as the world started on free market globalisation, the steel industry was always doomed to be completely uncompetitive and therefore orders and investment were always destined to slacken off before drying up completely. Quite simply, you don't keep flogging a dead horse. But, as i said above, it could have been handled more sensitively.
edit on 17-4-2013 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by AmberLeaf
Most of the people on the streets were tourists according to the news.

The protests were happening but were avoided by the media to make out everyone loved the woman. Plenty of pictures on twitter of people holding signs against the woman, none made it onto the tv.

£18m for all this, maybe a bit more. Straight out of the taxpayers pocket, we wasnt asked, we were told we would be paying for it.

Democracy my arse


Hear Hear, Have you got a link to the twitter pics?


Nice fabrication in your OP. In the 24 hours after her death there were interviews and comments on the BBC from Peter Hatton (chief thief of Liverpool council, radical left wing hypocrite), George Galloway (self opinionated twat), Tony Benn (dinosaur but he does like the sound of his own voice) and Gerry Adams (mouthpiece of the IRA during Thatchers terms as PM). Strangely they didn't have a lot of praise to give. Also, many soundbites from union leaders who expressed in their own unique way how sad they were that the Thatcher government stopped the unions effectively ruining the country. Maybe you were watching a different channel?


No im certain it was the BBC and i didnt see any of what you claimed to have been aired so either im lying or there was more ass kissing of thatcher than there were down to earth opinions on her passing? I suppose i can already tell where you stand on the political scale when you refer to Tony Benn as a dinosaur who likes the sound of his own voice - No respect for the living have you? At least that "dinosaur" has a heart and a greater understanding of the country he has lived in and served, The same cant be said for the majority of the conservative benches



I'm no member of the elite but I'm just about old enough to remember this country as the shambles it was in the '70's - I don't know if you are, but if you had been then you may just be able to understand (unless you were a disciple of chief scum Scargil - the real villain of the piece) why radical change was necessary.


Change was necessary, putting 3-5 million people on the breadline was not. All that was missing from her 11 years in power was gold star's sown onto coats and train cattle carriages to hide the destruction from public view once and for all.


Ah, so, a balanced debate. Trust me, the people I quoted did all comment on the BBC within 24 hours of her death - I'm not saying you are lying, how do I know if you literally watched the BBC for 24 hours.

I'm not sure I understand the 'no respect for the living' comment? I wouldn't wish Tony Benn dead, but I have no respect for his political philosophy for one reason - it doesn't work. Throwing in a cheap comment about 'the tory benches' doesn't substantiate your point, just shows your bias.

As for putting 3 - 5 million on the breadline - it's actually very hard to quantify that and I'm not saying this with any personal political opinion, it is just a fact. How long would any government continue to pay loss making industry until the point comes where it is completely unsustainable?


One big difference between Tony Benn and thatcher - He didnt ruin an entire country, Perhaps that deserves respect in this day and age. Hard to quantify how many people were on the breadline, stats show it was 3 million, but others reckon it could have been up to 5 million - All paid for by the north sea oil.

Yes im a liberal sort of person, but im not being biased - Its a well known fact that thatcher and her government encouraged greed. They were greedy. They made a greedy society based on the individual (Apparently)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


She "won" her battles? Did you miss the part about putting 3-5 million people out of work, effecting and destroying many families, the loss of secure well paid jobs where people could actually have a dispute with their employer? The loss of industrial skill sets, such as ship building, steel working?

You dont think there's a little more to it than people feeling defeated by this woman?


Sheesh, I hope you never go into politics or finance. As emotive as the subject is, do you know how many industries were working at a loss? Do you think that should have continued ad infinitum until the UK was completely bankrupt? You come out with socialist worker rhetoric which has no backing in fact - notice how no large private companies took on the opportunity to rebuild those industries in the UK? Why do you think that is?


Ive never stated that there was no need for change, however i am greatly critical as to how her and her government went about those changes. That's where the anger comes from. Do you understand that? Rub the pound signs out of your eyes and wake up.


Grow up and stop throwing childish comments about - you betray your age. The labour government in the 70's tried the same approach - look it up, it's not that difficult, but refused to stand up to the unions which led to things getting worse rather than better. The joke of this is that I am fairly ambivalent about Thatcher (not sure there are many who can say that), but it's the lack of an educated discussion on this that just peeves me off because there is this wealth of crap that has grown up and become perceived as fact.


Explain the following to me:




She gets 10 million on her funeral. He gets nothing. This whole thatcher thing has been plugged by the bloody tory's to try and justify their consistent attacks on the poor.
edit on 17-4-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Hi,

You won't be surprised to know that we agree on many things and disagree on many others - but that's cool because I don't think there is a right or wrong to these - how could there be? We all have the bias or our own experience whether we like it or not, and of course we can only speculate when we play the game of what if.

I do have to say though that I disagree on the purpose of the Ridley plan. I think the trade unions reaped what they sowed (sewed?). The unions will of course say their fight was to protect the working man - as someone who spent ten years in a nationalised industry, I think I have a right to say the unions were there to protect the unions. That isn't to demonise all, but certainly the major unions have no interest a lot of the time in facing up to reality.

As you rightly say, there is a lot of discussion material here but until it can be discussed without emotion, rhetoric or mythologised PR from either the right or the left then for many on ATS it will sink to the usual opinion slinging without the courtesy of acknowledging that sometimes there isn't always a straightforward right or wrong. That is why people like you Freeborn, and you Flavian, add such value to threads such as this.






top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join