# A Toast to Margaret Thatcher



## Snow Hill Pond

RIP Iron Lady.


----------



## VictorRomeo

I think you'll find the consensus this side of the pond decidedly split. That is to say, there are many - especially in her own country - that would rather her rot in hell than rest in peace.


----------



## Shaver

I hope that there are miners and Falklands veterans waiting to greet her in the afterlife.


----------



## CuffDaddy

It's funnny, for a country with a greater appetite for vengance* than many western democracies, America really does prefer to not speak ill of the (recently) dead unless they were unequivocally a-holes. And sometimes even that exculsion doesn't apply. I remember being somewhat shocked at the level of deference/decorum/reverence shown at the death of Richard Nixon. Flags were lowered to half-mast and all that. And when Reagan - a figure despised by those on the left nearly as strongly as he was revered by those on the right - was given little but accolades for weeks by even the "liberal media."

When you combine that with the fact that most Americans are COMPLETELY oblivious to the domestic politics of every single other country on earth (except, in rare instances, for the 2 weeks before and after we start bombing them), you're bound to hear naught but kind words about her. In that spirit, I offer this quotation from her regarding environmental policy, which I think every human would do well to ponder:

"No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy-with a full repairing lease."

*See our death penalty, our relative comfort with defensive firearm use, etc.


----------



## Langham

Snow Hill Pond said:


> RIP Iron Lady.


She fought valiantly against tyranny, both overseas and at home - that is my view of her.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Langham said:


> She fought valiantly against tyranny, both overseas and at home - that is my view of her.


My father would have called her (as a supreme compliment) "tough".


----------



## VictorRomeo

Snow Hill Pond said:


> My father would have called her (as a supreme compliment) "tough".


Mine called her barbaric.


----------



## Langham

^ For her opponents, I'm sure her unshakeable conviction must have been infuriating. For some, the 1980s may have been troubling times, but I remember the 1970s, before she was elected to power, as much worse - the country was on the brink of anarchy, rendered almost ungovernable by the unions and crypto-communists.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Langham said:


> ^ For her opponents, I'm sure her unshakeable conviction must have been infuriating. For some, the 1980s may have been troubling times, but I remember the 1970s, before she was elected to power, as much worse - the country was on the brink of anarchy, rendered almost ungovernable by the unions and crypto-communists.


Well, it was working pretty well for the unions and crypto-communists, though sustainability was a pesky issue.


----------



## Chouan

A "strong leader", in the same way that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Robespierre were strong leaders. Single minded and determined in her self-belief, despite what others said, seeing views that differed to her own as opposition, rather than merely different. She deliberately destroyed Britain's manufacturing industry, mining, ship building and shipping in her ideologically driven quest to destroy what she saw as the illegitimate power of the trade unions. She completed the process of destroying cabinet government in Britain, started by Wilson, and broke the concensus politics of post-war Britain. She fragmented and polarised British society, which, in her view didn't exist, and created a milieu in which creatures like Blair, Cameron, Osborne and Johnson could exist politically. 
Her policies with regards to the Forces and the Falkland islanders led directly to the Argentine invasion. She then gained another period of office on the back of the military success of the Falklands' recapture, and through the loss of nearly 300 British lives. Cynical manipulation of a crisis that her policies caused.
I don't rejoice at her death, like many others are doing; it's too late for that, the damage is done.


----------



## Langham

^ I would seriously doubt whether anyone under the age of 40 (in the UK, let alone the USA) would be able to understand quite how grim life in Britain became in the 1970s - inflation, terrorism on a serious scale, anarchy in the workplace, three-day weeks and power cuts, a bankrupt economy and a government that took its orders from the trade unions.


----------



## Chouan

I'd choke on it.

TRy these views:
" There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history."

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette

https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2013/apr/08/who-is-margaret-thatcher-confusion


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^ I would seriously doubt whether anyone under the age of 40 (in the UK, let alone the USA) would be able to understand quite how grim life in Britain became in the 1970s - inflation, terrorism on a serious scale, anarchy in the workplace, three-day weeks and power cuts, a bankrupt economy and a government that took its orders from the trade unions.


It would have been terrible if it were true. But it wasn't as bad as the Tories suggest. There was inflation, still is, there was terrorism, still is, power-cuts and three day weeks, what all the time? A bankrupt economy? Really? A government that took it's orders from the trade unions? Really? How about a government that takes it's orders from bankers and owners of news media empires?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> A "strong leader", in the same way that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Robespierre were strong leaders.


She stood for no nonsense and was a firm hand on the tiller, but I don't think you can seriously group her with those murderous tyrants.



> Single minded and determined in her self-belief, despite what others said, seeing views that differed to her own as opposition, rather than merely different. She deliberately destroyed Britain's manufacturing industry, mining, ship building and shipping in her ideologically driven quest to destroy what she saw as the illegitimate power of the trade unions.


To some extent what you say is true - it was probably true of the mining industry. It was also the case that British industry had become very uncompetitive. Coal mined here, for instance, cost five times as much as imported coal, so the economic argument for supporting the coal industry was very hard to sustain.



> She completed the process of destroying cabinet government in Britain, started by Wilson, and broke the concensus politics of post-war Britain. She fragmented and polarised British society, which, in her view didn't exist, and created a milieu in which creatures like Blair, Cameron, Osborne and Johnson could exist politically.


The current Labour party is her real legacy.



> Her policies with regards to the Forces and the Falkland islanders led directly to the Argentine invasion. She then gained another period of office on the back of the military success of the Falklands' recapture, and through the loss of nearly 300 British lives. Cynical manipulation of a crisis that her policies caused.


That's just a conspiracy theory - I don't think I've seen any serious evidence to suggest that the Falklands War was engineered from Westminster.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> It would have been terrible if it were true. But it wasn't as bad as the Tories suggest. There was inflation, still is, there was terrorism, still is, power-cuts and three day weeks, what all the time? A bankrupt economy? Really? A government that took it's orders from the trade unions? Really? How about a government that takes it's orders from bankers and owners of news media empires?


Do you think I'm just making it up? I missed out quite a lot of other things for the sake of brevity.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Comparing Thatcher to Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Robespierre is ignorant and stupid.


----------



## Gurdon

*a loathsome, odious and destructive individual*

If I believed in an afterlife, I would expect Ms Thatcher and her co-conspirator, Ronnie, to be reunited in a particularly unpleasant corner of hell.

Gurdon


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> She stood for no nonsense and was a firm hand on the tiller, but I don't think you can seriously group her with those murderous tyrants.
> 
> To some extent what you say is true - it was probably true of the mining industry. It was also the case that British industry had become very uncompetitive. Coal mined here, for instance, cost five times as much as imported coal, so the economic argument for supporting the coal industry was very hard to sustain.
> 
> The current Labour party is her real legacy.
> 
> That's just a conspiracy theory - I don't think I've seen any serious evidence to suggest that the Falklands War was engineered from Westminster.


I didn't suggest that the war was engineered from Westminster. If you look at what I actually wrote you'll see that I said it was her policies over the Falklands that led to the Argentine invasion. Her mistakes, not deliberate causative actions.
To whit:
1)Announcing the withdrawal and scrapping of HMS Endurance, without replacement, as part of her defence cuts, despite the existence of Endurance being a statement of our intent on defending the Falklands. The consequences were pointed out to her at the time, but the advice was ignored. A clear signal to Argenmtina that our interest in defending the Falklands no longer existed.
2) The Nationalities Bill determining that Falkland Islanders were no longer to be British citizens, again announcing our lack of interest in retaining the Falklands. Again she was warned of the consequences at the time, but disregarded the warnings.
Not a conspiracy theory, you'll find. Look at Hansard. And look at the Argentine reports at the time, and remember, as you seem to be old enough, what happened in the weeks before the invasion by Argentina.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Do you think I'm just making it up? I missed out quite a lot of other things for the sake of brevity.


No, you're just repeating the Tory dogma, the self-justifying mantra that defends the deliberate ideologically driven destruction of the cohesion of British society.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Comparing Thatcher to Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Robespierre is ignorant and stupid.


 Explain why please.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Gurdon said:


> If I believed in an afterlife, I would expect Ms Thatcher and her co-conspirator, Ronnie, to be reunited in a particularly unpleasant corner of hell.
> 
> Gurdon


Of course. Their visit to Ted Kennedy would be a corporal act of mercy. 
"Requiem Aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetuae luceat eis. Requiescant in pace."


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> Explain why please.


What is to explain? The only people who regard Reagan or Thatcher as comparable to these monsters are fools blinded by their silly self-righteous dogmas.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> To some extent what you say is true - it was probably true of the mining industry. It was also the case that British industry had become very uncompetitive. Coal mined here, for instance, cost five times as much as imported coal, so the economic argument for supporting the coal industry was very hard to sustain.


Yet the coal mines in the NOrth East, Easington for example, was still making a substantial profit when it was closed. 
The closure of the steelworks at Consett, with the direct loss of over 4000 jobs, and the indirect loss of a further 6000 jobs as businesses dependent upon the steel works closed down, like transport, light engineering works, shops etc. Even if the steelworks were running at a loss and needed subsidy, would that cost to the country be more economic sense than making 10000 people unemployed in an area where there was no other industry?
Our whole political structure is her legacy, as is our struggling economy; utilities, services, health, transport, education, all run for profit, for the benefit of the shareholders, not for the benefit of the people or the service users. What a shameful legacy.


----------



## Kingstonian

Langham said:


> ^ I would seriously doubt whether anyone under the age of 40 (in the UK, let alone the USA) would be able to understand quite how grim life in Britain became in the 1970s - inflation, terrorism on a serious scale, anarchy in the workplace, three-day weeks and power cuts, a bankrupt economy and a government that took its orders from the trade unions.


My life was pretty good. Jobs were plentiful and the bankrupt economy was in better shape than today. There was no such thing as an 'intern' though we heard tales of articled clerks in olden times, before the war, who did not get paid but worked in order to gain the necessary experience.

'Crypto communists' you say:-





What are your thoughts on cravats?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Yet the coal mines in the NOrth East, Easington for example, was still making a substantial profit when it was closed.
> The closure of the steelworks at Consett, with the direct loss of over 4000 jobs, and the indirect loss of a further 6000 jobs as businesses dependent upon the steel works closed down, like transport, light engineering works, shops etc. Even if the steelworks were running at a loss and needed subsidy, would that cost to the country be more economic sense than making 10000 people unemployed in an area where there was no other industry?
> Our whole political structure is her legacy, as is our struggling economy; utilities, services, health, transport, education, all run for profit, for the benefit of the shareholders, not for the benefit of the people or the service users. What a shameful legacy.


Chouan, you have framed your argument rather poorly, if I may say. Are you a mouthpiece for the NUM?

The colliery at Easington may have been making a profit, I can't tell, but if it was it would have been because the state-run electricity board was buying coal from it at an artificial price.

At one time I happened to live quite near (too near) to the Consett steelworks, whose closure was a foregone conclusion even before the Conservatives won power in 1979 - there was no longer any iron ore, there was no limestone, and even coal in the region was becoming exhausted, so running a steelworks far out on the Durham moors was never going to make economic sense under those circumstances.

The big picture was that by the 1970s the United Kingdom was much like a scaled-down version of the Soviet Union - we had a lot of state-run, very inefficiently managed businesses, just think of it, the telephones, electricity, gas, water, railways, mines, steelyards, shipyards, car makers, airlines, British Aerospace, and who knows what else - even Rolls-Royce - all run by civil servants from Whitehall, and all under the thumb of this or that mad-dog union leader. That was the system she inherited, there was no way it could work. Privatisation was a brilliant idea. People may have lost jobs in the short run - coal-miners, ship-builders etc etc- but it would have happened to them sooner or later. As in nature, mankind must adapt to survive - no one is owed a living.

You say our economy is not run for the benefit of the people, but it works a damn sight better now than it did in the 1970s.


----------



## Kingstonian

Langham said:


> Privatisation was a brilliant idea.


Yeah. Privatise the railways. Split everything up, so one company can blame another, and then land the passenger with the most expensive fares in Europe.

Brilliant.


----------



## Langham

Kingstonian said:


> My life was pretty good. Jobs were plentiful and the bankrupt economy was in better shape than today. There was no such thing as an 'intern' though we heard tales of articled clerks in olden times, before the war, who did not get paid but worked in order to gain the necessary experience.
> 
> 'Crypto communists' you say:-
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ-9R6NCZ0A]
> What are your thoughts on cravats?


Reggie Perrin is very funny Kingie - one of the few enduringly good things from that period was the TV shows such as Perrin, Dad's Army, etc. etc.

I'm glad your life was good then, but mine certainly was not, so I dare say we have correspondingly differing views on the virtues of Thatcherism.

As for cravats, I think I have made plain my support for and indeed insistence on appropriate neckwear in other threads.


----------



## Langham

Kingstonian said:


> Yeah. Privatise the railways. Split everything up, so one company can blame another, and then land the passenger with the most expensive fares in Europe.
> 
> Brilliant.


Kingie, if I had the time I could write a PhD thesis on the railways explaining why this is so. Look at Greece though - no trains now.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I didn't suggest that the war was engineered from Westminster. If you look at what I actually wrote you'll see that I said it was her policies over the Falklands that led to the Argentine invasion. Her mistakes, not deliberate causative actions.
> To whit:
> 1)Announcing the withdrawal and scrapping of HMS Endurance, without replacement, as part of her defence cuts, despite the existence of Endurance being a statement of our intent on defending the Falklands. The consequences were pointed out to her at the time, but the advice was ignored. A clear signal to Argenmtina that our interest in defending the Falklands no longer existed.
> 2) The Nationalities Bill determining that Falkland Islanders were no longer to be British citizens, again announcing our lack of interest in retaining the Falklands. Again she was warned of the consequences at the time, but disregarded the warnings.
> Not a conspiracy theory, you'll find. Look at Hansard. And look at the Argentine reports at the time, and remember, as you seem to be old enough, what happened in the weeks before the invasion by Argentina.


I remember the events of that time very clearly as I was then an infantryman in the Green Jackets, and there was some suggestion that there might be a general mobilisation of the TA - in the event, that did not happen. From my perspective, the Argentine invasion came as a complete surprise. I cannot believe you are seriously attempting to imply that it occurred as a result of some wilful dirty tricks. It was sheer opportunistic stupidity on the part of General Galtieri and his junta, something that could never have been foreseen.


----------



## eagle2250

This thread was started as a tribute to and respective send off for the "Iron Lady!" What can one say about those who would choose to torment a corpse, that their words/conduct does not already tell us about them? 

As for Margaret Thatcher, she was truly one of Great Britain's heavy lifters in the political arena. May she rest in peace and might we all keep her family in our prayers.


----------



## Langham

eagle2250 said:


> This thread was started as a tribute to and respective send off for the "Iron Lady!" What can one say about those who would choose to torment a corpse, that their words/conduct does not already tell us about them?
> 
> As for Margaret Thatcher, she was truly one of Great Britain's heavy lifters in the political arena. May she rest in peace and might we all keep her family in our prayers.


Eagle, I agree with your sentiments and can assure you I shall pray for her soul, but as you can see she was and remains a controversial leader here.


----------



## CuffDaddy

eagle2250 said:


> This thread was started as a tribute to and respective send off for the "Iron Lady!" What can one say about those who would choose to torment a corpse, that their words/conduct does not already tell us about them?


Thanks for making my post https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...st-to-Margaret-Thatcher&p=1387931#post1387931 look so insightful! We (Americans) really do hate to speak ill of the recently dead unless they were pure villains (Osama bin Laden and the like).


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed, I fully agreed with every word that you typed and in retrospect, should probably have quoted your post!


----------



## Joseph Peter

As a Yank, I suppose it can be said that I've no business commenting but to compare her to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etal is just a tad over the top, dont you think? Taking on unions doesnt seem to match up with marching people off to concentration camps or killing fields or gulags.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> Thanks for making my post https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...st-to-Margaret-Thatcher&p=1387931#post1387931 look so insightful! We (Americans) really do hate to speak ill of the recently dead unless they were pure villains (Osama bin Laden and the like).


As is amply demonstrated by some of the foregoing posts, some smallish people regard disagreement with their pet dogmas as evidence of villainy. But I agree with you, Cuff -- at least in the US, a person's death serves to restrain this rather infantile phenomenon.


----------



## Tempest

Chouan said:


> TRy these views:
> " There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history."
> 
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
> 
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/shortcuts/2013/apr/08/who-is-margaret-thatcher-confusion


So true. Assuming room temperature does not warrant redemption or new respect. Preserve the truth.


----------



## Gurdon

Mike Petrik said:


> Of course. Their visit to Ted Kennedy would be a corporal act of mercy.
> "Requiem Aeternam dona eis, Domine, et lux perpetuae luceat eis. Requiescant in pace."


I don't see how visiting a dead person's shade could have a connection to the body, but that aside, I am not sure why you think this particular Kennedy belongs in hell, or at least why he belongs in that part set aside for particularly vile politicians.

The late senator's earthly transgressions, as reported by the press, seem to me to be commensurate with what one might expect of the youngest son in a wealthy family. That sort of thing doesn't measure up to the evils perpetrated by Maggie or Ronnie, and certainly shouldn't land him in the hottest parts of hell, nor would being mildly liberal.

On the other hand, I think his early support of candidacy of the current president might warrant a spot in the politicians' neighborhood, in that people were lead by the late senator's endorsement to imagine Mr. Obama to be a liberal.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Mike Petrik

Oh seriously, I was responding to animus with humor -- a tactic that presumably would escape you. I have no opinion regarding the soul of the late Senator of Massachusetts, though hope he sees the eternal light notwithstanding his serious transgressions which you so blithely dismiss. The casualties in his wake would perhaps not be so sanguine, but then again they were only women and children.


----------



## Zakk

I don't understand the groups in the UK celebrating her death. I would never celebrate the death of a U.S. president, no matter how much I disagree with his policies.


----------



## Hitch

Is it really that hard to understand why Brits would hate anyone who stood for paying one's own way?

​RIP Maggie.


----------



## roman totale XVII

No tears shed in my family.

I'm not an Elvis Costello fan, but he put it quite well. 

Well I hope I don't die too soon
I pray the lord my soul to save
Oh I'll be a good boy, Im trying so hard to behave
Because there's one thing I know, I'd like to live
Long enough to savour
That's when they finally put you in the ground
I'll stand on your grave and tramp the dirt down


----------



## Gurdon

Mike Petrik,
I too, was attempting humor, apparently with a lack of success equal to yours. Sorry to have pushed things too far. 
Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Kingie, if I had the time I could write a PhD thesis on the railways explaining why this is so. Look at Greece though - no trains now.


Look at the railways in Germany, France, Holland, Belgium etc. All efficient, all cheap and all state-owned. Look at ours. Heard on the radio last week: "Come to Birmingham, the Venice of the Midlands, £135 return from London by train. Or, come to Venice, the real Venice £35 return from London by air."


----------



## Chouan

Zakk said:


> I don't understand the groups in the UK celebrating her death. I would never celebrate the death of a U.S. president, no matter how much I disagree with his policies.


That's because the politics of US Presidents and Parties are generally so close to each other that they're almost indistinguishable. How could you hate a president who's views are so similar to all the others? Hoover and Roosevelt are the only two that were so radically different that it mattered.


----------



## Chouan

Joseph Peter said:


> As a Yank, I suppose it can be said that I've no business commenting but to compare her to Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etal is just a tad over the top, dont you think? Taking on unions doesnt seem to match up with marching people off to concentration camps or killing fields or gulags.


It was the style of leadership I was commenting on. The single-minded conviction of rightness, the lack of self-doubt, the absolute belief that what one is doing is right, such that any dissent or disagreement or questioning is absolutely disregarded and the person suggesting different views is viewed as a traitor. How she dealt with people she regarded as traitors is, of course, different, but she believed them to be traitors, and said so, using that very word.
She didn't march them off to Gulags, she simply shut down the industries in which they worked.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I remember the events of that time very clearly as I was then an infantryman in the Green Jackets, and there was some suggestion that there might be a general mobilisation of the TA - in the event, that did not happen. From my perspective, the Argentine invasion came as a complete surprise. I cannot believe you are seriously attempting to imply that it occurred as a result of some wilful dirty tricks. It was sheer opportunistic stupidity on the part of General Galtieri and his junta, something that could never have been foreseen.


Lord CArrington, the then Foreign Secretary resigned over his Office's failure to act on the evidence and intelligence received of Argentina's plans which were developed because of Britain's perceived attitude towards the Falklands, attitudes that were, to the Argentine's, confirmed by the Nationalities Bill and the withdrawal of HMS Endurance. 
Where did I imply wilful dirty tricks? That's twice you've suggested it. Where have I said that?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> ...The single-minded conviction of rightness, the lack of self-doubt, the absolute belief that what one is doing is right, such that any dissent or disagreement or questioning is absolutely disregarded and the person suggesting different views is viewed as a traitor...


That's why she was such a good leader.



Chouan said:


> Lord CArrington, the then Foreign Secretary resigned over his Office's failure to act on the evidence and intelligence received of Argentina's plans which were developed because of Britain's perceived attitude towards the Falklands, attitudes that were, to the Argentine's, confirmed by the Nationalities Bill and the withdrawal of HMS Endurance.
> Where did I imply wilful dirty tricks? That's twice you've suggested it. Where have I said that?


The deliberate implication of what you seem to be saying is that the Argentines were in some way led on to attack - as if, by lowering our defences slightly, their rather brazen smash and grab tactics were not only excused but to be expected. After-the-event wisdom cannot always be relied on in advance.


----------



## Langham

Zakk said:


> I don't understand the groups in the UK celebrating her death. I would never celebrate the death of a U.S. president, no matter how much I disagree with his policies.


It's quite distasteful but these things happen, unfortunately. There is a very long tradition in this country of fighting a vicious rearguard action against all forms of progress, which goes back far beyond the Luddites.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> That's why she was such a good leader.
> 
> The deliberate implication of what you seem to be saying is that the Argentines were in some way led on to attack - as if, by lowering our defences slightly, their rather brazen smash and grab tactics were not only excused but to be expected. After-the-event wisdom cannot always be relied on in advance.


Only she was warned that lowering our defences in the Falklands would encourage the Argentinians to consider doing just that. She, in her wisdom and disregard for views other than her own, ignored the warnings and went ahead with her plans. What followed was exactly what she had been warned about. It wasn't hind sight, or "after-the-event wisdom", it was warnings disregarded by the kind of "single-minded rightness" that you so admire.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> It's quite distasteful but these things happen, unfortunately. There is a very long tradition in this country of fighting a vicious rearguard action against all forms of progress, which goes back far beyond the Luddites.


Please explain how privatisation of the railways, the impoverishment of millions through enforced unemployment, the compulsory selling off of local government social housing stock, the use of North Sea oil revenues to reduce taxes for the better off, rather than improving infra-structure etc, is progress?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Only she was warned that lowering our defences in the Falklands would encourage the Argentinians to consider doing just that. She, in her wisdom and disregard for views other than her own, ignored the warnings and went ahead with her plans. What followed was exactly what she had been warned about. It wasn't hind sight, or "after-the-event wisdom", it was warnings disregarded by the kind of "single-minded rightness" that you so admire.


Assuming you are correct (although the real truth of what was or was not known at the time presumably will remain in a locked filing cabinet somewhere for the next 70 years), withdrawing the Endurance may have been a calculated risk or may have been no more than an operational necessity, but either way, only Galtieri can be held fundamentally responsible for what followed. If I choose not to keep a loaded shotgun by my bed, that should not be construed as an invitation to the local burglar to pay me a visit.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Chouan, you have framed your argument rather poorly, if I may say. Are you a mouthpiece for the NUM?
> 
> The colliery at Easington may have been making a profit, I can't tell, but if it was it would have been because the state-run electricity board was buying coal from it at an artificial price.
> 
> At one time I happened to live quite near (too near) to the Consett steelworks, whose closure was a foregone conclusion even before the Conservatives won power in 1979 - there was no longer any iron ore, there was no limestone, and even coal in the region was becoming exhausted, so running a steelworks far out on the Durham moors was never going to make economic sense under those circumstances.
> 
> The big picture was that by the 1970s the United Kingdom was much like a scaled-down version of the Soviet Union - we had a lot of state-run, very inefficiently managed businesses, just think of it, the telephones, electricity, gas, water, railways, mines, steelyards, shipyards, car makers, airlines, British Aerospace, and who knows what else - even Rolls-Royce - all run by civil servants from Whitehall, and all under the thumb of this or that mad-dog union leader. That was the system she inherited, there was no way it could work. Privatisation was a brilliant idea. People may have lost jobs in the short run - coal-miners, ship-builders etc etc- but it would have happened to them sooner or later. As in nature, mankind must adapt to survive - no one is owed a living.
> 
> You say our economy is not run for the benefit of the people, but it works a damn sight better now than it did in the 1970s.


You think so? So why do we have a Tory Government bleating about "broken Britain", the legacy of 20 odd years of Thatcherite policies? WE're in a deeper recession now that I can remember, caused, in part by the Banks being able to do as they like, through "free market" policies endorsed and followed by Thatcher and the creatures that followed her.
Consett may not have been economically viable in the longer term, but to cause 10000 people to lose their jobs, in one town, without any preparation, or idea how to deal with the social deprivation that would follow, indeed, any idea that the government should take responsibility for their actions was unforgiveable. How does it make economic or social sense to condemn people to unemployment, and the subsequent costs incurred in Social Security payments etc and deliberately making working men redundant, in every sense?
I don't accept that the publicly owned and run utilities were either inefficiently managed, or were under the thumb of trade union leaders. Are they run better now that they're run for profit? Are the water, electricity and gas utilities better run now that they're owned by foreign companies?


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Please explain how privatisation of the railways, the impoverishment of millions through enforced unemployment, the compulsory selling off of local government social housing stock, the use of North Sea oil revenues to reduce taxes for the better off, rather than improving infra-structure etc, is progress?


You're not a Guardian reader by any chance?

Railways - I would be the last to say the system is perfect; however, more people travel by train now than in the 1950s. 
Unemployment - there are more people in employment now than ever before. It was unemployment in the 1970s ('Labour isn't working') that got Mrs T elected in the first place.
The right to buy was very popular.
Reduce taxes? Seriously? If only they would. 
We've got infrastructure coming out of our ears.


----------



## VictorRomeo




----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> You think so? So why do we have a Tory Government bleating about "broken Britain", the legacy of 20 odd years of Thatcherite policies? WE're in a deeper recession now that I can remember, caused, in part by the Banks being able to do as they like, through "free market" policies endorsed and followed by Thatcher and the creatures that followed her.
> Consett may not have been economically viable in the longer term, but to cause 10000 people to lose their jobs, in one town, without any preparation, or idea how to deal with the social deprivation that would follow, indeed, any idea that the government should take responsibility for their actions was unforgiveable. How does it make economic or social sense to condemn people to unemployment, and the subsequent costs incurred in Social Security payments etc and deliberately making working men redundant, in every sense?
> I don't accept that the publicly owned and run utilities were either inefficiently managed, or were under the thumb of trade union leaders. Are they run better now that they're run for profit? Are the water, electricity and gas utilities better run now that they're owned by foreign companies?


My own view is that the Thatcher administration never quite took matters to their logical conclusion - total abolition of the welfare system. Unfortunately Mrs T was always held back by the Cabinet wets - she was the only one with balls, to recall an interesting comment from the time. It is the lingering malaise of welfarism that accounts for 'broken Britain', families like the odious Philpotts of Derby. Truly, the welfare state is a vivid illustration of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Even the Labour Party seems to accept now that the state-run enterprises of the 1970s were inefficient and badly run, and that the free market economy is the better system, so I don't see why you shouldn't also.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> You're not a Guardian reader by any chance?


That's a clever comment. You'll really convince people with that line of "argument".



Langham said:


> Railways - I would be the last to say the system is perfect; however, more people travel by train now than in the 1950s.
> Unemployment - there are more people in employment now than ever before. It was unemployment in the 1970s ('Labour isn't working') that got Mrs T elected in the first place.


Easily explained. There are far more people in the UK now, and far more people travel longer distances, by train, to work. Similarly, there are more people now so more people likely to be employed. On the other hand, there is a significant increase in the percentage of low paid part-time jobs. No apprenticeships for young people, and a dramatic increase in unpaid "work experience" posts, increasingly being made compulsory for the unemployed. How about, as an example, Tesco's practice of employing people on a 3 hour a week contract, where 37 hours of their work is classed as overtime, at the same rate of pay. Of course if they become absent through illness, Tesco only has to pay them for 3 hours work a week. At the same time people in higher management are paid increasingly more, with even less actual acceptance of responsibility for failure. Progress eh?



Langham said:


> The right to buy was very popular.


Of course it was; it was buying votes! Buy a council house at significantly below market price; who wouldn't? Where do the poor live now? In places run by private businesses, called things like "Housing Associations", in order to make a profit. More progress, I suppose.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> families like the odious Philpotts of Derby.


You're using him as an example of the faults of the Welfare State system? Even Cameron shrank from that odious connection, even Cameron shrank from using the deaths of 6 children for political point scoring! Was it his Welfare fuelled life style that guided him, or the fact he'd been a soldier, like yourself?



Langham said:


> Even the Labour Party seems to accept now that the state-run enterprises of the 1970s were inefficient and badly run, and that the free market economy is the better system, so I don't see why you shouldn't also.


Of course they do, because, as I've already argued, Thatcherism created our current political system. "New Labour" is, effectively, a milder form of Thatcherism.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> That's a clever comment. You'll really convince people with that line of "argument".


It was a serious question, as I like to know where people get their facts or rather opinions from - I had you down as Guardian, but with a side-bet on Socialist Worker.


> Easily explained. There are far more people in the UK now, and far more people travel longer distances, by train, to work. Similarly, there are more people now so more people likely to be employed. On the other hand, there is a significant increase in the percentage of low paid part-time jobs. No apprenticeships for young people, and a dramatic increase in unpaid "work experience" posts, increasingly being made compulsory for the unemployed. How about, as an example, Tesco's practice of employing people on a 3 hour a week contract, where 37 hours of their work is classed as overtime, at the same rate of pay. Of course if they become absent through illness, Tesco only has to pay them for 3 hours work a week. At the same time people in higher management are paid increasingly more, with even less actual acceptance of responsibility for failure. Progress eh?


Come on Chouan, this is really getting out of hand - I have absolutely no interest at all in discussing Tesco's employment practices.



> Of course it was; it was buying votes! Buy a council house at significantly below market price; who wouldn't? Where do the poor live now? In places run by private businesses, called things like "Housing Associations", in order to make a profit. More progress, I suppose.


Why would it be preferable or any better to be tenants of a local authority than of a private landlord? If it's because those tenants would not be paying the full market rent, why should their living costs be subsidised by other ratepayers?



Chouan said:


> You're using him as an example of the faults of the Welfare State system? Even Cameron shrank from that odious connection, even Cameron shrank from using the deaths of 6 children for political point scoring! Was it his Welfare fuelled life style that guided him, or the fact he'd been a soldier, like yourself?


Yes, I am using him as an example - Philpott was using the welfare system to fund a thoroughly pernicious lifestyle, that led directly to the deaths of those children. Is your last somewhat offensive jibe meant to be taken seriously?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> It was a serious question, as I like to know where people get their facts or rather opinions from - I had you down as Guardian, but with a side-bet on Socialist Worker.


Oh you are a card! I bet you had all the other Green Jackets in the Mess laughing like drains with a razor sharp wit like that!



Langham said:


> Come on Chouan, this is really getting out of hand - I have absolutely no interest at all in discussing Tesco's employment practices.


Of course not, why would you concern yourself with how the lower orders are exploited by their betters.



Langham said:


> Why would it be preferable or any better to be tenants of a local authority than of a private landlord? If it's because those tenants would not be paying the full market rent, why should their living costs be subsidised by other ratepayers?


Why the assumption that Local Authority rents aren't market value? I'd rather that the surplus goes to maintenance of the housing stock than line the pockets of private landlords.



Langham said:


> Yes, I am using him as an example - Philpott was using the welfare system to fund a thoroughly pernicious lifestyle, that led directly to the deaths of those children. Is your last somewhat offensive jibe meant to be taken seriously?


Was his appalling behaviour because of his use of the Social Welfare system, as you suggest? Or was it because he was an amoral control freak? Imagine his obvious cunning, manipulative behaviour, preying on the vulnerable, and the potential result of his amoral attitudes if he was in a position of power? Or was it because he'd been a soldier?


----------



## Langham

^^Chouan, I'm sorry but it's clear you are simply trying to rile me.

I have no further interest in continuing this exchange with you in your present puerile temper.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^^Chouan, I'm sorry but it's clear you are simply trying to rile me.
> 
> I have no further interest in continuing this exchange with you in your present puerile temper.


But I'm not trying to "rile you", or even make you cross (as we're both English) I'm just disagreeing with you. I've no idea who you are, so why would I want to annoy you? You're not that important to me.
What I've been doing is argue with you, by presenting evidence to support my case and my opinions, and presenting evidence to counter your views. If you wish to see arguments against your views on Thatcher as an attempt to annoy you, you're following in her footsteps exactly, seeing views contrary to yours as attacks, not arguments.


----------



## Chouan

This is, I think, an interesting view of her:
One Sunday recently while staying in London I took a stroll in the gardens of Temple, the insular clod of quads and offices between The Strand and The Embankment. It's kind of a luxury, rent-controlled ghetto for lawyers and barristers; there is a beautiful tailor's, a fine chapel, established by The Knight's Templar (from which the compound takes its name), a twee cottage designed by Sir Christopher Wren, and a Rose Garden, which I never promised you.
My mate John and I were wandering there together, him expertly proselytizing on the architecture and the history of the place, me pretending to be Rumpole of the Bailey (quietly in my mind), when we spied in the distant garden a hunched and frail figure, in a raincoat, scarf about her head, watering the roses under the breezy supervision of a masticating copper. "What's going on there mate?" John asked a nearby chippy loading his white van. "Maggie Thatcher," he said. "Comes here every week to water them flowers." The three of us watched as the gentle horticultural ritual was feebly enacted, then regarded the Iron Lady being helped into the back of a car and trundling off. In this moment she inspired only curiosity, a pale phantom dumbly filling her day. None present eyed her meanly or spoke with vitriol and it wasn't til an hour later that I dreamt up an Ealing Comedy-style caper in which two inept crooks kidnap Thatcher from the garden but are unable to cope with the demands of dealing with her and give her back. This reverie only occurred when the car was out of view. In her diminished presence I stared like an amateur astronomer unable to describe my awe at this distant phenomenon.
When I was a kid Margaret Thatcher was the headmistress of our country. Her voice, a bellicose yawn, somehow both boring and boring -- I could ignore the content but the intent drilled its way in. She became leader of the Conservatives the year I was born and prime minister when I was four; she remained in power till I was 15; I am, it's safe to say, one of Thatcher's children. How then do I feel on the day of this matriarchal mourning?
I grew up in Essex with a single mum and a go-getter Dagenham dad. I don't know if they ever voted for her, I don't know if they liked her; my dad I suspect did, he had enough Del Boy about him to admire her coiffured virility, but in a way Thatcher was so omnipotent, so omnipresent, so omni-everything that all opinion was redundant.
As I scan the statements of my memory bank for early deposits (it'd be a kid's memory bank account at a neurological Nat West where you're encouraged to become a greedy little capitalist with an escalating family of porcelain pigs) I see her in her hairy helmet, condescending on Nationwide, eviscerating eunuch MPs and baffled BBC fuddy duddies with her General Zodd stare and coldly condemning the IRA. And the miners. And the single mums. The dockers. The poll-tax rioters. The Brixton rioters, the Argentinians, teachers; everyone actually.
Thinking about it now, when I was a child she was just a strict woman telling everyone off and selling everything off. I didn't know what to think of this fearsome woman.
Perhaps my early apathy and indifference are a result of what Thatcher deliberately engendered, the idea that "there is no such thing as society," that we are alone on our journey through life, solitary atoms of consciousness. Or perhaps it was just because I was a little kid and more interested in them Weetabix skinheads, Roland Rat and Knight Rider. Either way I'm an adult now and none of those things are on telly anymore, so there's no excuse for apathy.
When John Lennon was told of Elvis Presley's death he famously responded, "Elvis died when he joined the army" -- meaning, of course, that his combat clothing and clipped hair signaled the demise of the thrusting, Dionysian revolution of which he was the immaculate emblem.
When I awoke today on L.A. time, my phone was full of impertinent digital eulogies. It'd be disingenuous to omit that there were a fair number of ding-dong-style celebratory messages amidst the pensive reflections on the end of an era. Interestingly, one mate of mine, a proper leftie, in his heyday all Red Wedge and right-on punch-ups, was melancholy. "I thought I'd be overjoyed, but really it's just... another one bites the dust..." This demonstrates I suppose that if you opposed Thatcher's ideas it is likely because of their lack of compassion, which is really just a word for love. If love is something you cherish it is hard to glean much joy from death, even in one's enemies.
Perhaps, though, Thatcher "the monster" didn't die this week from a stroke; perhaps that Thatcher died as she sobbed self-pitying tears as she was driven defeated from Downing Street, ousted by her own party. By then, 1990, I was 15, adolescent and instinctively antiestablishment enough to regard her disdainfully. I'd unthinkingly imbibed enough doctrine to know that, troubled as I was, there was little point looking elsewhere for support; I was on my own. We are all on our own. Norman Tebbit, one of Thatcher's acolytes and fellow "Munsters evacuee," said when the National Union of Miners eventually succumbed to the military onslaught and starvation over which she presided, "[We] broke not just a strike, but a spell." The spell he's referring to is the unseen bond that connects us all and prevents us from being subjugated by tyranny. The spell of community.
Those strikes were confusing to me as a child. All of the Tory edicts that bludgeoned our nation, as my generation squirmed through ghoulish puberty, were confusing. When all the public amenities were flogged, the adverts made it seem to my childish eyes fun and positive, jaunty slogans and affable British stereotypes jostling about in villages, selling people companies that they'd already paid for through tax. I just now watched the British Gas one again, it's like a whimsical live action episode of Postman Pat where his cat is craftily carved up and sold back to him.
"The News" was the pompous conduit through which we suckled at the barren Baroness, through newscaster wet-nurses, naturally, not direct from the steel teat. Jan Leeming, Sue Lawly Moira Stewart -- delivering doctrine with sterile sexiness, like a butterscotch-scented beige vapour. To use a less bizarre analogy: If Thatcher was the headmistress, they were junior school teachers, authoritative but warm enough that you could call them 'Mum' by accident. You could never call Margaret 'Mother' by mistake; for a national matriarch, she was oddly unmaternal. I always felt a bit sorry for her biological children Mark and Carol, wondering from whom they would get their cuddles. "Thatcher as mother" seemed, to my tiddly mind, anathema; how could anyone who was so resolutely Margaret Thatcher be anything else? In the Meryl Streep film, it's the scenes of domesticity that appear most absurd. Knocking up a flan for Dennis or helping Carol with her algebra or Mark with his gunrunning are jarring distractions from the main narrative: woman as warrior queen.
It always struck me as peculiar, too, when the Spice Girls briefly championed Thatcher as an early example of Girl Power. I don't see that. She is an anomaly, a product of the freak-conomy of her time. Barack Obama interestingly said in his statement that she had "broken the glass ceiling for other women." Only in the sense that all the women beneath her were blinded by falling shards. She is an icon of individualism, not of feminism.
I have few recollections of Thatcher after the slowly chauffeured, weepy Downing Street cortege. I'd become a delinquent by then, living on heroin and benefit fraud.
There were sporadic resurrections; to drape a hankie over a model BA plane tailfin because she disliked the unpatriotic logo with which they'd replaced the Union Jack (maybe don't privatize BA then) or to shuffle about some country pile arm in arm with a dithery Pinochet and tell us all what a fine fellow he was. It always irks when right-wing folk demonstrate in a familial or exclusive setting the values that they deny in a broader social context. They're happy to share big windfall bonuses with their cronies; they'll stick up for deposed dictator chums when they're down on their luck; they'll find opportunities in business for people they care about. I hope I'm not being reductive, but it seems Thatcher's time in power was solely spent diminishing the resources of those who had least for the advancement of those who had most. I know from my own indulgence in selfish behavior that it's much easier to get what you want if you remove from consideration the effect your actions will have on others.
Is that what made her so formidable, her ability to ignore the suffering of others? Given the nature of her legacy, "survival of the fittest" -- a phrase that Darwin himself only used twice in _Origin of Species_, compared to hundreds of references to altruism, love and cooperation, it isn't surprising that there are parties this week in Liverpool, Glasgow and Brixton -- from where are they to have learned compassion and forgiveness?
The blunt, pathetic reality is that a little old lady has died, who in the winter of her life had to water roses alone under police supervision. If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't. Her death must be sad for the handful of people she was nice to and the rich people who got richer under her stewardship. It isn't sad for anyone else. There are pangs of nostalgia, yes, because for me she's all tied up with Hi-De-Hi and Speak and Spell and Blockbusters and "follow the bear." What is more troubling is my inability to ascertain where my own selfishness ends and her neoliberal inculcation begins. All of us that grew up under Thatcher were taught that it is good to be selfish, that other people's pain is not your problem, that pain is in fact a weakness and suffering is deserved and shameful. Perhaps there is resentment because the clemency and respect that are being mawkishly displayed now by some and haughtily demanded of the rest of us at the impending, solemn funeral are values that her government and policies sought to annihilate.
I can't articulate with the skill of either of "the Marks," Steel or Thomas, why Thatcher and Thatcherism were so bad for Britain, but I do recall that even to a child her demeanour and every discernible action seemed to be to the detriment of our national spirit and identity. Her refusal to stand against apartheid, her civil war against the unions, her aggression towards our neighbours in Ireland and a taxation system that was devised in the dark ages, the bombing of a retreating ship -- it's just not British.
I do not yet know what effect Margaret Thatcher has had on me as an individual or on the character of our country as we continue to evolve. As a child she unnerved me but we are not children now and we are free to choose our own ethical codes and leaders that reflect them.


----------



## rsgordon

Destruction and tendency towards chaos is always easier than building a solid case about something. The idea applies to everything, so please stop trying to bash everything in sight including Thatcher. You are producing nothing.


----------



## Shaver

Sheep Farming in the Falklands - CRASS

Onward Thatcher's soldiers, it's your job to fight...
"And, you know, I don't really give a toss if the cause is wrong or right,
My political neck means more to me than the lives of a thousand men,
If I felt it might be of use to me I'd do it all over again.
The Falklands was really a cover up job to obscure the mistakes I've made,
And you know I think gamble I took could certainly be said to have paid.
With unemployment at an all-time high and the country falling apart
I, Winston Thatcher, reign supreme in this great nations' heart."

*WARNING! VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED - EXPLICIT LYRICS
*


----------



## Chouan

Very well put.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mike Petrik said:


> I have no opinion regarding the soul of the late Senator of Massachusetts, though hope he sees the eternal light notwithstanding his serious transgressions which you so blithely dismiss.


I don't want to derail this thread about Thatcher onto Kennedy-centric tracks, but I thought you might find this interesting: I had the honor to serve as a Senate page one summer. As you may know, the duties of pages include things like fetching drinks for Senators on the floor, ferrying messages between the floor or committee rooms and the Senators' offices, setting up lecterns, and tracking down Senators needed for votes (knocking on restroom stalls included!). There was a striking diversity of treatment offered by the Senators to those beneath their station, and pages were as beneath as it got. Kennedy was always reasonably kind and courteous to the "little people." I wasn't at Chappaquiddick, or any of the other locales of Teddy's pecadilos/failings/transgressions, and I'm in no position to offer a broad judgment of the man's character. I had only a statistically-insignificant snapshot of the man, but it was a favorable one.

Notably, there was at least one other Senator of roughly his political views who was decidedly NOT pleasant or kind, and quite a few who were simply aloof and so superior that they would not acknowledge you.

Anyway, I now return you to your regularly scheduled battle over the corpse of Thatcher.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Chouan said:


> You're not that important to me.


I would appreciate it if you would reconsider this statement.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> I don't want to derail this thread about Thatcher onto Kennedy-centric tracks, but I thought you might find this interesting: I had the honor to serve as a Senate page one summer. As you may know, the duties of pages include things like fetching drinks for Senators on the floor, ferrying messages between the floor or committee rooms and the Senators' offices, setting up lecterns, and tracking down Senators needed for votes (knocking on restroom stalls included!). There was a striking diversity of treatment offered by the Senators to those beneath their station, and pages were as beneath as it got. Kennedy was always reasonably kind and courteous to the "little people." I wasn't at Chappaquiddick, or any of the other locales of Teddy's pecadilos/failings/transgressions, and I'm in no position to offer a broad judgment of the man's character. I had only a statistically-insignificant snapshot of the man, but it was a favorable one.
> 
> Notably, there was at least one other Senator of roughly his political views who was decidedly NOT pleasant or kind, and quite a few who were simply aloof and so superior that they would not acknowledge you.
> 
> Anyway, I now return you to your regularly scheduled battle over the corpse of Thatcher.


I don't doubt it, Cuff. I never met Kennedy and certainly pass no judgment on the state of his immortal soul. My sense of him (very imperfect and unreliable) is that he was a reasonably jovial fellow who mostly liked people, but who all too often placed a higher value on his appetites than on their dignity. But as I say, I could be wrong -- and even if I'm right I take no particular satisfaction in it. We all have feet of clay.


----------



## Chouan

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I would appreciate it if you would reconsider this statement.


Why? The member asserted that I was trying to "rile" him. I replied that I wasn't trying to annoy him or anybody else. The member isn't so important to me that I would wish to annoy him. I think is fairly straight forward?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't doubt it, Cuff. I never met Kennedy and certainly pass no judgment on the state of his immortal soul. My sense of him (very imperfect and unreliable) is that he was a reasonably jovial fellow who mostly liked people, but who all too often placed a higher value on his appetites than on their dignity. But as I say, I could be wrong -- and even if I'm right I take no particular satisfaction in it. We all have feet of clay.


What Ted Kennedy and Margaret Thatcher had in common was that they both had an unshakable belief that what they were doing was right and for the greater good. I can respect that in both individuals, and a hundred years from now, when all of the impacted parties are long dead and buried, I think history will be kind to both.


----------



## Chouan

Snow Hill Pond said:


> What Ted Kennedy and Margaret Thatcher had in common was that they both had an unshakable belief that what they were doing was right and for the greater good.


So did Robespierre.The Republic of "Vertue".
Is "_an unshakable belief that what they were doing was right and for the greater good_." a good thing, of itself? No matter what the damage and suffering caused?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Chouan said:


> Why? The member asserted that I was trying to "rile" him. I replied that I wasn't trying to annoy him or anybody else. The member isn't so important to me that I would wish to annoy him. I think is fairly straight forward?


I just wanted to make sure that that was what you intended to say.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Snow Hill Pond said:


> What Ted Kennedy and Margaret Thatcher had in common was that they both had an unshakable belief that what they were doing was right and for the greater good. I can respect that in both individuals, and a hundred years from now, when all of the impacted parties are long dead and buried, I think history will be kind to both.


Not in the UK from Thatcher's perspective. She was too divisive a figure. You're all seeing - even on this thread - the reaction her passing has generated. She split her nation even more so into a nation of haves and have nots. Her policies generated wealth for millions mostly in the south. She further impoverished millions and ruined thousands of communities mostly in the north. All the while calling them traitors. Can you imagine that?! The one job that up until the 70s carried Britian through all her travails, the one job dirtier and more dangerous than most any other job and being called a traitor by your Prime Minister?!

She divided her country. You can't do that and be fondly remembered by history.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Chouan said:


> So did Robespierre.The Republic of "Vertue".
> Is "_an unshakable belief that what they were doing was right and for the greater good_." a good thing, of itself? No matter what the damage and suffering caused?


We are all too close to the subject matter to evaluate it objectively. As I said, 100 years from now, history may be the better judge.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

VictorRomeo said:


> She divided her country. You can't do that and be fondly remembered by history.


Abraham Lincoln would beg to differ.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Abraham Lincoln would beg to differ.


For the sake of clarity and my confusion, who or what actions of his are you referring to?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

VictorRomeo said:


> For the sake of clarity and my confusion, who or what actions of his are you referring to?


Sorry, I was just trying to say that President Lincoln's election contributed to the seccession of the southern states from the USA in 1860 and the eventual US Civil War. Although reviled by many during his term, he is generally considered today to be one of the US's best Presidents.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Sorry, I was just trying to say that President Lincoln's election contributed to the succession of the southern states from the USA in 1860 and the eventual US Civil War. Although reviled by many during his term, he is generally considered today to be one of the US's best Presidents.


Hence my confusion. His actions - remembered by history (and simplistically put) - was to ultimately unite a nation and emancipate an enslaved people. Entirely honourable. And I do get the context of your intended point, but Margaret Thatcher is a different case. We're thirty-odd years or so into her history - when she came to be PM kick her plan off - yet her nation remains utterly divided. I believe in 100 years - it will remain just as split.


----------



## Chouan

And now, in a time of recession and of being told that public spending needs to be drastically cut, wage freezes on public sector employees, their pensions being cut and National Insurance payments being increased, our government tells us that we, the tax payers, will be spending £10,000,000 on a public funeral for her at St.Paul's. The hypocrisy is sickening.


----------



## Langham

VictorRomeo said:


> Not in the UK from Thatcher's perspective. She was too divisive a figure. You're all seeing - even on this thread - the reaction her passing has generated. She split her nation even more so into a nation of haves and have nots. Her policies generated wealth for millions mostly in the south. She further impoverished millions and ruined thousands of communities mostly in the north. All the while calling them traitors. Can you imagine that?! The one job that up until the 70s carried Britian through all her travails, the one job dirtier and more dangerous than most any other job and being called a traitor by your Prime Minister?!
> 
> She divided her country. You can't do that and be fondly remembered by history.


I agree with you that she was a divisive figure - that is self-evident even here. The rest of your post however strikes me as blinkered and partisan. i am tempted to balance it with a different perspective, but I think the industrial changes she brought about are all perfectly well-known, so I will not rehash them here, but they were largely changes that were inevitable sooner or later. The communities you say she 'ruined' had been living on borrowed time for years, and the changes in law applying to industrial relations were sorely needed.

Look at the other changes she helped bring about - the fall of the iron curtain and the Berlin Wall, the return of democracy throughout Eastern Europe, the creation of opportunity and enterprise for millions of people. I think the perspective of history will be that those important achievements were all well worthwhile.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Snow Hill Pond said:


> they both had an unshakable belief that what they were doing was right and for the greater good. I can respect that in both individuals


This is something I am deeply, deeply ambivalent about. I believe people ought to have principles, and ought to stick to them, advocate for them, and fight for them if necessary/warranted. Most the great heroes of the world have been heroes because they did so.

But unshakeable belief leads to blindness, certitude, unwillingness to compromise. It makes it harder to accept data that indicates one's views are wrong. It makes it easier to justify extreme and unreasonable actions. It enables a great deal of the evil in the world.

When I indulge in such philosophical matters, this is a point that I always find to be full of tension.


----------



## Langham

*Cold War angel*

^^Some of Lady Thatcher's government's actions were seen as extreme and unreasonable, and no doubt they would not have happened without her unshakable belief that what her government was doing was right. They were nevertheless deeply necessary actions.
This afternoon I have been listening to tributes to her from a great many politicians on both sides of the House of Commons and it has brought home to me what an amazing woman she was.
Here is a tribute to her from a Pole, who credits her with the restoration of democracy in that country:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...-Cold-War-angel-and-a-democratic-miracle.html


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

CuffDaddy said:


> It enables a great deal of the evil in the world.


It enables good as well. I'm humbled that someone like Mother Theresa lived her life the way she did.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> This is something I am deeply, deeply ambivalent about. I believe people ought to have principles, and ought to stick to them, advocate for them, and fight for them if necessary/warranted. Most the great heroes of the world have been heroes because they did so.
> 
> But unshakeable belief leads to blindness, certitude, unwillingness to compromise. It makes it harder to accept data that indicates one's views are wrong. It makes it easier to justify extreme and unreasonable actions. It enables a great deal of the evil in the world.
> 
> When I indulge in such philosophical matters, this is a point that I always find to be full of tension.


I agree with you, Cuff, but would note that public resolve and private doubt are not incompatible. We should be cautious about inferring the lack of the latter from the presence of the former. Snow Hill Pond's reference to Mother Teresa is a case in point as is the earlier references to Abraham Lincoln. The analysis and prudential discernment that go into reaching conclusions are often very private matters, and the conclusions seldom benefit from absolute certainty. But a leader recognizes that paralysis by analysis is its own conclusion, and often yields the field to those with whom you disagree -- notwithstanding uncertainty. It is morally admirable to work hard in pursuit of the policies you think best, and it is no excuse to do nothing simply because certainty wasn't available. What is not morally objectionable is to vilify those who in good faith reach conclusions contrary to yours. It is because you and I both agree with these sentiments that we have such a delightful time discussing weighty matters over whiskey, especially those matters over which we disagree.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Agreed on all of the above. One of the reasons I like Churchill so much was that he seemed to be able to resolute, right up until the moment that the evidence caused him to change his mind. He was principled but open-minded, which is a rare and difficult combination.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> Agreed on all of the above. One of the reasons I like Churchill so much was that he seemed to be able to resolute, right up until the moment that the evidence caused him to change his mind. He was principled but open-minded, which is a rare and difficult combination.


Excellent point about Churchill. He truly was a great American! ;-)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> I think you'll find the consensus this side of the pond decidedly split. That is to say, there are many - especially in her own country - that would rather her rot in hell than rest in peace.


+1

I hope the evil theiving B***H rots in hell! I had to do things as a copper that I did not want to do because of that cow. I didn't want to police laid off print workers at Wapping!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> I hope that there are miners and Falklands veterans waiting to greet her in the afterlife.


Hear Hear!!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> Mine called her barbaric.


Mine too.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> A "strong leader", in the same way that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Robespierre were strong leaders. Single minded and determined in her self-belief, despite what others said, seeing views that differed to her own as opposition, rather than merely different. She deliberately destroyed Britain's manufacturing industry, mining, ship building and shipping in her ideologically driven quest to destroy what she saw as the illegitimate power of the trade unions. She completed the process of destroying cabinet government in Britain, started by Wilson, and broke the concensus politics of post-war Britain. She fragmented and polarised British society, which, in her view didn't exist, and created a milieu in which creatures like Blair, Cameron, Osborne and Johnson could exist politically.
> Her policies with regards to the Forces and the Falkland islanders led directly to the Argentine invasion. She then gained another period of office on the back of the military success of the Falklands' recapture, and through the loss of nearly 300 British lives. Cynical manipulation of a crisis that her policies caused.
> I don't rejoice at her death, like many others are doing; it's too late for that, the damage is done.


Well said sir, spot on!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Langham said:


> I agree with you that she was a divisive figure - that is self-evident even here. The rest of your post however strikes me as blinkered and partisan.


 I imagine I'm as blinkered and partisan as you are in this matter....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Kingstonian said:


> Yeah. Privatise the railways. Split everything up, so one company can blame another, and then land the passenger with the most expensive fares in Europe.
> 
> Brilliant.


Well said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

eagle2250 said:


> This thread was started as a tribute to and respective send off for the "Iron Lady!" What can one say about those who would choose to torment a corpse, that their words/conduct does not already tell us about them?


Eagle, I lived and worked in the RAF and police thorughout her reign of tyranny, and the torment and pain that woman caused, that I saw around me everyday is still deeply felt by many people, so much so that to them and myself included she is not worthy of respect dead and was not worthy of it alive.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Zakk said:


> I don't understand the groups in the UK celebrating her death. I would never celebrate the death of a U.S. president, no matter how much I disagree with his policies.


 I do and if I was in the UK I'd be partying too, as would the families of police officers, soldiers and Irish civilians and Irish prisoners killed because of her arrogance, ignorance, stupidity, racism and pure stubbornness!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

BTW, speacial relationship my Ar*e!!! For the benefit of American readers Reagan refused to help Britain during the Falklands War. I was a professional solider during the Falklands War, six hour stand-by, in combats 24/7, kit packed, our armour, landrovers, heavy weapons on board ship at southampton, no home leave. 

In the last few days, something has become very apparent, I've noticed it among the Swedes around me and form Americans on various forums, and other people that didn't live under Thatch, they all have this rosy idea of her as a great leader. You haven't got a clue! No one in the political history of the Brtiish Isles in the 20th century, with perhaps the exception of Lloyd George, was hated as much as Thatch! No one!!!

Foreigners also have this rosy view of the "great statesman" Churchill, who from the 1890s until the 1960s commited or ordered war crimes to be commited in South Africa, London, Ireland, Germany, Malay and Aden! If Germany had won the Second World War, Churchill would have been the first war criminal to swing from the gallows in 1945 for his compound crimes of a period of about 60 years! Like Thatch he was an arrogant, pompous racist bigot.


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> BTW, speacial relationship my Ar*e!!! For the benefit of American readers Reagan refused to help Britain during the Falklands War. I was a professional solider during the Falklands War, six hour stand-by, in combats 24/7, kit packed, our armour, landrovers, heavy weapons on board ship at southampton, no home leave.
> 
> In the last few days, something has become very apparent, I've noticed it among the Swedes around me and form Americans on various forums, and other people that didn't live under Thatch, they all have this rosy idea of her as a great leader. You haven't got a clue! No one in the political history of the Brtiish Isles in the 20th century, with perhaps the exception of Lloyd George, was hated as much as Thatch! No one!!!
> 
> Foreigners also have this rosy view of the "great statesman" Churchill, who from the 1890s until the 1960s commited or ordered war crimes to be commited in South Africa, London, Ireland, Germany, Malay and Aden! If Germany had won the Second World War, Churchill would have been the first war criminal to swing from the gallows in 1945 for his compound crimes of a period of about 60 years! Like Thatch he was an arrogant, pompous racist bigot.


You seem to be getting a little carried away. What you say suggests that the Swedes and Americans may have a more balanced perspective on Thatcher (and our other outstanding twentieth-century leader). Germany probably would have won the war without Churchill.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> You seem to be getting a little carried away. What you say suggests that the Swedes and Americans may have a more balanced perspective on Thatcher (and our other outstanding twentieth-century leader). Germany probably would have won the war without Churchill.


You are incorrect on all points.


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You are incorrect on all points.


 That's really what I was saying to you.


----------



## Shaver

In the UK perhaps those who benefitted from Thatchers' raiding of public property and subsequently redistributing it to the wealthy could look upon her reign fondly. Having no compassion nor conscience would further assist in the holding of this skewed perspective.

One thing I will say in her defence is that Mrs Thatcher clearly had some type of breakdown whilst in power and perhaps was less than compus mentis. Certainly her mental state degenerated enormously in the years following her retirement. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cruel-dimming-mental-powers-tested-limit.html Although, this fact makes her supporters look even more deranged themselves.


----------



## Langham

^^She ended up with Alzheimer's - she was 87 for God's sake!


----------



## Langham

^^^Anyway, as for having no compassion or conscience - that's just tripe. She released the miners from their inhuman captivity in the pits, didn't she?:devil:


----------



## Shaver

^ She was obviously suffering a long time before that. She thought she was more important than the Queen! She referred to herself as 'we'. And so on and so forth.....

Ayyway, presumably you benefitted from her economic policies?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> That's really what I was saying to you.


We'll never agree on this. So there's no point doing this.


----------



## CuffDaddy

All I can say is: fascinating. I was certainly aware that Thatcher was greatly disliked by those on the left in the UK, just as Reagan was by those on the left here (my child self and my parents included!). The intensity, though, is news to me. I also know that Churchill was not without his failings and foibles, but I've never seen him blasted by a Brit in the way that Earl laid into him, nor on so many different topics. 

Don't let me disrupt the row, I love hearing views I haven't gotten a full dose of before.


----------



## Langham

^ I don't know whether I did, personally. In fact I certainly don't consider myself to be at all wealthy, but I am certainly more able to enjoy my liberty than I would have been under Wedgwood-Benn and the others like him. I believe she left the country a far better place.

[referring to Saver post 102]


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> All I can say is: fascinating. I was certainly aware that Thatcher was greatly disliked by those on the left in the UK,


Not just the left, she was also disliked by many Liberals (liberals are centrists in Europe), and many Conservatives and many Unionists.


----------



## Chouan

Strangely enough, although what I will refer to as "anti-Thatcherites" are perceived as negative, and are quite passionate in her condemnation of her and her policies, the people I shall refer to as "pro-Thatcherites", who see themselves and, their world view as positive, are far more passionate and condemnatory about the anti-Thatcherites, with name calling, ad hominem attacks and unsupported assertions. Rather like Thatcher herself.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> I also know that Churchill was not without his failings and foibles, but I've never seen him blasted by a Brit in the way that Earl laid into him, nor on so many different topics.


There are plenty of websites and books that cover Churchill's crimes.


----------



## Langham

CuffDaddy said:


> All I can say is: fascinating. I was certainly aware that Thatcher was greatly disliked by those on the left in the UK, just as Reagan was by those on the left here (my child self and my parents included!). The intensity, though, is news to me. I also know that Churchill was not without his failings and foibles, but I've never seen him blasted by a Brit in the way that Earl laid into him, nor on so many different topics.
> 
> Don't let me disrupt the row, I love hearing views I haven't gotten a full dose of before.


I attribute a lot of the rabid dislike for Thatcher to sheer arrogant snobbery - she was a grocer's daughter, you know?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> ^ I don't know whether I did, personally. In fact I certainly don't consider myself to be at all wealthy, but I am certainly more able to enjoy my liberty than I would have been under Wedgwood-Benn and the others like him. I believe she left the country a far better place.
> 
> [referring to Saver post 102]


Saver?! :tongue2:

Times were tough when Thatcher took power, there is no disputing that. The alternatives were bleak too, I agree. However Thatcher did not leave the country a far better place. On the contrary, her reign undermined, eroded and disintegrated everything which a country requires to sustain itself (for a paltry quick buck in the short term).


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^ I don't know whether I did, personally. In fact I certainly don't consider myself to be at all wealthy, but I am certainly more able to enjoy my liberty than I would have been under Wedgwood-Benn and the others like him. I believe she left the country a far better place.
> 
> [referring to Saver post 102]


"There are two things a man will never admit to, being asleep and being wealthy."


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I attribute a lot of the rabid dislike for Thatcher to sheer arrogant snobbery - she was a grocer's daughter, you know?


You little tinker. You are enjoying this aren't you? :icon_smile:

Sod it, I'm off to the garden for a contemplative puff on the old pipe.


----------



## Langham

Sorry, Shaver.

I should say, I've had similar disagreements about the Baroness many many times in the past, and one thing I can say with total certainty is that her supporters will never change their view - and neither will her opponents. So unless I'm in the mood for a shouting match, which I might be, but not necessarily, and as I have a nice glass of single malt to hand, I'm not sure whether I can be bothered with this much longer.:drunken_smilie:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> There are plenty of websites and books that cover Churchill's crimes.


Yeah, I know. Somehow it's different in a "conversation," even a virtual one like this. While I'm a fan, I enjoyed reading you let it rip!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

*The Real Churchill*

https://orwellwasright.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/the-myth-of-churchills-greatness/

https://www.workersliberty.org/stor...5th-anniversary-when-workers-stopped-fascists
"For example, in 1920, Winston Churchill wrote: "This (Jewish and Communist) world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development ? has been steadily growing." Anti-Jewish prejudice was deeply ingrained, even on the left."

https://www.countercurrents.org/polya230109.htm

https://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/11/DTel191102.html

https://www.irishcentral.com/story/...ieved-de-valera-was-pro-hitler-131940993.html

https://mises.org/daily/1450
"Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear, but it is clear that he did everything possible to ensure that innocent Americans would be killed by German attempts to break the hunger blockade."


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Sorry, Shaver.
> 
> I should say, I've had similar disagreements about the Baroness many many times in the past, and one thing I can say with total certainty is that her supporters will never change their view - and neither will her opponents. So unless I'm in the mood for a shouting match, which I might be, but not necessarily, and as I have a nice glass of single malt to hand, I'm not sure whether I can be bothered with this much longer.:drunken_smilie:


Enjoy your Scotch, fine fellow, and let us never speak on this particular subject again. :icon_smile:


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> "Whether Churchill actually arranged for the sinking of the Lusitania on May 7, 1915, is still unclear, but it is clear that he did everything possible to ensure that innocent Americans would be killed by German attempts to break the hunger blockade."


That's why he was such a successful war leader - his cunning schemes to draw America into both wars actually worked!:wink2:


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> https://mises.org/daily/1450


That seems a rather weird website, now I've had time to look at it. Is the 'Ludwig von Mises Institute, advancing Austrian economics' necessarily to be trusted on the topic of Anglo-German relations?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> That's why he was such a successful war leader - his cunning schemes to draw America into both wars actually worked!:wink2:


Ouch!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> That seems a rather weird website, now I've had time to look at it. Is the 'Ludwig von Mises Institute, advancing Austrian economics' necessarily to be trusted on the topic of Anglo-German relations?


Really? That's all you've got? hhmmmm.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> And now, in a time of recession and of being told that public spending needs to be drastically cut, wage freezes on public sector employees, their pensions being cut and National Insurance payments being increased, our government tells us that we, the tax payers, will be spending £10,000,000 on a public funeral for her at St.Paul's. The hypocrisy is sickening.


Calm down - it can come out of the £75 billion she won back for us from those swindlers in Brussels.


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Really? That's all you've got? hhmmmm.


It's quite an interesting article in its own way - I had not properly appreciated the fact before but it seems the Germans were actually hapless innocent victims of both world wars, ensnared by the madman Churchill's Machiavellian scheming!


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I attribute a lot of the rabid dislike for Thatcher to sheer arrogant snobbery - she was a grocer's daughter, you know?


 Marrying a multi-millionaire helped a bit though.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Calm down - it can come out of the £75 billion she won back for us from those swindlers in Brussels.


On the other hand, as she could afford to have spent her time, since Christmas, at The Ritz, at £3500 a night (not including meals) because she didn't like the stairs at her place in Belgravia, I'm sure her family could have afforded to pay for it. Or perhaps the Tories could have had a whip round?


----------



## William Edwards

Sorry, but I refuse to toast that nasty old bat with anything other than acetylene. Not that I'm a leftie, quite the contrary, but she and her followers destroyed what was left of social conservatism in our politics.

That said, there are few things more obnoxious than the shameful celebrating of her death. People really have slipped towards barbarism when that happens.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> On the other hand, as she could afford to have spent her time, since Christmas, at The Ritz, at £3500 a night (not including meals) because she didn't like the stairs at her place in Belgravia, I'm sure her family could have afforded to pay for it. Or perhaps the Tories could have had a whip round?


I've no idea of the state of her bank balance, but I believe her stay at the Ritz was all paid for by its owners, the Barclay brothers - kind of them to make the arrangements.


----------



## Langham

William Edwards said:


> Sorry, but I refuse to toast that nasty old bat with anything other than acetylene. Not that I'm a leftie, quite the contrary, but she and her followers destroyed what was left of social conservatism in our politics.
> 
> That said, there are few things more obnoxious than the shameful celebrating of her death. People really have slipped towards barbarism when that happens.


I would caution against attempting to drink acetylene, it does nasty things to you.

I agree wholeheartedly with your second paragraph, but not the first.


----------



## Chouan

William Edwards said:


> Sorry, but I refuse to toast that nasty old bat with anything other than acetylene. Not that I'm a leftie, quite the contrary, but she and her followers destroyed what was left of social conservatism in our politics.
> 
> That said, there are few things more obnoxious than the shameful celebrating of her death. People really have slipped towards barbarism when that happens.


I agree, much as I loathed her and her policies and politics and everything she did, politically, I see no point in celebrating her death.


----------



## Belfaborac

It is quite telling, I think, that although Thatcher will be buried with full military honours, she is not given a state funeral (a distinction which appears lost on many). That's surely a tacit acceptance of the fact that she was literally hated by a very significant portion of the British people.

As far as the aftermath is concerned, I do hope that the grounds outside the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary at The Royal Hospital, Chelsea, are either enclosed by high walls or guarded round the clock. If not I fear they will quickly turn into a public pissoir, visited by people from all over the nation.


----------



## Langham

^ As prime minister, she was never our head of state. State funerals are normally restricted to monarchs - only very exceptionally (Churchill) have others had them. In the presence of the Queen, however, it will be a state funeral in all but name. 

I was not aware that she will be interred at Chelsea, but it is quite secure there - strangers can't just wander in.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

For my next entries into my "A Toast to..." series, I plan to honor Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler, Caligula, Nero, Nixon, Benedict Arnold, and finally Judas Ascariot on the anniversaries of their deaths. 

All joking aside, I apologize to my British friends for bringing this subject up. It was not my intent to create a forum thread for serious discord to mark the passing of Ms Thatcher.


----------



## Belfaborac

Langham said:


> ^ As prime minister, she was never our head of state. State funerals are normally restricted to monarchs - only very exceptionally (Churchill) have others had them.


Four others, I believe, and there has certainly been a chorus of voices clamouring for Thatcher to be the fifth, on the basis of her greatness being on a par with Churchill, Wellington, et al.


----------



## Langham

Belfaborac said:


> Four others, I believe, and there has certainly been a chorus of voices clamouring for Thatcher to be the fifth, on the basis of her greatness being on a par with Churchill, Wellington, et al.


Much as I admire her many achievements, I'm not sure history will see her on equal terms with either Churchill or Wellington, both of whom saved the nation from almost certain destruction, by Hitler, and earlier by Napoleon. By comparison, Thatcher's enemies - Arthur Scargill and General Galtieri (and I suppose Gerry Adams) - were all rather insignificant characters.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> I'm not sure history will see her on equal terms with either Churchill or Wellington, both of whom saved the nation *from almost certain destruction, by Hitler, and earlier by Napoleon.*


Blimey, talk about overegging the pudding! Tto achieve that there was first jJust the teeny weeny problem of getting across the water in sufficient numbers that neither of them could solve!


----------



## Mike Petrik

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Blimey, talk about overegging the pudding! Tto achieve that there was first jJust the teeny weeny problem of getting across the water in sufficient numbers that neither of them could solve!


Hitler's Operation Sea Lion was rendered impractical thanks to Great Britain's remarkable ability to maintain air and sea superiority; and perhaps more importantly Britain's unwillingness to sue for peace despite its isolation was a considerable political achievement. Whether Great Britain could have accomplished these things without Churchill is rank speculation, but it is perilous to assume so. Leadership matters, and it was not going to come from the Left of that era. I'm not aware of Napoleon having designs on invading Great Britain; he would have been satisfied in rendering her isolated and impotent, something that might well have happened but for the first Duke of Wellington.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Langham said:


> Much as I admire her many achievements, I'm not sure history will see her on equal terms with either Churchill or Wellington, both of whom saved the nation from almost certain destruction, by Hitler, and earlier by Napoleon. By comparison, Thatcher's enemies - Arthur Scargill and General Galtieri (and I suppose Gerry Adams) - were all rather insignificant characters.


Make no mistake, Thatcher considered the Soviet bloc to be the enemy of her country and therefore her enemy. Its defeat by collapse was not pre-ordained. Weak leadership in the West could have permitted quite different outcomes. The willingness of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to vigorously exploit the dent in the Iron Curtain placed by Lech Walesa was of historic importance by any fair measure. Of course, whether their victory is perceived as a good thing or bad thing depends largely on one's view of the workers' paradise.


----------



## Hitch

Mike Petrik said:


> Make no mistake, Thatcher considered the Soviet bloc to be the enemy of her country and therefore her enemy. Its defeat by collapse was not pre-ordained. Weak leadership in the West could have permitted quite different outcomes. The willingness and of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to vigorously exploit the dent in the Iron Curtain placed by Lech Walesa was of historic importance by any fair measure. Of course, whether their victory is perceived as a good thing or bad thing depends largely on one's view of the workers' paradise.


:teacha:


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Blimey, talk about overegging the pudding! Tto achieve that there was first jJust the teeny weeny problem of getting across the water in sufficient numbers that neither of them could solve!


Am I? Perhaps, but we don't know. Both made plans to invade, and the threat of invasion was a great worry in 1940 as there were an unknown number of well placed people in society whose loyalties were ambiguous - Hamilton and Windsor just to start with, never mind the BUF - which was how the nazis worked.


----------



## Langham

Mike Petrik said:


> Make no mistake, Thatcher considered the Soviet bloc to be the enemy of her country and therefore her enemy. Its defeat by collapse was not pre-ordained. Weak leadership in the West could have permitted quite different outcomes. The willingness of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to vigorously exploit the dent in the Iron Curtain placed by Lech Walesa was of historic importance by any fair measure. Of course, whether their victory is perceived as a good thing or bad thing depends largely on one's view of the workers' paradise.


I mentioned this earlier - the collapse of communism is generally thought a good thing throughout eastern Europe and in Russia, where Thatcher also has her supporters.

Unlike Hitler and Napoleon, the USSR was never at war with us, thankfully, although the distinction is perhaps a tad technical.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> I had not properly appreciated the fact before but it seems the Germans were actually hapless innocent victims of both world wars,


Leaving Churchll aside, and spinning the discussion off at a tangent about public information and propaganda, or Psychological Warfare as it is officially called, during the Second World War both populations (German and British) only knew what their govts wanted them to know. And people generally didn't talk to each other about the actual facts of warfare only about damage, injury & death. Remember that some things we take for granted today invented during the war weren't even known about by the vast majority during WWII, hardly any Britons outside the RAF and command level knew about RADAR. Joe Bloggs didn't know we had RADAR, couldn't even begin to guess what it was let alone tell you how it worked. Most Germans didn't know about the work and extermination camps, most Britons didn't know about the detention camps in the UK, and couldn't even identify half the military units we deployed or the equipment they used. During the First World War military secrecy and intelligence wasn't as tight, but Psychological Warfare, then in its infancy meant that most Britons thought that Tommy, Fred, Dick and Bill were having a jolly wheeze in the trenches fighting the Hun and would be home in time for tea and a kick about with the lads.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I mentioned this earlier - the collapse of communism is generally thought a good thing throughout eastern Europe and in Russia, where Thatcher also has her supporters.
> 
> Unlike Hitler and Napoleon, the USSR was never at war with us, thankfully, although the distinction is perhaps a tad technical.


Although we were at war with the USSR from 1918 to 1920, until we eventually realised that the collection of militarists, maniacs and dreamers that we were supporting hadn't a hope of winning support in Russia.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Hitler's Operation Sea Lion was rendered impractical thanks to Great Britain's remarkable ability to maintain air and sea superiority; and perhaps more importantly Britain's unwillingness to sue for peace despite its isolation was a considerable political achievement. Whether Great Britain could have accomplished these things without Churchill is rank speculation, but it is perilous to assume so. *Leadership matters, and it was not going to come from the Left of that era.* I'm not aware of Napoleon having designs on invading Great Britain; he would have been satisfied in rendering her isolated and impotent, something that might well have happened but for the first Duke of Wellington.


Two points, one, can you explain the highlighted statement please? Afterall, it was the British Left that had urged opposition to Hitler from the mid-1930's onwards. It was the Left who'd opposed the Fascists in Spain. The Tories of the time supported them; indeed, the press of the Right supported Nazism and Fascism until 1938 at least.
Second point. Bonaparte had planned invasion after the failure of the Peace of Amiens, establishing his Grande Armee at the camp of Boulogne. All he needed was Villeneuve's fleet to control the Channel for long enough to get the Grande Armee across; he had the Napoleonic equivalent of landing craft all prepared for the invasion. Unfortunately for him, Villeneuve, along with a Spanish fleet was intercepted by a fairly junior British Admiral, called Nelson, off the Spanish coast, the nearest place being Cabo Trafalgar.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Much as I admire her many achievements, I'm not sure history will see her on equal terms with...... Wellington..... who saved the nation from almost certain destruction ..... by Napoleon.


Except that he didn't. He fought a minor campaign in Spain, in order to keep Spain in the war and cause a drain on Bonaparte's resources, and certainly played no part in "saving the Nation from almost certain destruction". Even in 1815 his defeat of Bonaparte, with substantial Prussian assistance, at Waterloo merely stopped Bonaparte's invasion of Belgium. He, again, never saved "the Nation from almost certain destruction".


----------



## Belfaborac

It's what always happens in the aftermath of war and strife: victories and virtues are exaggerated while defeats and vices are swept under the carpet. Historians generally unearth the latter and restore some balance at some point, but only those very few who are actually interested in history gets to hear about it. The rest retain the myth which was constructed originally.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Except that he didn't. *He fought a minor campaign in Spain*, in order to keep Spain in the war and cause a drain on Bonaparte's resources, and certainly played no part in "saving the Nation from almost certain destruction". Even in 1815 his defeat of Bonaparte, with substantial Prussian assistance, at Waterloo merely stopped Bonaparte's invasion of Belgium. He, again, never saved "the Nation from almost certain destruction".


Do you mean the 1808-1813 Peninsular War? Calling it a 'minor campaign' is a bit like calling Lady T a 'political activist'!

Wellington was thought of at the time and subsequently as a very great military leader - he also served as prime minister twice. Off-hand, I can't think of any other British military leaders who have gone on to become political leaders.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> Two points, one, can you explain the highlighted statement please? Afterall, it was the British Left that had urged opposition to Hitler from the mid-1930's onwards. It was the Left who'd opposed the Fascists in Spain. The Tories of the time supported them; indeed, the press of the Right supported Nazism and Fascism until 1938 at least.
> Second point. Bonaparte had planned invasion after the failure of the Peace of Amiens, establishing his Grande Armee at the camp of Boulogne. All he needed was Villeneuve's fleet to control the Channel for long enough to get the Grande Armee across; he had the Napoleonic equivalent of landing craft all prepared for the invasion. Unfortunately for him, Villeneuve, along with a Spanish fleet was intercepted by a fairly junior British Admiral, called Nelson, off the Spanish coast, the nearest place being Cabo Trafalgar.


First, thanks for the second clarification. I was not aware of (or had forgotton about) Napoleon's plans. In any case, Langham is correct: the Peninsular War was by no means a minor campaign, either militarily or historically. 
Second, your assessment of Britain's pre-War politics is a bit incomplete. The Labour Party had a sizable pacifist/appeasement wing, including it's leader George Lansbury. It was not until Attlee's 1935 defeat of Lansbury that Labour supported Churchill's admonitions, although it was far from united. In any case, while Attlee had his qualities, he never had the rhetorical or political talents of Churchill, nor the military experience, resolve or credibility. While there were plenty of men of the Left who despised Hitler and were willing to fight him, Churchill's ability to convince the British people to fight to the death was exceptional and remarkable. Sure, this ability was aided by propaganda, but it turned out the propaganda was essentially true.


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Leaving Churchll aside, and spinning the discussion off at a tangent about public information and propaganda, or Psychological Warfare as it is officially called, during the Second World War both populations (German and British) only knew what their govts wanted them to know. And people generally didn't talk to each other about the actual facts of warfare only about damage, injury & death. Remember that some things we take for granted today invented during the war weren't even known about by the vast majority during WWII, hardly any Britons outside the RAF and command level knew about RADAR. Joe Bloggs didn't know we had RADAR, couldn't even begin to guess what it was let alone tell you how it worked. Most Germans didn't know about the work and extermination camps, most Britons didn't know about the detention camps in the UK, and couldn't even identify half the military units we deployed or the equipment they used. During the First World War military secrecy and intelligence wasn't as tight, but Psychological Warfare, then in its infancy meant that most Britons thought that Tommy, Fred, Dick and Bill were having a jolly wheeze in the trenches fighting the Hun and would be home in time for tea and a kick about with the lads.


Yes I can accept a lot of that. However, the article I was referring to - one of the blogs you listed earlier, 'The Real Churchill' - was written in 2004, and yet seemed to be written in a very similar way to German war-time propaganda, which tried very hard to portray Churchill as an inveterate war-monger. For instance, the WWI blockade of German ports is called (going from memory) an 'illegal starvation blockade' - causing extreme hardship to the Germans, thereby hastening the end of the war, may well have been its purpose, but equally the Germans attempted the same in both wars with their unrestricted U-boat attacks on allied merchant shipping, but naturally that is not mentioned, even though the sinking of the Lusitania is (which Churchill may have 'arranged'). I like reading such accounts, but I don't think they are always very reliable.


----------



## Belfaborac

Chouan said:


> Except that he didn't. He fought a minor campaign in Spain, in order to keep Spain in the war and cause a drain on Bonaparte's resources, and certainly played no part in "saving the Nation from almost certain destruction". Even in 1815 his defeat of Bonaparte, with substantial Prussian assistance, at Waterloo merely stopped Bonaparte's invasion of Belgium. He, again, never saved "the Nation from almost certain destruction".





Langham said:


> Do you mean the 1808-1813 Peninsular War? Calling it a 'minor campaign' is a bit like calling Lady T a 'political activist'!
> 
> Wellington was thought of at the time and subsequently as a very great military leader - he also served as prime minister twice. Off-hand, I can't think of any other British military leaders who have gone on to become political leaders.


Wellington was certainly a great military leader and the Peninsular War rather more than a minor campaign, but the fact remains that he never saved the Nation from almost certain destruction. At Waterloo Wellington had effectively been defeated and was preparing for an orderly retreat when von Blücher arrived to save the day, and yet most Britons effectively believe that he single-handedly kicked Bony's ass. The name Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher certainly won't ring many bells.


----------



## Langham

^^You're almost right, insofar as the timely arrival of the Prussians undoubtedly saved the day. It's overstating matters to say Wellington had been defeated - things were on a knife-edge and he was very lucky.

Would the nation have been destroyed without Wellington, as I claimed earlier? Well perhaps I have exaggerated, nobody knows - Nelson's victory at Trafalgar may have been equally important. In any case, after 1812, Napoleon's luck seems to have changed.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Much as I admire her many achievements, I'm not sure history will see her on equal terms with either Churchill or Wellington, both of whom saved the nation from almost certain destruction, by Hitler, and earlier by Napoleon. By comparison, Thatcher's enemies - Arthur Scargill and General Galtieri (and I suppose Gerry Adams) - were all rather insignificant characters.


And let's not forget Maggies friends, who are perhaps more telling of her character than her well chosen (frankly feeble) enemies.

As example: Mrs. T had a fondness for providing sanctuary to deposed despots. What's a little genocide between friends, eh?


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> And let's not forget Maggies friends, who are perhaps more telling of her character than her well chosen (frankly feeble) enemies.
> 
> As example: Mrs. T had a fondness for providing sanctuary to deposed despots. What's a little genocide between friends, eh?


Do you think she 'chose' her enemies? As I recall, the IRA were bombing us before she came to office - and Galtieri was a loose cannon. Perhaps she chose Scargill, though, to give him a bloody nose.

Which despots did she gave sanctuary to? I know the Chilean dictator visited, but I don't think he committed genocide, he just had a slightly ruthless streak, which is a prerequisite for all dictators. Did Pol Pot visit? He might have done, I certainly saw someone who looked like him in Brixton once, in about 1982, working in the Yum-Yum Chinese takeaway.:wink2:


----------



## Belfaborac

Langham said:


> ^^You're almost right, insofar as the timely arrival of the Prussians undoubtedly saved the day. It's overstating matters to say Wellington had been defeated - things were on a knife-edge and he was very lucky.
> 
> Would the nation have been destroyed without Wellington, as I claimed earlier? Well perhaps I have exaggerated, nobody knows - Nelson's victory at Trafalgar may have been equally important. In any case, after 1812, Napoleon's luck seems to have changed.


I said _effectively_ defeated, which was quite accurate. This according to Wellington himself, who presumably was in a position to know. As for Napoleon _destroying_ Britain....well, there was frankly never much chance of that. It's not as if the fight was France vs Britain, with the rest of Europe mere onlookers. Even supposing troops could have been landed successfully, Napoleon could never have dedicated sufficient manpower to subdue Britain (given that such a thing was even possible) for any length of time without Russia and Austria taking full advantage of his divided attention.


----------



## Langham

^ I think you have to appreciate the concern that there was at the time, even if such fears may have been unfounded. Napoleon was master of much of the Continent at one point, was known to detest the English, and there had already been two invasions of Ireland by revolutionary forces from France. Plans were made and a great invasion flotilla was moored off Boulogne in 1803 - there were even plans (yes, laughably far-fetched) to invade by balloon. The British built fortifications all along the south-east coast - Martello towers - because they were so concerned (the towers are still there, just in case). Napoleon was at least as greatly feared by the English as Hitler was, later, so it is natural that Wellington, who had spent years fighting him, was considered a great hero (it was a role he suited in any case).


----------



## Belfaborac

Langham said:


> ^ I think you have to appreciate the concern that there was at the time, even if such fears may have been unfounded.


I'm fully aware of the concern which existed at the time, I simply didn't realise that your assertion was based on those concerns, rather than on current knowledge and facts.


----------



## Langham

Belfaborac said:


> I'm fully aware of the concern which existed at the time, I simply didn't realise that your assertion was based on those concerns, rather than on current knowledge and facts.


^No, I realise that the way I worded my original statement makes no reference at all to those concerns, and appears (quite falaciously) to be an objective assessment - perhaps I have been a bit free and easy with my assessment of facts?

Norway, I think, was part of Napoleon's empire at one point? What happened there after Waterloo, can you tell me? Is Waterloo seen as an important turning point in Norwegian history? If so, is Wellington considered an important figure in your country's advance to statehood, or rather von Blucher? Or neither? Are there any monuments to either of these men in Oslo? (We have one or two to Wellington, but as you intimated earlier, the role of the Prussians at Waterloo tends to be downplayed here slightly, so there are none, as far as I know, to any Prussians anywhere in the UK.)


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^No, I realise that the way I worded my original statement makes no reference at all to those concerns, and appears (quite falaciously) to be an objective assessment - perhaps I have been a bit free and easy with my assessment of facts?
> 
> Norway, I think, was part of Napoleon's empire at one point? What happened there after Waterloo, can you tell me? Is Waterloo seen as an important turning point in Norwegian history? If so, is Wellington considered an important figure in your country's advance to statehood, or rather von Blucher? Or neither? Are there any monuments to either of these men in Oslo? (We have one or two to Wellington, but as you intimated earlier, the role of the Prussians at Waterloo tends to be downplayed here slightly, so there are none, as far as I know, to any Prussians anywhere in the UK.)


Norway belonged to Denmark until 1814, but was then transferred to the Swedish Crown. Denmark having been a loyal supporter and ally of Bonaparte, Sweden being an enemy of Bonaparte, so the Allies (Prussia, Russia, Hapsburgs, Britain) allowed Sweden to seize Norway. So, in 1815 Norway was getting used to being ruled by Sweden and would have had little, if any, interest in affairs in the Netherlands.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Do you mean the 1808-1813 Peninsular War? Calling it a 'minor campaign' is a bit like calling Lady T a 'political activist'!
> 
> Wellington was thought of at the time and subsequently as a very great military leader - he also served as prime minister twice. Off-hand, I can't think of any other British military leaders who have gone on to become political leaders.


The Brits may think it an important campaign, as may the Portuguese and Spanish, but to Bonaparte it was an unimportant side issue. A drain on men, but essentially of limited importance. The main areas of concern to him were the Hapsburgs and Russia. 
It was the wars against these countries, Austria in 1809 and Russia in 1812, and of course Russia, Prussia and Austria in 1813 that was were Bonaparte would win or lose, not in Spain. Hence Spain was a minor campaign.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> First, thanks for the second clarification. I was not aware of (or had forgotton about) Napoleon's plans. In any case, Langham is correct: the Peninsular War was by no means a minor campaign, either militarily or historically.
> Second, your assessment of Britain's pre-War politics is a bit incomplete. The Labour Party had a sizable pacifist/appeasement wing, including it's leader George Lansbury. It was not until Attlee's 1935 defeat of Lansbury that Labour supported Churchill's admonitions, although it was far from united. In any case, while Attlee had his qualities, he never had the rhetorical or political talents of Churchill, nor the military experience, resolve or credibility. While there were plenty of men of the Left who despised Hitler and were willing to fight him, Churchill's ability to convince the British people to fight to the death was exceptional and remarkable. Sure, this ability was aided by propaganda, but it turned out the propaganda was essentially true.


Churchill was a relatively minor figure in 1935, so I'm not sure that Labour "supported" him after Attlee's arrival. They may have had the same ideas of mistrust and dislike, but not the kind of political or personal support that you suggest. The Left, including the Labour Party was very active in it's opposition to Fascism in Spain, as I suggested, whilst the Tories were neutral towards Franco at best, supportive at worst.


----------



## Chouan

Belfaborac said:


> Wellington was certainly a great military leader and the Peninsular War rather more than a minor campaign, but the fact remains that he never saved the Nation from almost certain destruction. At Waterloo Wellington had effectively been defeated and was preparing for an orderly retreat when von Blücher arrived to save the day, and yet most Britons effectively believe that he single-handedly kicked Bony's ass. The name Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher certainly won't ring many bells.


Actually, Wellington had fought Bonaparte to a standstill. The battle was undecided until Blucher arrived behind Bonaparte's right flank, Nevertheless, the British part of Wellington's army defeated the assault by Bonaparte's Old Guard, and it was the combined British and Prussian armies that tyhen drove Bonaparte from the battlefield. I agree, most Brits think it was Wellington unaided.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> First, thanks for the second clarification. I was not aware of (or had forgotton about) Napoleon's plans. In any case, Langham is correct: the Peninsular War was by no means a minor campaign, either militarily or historically.


I refer you to my previous answer. My wife's great great grandfather was a Hussar under Wellington, 15th Light Dragoons.


----------



## Belfaborac

Chouan said:


> Norway belonged to Denmark until 1814, but was then transferred to the Swedish Crown. Denmark having been a loyal supporter and ally of Bonaparte, Sweden being an enemy of Bonaparte, so the Allies (Prussia, Russia, Hapsburgs, Britain) allowed Sweden to seize Norway. So, in 1815 Norway was getting used to being ruled by Sweden and would have had little, if any, interest in affairs in the Netherlands.


Succinctly put and there's little I could add. For Norwegians outside the cities, the Napoleonic Wars would have been fairly dim and distant happenings. People would certainly have been interested, but only in the sense that stories of kings and emperors, generals, armies and battles would have brought much-needed spice to their mainly agrarian daily life. Nobles and merchants would of course have had more of a direct stake, but whether Napoleon or Wellington won and whether they were ruled from Copenhagen or Stockholm would have meant little to the average Norwegian. Statues? None that I know of, of either Brits or Prussians.


----------



## Belfaborac

Chouan said:


> Actually, Wellington had fought Bonaparte to a standstill. The battle was undecided until Blucher arrived behind Bonaparte's right flank, Nevertheless, the British part of Wellington's army defeated the assault by Bonaparte's Old Guard, and it was the combined British and Prussian armies that tyhen drove Bonaparte from the battlefield. I agree, most Brits think it was Wellington unaided.


This is a topic which could easily fill a few threads on its own and I doubt this is the best place to conduct a lengthy and detailed discussion of something which is, after all, entirely academic. However, I'll just reiterate that Wellington himself acknowledged that without the arrival of the Prussian army his own would have been doomed to defeat or retreat. Not merely because the Prussian arrival took Napoleon in the flank and directly caused his defeat, but because the discovery, around noon, of the Prussian advance forced Napoleon to detach a large portion of his army in an attempt to stem their advance.

Hence against Wellington's roughly 68.000 men stood arranged throughout the day a French force of only 45.000. Despite this inferiority of numbers and despite Wellington holding the high ground, Napoleon did, as you say, fight Wellington to a standstill. At the very least. My point, however, inherited from Wellington himself as well as from von Clausewitz, was that had not the Prussians arrived when they did the battle would undoubtedly have been lost. This because the 6th Corps under the Count de Lobau and two entire cavalry divisions under Subervie and Domon would have been available to support d'Erlon's attack on Wellington's centre under William of Orange.

As it was, d'Erlon's attack was made with a mere three divisions of unsupported infantry. Even so it succeeded in penetrating Wellington's lines, after which it was turned by Allied cavalry under Ponsonby and Vandeleur, as well as reserves stationed to the rear of the main line. Had this attack included the 6th Corps and been supported by Subervie and Domon there is scant doubt that Wellington's front would have been ruptured and the Allied army forced into retreat. Hence, until the Prussian 4th Corps under Bülow was identified as approaching Frischermont shortly after noon, the battle was effectively lost. And then, all of a sudden, it wasn't.

Anyway, I'm sure that's more than enough Napoleonic nerdiness from me, so I'll leave both The Iron Duke and The Little Corporal here. Apologies to those who were unduly bored.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Which despots did she gave sanctuary to? I know the Chilean dictator visited, but I don't think he committed genocide, he just had a slightly ruthless streak, which is a prerequisite for all dictators.


Not genocide, I agree. He just had about 3500 people killed, many thousands tortured, and had a penchant for having pregnant women thrown out of helicopters.  "If you kill the *****, you kill off the offspring."


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Not genocide, I agree. He just had about 3500 people killed, many thousands tortured, and had a penchant for having pregnant women thrown out of helicopters.  "If you kill the *****, you kill off the offspring."


His crimes were characterised by international law during his extraditions as genocides, albeit against his own people.

At any rate a thoroughly nasty piece of work and no surprise that Thatcher had a soft spot for him - being the 'mother of a thousand dead' herself.


----------



## Chouan

Yes, there's a substantial corpus of literature on Waterloo, most with an agenda! Some to prove that Bonaparte should have won and was prevented from winning by illness, Ney's incompetence, Grouchy's incompetence, Prince Jerome's incompetence, etc etc. Some to prove that Blucher was the winner, with a minor holding action by Wellington. Some to prove that Wellington won and Blucher merely cleared up the routing Army of the North. Wellington's initial despatch suggested that he was the responsible winning party. On the other hand he had an eye to his future political career, where his dead hand blighted the British army's development for decades. Essentially, if it was good enough for him, it was good enough for anybody else, so no change until the Crimean war proved that change was necessary!
Nothing wrong with a bit of Napoleonic nerdiness!


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Not genocide, I agree. He just had about 3500 people killed, many thousands tortured, and had a penchant for having pregnant women thrown out of helicopters.  "If you kill the *****, you kill off the offspring."





Shaver said:


> His crimes were characterised by international law during his extraditions as genocides, albeit against his own people.
> 
> At any rate a thoroughly nasty piece of work and no surprise that Thatcher had a soft spot for him - being the 'mother of a thousand dead' herself.


I am not a great fan of South American dictators, in case you wondered, but it is worth bearing in mind, for the sake of understanding, that governments there of various complexions have long indulged in that kind of cruelty.

The documented explanation for Pinochet's reception here was the considerable help, mostly of a highly secret nature, that his government gave us during the war with Argentina. War sometimes leads to strange alliances, and governments are seldom in a position to adopt a po-faced, holier-than-thou attitude just because they don't approve of a foreign government's domestic policies, when help is at hand and lives (British in this case) are at stake.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I am not a great fan of South American dictators, in case you wondered, but it is worth bearing in mind, for the sake of understanding, that governments there of various complexions have long indulged in that kind of cruelty.
> 
> The documented explanation for Pinochet's reception here was the considerable help, mostly of a highly secret nature, that his government gave us during the war with Argentina. War sometimes leads to strange alliances, and governments are seldom in a position to adopt a po-faced, holier-than-thou attitude just because they don't approve of a foreign government's domestic policies, when help is at hand and lives (British in this case) are at stake.


Saying that she took aid from a despot whilst she was engaged in vile behaviour doesn't defend her - it just makes it worse, doesn't it?


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Saying that she took aid from a despot whilst she was engaged in vile behaviour doesn't defend her - it just makes it worse, doesn't it?


What do you mean by 'vile behaviour'? Defending sovereign territory against attack from a foreign aggressor? You puzzle me.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> What do you mean by 'vile behaviour'? Defending sovereign territory against attack from a foreign aggressor? You puzzle me.


I fancy that I do not puzzle you one bit, given your already displayed admirable knowledge of history. Foreign aggressor? That's a good one. :tongue2:


----------



## Langham

^ My gift to you Shaver, to cut out, treasure and keep:devil::


----------



## Shaver

^ :icon_smile:

There is a very dignified and statesmanlike (stateswomanlike?) picture of Mags on the front of today's Times supplement.


----------



## Langham

Thanks but I've already got the 50-page Torygraph special supplement to digest - this is already well into injury time, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Balfour

Langham said:


> She fought valiantly against tyranny, both overseas and at home - that is my view of her.


I do not propose to read this thread in full, as I suspect it will push up my blood pressure.

But a wholehearted "hear, hear" for Langham's contribution.


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> Make no mistake, Thatcher considered the Soviet bloc to be the enemy of her country and therefore her enemy. Its defeat by collapse was not pre-ordained. Weak leadership in the West could have permitted quite different outcomes. The willingness of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to vigorously exploit the dent in the Iron Curtain placed by Lech Walesa was of historic importance by any fair measure. Of course, whether their victory is perceived as a good thing or bad thing depends largely on one's view of the workers' paradise.


Quite right.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I do not propose to read this thread in full, as I suspect it will push up my blood pressure.
> 
> But a wholehearted "hear, hear" for Langham's contribution.


Best approach then is to ignore anything you don't like. Rather akin to sticking fingers in your ears and singing "La la la" when somebody is telling you something you don't like. That way you don't let evidence get in the way of your opinions.


----------



## Kingstonian

The other Hitchens in the Daily Mail:-

''Had she been as great as she is held to be, we would not be in the terrible mess we are now in, deindustrialised, drugged en masse by dope and antidepressants, demoralised, de-Christianised, bankrupted by deregulated spivs, our criminal justice system an even bigger joke than our State schools and 80 per cent of our laws made abroad.''

''For her 11 years in office were a tragic failure, if you are a patriotic conservative. She was an active liberal in economic policy, refusing to protect jobs and industries that held communities together.''


----------



## eagle2250

In this AM's Cyber-news, I read a Reuter's news service article reporting "thousands of Brits gathering to celebrate Thatcher's death." The animosity does indeed seem to run deep. Though I must admit to continuing befuddlement over by the apparent dearth of compassion evidenced by such actions. Though the morning news seems to also indicate we have our own set of problems on this side of the pond, as high school English teachers assign essays to be written that require students to "think like Nazis and write justifications for condemnation of the Jews!" What in the hell is wrong with us as human beings?


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Balfour said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not propose to read this thread in full, as I suspect it will push up my blood pressure.
> 
> But a wholehearted "hear, hear" for Langham's contribution.
> 
> 
> 
> Best approach then is to ignore anything you don't like. Rather akin to sticking fingers in your ears and singing "La la la" when somebody is telling you something you don't like. That way you don't let evidence get in the way of your opinions.
Click to expand...

It is depressing to think that you are charged with educating young minds, when your logical faculties are so obviously negligible.

I am well-versed in the recent British history relating to Lady Thatcher's period in office. I certainly would not look to an internet thread on a clothing forum to form an opinion informed by evidence about an important period of British history, and your suggestion that I am not listening to evidence is risible. One can choose to make a short contribution to a thread of this nature, endorsing an opinion with which one agrees without reviewing it in its entirety or dealing point-by-point with the rather tiresome propaganda that it is likely to spawn. But the Left always did mistake propaganda for evidence, didn't you?


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I am well-versed in the recent British history relating to Lady Thatcher's period in office. I certainly would not look to an internet thread on a clothing forum to form an opinion informed by evidence about an important period of British history, and your suggestion that I am not listening to evidence is risible. One can choose to make a short contribution to a thread of this nature, endorsing an opinion with which one agrees without reviewing it in its entirety or dealing point-by-point with the rather tiresome propaganda that it is likely to spawn. But the Left always did mistake propaganda for evidence, didn't you?


I suppose that to a Thatcherite any evidence to suggest that she wasn't wonderful *has* to be described as propaganda, as the truth would be too painful.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> It is depressing to think that you are charged with educating young minds, when your logical faculties are so obviously negligible.


 Well, what would Cambridge or BRNC know about logical facilities......


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> I suppose that to a Thatcherite any evidence to suggest that she wasn't wonderful *has* to be described as propaganda, as the truth would be too painful.


Your reading comprehension is failing again, I'm afraid. A response to a false characterisation of someone's opinion is classic propaganda.



Chouan said:


> Well, what would Cambridge or BRNC know about logical facilities......


A stupid observation remains a stupid observation, regardless of the academic pedigree you claim. Does your job performance get evaluated on the basis of your degree, or what you actually deliver in your work?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Thanks but I've already got the 50-page Torygraph special supplement to digest - this is already well into injury time, wouldn't you say?


I'd prefer a boxing analogy. We are in the closing seconds of the 12th round and the pro-thatcher brigade are about to be knocked flat on their @rses with a devastating uppercut bang on their glass jaw. :redface:


----------



## Hitch

Line of the day;

_A response to a false characterisation of someone's opinion is classic propaganda._


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> The other Hitchens in the Daily Mail:-
> 
> ''Had she been as great as she is held to be, we would not be in the terrible mess we are now in, deindustrialised, drugged en masse by dope and antidepressants, demoralised, de-Christianised, bankrupted by deregulated spivs, our criminal justice system an even bigger joke than our State schools and 80 per cent of our laws made abroad.''
> 
> ''For her 11 years in office were a tragic failure, if you are a patriotic conservative. She was an active liberal in economic policy, refusing to protect jobs and industries that held communities together.''


 Had she been a liberal she could get away with claiming all of Britain's troubles were sourced in an amateur Americans 10 minute video.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> I'd prefer a boxing analogy. We are in the closing seconds of the 12th round and the pro-thatcher brigade are about to be knocked flat on their @rses with a devastating uppercut bang on their glass jaw. :redface:


All I can say is bring it on Shaver, bring it on! Compared with all those of you who have posted against St Margaret, I can't decide whether I am Cassius Clay or George Foreman.:wink2:


----------



## Langham

Balfour said:


> It is depressing to think that you are charged with educating young minds, when your logical faculties are so obviously negligible.


I too have had this concern about Chouan for some time. I've also noticed his grammar isn't always up to snuff.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> BTW, speacial relationship my Ar*e!!! For the benefit of American readers Reagan refused to help Britain during the Falklands War. I was a professional solider during the Falklands War, six hour stand-by, in combats 24/7, kit packed, our armour, landrovers, heavy weapons on board ship at southampton, no home leave.
> 
> In the last few days, something has become very apparent, I've noticed it among the Swedes around me and form Americans on various forums, and other people that didn't live under Thatch, they all have this rosy idea of her as a great leader. You haven't got a clue! No one in the political history of the Brtiish Isles in the 20th century, with perhaps the exception of Lloyd George, was hated as much as Thatch! No one!!!
> 
> Foreigners also have this rosy view of the "great statesman" Churchill, who from the 1890s until the 1960s commited or ordered war crimes to be commited in South Africa, London, Ireland, Germany, Malay and Aden! If Germany had won the Second World War, Churchill would have been the first war criminal to swing from the gallows in 1945 for his compound crimes of a period of about 60 years! Like Thatch he was an arrogant, pompous racist bigot.


No one ever said paying your own way would be popular in England.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> All I can say is bring it on Shaver, bring it on! Compared with all those of you who have posted against St Margaret, I can't decide whether I am Cassius Clay or George Foreman.:wink2:


Typical partisan opportunism and lack of genuine patriotism from the pro-Thatcher mob. :devil:

Our 'enry would be the choice for us sensible men. Cooper properly clattered Clay and would have won the bout bar Dundee's cheating.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Typical partisan opportunism and lack of genuine patriotism from the pro-Thatcher mob. :devil:
> 
> Our 'enry would be the choice for us sensible men. Cooper properly clattered Clay and would have won the bout bar Dundee's cheating.


Nice footwork Shaver - much as I admire the way Cooper rose magnificently to the challenge in his contest with Clay, he was still outclassed - a stately Rolls-Royce beaten to the finishing line by some flashy American V8.


----------



## Langham

Hitch said:


> No one ever said paying your own way would be popular in England.


 No, as you have seen, it remains highly unpopular. Deep down, we would always prefer it if someone else paid for the next round.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Nice footwork Shaver - much as I admire the way Cooper rose magnificently to the challenge in his contest with Clay, he was still outclassed - a stately Rolls-Royce beaten to the finishing line by some flashy American V8.


In truth I'm more of an admirer of Roberto Duran. His battle against Hagler surely ranks as one of the all-time great slug-fests.


----------



## Langham

Belfaborac said:


> Statues? None that I know of, of either Brits or Prussians.


 That's quite funny. A long time ago I happened to be in north Norway, some distance above the Arctic Circle, and came across a monument to an unnamed Russian soldier of WWII. The Americans I was with thought this was most strange.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Does your job performance get evaluated on the basis of your degree, or what you actually deliver in your work?


Apart from the impertinence of such a question, are you referring to my performance as a Second Mate, as a Lieutenant, or as a teacher? Could you also define what you mean by "job performance"?


----------



## Belfaborac

Langham said:


> That's quite funny. A long time ago I happened to be in north Norway, some distance above the Arctic Circle, and came across a monument to an unnamed Russian soldier of WWII. The Americans I was with thought this was most strange.


I meant Brits or Prussians *from the Napoleonic Wars*. I really thought that was obvious, given the context...

I'm very puzzled as to why you and your American friends found a monument to Russian soldiers so strange. Care to elaborate?


----------



## Langham

Belfaborac said:


> I meant Brits or Prussians *from the Napoleonic Wars*. I really thought that was obvious, given the context...
> 
> I'm very puzzled as to why you and your American friends found a monument to Russian soldiers so strange. Care to elaborate?


I did not say I myself found it strange, but at that time (the Cold War) and I believe since, monuments to the Red Army were few and far between on the Western side of the Iron Curtain. It seems that particular part of Norway may have been liberated by the Russians however.


----------



## Belfaborac

Finnmark county was indeed liberated by the Soviet Army, starting with Kirkenes in October 1944. I'm sure there'll be many monuments such as the one you saw all over the county and elsewhere, in addition to the main monument in Oslo. There are also a great many of monuments dedicated to Soviet POWs all over Norway, since the Nazis shipped more than 100.000 of them here as forced labour.


----------



## Chouan

Belfaborac said:


> Finnmark county was indeed liberated by the Soviet Army, starting with Kirkenes in October 1944. I'm sure there'll be many monuments such as the one you saw all over the county and elsewhere, in addition to the main monument in Oslo. There are also a great many of monuments dedicated to Soviet POWs all over Norway, since the Nazis shipped more than 100.000 of them here as forced labour.


My late father (RAF Bomber Command Aircrew) met many in Oslo in 1945. They were wandering around, having been released from their camps, but not yet "repatriated"; most were subsequently shot as traitors for having surrendered.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> My late father (RAF Bomber Command Aircrew) met many in Oslo in 1945. They were wandering around, having been released from their camps, but not yet "repatriated"; most were subsequently shot as traitors for having surrendered.


An illustration, if one were needed, of the evils that afflicted those behind the Iron Curtain - the dismantling of which Lady T was instrumental in and will be remembered for.


----------



## Chouan

Interesting points here, taken from another Forum, written by a retired Merchant Navy Officer:

*"I take no pleasure in the death of the old woman; my pleasure came over 20 years ago, on a november day, when her party decided she was a liabilty....

A few points from me.....

The Falklands war was avoidable. However, her government announced to the world, despite repeated warnings by Royal Navy captain Nicholas Barker and others, that the ship would be withdrawn in1982....The, then, captain of Endurance from 1980, Barker launched a relentless campaign against the decision of the then Defence Secretary, John Nott, to scrap Endurance with other vessels in the 1981 defence cuts. Barker jeopardised his own outstanding career by challenging senior admirals, officials, ministers and even Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, herself. He argued strenuously for retention of Britain's military presence in the Falklands and the Antarctic, emphasising its potential of immense mineral wealth. Furthermore, scrapping Endurance, he warned, would lead Argentina to believe that Britain no longer cared about the Falklands and Antarctic and would give the green light for Argentine aggression.

On the invasion he wrote in his diary, "This is the worst day of my life. Why had the Ministry of Defence not listened to my warnings? Why hadn't the Government repeated the strategy of 1977 and sent a small deterrent force to the South Atlantic. It had worked then. Why not now?"

Barker regarded the conflict as avoidable, and the Franks Inquiry, published in January 1983, clearing the Thatcher Government of negligence, as a "whitewash" ......As one of the youngest captains in the Royal Navy, he could reasonably have been expected to be promoted admiral in normal circumstances - but the South Atlantic in 1982 could in no way be regarded as normal circumstances. Barker's forthright views did not endear him to those in power, all the less as he was proved right by history. 

Unsurprisingly, he never made admiral and he died in Newcastle-upon-Tyne 7 April 1997.......

It's true that there were some things that needed doing....The restrictive practices of some unions did, indeed need curbing but their vindictive destruction (GCHQ, etc.) was uncalled for. The miners' strike was deliberately and cynically orchestrated by Thatcher, Joseph, etc. (read the history) and Scargill played into their hands by refusing a ballot (which he almost certainly would have won) which meant Notts miners producing coal and the secondary picketting and the 'private army' of police (load-sa overtime).....However, isn't it strange that, 30 years on, the UK is sitting on enormous reserves of coal, almost half of power generation is coal fired and we have no mining industry......The excuse that it made more sense to pay £32 per ton to import coal (where the £32 leaves the UK) rather than £42, for UK produced coal (where the £42 is re-spent in the UK) doesn't add up...

Thatcher's reign was a social experiment to change the UK to a monetarist society. In this she succeeeded, but at what cost? 

**Perhaps I need enlightening but where were/are the benefits of..... N.Sea Oil revenue?.....The cut price sell-off of social housing (and the purely ideological legislation preventing the money raised being used to replenish social housing stock).....The cut-price sell off of utilities (which are now almost totaly under monopoly foreign ownership).....The de-regulation of the financial sector (Big-Bang)...Lifting of restrictions on MP's expenses....*_*

She created a climate of greed which all later PMs (including Blair, whom she applauded as her "natural heir") have followed....

Are the majority happy with her legacy? I'm not!"*_


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> An illustration, if one were needed, of the evils that afflicted those behind the Iron Curtain - the dismantling of which Lady T was instrumental in and will be remembered for.


Remembered for by those few who somehow daydreamed that she actually did it......


----------



## Hitch

Weening is a hard but necessary process, even for dues paying members of the Lolly Pop guild.

​Get over it.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Remembered for by those few who somehow daydreamed that she actually did it......


Disappointing Shaver, very disappointing. Since you won't listen to my interpretation of the past, here's an East European's version of events:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/what-margaret-thatcher-did-for-eastern-europe/


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Weening is a hard but necessary process, even for dues paying members of the Lolly Pop guild.
> 
> Get over it.


Just for the sake of clarity, what is it that you're trying to contribute to the debate?


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Just for the sake of clarity, what is it that you're trying to contribute to the debate?


"Ding Dong, the Wicked Witch is dead" would be the reference, I believe.

I was amazed to find out that this song is currently number 2 in the hit parade. That says something about how the majority of people feel about Thatcher.

.
.

.
.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> "Ding Dong, the Wicked Witch is dead" would be the reference, I believe.
> 
> I was amazed to find out that this song is currently number 2 in the hit parade. That says something about how the majority of people feel about Thatcher.
> 
> .


If that is so, perhaps Hitch has a point - if you have to buy a particular recording in order to 'get over something' (apparently, in this case, a borderline irrational/obsessive burning and undying hatred of someone), I wonder what sort of person you must be? However, I'm not sure what, if anything, the hit parade can ever tell us about 'the majority' of people (all 100,000-odd of them).


----------



## Chouan

Just a thought. There have been several American members asserting on this thread that the dead must be given respect, and that it is wrong to speak ill of the dead. It would be interesting to see what those same Americans thought, and posted, about the death of Bin Laden. Respect given? Or not?


----------



## Reldresal

"People’s good deeds we write in water. The evil deeds are etched in brass."--WS

People act as though Maggie was Pol Pot. There will be (there are) plenty of critical histories of her politics and policies. But the mass vitriol against her appears childish and boorish. What, a miner lost his job 30 years ago and his family and neighbors still are not over it? Grow up.


----------



## Shaver

Reldresal said:


> "People's good deeds we write in water. The evil deeds are etched in brass."--WS
> 
> People act as though Maggie was Pol Pot. There will be (there are) plenty of critical histories of her politics and policies. But the mass vitriol against her appears childish and boorish. What, a miner lost his job 30 years ago and his family and neighbors still are not over it? Grow up.


See if you can muster that same apathy you expect from others on September the 11th 2031.


----------



## Chouan

Reldresal said:


> "People's good deeds we write in water. The evil deeds are etched in brass."--WS People act as though Maggie was Pol Pot. There will be (there are) plenty of critical histories of her politics and policies. But the mass vitriol against her appears childish and boorish. What, a miner lost his job 30 years ago and his family and neighbors still are not over it? Grow up.


And his family, and his neighbours lost their jobs, and the local businesses dependent upon the mines closed and their employees lost their jobs, and the other local businesses that the working people of the area used lost their customers because they had no money through unemployment, so their businesses closed, and their employees lost their jobs, and local shops closed because of the recession, so their employees became unemployed as well. 
Not just miners; steelworkers, shipyard workers, seamen, foundrymen lost their jobs, and their neighbours etc etc. What do these people do instead? 
It's also the reason _*why*_ their jobs were lost that makes for such bitterness. Not because they didn't produce, but because Thatcher was determined to break their communities and the Unions to which they belonged. Not reform, not improve, not modify, but break, through ideology, not necessity.


----------



## Reldresal

I suppose some philosopher somewhere can equate a terrorist attack with the closing of a mine, but that is a discussion best held by 1st year college students. I am now too schooled in the practical to be convinced.

Besides that, I am not really getting the connection. What do you expect people on September 11, 2031 to be doing? Celebrating the death of someone?


----------



## Chouan

Given the US record on Unions and Miners, Thatcher's view must seem very relaxed.
https://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars


----------



## Reldresal

Chouan said:


> And his family, and his neighbours lost their jobs, and the local businesses dependent upon the mines closed and their employees lost their jobs, and the other local businesses that the working people of the area used lost their customers because they had no money through unemployment, so their businesses closed, and their employees lost their jobs, and local shops closed because of the recession, so their employees became unemployed as well.
> Not just miners; steelworkers, shipyard workers, seamen, foundrymen lost their jobs, and their neighbours etc etc. What do these people do instead?
> It's also the reason _*why*_ their jobs were lost that makes for such bitterness. Not because they didn't produce, but because Thatcher was determined to break their communities and the Unions to which they belonged. Not reform, not improve, not modify, but break, through ideology, not necessity.


Oh, sure. I accept that as all true. Now I am glad she is dead too.


----------



## Shaver

Reldresal said:


> I suppose some philosopher somewhere can equate a terrorist attack with the closing of a mine, but that is a discussion best held by 1st year college students. I am now too schooled in the practical to be convinced.
> 
> Besides that, I am not really getting the connection. What do you expect people on September 11, 2031 to be doing? Celebrating the death of someone?


That type of specious reasoning will allow me to recharacterise the debate as one of a nation destroyed against a building falling down. But I shall not take the opportunity because I know better. And so should you. :icon_smile:


----------



## Reldresal

Shaver said:


> That type of specious reasoning will allow me to recharacterise the debate as one of a nation destroyed against a building falling down. But I shall not take the opportunity because I know better. And so should you. :icon_smile:


Fair enough. But, I think I can say with certainty, if I can believe my own eyes and the existence of reality itself, that buildings did fall. Whether or not a nation was destroyed is a matter of opinion. :icon_smile:


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> And his family, and his neighbours lost their jobs, and the local businesses dependent upon the mines closed and their employees lost their jobs, and the other local businesses that the working people of the area used lost their customers because they had no money through unemployment, so their businesses closed, and their employees lost their jobs, and local shops closed because of the recession, so their employees became unemployed as well.
> Not just miners; steelworkers, shipyard workers, seamen, foundrymen lost their jobs, and their neighbours etc etc. *What do these people do instead? *
> It's also the reason _*why*_ their jobs were lost that makes for such bitterness. Not because they didn't produce, but because Thatcher was determined to break their communities and the Unions to which they belonged. Not reform, not improve, not modify, but break, through ideology, not necessity.


Some moved elsewhere and found new jobs - some miners became airline pilots, some of the Consett steelworkers you keep harping on about pooled their pay-outs and set up a crisp company (Phineas Phog?), those who wanted to retrained and did other things, some went into banking and insurance I recall. Others stayed behind and moaned - where some people look for solutions, others look for problems.


----------



## Shaver

Reldresal said:


> Fair enough. But, I think I can say with certainty, if I can believe my own eyes and the existence of reality itself, that buildings did fall. Whether or not a nation was destroyed is a matter of opinion. :icon_smile:


Actually, I can accept that perspective.

Typically those few who benefited from Thatchers economic policy (and the greater number being those ignorant of politics generally but keen on firm leadership) tend to support her. If you had lived in the UK at the time and you were neither one nor the other of the two types which I have described you might possibly hold with my opinion.


----------



## Reldresal

Shaver said:


> Actually, I can accept that perspective.
> 
> Typically those few who benefited from Thatchers economic policy (and the greater number being those ignorant of politics generally but keen on firm leadership) tend to support her. If you had lived in the UK at the time and you were neither one nor the other of the two types which I have described you may possibly hold with my opinion.


True, perspective has a lot to do with opinion. Fwiw, my father's family were all miners, 19th cent. immigrants from Scotland and Wales. One ancestor, my g-g-grandfather, is still buried in the mine shaft due to the Prince of Wales colliery disaster, which incidentally took place on September 11...September 11, 1878. Isaac Watts was 28.

So, had my ancestors made the unenterprising decision to remain in Britain, I might have an even more radical view. Of course, I really would not exist. In which case I do not know quite what my opinion would be on anything.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Just a thought. There have been several American members asserting on this thread that the dead must be given respect, and that it is wrong to speak ill of the dead. It would be interesting to see what those same Americans thought, and posted, about the death of Bin Laden. Respect given? Or not?


Already adressed: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...st-to-Margaret-Thatcher&p=1388083#post1388083


----------



## Reldresal

Bin Laden to Thatcher is just another horrible analogy.

That said, I was not cheering the death of OBL. I thought the cheering and self-congratualtions unseemly. I do think he deserved what he got, but I am one to celebrate the death of anyone.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Okay, move it along, move it along, nothing else to see here. Keep moving!


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Some moved elsewhere and found new jobs - some miners became airline pilots, some of the Consett steelworkers you keep harping on about pooled their pay-outs and set up a crisp company (Phineas Phog?), those who wanted to retrained and did other things, some went into banking and insurance I recall. Others stayed behind and moaned - where some people look for solutions, others look for problems.


A classic Thatcherite response, ignoring the fact that many of those effectively left behind were those are or were not the brightest, not the most dynamic, not the entrepreneurial, not the go-getters that you admire. However, they had jobs, low skilled and low tech, but they had gainful employment that gave them self-worth. Once their area of employment was removed where would these lesser mortals find work? 
Those able to do so probably did leave, leaving their friends, family and community behind. They probably had the means, the confidence and the marketable skills to do so. They did see solutions, and did what they thought was necessary. However, those without those skills were left behind, redundant in every sense. We aren't all clever, we aren't all dynamic; so why blame those who aren't for the unfortunate situation that they found themselves in, that wasn't of their making, that they couldn't deal with, they couldn't prevent and they couldn't get out of?
How are the children of these unfortunates culpable? Why should they be denied a future of employment because Thatcher thought the miners and steelworkers and shipbuilders her ideological enemies?
My late father managed the ship repair yard at Smith's Dock on the Tees. I was fortunate enough to be on leave when the last ship that they built was launched. There were 3 generations of men, with their families, in tears as she went down the slip. A profitable business was being closed because of her ideology. British shipbuilding was being "rationalised", so Doxford's, on the Wear, was being kept open, for a while, whilst Haverton Hill and Smith's, on the Tees were closed. Smith's had 6 ships on their books for building. The client was told that Doxford's would build them, the client said no, we want Smith's. British Shipbuilders, the government run parent body said no. The client said Smith's or we'll go to Blohm & Voss in Hamburg, British Shipbuilders said no. They went to Hamburg. The yard, and the others subsequently, were shut through ideologically driven policy, not because they weren't profitable. The younger workers were offered jobs at Appledore, in Devon. No help to move there, of course, no relocation package. So the more dynamic left their friends and communities, and families, and moved to Devon; then Appledore was shut down a couple of years later. 
Of course the more dynamic found other things to do, but the less skilled, again, lost their jobs, their purpose and their self-respect. Those in their 50's weren't offered training or relocation, or skills, they were given the dole and were told that they needn't ever have to sign on even, as they were unemployable.
These low skilled, ordinary, undynamic people had a sense of purpose and a job. They were denied them to further a political and ideological policy.
Surely we, as a nation, are responsible for all of our citizens? Not just the clever and able ones?


----------



## Chouan

CuffDaddy said:


> Already adressed: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...st-to-Margaret-Thatcher&p=1388083#post1388083


 Only in the sense that the American membership seem to decide who is worthy of respect on their demise, and who isn't.


----------



## CuffDaddy

No, each person gets to decide who is an unabiguous villain. And what inferences they may draw from the selections that others make (or decline to make) for that category.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Chouan said:


> These low skilled, ordinary, undynamic people had a sense of purpose and a job. They were denied them to further a political and ideological policy.
> Surely we, as a nation, are responsible for all of our citizens? Not just the clever and able ones?


It's also accepted that the Right to Buy scheme anchored a large portion of those left unemployed preventing their migrancy to the wealthier and more prosperous south in search of work. Of course as you chaps from Blighty all know, that ultimately turned out to be one almighty [email protected]#!.


----------



## Reldresal

Chouan said:


> Surely we, as a nation, are responsible for all of our citizens?


Responsible how? For what? What is _ab initio _owed to a citizen by a nation?


----------



## Langham

^^^A lot of the jobs being extolled as suitable for those you describe rather condescendingly as 'not the brightest, not the most dynamic, not the entrepreneurial, not the go-getters' were dangerous, damned hard and not always well paid. You seem to believe their demise was down to nothing more than whimsical spite on the part of Mrs T. In fact there is a quite different factor to be taken into account, known as market forces, and unfortunately the Japanese and Koreans were building ships more cheaply than could be done on Wearside, Teesside or Tyneside, coal was much cheaper from anywhere else on the planet, and these loss-making industries had already been supported for quite long enough. By 1979 the country was bust and had had to be bailed out by the IMF - we were the sick man of Europe, a laughing stock. Where do you imagine the money could have come from to prop up those industries any longer? Our economy is still not balanced now, it may well be too focused on the City at present, but I am satisfied that what happened under Thatcher had to happen - there was no choice in the matter.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> Just for the sake of clarity, what is it that you're trying to contribute to the debate?


Answer is nothing. He's a foreigner commentating on the politics of a country he does not live in.

Pay him no attention. It's none of his fekkin business.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^^^A lot of the jobs being extolled as suitable for those you describe rather condescendingly as 'not the brightest, not the most dynamic, not the entrepreneurial, not the go-getters' were dangerous, damned hard and not always well paid.


I may seem condescending, but I'm attempting to describe the people that you either ignore, or slightingly refer to as the people who chose not to be retrained, or chose not to invest in new businesses. How would you describe what Marx refers to as the lumpenproletariat? Those of lower intelligence, ability and skills? Do they and their children deserve to be impoverished and denied dignity? Even if some of those subject to the benefit culture that you and those sharing your views condemn are feckless and work-shy, do their children deserve to be punished by the withdrawal of free school meals? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ouncils-under-tidal-wave-of-cuts-8574211.html Where I work now we, the staff, provide breakfasts for those in need. Not the local authority, not our academy sponsors, not the state, but the teachers. Is that right?


Langham;1390129You seem to believe their demise was down to nothing more than whimsical spite on the part of Mrs T. In fact there is a quite different factor to be taken into account said:


> Not "whimsical spite", a curious expression, but a deliberate ideologically driven decision against what she perceived as class enemies, traitors, a word she used of these people, and the "enemy within". Despite your views on shipbuilding, ships were being built, with shipowners wanting them to be built in the UK, but going abroad instead because of political decisions. It meant that the industrial working class of places like South Bank, Dormanstown, Middlesbrough had work to go to. It was hard, dirty, dangerous at times, but they had self-worth and dignity, in that they provided for themselves and their families. Where is that dignity and self-worth now? Crime in those areas is phenomenally high, being committed largely against their own community, because community spirit was destroyed by the promulgation of self-interest at the expense of others.
> On a more purely economic basis, coal from C.Durham cost about £42 a ton to produce. Coal from Poland cost about £30 to import. The short sighted view would be that Polish coal is better, through market forces. But the £30 spent would be putting £30 into the Polish economy, and out of the UK economy. The £42 spent in the UK would have stayed in the UK. Instead we get £30 coal and have to pay unemployment benefit to the miners who once produced it, and to the people dependent upon businesses that closed when the mines did.
> There were problems in the economy and the industrial sector, but 30 years of Thatcherite policies don't seem to have put them right. The radical and revolutionary and ideologically driven policies did not and have not solved the problems. The de-regulation of the banks and the stock market, the so-called "Big Bang", instituted by Thatcher doesn't seem to have improved the banking sector either.


----------



## Chouan

An echo of PE's "Number Crunching":
Arts Council to have £11.5 million cut from it's budget as being unaffordable, whilst we are spending £10 on Thatcher's funeral.
https://inagist.com/all/323742870093832192/?utm_source=inagist&utm_medium=rss


----------



## Chouan

Reldresal said:


> Responsible how? For what? What is _ab initio _owed to a citizen by a nation?


What do we do with, what a judge referred to the other day as the "inadequate"? Let them starve? Return the "good o;ld days" of "Victorian Values" and reintroduce workhouses?

"'The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge. 
'At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, 'it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?"

'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.'And the Union workhouses.' demanded Scrooge. 'Are they still in operation?'
'Both very busy, sir.' 
'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. 'I'm very glad to hear it.'
'Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, 'a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

'Nothing!' Scrooge replied. 
'You wish to be anonymous?' 
'I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. 'Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.' 
'If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, 'they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

That would be real progress, wouldn't it!


----------



## Reldresal

Why are you asking me these questions? If you cannot defend your statement, just say so. And, few in our nations are starving. It is impossible to starve in my country without making an effort. I'm actually okay with feeding people who might otherwise starve. I'm generous like that.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Arts Council to have £11.5 million cut from it's budget as being unaffordable, whilst we are spending £10 on Thatcher's funeral.


It's interesting to know how these figures are calculated - presumably the soldiers, sailers, airmen, policemen and various church figures would have been paid today in any case, just as the RHA horses drawing the gun carriage would have been fed and watered. However, having just watched a few clips on the BBC website, and judging from the crowds lining the ceremonial route to St Paul's, I would say it was money well spent.


----------



## Shaver

Reldresal said:


> Why are you asking me these questions? If you cannot defend your statement, just say so. And, few in our nations are starving. *It is impossible to starve in my country without making an effort*. I'm actually okay with feeding people who might otherwise starve. I'm generous like that.


Is that really true? :confused2: There are no cases of malnourishment resultant of poverty, then?


----------



## Belfaborac

Shaver said:


> Reldresal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you asking me these questions? If you cannot defend your statement, just say so. And, few in our nations are starving. It is impossible to starve in my country without making an effort. I'm actually okay with feeding people who might otherwise starve. I'm generous like that.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that really true? :confused2: There are no cases of malnourishment resultant of poverty, then?
Click to expand...

It would appear to fly in the face of more than one documentary I can remember watching. It also doesn't quite jive with official US figures stating that 16% of the population live in poverty. It seems quite likely to me that at least a few of those 50 million people manage to go hungry without making much of an effort.


----------



## Reldresal

Shaver said:


> Is that really true? :confused2: There are no cases of malnourishment resultant of poverty, then?


Given the ease at which people can get assistance to buy food, it would take effort to starve. Malnourishment is different from starvation, but would result from poor choices and not the absence of help.

Also, while I think feeding people that would otherwise starve is a nice thing to do, I do not concede that it is the responsibility of a state. Something for nothing is not a contract, but a gift. I'm glad my nation is rich enough to be able to provide such gifts. I do not think that impoverished states are responsible for citizens' needs, or should be providing the same services that rich nations do. Therefore, I think the statement that a state is responsible for ???? (yet to be explained) citizens' needs is without merit or philosophical underpinning. But, I still do not concede that even a rich nation is obligated to provide for citizens.

I also do not believe a state has an implicit right to tax, conscript, and so on. I think citizens give the state these powers, but can take them away.

I'm just not a big believer in conceding power to a state. A state, like a corporation, is not a person (despite what our stupid case law says on the matter) and has no conscience, no morality. Its ends are different than mine and most citizens. Just as a corporation seeks more profit as its very nature (in nearly all cases) a state seeks more power. States cannot help themselves in this regard.


----------



## Shaver

Reldresal said:


> Given the ease at which people can get assistance to buy food, it would take effort to starve. Malnourishment is different from starvation, but would result from poor choices and not the absence of help.
> 
> Also, while I think feeding people that would otherwise starve is a nice thing to do, I do not concede that it is the responsibility of a state. Something for nothing is not a contract, but a gift. I'm glad my nation is rich enough to be able to provide such gifts. I do not think that impoverished states are responsible for citizens' needs, or should be providing the same services that rich nations do. Therefore, I think the statement that a state is responsible for ???? (yet to be explained) citizens' needs is without merit or philosophical underpinning. But, I still do not concede that even a rich nation is obligated to provide for citizens.
> 
> I also do not believe a state has an implicit right to tax, conscript, and so on. I think citizens give the state these powers, but can take them away.
> 
> I'm just not a big believer in conceding power to a state. A state, like a corporation, is not a person (despite what our stupid case law says on the matter) and has no conscience, no morality. Its ends are different than mine and most citizens. Just as a corporation seeks more profit as its very nature (in nearly all cases) a state seeks more power. States cannot help themselves in this regard.


I don't wish to quibble a minor point as I am beginning to quite like the cut of your jib.* However, starvation need not be to death. Starvation can be characterised as malnourishment and indeed a hunger for _any_ basic human need denied by poverty.

*Especially your acknowledgement that the state is intrinsically inclined to devolve toward the status of pitiless corporate entity which lusts after power as an end in and of itself, and at the cost of it's citizens well-being. Vive la Revolution!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> What is to explain? The only people who regard Reagan or Thatcher as comparable to these monsters are fools blinded by their silly self-righteous dogmas.


Ron and Mags; like chocolate and peanut butter!!


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL.
I've got this sudden, yet explicable urge for a peanut butter cup!


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Well, what would Cambridge or BRNC know about logical facilities......





Balfour said:


> ...
> A stupid observation remains a stupid observation, regardless of the academic pedigree you claim. Does your job performance get evaluated on the basis of your degree, or what you actually deliver in your work?





Chouan said:


> Apart from the impertinence of such a question, are you referring to my performance as a Second Mate, as a Lieutenant, or as a teacher? Could you also define what you mean by "job performance"?


Google "rhetorical question" and learn something.


----------



## Balfour

As my former avatar, the Rt. Hon. Francis Urquhart M.P., put it:






*BBC Presenter*: You don't think that the deep divisions in society are even partly to blame? You're quite happy with the way things are?
*Urquhart*: Indeed, I am not. There _is_ a deep division in society today, between those who want to work and enjoy the fruits of their labours and abide by and uphold the laws of the land, and an increasing number of what it has become fashionable to call the disaffected, the disadvantaged, the differently-motivated - what we used to call lazy people, dishonest people, people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions or their lives.

...

*Urquhart*: I have a great belief in Britain, you know. We are not a nation of social workers, or clients of social workers. We are not, please God, a nation of deserving cases. We are a fierce, proud nation, and we are still, God willing, a nation to be reckoned with!


----------



## Hitch

Wow, It is astonishing to see how so many believe that the man taking a bucket of water from the right side of the pond and dumping it into the left side is actually adding to the volume.

​


----------



## Hitch

WouldaShoulda said:


> Ron and Mags; like chocolate and peanut butter!!


 I'll take two.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Just for the sake of clarity, what is it that you're trying to contribute to the debate?


 For clarity, Im curious, are you now or have you ever been privately employed?


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Just a thought. There have been several American members asserting on this thread that the dead must be given respect, and that it is wrong to speak ill of the dead. It would be interesting to see what those same Americans thought, and posted, about the death of Bin Laden. Respect given? Or not?


You are a teacher ?

This is what I might expect of a student, say third maybe fourth grade.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> For clarity, Im curious, are you now or have you ever been privately employed?


Yes, and I did very well. Indeed, I am privately employed now, and doing very well. Why do you ask?


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> Google "rhetorical question" and learn something.


Given the imperfections of the medium, the lack of voice tone and expressions on faces whilst questions are being asked, it isn't easy to tell the difference between a rhetorical question and a real question. Please look at your original posting and point out to me where and how it is obvious that the question is rhetorical. I suppose that the point of your rhetorical question wasn't to find anything out, or for you to gain knowledge, but to show how clever you are, and by inference, show how I'm not. Will that advance your argument, or reduce mine? Or is the argument and the subject irrelevant as long as you can demonstrate your superior intellect? Please let us all know in simple words that I can understand, I'm curious to know. Mildly.

Curious isn't it, as I think I've mentioned before, that the pro-Thatcher people seem to be so much more inclined to attack the individuals who are seen as anti-Thatcher, than their arguments.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> As my former avatar, the Rt. Hon. Francis Urquhart M.P., put it:
> 
> *BBC Presenter*: You don't think that the deep divisions in society are even partly to blame? You're quite happy with the way things are?
> *Urquhart*: Indeed, I am not. There _is_ a deep division in society today, between those who want to work and enjoy the fruits of their labours and abide by and uphold the laws of the land, and an increasing number of........dishonest people, people who don't want to take responsibility for their actions or their lives such as bankers.


+100 with minor amendments (for possession of common sense and conscience).



Balfour said:


> *Urquhart: I have a great belief in Britain, you know. ....... We are a fierce, proud nation, and we are still, God willing, a nation to be reckoned with and one which can look after it's few unfortunate deserving cases!*


FTFY: Now *that's* an ethos I can stand behind. Sweeping the vulnerable under the carpet is not ferocity it is simply cowardice.

.
.
.

.


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> Given the imperfections of the medium, the lack of voice tone and expressions on faces whilst questions are being asked, it isn't easy to tell the difference between a rhetorical question and a real question. Please look at your original posting and point out to me where and how it is obvious that the question is rhetorical. I suppose that the point of your rhetorical question wasn't to find anything out, or for you to gain knowledge, but to show how clever you are, and by inference, show how I'm not. Will that advance your argument, or reduce mine? Or is the argument and the subject irrelevant as long as you can demonstrate your superior intellect? Please let us all know in simple words that I can understand, I'm curious to know. Mildly.
> 
> *Curious isn't it, as I think I've mentioned before, that the pro-Thatcher people seem to be so much more inclined to attack the individuals who are seen as anti-Thatcher, than their arguments.*


Anyone with half a brain could have seen it was rhetorical from the sentence immediately preceding it. Anyway, I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse at this stage.

As for the text in bold, you personalised this old chap, not me:

My first post in this thread:



Balfour said:


> Langham said:
> 
> 
> 
> She fought valiantly against tyranny, both overseas and at home - that is my view of her.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not propose to read this thread in full, as I suspect it will push up my blood pressure.
> 
> But a wholehearted "hear, hear" for Langham's contribution.
Click to expand...

Your response (and first post in response to me):



Chouan said:


> Best approach then is to ignore anything you don't like. Rather akin to sticking fingers in your ears and singing "La la la" when somebody is telling you something you don't like. That way you don't let evidence get in the way of your opinions.


I will now take my own advice and bow out. Far more interesting things to do than debate with humourless Marxists on the interwebz!


----------



## VictorRomeo

This thread is bizarrely beginning to get on my wick. Where on Earth do some of you people come from??!!! What TV shows did you watch growing up? The ones where Superman wiped out shanty towns? Where Batman invented the AIDS virus just to punish gays? Where Spiderman threw children into burning orphanages? Did the not-so-subtle subtle lesson to have a bit of compassion and thought for others, just go "whoosh" right over your head? Is your brain devoid of mirror neurons???

Nobody in their right mind chooses to be on social welfare (and I mean that literally). When there was full employment in this country the rate was around 3%. Of that 3% long-term was around 30%. So less that 1% of the total workforce some here have made reference to and used as stick to beat the rest. 1% of people who - if you were to take a minute to think about - are perhaps in that situation for conditions beyond their control, like depression. Or perhaps they lost their jobs 30 years ago when their shipyard was shut down area and their offspring were more than likely born into poverty. Creating nothing but a downward spiral and further impoverishing vulnerable elements of society.

What do people think that one percent looks like and why do people think they are as they are? Do you think they all just got up one day and said "f*** this working malarkey let's do nothing with our lives!" Well you certainly won't get them into work if you make their dole less. If they could not find work in a boom how they hell do you expect it in a depression when competition for work is higher?

The whole notion of "the sponger" is a poisonous myth that serves nobody but the powerful: work a job or be the scum of the earth. That's your life. That's your choice. All the while, they destroy the economy by destroying the ability of society to create actual jobs (either through bailing massive failed industries like the banks, selling off natural resources or nationalise core industries for meagre profit, then exporting jobs etc.).

But yeah blame the poor f*** who has nothing beyond his horizon but his weekly few quid and the life of middling daytime TV. More a kind of rotting than living. The person who if he ever had a chance to be something he 'ain't never even had the wits to seize it'. Yeah blame him. Then compare him to a murderous sociopath who killed his six kids when he set his house on fire.

They're all the same, aren't they really?!

But remember, and unless you are independently wealthy, if you work for a living and of modest means you are more than likely six pay-checks away from financial ruin. Nothing in this world is certain. Like the miners and ship-builders of northern England experienced, all it take is for the vagaries and the flick of a pen from one far-away person to find your livelihood shredded. You might just find yourself requiring a little compassion yourself.


----------



## Shaver

^ V/R, bless you. More people like you in the world would make it a better place. :icon_smile:


----------



## Langham

^^VR, there is one paragraph of your rather agitated post that I agree with, the final one - for most people, life is financially more precarious than they can ever imagine.

Compassion is a very fine sentiment, but governments here of varying character have on occasion misapplied it with shockingly perverse effect in their efforts to help the less fortunate in society. I truly believe that what we call here the welfare state has had seriously untoward consequences, operating in such a way that those who become enmeshed in its workings are swiftly isolated from the abundant opportunities for material improvement that exist all around for those with enterprise and ambition, and are then trapped in a depressing lifestyle of dependency.


----------



## Chouan

Balfour said:


> I will now take my own advice and bow out. Far more interesting things to do than debate with humourless Marxists on the interwebz!


You'd better find some first; none on this site that I'm aware of.


----------



## Chouan

VictorRomeo said:


> This thread is bizarrely beginning to get on my wick. Where on Earth do some of you people come from??!!! What TV shows did you watch growing up? The ones where Superman wiped out shanty towns? Where Batman invented the AIDS virus just to punish gays? Where Spiderman threw children into burning orphanages? Did the not-so-subtle subtle lesson to have a bit of compassion and thought for others, just go "whoosh" right over your head? Is your brain devoid of mirror neurons???
> 
> Nobody in their right mind chooses to be on social welfare (and I mean that literally). When there was full employment in this country the rate was around 3%. Of that 3% long-term was around 30%. So less that 1% of the total workforce some here have made reference to and used as stick to beat the rest. 1% of people who - if you were to take a minute to think about - are perhaps in that situation for conditions beyond their control, like depression. Or perhaps they lost their jobs 30 years ago when their shipyard was shut down area and their offspring were more than likely born into poverty. Creating nothing but a downward spiral and further impoverishing vulnerable elements of society.
> 
> What do people think that one percent looks like and why do people think they are as they are? Do you think they all just got up one day and said "f*** this working malarkey let's do nothing with our lives!" Well you certainly won't get them into work if you make their dole less. If they could not find work in a boom how they hell do you expect it in a depression when competition for work is higher?
> 
> The whole notion of "the sponger" is a poisonous myth that serves nobody but the powerful: work a job or be the scum of the earth. That's your life. That's your choice. All the while, they destroy the economy by destroying the ability of society to create actual jobs (either through bailing massive failed industries like the banks, selling off natural resources or nationalise core industries for meagre profit, then exporting jobs etc.).
> 
> But yeah blame the poor f*** who has nothing beyond his horizon but his weekly few quid and the life of middling daytime TV. More a kind of rotting than living. The person who if he ever had a chance to be something he 'ain't never even had the wits to seize it'. Yeah blame him. Then compare him to a murderous sociopath who killed his six kids when he set his house on fire.
> 
> They're all the same, aren't they really?!
> 
> But remember, and unless you are independently wealthy, if you work for a living and of modest means you are more than likely six pay-checks away from financial ruin. Nothing in this world is certain. Like the miners and ship-builders of northern England experienced, all it take is for the vagaries and the flick of a pen from one far-away person to find your livelihood shredded. You might just find yourself requiring a little compassion yourself.


Very well said indeed.

A recent study suggests that there are no more than 30 deliberately large, disfunctional, welfare dependent families who are deliberately milking the system in the UK. 30, in a population of 60 million. Yet they serve as evidence for welfare dependency to beat the poor with.


----------



## Hitch

Chouan said:


> Yes, and I did very well. Indeed, I am privately employed now, and doing very well. Why do you ask?


 Because you come across as far left, and government employed ( here most teachers are tax paid ) and I avoid jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Hitch

Langham said:


> ^^VR, there is one paragraph of your rather agitated post that I agree with, the final one - for most people, life is financially more precarious than they can ever imagine. Compassion is a very fine sentiment, but governments here of varying character have on occasion misapplied it with shockingly perverse effect in their efforts to help the less fortunate in society. I truly believe that what we call here the welfare state has had seriously untoward consequences, operating in such a way that those who become enmeshed in its workings are swiftly isolated from the abundant opportunities for material improvement that exist all around for those with enterprise and ambition, and are then trapped in a depressing lifestyle of dependency.


 Out here is it illegal to feed wild animals ,only because free food causes dependency.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Because you come across as far left, and government employed ( here most teachers are tax paid ) and I avoid jumping to conclusions.


I've been privately employed in the Merchant Navy, where I was a Navigating Officer, government employed as a Navigating Officer in the Royal Navy (Lieutenant), employed in state schools and employed in a privately funded/sponsored school where I am now.

I certainly wouldn't see myself as "far left"; perhaps left of centre. But concepts of right and left are different in the UK and the US, I think.


----------



## Shaver

Ignore them Chouan old bean - since when has anyone posting here been required to prove their educational background and confirm private/public sector employment status? 


Hitch - anyone who cannot appreciate that welfare is both worthy and neccesary is themselves an animal, or at the very least a creature without a soul. :icon_smile:


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Shaver said:


> Ignore them Chouan old bean - since when has anyone posting here been required to prove their educational background and confirm private/public sector employment status?


I agree with this advice. You don't need papers/credentials to participate. The strength of your arguments should be sufficient to sway an open mind.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Ignore them Chouan old bean - since when has anyone posting here been required to prove their educational background and confirm private/public sector employment status?
> 
> Hitch - anyone who cannot appreciate that welfare is both worthy and neccesary is themselves an animal, or at the very least a creature without a soul. :icon_smile:


 Go sell all you have an give the money to the poor.

Oh yeah its other folks money you're concerned with 'giving' .

 since when has anyone posting here been required to prove their educational background and confirm private/public sector employment status?

Hmmm since when has anyone posting here been asked to prove their educational.... employment status ?


----------



## Balfour

Chouan said:


> You'd better find some first; none on this site that I'm aware of.


Really?

A fictional account:

_*BBC interviewer*_: So, can you describe your key political priorities?
*Chouan*: Fightin' capitalism.
_*BBC interviewer*_: But how, as a teacher, do you think young people should be encouraged to view political issues?
*Chouan*: They should fight capitalism.
_*BBC interviewer*_: And, outside your political life, what do you like to do for fun?*
Chouan*: Fightin' capitalism.


----------



## Belfaborac

Way to go with the ad hominem attacks there, Balfour et al. Must make the moderators proud, how you guys cling to forum rule no. 1.


----------



## Balfour

Belfaborac said:


> Way to go with the ad hominem attacks there, Balfour et al. Must make the moderators proud, how you guys cling to forum rule no. 1.


Well, Chouan got personal (see above). That's actually fine by me - banter is not unknown in political discussions. But, if bitten, I make no apology for biting back harder. And in my case at least it's all done with big smile on my face: in real life, although it disappoints me to think Chouan is charged with educating young minds, I am pretty gratified by his disdain for my views and can't get too worked up by people ranting on the interwebz. Rather like Lady Thatcher would have been amused by all the Crypto-Marxists having parties to celebrate her death - she would have seen it as them showing their true colours.

Anyway, I see you have no reluctance to pitch in with a bit of ad hom yourself, eh?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Hitch - anyone who cannot appreciate that welfare is both worthy and neccesary is themselves an animal, or at the very least a creature without a soul. :icon_smile:


This is just patently untrue. Charity will always be both necessary and desirable, but government's role is a matter of prudence and judgment. I cannot speak for the UK, but the robust welfare system in the US has contributed to an entitlement culture that is both unhealthy and unsustainable. While I strongly disagree with those who would dismantle our panoply of programs in their entirety, I certainly don't question the state of their souls. The social science literature regarding voluntary charitable giving in the US is pretty well-developed, and it is clear that the two most predictive variables are (1) ideological self-identification (self-described "conservatives" are more generous than self-described "liberals" or "moderates") and (2) religiosity (adults who attend church regularly give more to charity (not counting church donations) than those who don't). My point is simply that the impulse of those on the left toward self-congratulation regarding their superior charitable high-mindedness is grounded more in conceit than reality. Finally, I would note that the data are general in nature; there are obviously plenty of generous secular liberals and selfish religious conservatives.


----------



## Balfour

Mike Petrik said:


> This is just patently untrue. Charity will always be both necessary and desireable, but government's role is a matter of prudence and judgment. I cannot speak for the UK, but the robust welfare system in the US has contributed to an entitlement culture that is both unhealthy and unsustainable. While I strongly disagree with those who would dismantle our panoply of programs in their entirety, I certainly don't question the state of their souls. The social science liturature regarding voluntary charitable giving in the US is pretty well-developed, and it is clear that the two most predictive variables are (1) ideological self-identification (self-described "conservatives" are more generous than self-described "liberals" or "moderates") and (2) religiosity (adults who attend church regularly give more to charity (not counting church donations) than those who don't). My point is simply that the impulse of those on the left toward self-congratulation regarding their superior charitable high-mindedness is grounded more in conceit than reality. Finally, I would note that the data are general in nature; there are obviously plenty of generous secular liberals and selfish religious conservatives.


I believe the correct internet usage is "QFT", and true it is.


----------



## CuffDaddy

While social welfare is one of the areas on which Mike P and I disagree, I join him in denying that those who question the efficacy or wisdom of those programs is, perforce, sans soul. People have good faith disagreements about these matters. And conservatives raise an entirely un-selfish point when they express concern about the feedback/perverse incentive/moral hazard problems that these programs, improperly administered, can endgender in populations that do not have social structures or norms that encouarge/demand hard work. (Of course, the answer, to me, is not to cease the support but to condition or structure it in a way that provides a positive incentive structure.)


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Go sell all you have an give the money to the poor.
> 
> Oh yeah its other folks money you're concerned with 'giving' .
> 
> since when has anyone posting here been required to prove their educational background and confirm private/public sector employment status?
> 
> Hmmm since when has anyone posting here been asked to prove their educational.... employment status ?


You are speculating rather foolishly here. You have no idea whatsoever as to the extent my charitable contribution may (or may not) be.

As to proof of the existence of queries relating to education and employment - perhaps you might consider the radical approach of reading the thread instead of merely throwing in the odd nonsense jibe? Just a suggestion. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> This is just patently untrue. Charity will always be both necessary and desirable, but government's role is a matter of prudence and judgment. I cannot speak for the UK, but the robust welfare system in the US has contributed to an entitlement culture that is both unhealthy and unsustainable. While I strongly disagree with those who would dismantle our panoply of programs in their entirety, I certainly don't question the state of their souls. The social science literature regarding voluntary charitable giving in the US is pretty well-developed, and it is clear that the two most predictive variables are (1) ideological self-identification (self-described "conservatives" are more generous than self-described "liberals" or "moderates") and (2) religiosity (adults who attend church regularly give more to charity (not counting church donations) than those who don't). My point is simply that the impulse of those on the left toward self-congratulation regarding their superior charitable high-mindedness is grounded more in conceit than reality. Finally, I would note that the data are general in nature; there are obviously plenty of generous secular liberals and selfish religious conservatives.


I do not see this discussion as being one of left or right. Indeed I am apolitical. This is an issue of kindness. You and I both know what the Book has to say about charity.

The lack of souls jibe I introduced was just that - a jibe. Although I genuinely do pity those who, when they stand before their creator, will have to explain their selfishness and lack of compassion. Their smart arse arguments, and feeble justifications, will sound very hollow in their ears at that moment, no doubt.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Well, Chouan got personal (see above). That's actually fine by me - banter is not unknown in political discussions. But, if bitten, I make no apology for biting back harder. And in my case at least it's all done with big smile on my face: in real life, although it disappoints me to think Chouan is charged with educating young minds, I am pretty gratified by his disdain for my views and can't get too worked up by people ranting on the interwebz. Rather like Lady Thatcher would have been amused by all the Crypto-Marxists having parties to celebrate her death - she would have seen it as them showing their true colours.
> 
> Anyway, I see you have no reluctance to pitch in with a bit of ad hom yourself, eh?


Try biting with something which has teeth. :icon_smile:

There is a smugness about those that are doing ok believing those less fortunate are just lazy that simply perplexes me.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> I do not see this discussion as being one of left or right. Indeed I am apolitical. This is an issue of kindness. You and I both know what the Book has to say about charity.
> 
> The lack of souls jibe I introduced was just that - a jibe. Although I genuinely do pity those who, when they stand before their creator, will have to explain their selfishness and lack of compassion. Their smart arse arguments, and feeble justifications, will sound very hollow in their ears at that moment, no doubt.


Fully agree, of course. My overriding point is that it is perilous to try to identify such people, especially via their opinion of welfare. God will sort it out, hopefully with great mercy.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Fully agree, of course. My overriding point is that it is perilous to try to identify such people, especially via their opinion of welfare. God will sort it out, hopefully with great mercy.


I hope so but I believe that He expects us to chip in a little. :icon_smile:


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> I hope so but I believe that He expects us to chip in a little. :icon_smile:


More than a little no doubt, but I'm still going with mercy -- it's my most promising salvation strategy.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> I do not see this discussion as being one of left or right. Indeed I am apolitical. This is an issue of kindness. You and I both know what the Book has to say about charity.
> 
> The lack of souls jibe I introduced was just that - a jibe. Although I genuinely do pity those who, when they stand before their creator, will have to explain their selfishness and lack of compassion. Their smart arse arguments, and feeble justifications, will sound very hollow in their ears at that moment, no doubt.


The Book never defines charity, mercy or kindness as taking from A to 'give' to B at the point of a gun .

The Book does require equal measurements and equal treatment under the law in fact the Book explicitly demands that the rich and the poor be judged without regard of any status other than guilt or innocence.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> You are speculating rather foolishly here. You have no idea whatsoever as to the extent my charitable contribution may (or may not) be.


 Not at all Shaver , I see you have a computer and enough clothes to give away. Perhaps a government employee should be dispatched to your residence to help you give more to the poor?


> _since when has anyone posting here been required to prove their educational background and confirm private/public sector employment status?_
> 
> As to proof of the existence of queries relating to education and employment -


 Interesting Shaver , how easy it was to have you change your tune, its really less than honest of you to treat your quote above in red as though it caries the same tone and meaning of your line in this post ,tsk tsk. not even a good effort on your part .


> perhaps you might consider the radical approach of reading the thread instead of merely throwing in the odd nonsense jibe? Just a suggestion. :icon_smile_wink:


 Perhaps you should consider the radical approach of not reading my posts if you dont like what I have to say, but if your pride is such that you must respond at least in the future , do so honestly.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Not at all Shaver , I see you have a computer and enough clothes to give away. Perhaps a government employee should be dispatched to your residence to help you give more to the poor? Interesting Shaver , how easy it was to have you change your tune, its really less than honest of you to treat your quote above in red as though it caries the same tone and meaning of your line in this post ,tsk tsk. not even a good effort on your part . Perhaps you should consider the radical approach of not reading my posts if you dont like what I have to say, but if your pride is such that you must respond at least in the future , do so honestly.


You keep posting Hitch old chap and I'll keep reading and responding as I see fit. Seems like a fair deal to me. :icon_smile:

As to government employees - they would do well to keep away from me for I am, shall we say, 'uncooperative' with authority. But this begs the question that you feel perhaps morality is exclusively the domain of an enforced external agency? How very curious.

As to the changing of my tune I am afraid that I am deaf to this alleged effect and believe that the song I am singing has been steadfastly within key, albeit the melody and even harmony responding to best effect for the chorus we are achieving here.

Still, do go on, I am intrigued as to this proposed lack of effort - dishonesty even - on my part you deem worthy of a 'tsk tsk'. Perhaps you would be kind enough to illuminate my ignorance?


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> The Book never defines charity, mercy or kindness as taking from A to 'give' to B at the point of a gun .
> 
> The Book does require equal measurements and equal treatment under the law in fact the Book explicitly demands that the rich and the poor be judged without regard of any status other than guilt or innocence.


Of course it does not - there were no guns back then. What a silly thing to say. Anyway where do guns come in to this debate?


----------



## Kingstonian

VictorRomeo said:


> This thread is bizarrely beginning to get on my wick. Where on Earth do some of you people come from??!!!


Do not go Style Forum then whatever you do! Their current events thread is an eye opener.

I think this discussion just highlights fundamental differences between an American view and a UK view on politics.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Of course it does not - there were no guns back then. What a silly thing to say. Anyway where do guns come in to this debate?


Indeed. Matthew 19:23-26.


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL.
Guns...perhaps not, but from reading the scriptures, it seems entirely possible that one might find themselves being smacked across the buttocks with the "jaw bone of an ass." Even Shaver and Hitch would concede that's going to leave a mark...or at the very least, a dislocated hip!


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL.
> Guns...perhaps not, but from reading the scriptures, it seems entirely possible that one might find themselves being smacked across the buttocks with the "jaw bone of an ass." Even Shaver and Hitch would concede that's going to leave a mark...or at the very least, a dislocated hip!


I'll try anything twice. :redface:


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> You keep posting Hitch old chap and I'll keep reading and responding as I see fit. Seems like a fair deal to me. :icon_smile:
> 
> As to government employees - they would do well to keep away from me for I am, shall we say, 'uncooperative' with authority. But this begs the question that you feel perhaps morality is exclusively the domain of an enforced external agency? How very curious.


 see below


> As to the changing of my tune I am afraid that I am deaf to this alleged effect and believe that the song I am singing has been steadfastly within key, albeit the melody and even harmony responding to best effect for the chorus we are achieving here.


 pettyfogger


> Still, do go on, I am intrigued as to this proposed lack of effort - dishonesty even - on my part you deem worthy of a 'tsk tsk'. Perhaps you would be kind enough to illuminate my ignorance?


 Nope , ignorance caused by self indulgence is incurable. Besides when the opponent's first strike is built on rearranged and subtly altered quotes the battle is already won and while interest is lost. Kinda like dealing with a car salesman.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> see below pettyfogger Nope , ignorance caused by self indulgence is incurable.


Have you considered that merely posting 'ner ner ne ner ner' would be more expeditious manner of making exactly the same point? :icon_smile:



Hitch said:


> Besides when the opponent's first strike is built on rearranged and subtly altered quotes the battle is already won and while interest is lost. Kinda like dealing with a car salesman.


Edit in response to your edit (reproduced above). I have zero comprehension of what you are referring to here. Are we even reading the same thread? Any chance you could lower yourself to explaining for me?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Have you considered that merely posting 'ner ner ne ner ner' would be more expeditious manner of making exactly the same point? :icon_smile:


"Ner ner ne ner ner" would make more sense than your post #275, Shaver. But that is so often the case when one debates in the currency of polemics rather than discourse. Such debates are boring and unproductive, even if very occasionally almost droll.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> "Ner ner ne ner ner" would make more sense than your post #275, Shaver. But that is so often the case when one debates in the currency of polemics rather than discourse. Such debates are boring and unproductive, even if very occasionally almost droll.


I truly do not understand why you feel that to be so Mike. But I am hoping that you will be gracious enough to explain. I am terribly confused now...... :confused2:

I prefer to think of my 'polemics' as _pithy_ discourse BTW. I am rather less keen on rambling self-justification than some (and this is assuredly not directed at you).


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> I truly do not understand why you feel that to be so Mike. But I am hoping that you will be gracious enough to explain. I am terribly confused now...... :confused2:
> 
> I prefer to think of my 'polemics' as _pithy_ discourse BTW. I am rather less keen on rambling self-justification than some (and this is assuredly not directed at you).


You are too smart to be confused, Shaver. The point to which #275 responded was pretty straightforward -- that a Scriptural understanding of charity does not include within its ambit payments made compulsory by force of law. Instead of responding thoughtfully (e.g., sometimes society might voluntarily choose to use government as an instrument of charity), you simply made some irrelevant reference to the fact that guns were not around during Scriptural times. No offense, Shaver, but this kind of stuff is not so much pithy as boring. It is simply an effort to score a rhetorical point at the expense of advancing the discussion. You are better than that.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> You are too smart to be confused, Shaver. The point to which #275 responded was pretty straightforward -- that a Scriptural understanding of charity does not include within its ambit payments made compulsory by force of law. Instead of responding thoughtfully (e.g., sometimes society might voluntarily choose to use government as an instrument of charity), you simply made some irrelevant reference to the fact that guns were not around during Scriptural times. No offense, Shaver, but this kind of stuff is not so much pithy as boring. It is simply an effort to score a rhetorical point at the expense of advancing the discussion. You are better than that.


Well it's very kind of you to say so but unfortunately on this occasion it appears that I do not deserve such praise.

I find Hitch's line of reasoning difficult to follow at the best of times - guns seem to enter so many of his debates, for reasons that elude me..... I was responding in good faith, I assure you. I try not to score points much rather to *make* points as clearly and succinctly as I am able and occasionally with a dash of good-natured levity. My apologies if this bores you.

But sincere thanks for explaining what Hitch meant, I was genuinely bewildered. I still am bewildered if I'm honest as I don't recall advocating charity being compulsory by force of law - nor would I, for I am anti-government. Still at least I 'get it' now.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Have you considered that merely posting 'ner ner ne ner ner' would be more expeditious manner of making exactly the same point? :icon_smile:
> 
> Edit in response to your edit (reproduced above). I have zero comprehension of what you are referring to here. Are we even reading the same thread? Any chance you could lower yourself to explaining for me?


 Nope.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Well it's very kind of you to say so but unfortunately on this occasion it appears that I do not deserve such praise.
> 
> I find Hitch's line of reasoning difficult to follow at the best of times - guns seem to enter so many of his debates, for reasons that elude me..... I was responding in good faith, I assure you. I try not to score points much rather to *make* points as clearly and succinctly as I am able and occasionally with a dash of good-natured levity. My apologies if this bores you.
> 
> But sincere thanks for explaining what Hitch meant, I was genuinely bewildered. I still am bewildered if I'm honest as I don't recall advocating charity being compulsory by force of law - nor would I, for I am anti-government. Still at least I 'get it' now.


I suppose then it is your turn to explain #257?


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Nope.


This of course will allow anyone who reads this thread to conclude that you are simply unable to explain. Never mind, why don't you just call it quits? :rolleyes2:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> This thread is bizarrely beginning to get on my wick. Where on Earth do some of you people come from??!!! What TV shows did you watch growing up? The ones where Superman wiped out shanty towns? Where Batman invented the AIDS virus just to punish gays? Where Spiderman threw children into burning orphanages? Did the not-so-subtle subtle lesson to have a bit of compassion and thought for others, just go "whoosh" right over your head? Is your brain devoid of mirror neurons???
> 
> Nobody in their right mind chooses to be on social welfare (and I mean that literally). When there was full employment in this country the rate was around 3%. Of that 3% long-term was around 30%. So less that 1% of the total workforce some here have made reference to and used as stick to beat the rest. 1% of people who - if you were to take a minute to think about - are perhaps in that situation for conditions beyond their control, like depression. Or perhaps they lost their jobs 30 years ago when their shipyard was shut down area and their offspring were more than likely born into poverty. Creating nothing but a downward spiral and further impoverishing vulnerable elements of society.
> 
> What do people think that one percent looks like and why do people think they are as they are? Do you think they all just got up one day and said "f*** this working malarkey let's do nothing with our lives!" Well you certainly won't get them into work if you make their dole less. If they could not find work in a boom how they hell do you expect it in a depression when competition for work is higher?
> 
> The whole notion of "the sponger" is a poisonous myth that serves nobody but the powerful: work a job or be the scum of the earth. That's your life. That's your choice. All the while, they destroy the economy by destroying the ability of society to create actual jobs (either through bailing massive failed industries like the banks, selling off natural resources or nationalise core industries for meagre profit, then exporting jobs etc.).
> 
> But yeah blame the poor f*** who has nothing beyond his horizon but his weekly few quid and the life of middling daytime TV. More a kind of rotting than living. The person who if he ever had a chance to be something he 'ain't never even had the wits to seize it'. Yeah blame him. Then compare him to a murderous sociopath who killed his six kids when he set his house on fire.
> 
> They're all the same, aren't they really?!
> 
> But remember, and unless you are independently wealthy, if you work for a living and of modest means you are more than likely six pay-checks away from financial ruin. Nothing in this world is certain. Like the miners and ship-builders of northern England experienced, all it take is for the vagaries and the flick of a pen from one far-away person to find your livelihood shredded. You might just find yourself requiring a little compassion yourself.


Well said VR, well said indeed!


----------



## Balfour

Hitch said:


> The Book never defines charity, mercy or kindness as taking from A to 'give' to B at the point of a gun .
> 
> The Book does require equal measurements and equal treatment under the law in fact the Book explicitly demands that the rich and the poor be judged without regard of any status other than guilt or innocence.





Shaver said:


> Of course it does not - there were no guns back then. What a silly thing to say. Anyway where do guns come in to this debate?





Mike Petrik said:


> You are too smart to be confused, Shaver. The point to which #275 responded was pretty straightforward -- that a Scriptural understanding of charity does not include within its ambit payments made compulsory by force of law. Instead of responding thoughtfully (e.g., sometimes society might voluntarily choose to use government as an instrument of charity), you simply made some irrelevant reference to the fact that guns were not around during Scriptural times. No offense, Shaver, but this kind of stuff is not so much pithy as boring. It is simply an effort to score a rhetorical point at the expense of advancing the discussion. You are better than that.


Shaver, this point is beneath a man of your obvious intelligence and eloquence. You knew perfectly well the sentiment that was intended here, and decided wilfully to misinterpret it, as Mr. Petrik has pointed out. You're being too coy by half!

Is this the sort of newspeak we can expect from the Lady's critics?


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Shaver, this point is beneath a man of your obvious intelligence and eloquence. You knew perfectly well the sentiment that was intended here, and decided wilfully to misinterpret it, as Mr. Petrik has pointed out. You're being too coy by half!
> 
> Is this the sort of newspeak we can expect from the Lady's critics?


I am *not* being coy. I am dumbfounded that I was expected to make sense of the comment directed toward me by Hitch. Why would I grasp it, a left-field comment about using guns to distribute charity? Eh? It makes no bleedin' sense at all?! This could go round in circles indefinitely if you cannot take me at my word. So:

Why not call up Robin Hood and ask him for some wealth distribution?* :icon_smile_wink:

*with apologies to Strummer/Jones


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> I am *not* being coy. I am dumbfounded that I was expected to make sense of the comment directed toward me by Hitch. Why would I grasp it, a left-field comment about using guns to distribute charity? Eh? It makes no bleedin' sense at all?! This could go round in circles indefinitely if you cannot take me at my word. So:
> 
> Why not call up Robin Hood and ask him for some wealth distribution?* :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> *with apologies to Strummer/Jones


You really are better than this. And Mr. Petrik and I have already explained an obvious point in terms which should be clear enough even for the simple-minded, so we know your game here old man. :devil:


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> You really are better than this. And Mr. Petrik and I have already explained an obvious point in terms which should be clear enough even for the simple-minded, so we know your game here old man. :devil:


Quit telling me that I'm better than this. Obviously I am not. Why should I be expected to defend a point which I never made and moreover wholeheartedly disagree with? Furthermore where in Heavens name is your alleged explanation? I must be seeing a partial view of this thread or.......



Picture a man, an Englishman. He's wearing a cravat and a puzzled frown. Chunks of reality are invisible to him, You may unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.. :icon_smile:


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Quit telling me that I'm better than this. Obviously I am not. Why should I be expected to defend a point which I never made and moreover wholeheartedly disagree with? Furthermore where in Heavens name is your alleged explanation? I must be seeing a partial view of this thread or.......
> 
> 
> 
> Picture a man, an Englishman. He's wearing a cravat and a puzzled frown. Chunks of reality are invisible to him, You may unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.. :icon_smile:


^ You equated charity with compulsory taxation and claimed Biblical support for this notion. Hitch suggested, using a modern metaphor, that the compulsory legal acquisition of wealth is not the same as charity, in a Biblical sense. This was explained by Messrs. Petrik and Balfour, in clear terms allowing for nothing other than willful misinterpretation.


----------



## Balfour

.....


----------



## Balfour

......


----------



## Balfour

.......


----------



## Balfour

......


----------



## Langham

*Cost of the funeral*



Chouan said:


> An echo of PE's "Number Crunching":
> Arts Council to have £11.5 million cut from it's budget as being unaffordable, whilst we are spending £10m on Thatcher's funeral


Actual cost proved to be £3.6m.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22299372


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Actual cost proved to be £3.6m.
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22299372


That's alright then. In a time of severe recession and public spending cuts, when we're all being told that "tough decisions" about spending need to be made, we can afford to spend £3.6 on the funeral of a politician that half the country loathed, and whose family are multi-millionaires, so that current politicians can bask in her reflected glory, for their own party-political benefit, at our expense.


----------



## Langham

It was a peanuts amount of money - the sort of money a small plc might devote to redesigning its corporate stationery.

Unless they wished to appear motivated by pure malice and vindictiveness, no serious person could suggest withholding that amount, on grounds of economy, to mark the passing of a towering leader recognised as such by politicians on all sides, whether or not they agreed with her policies.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> It was a peanuts amount of money - the sort of money a small plc might devote to redesigning its corporate stationery.
> 
> Unless they wished to appear motivated by pure malice and vindictiveness, no serious person could suggest withholding that amount, on grounds of economy, to mark the passing of a towering leader recognised as such by politicians on all sides, whether or not they agreed with her policies.


I'm afraid you are in error here Mr Langham. Many 'serious' people begrudge the expense and their objections need not be informed by malice nor vindictiveness. Merely saying something does not make it true. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Balfour

Langham's right. The grubby motives could either be personal to the individual (i.e. Crypto anti-Thatcher) or the entire notion of the whole ceremonial thing (i.e. neutral to the individual and equally capable of applying to towering figures of the Left who have become Prime Minister (speaking hypothetically here of course:smile). But grubby they would remain.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Langham's right. The grubby motives could either be personal to the individual (i.e. Crypto anti-Thatcher) or the entire notion of the whole ceremonial thing (i.e. neutral to the individual and equally capable of applying to towering figures of the Left who have become Prime Minister (speaking hypothetically here of course:smile). But grubby they would remain.


Again, simply saying something does not make it true.

Why need the motivations be grubby?

Mr B, if you will permit me, you seem to be excessively intolerant of views which do not align with your own. Disagreeing with your beliefs cannot be taken as ipso facto proof that a person is a Loony Lefty, grubby, stupid. etc etc. :rolleyes2:


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> Mr B, if you will permit me, you seem to be excessively intolerant of views which do not align with your own. Disagreeing with your beliefs cannot be taken as ipso facto proof that a person is a Loony Lefty, grubby, stupid. etc etc. :rolleyes2:





Shaver said:


> Again, simply saying something does not make it true.


Asked and answered by yourself, old chap. Although perhaps the most facile statement in debating one can imagine?:smile:

Anyway, as I have just mentioned in the "W" thread - I am returning to retirement, and will be unable to continue the banter (as entertaining, and frankly, revealing as it has been).


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Loony Lefty, grubby, stupid. etc etc. :rolleyes2:


I believe the term of abuse used was "Crypto"....


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> Asked and answered by yourself, old chap. Although perhaps the most facile statement in debating one can imagine?:smile:
> 
> Anyway, as I have just mentioned in the "W" thread - I am returning to retirement, and will be unable to continue the banter (as entertaining, and frankly, revealing as it has been).


This makes no sense whatsoever.

Your offering no rationale with which to support your allegedly deeply held beliefs but instead treating us to mere empty sloganeering has been very revealing indeed.
Enjoy your break Sir. You may use it to sharpen your debating skills if you wish. :devil:


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> I'm afraid you are in error here Mr Langham. Many 'serious' people begrudge the expense and their objections need not be informed by malice nor vindictiveness. Merely saying something does not make it true. :icon_smile_wink:


 Please itemise such objections for me then. Otherwise I shall persist in my view that they are mean-spirited.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Please itemise such objections for me then. Otherwise I shall persist in my view that they are mean-spirited.


I consider that as you made the original statement then the burden must surey fall upon you to illustrate *your* objections. I will then counter these.


----------



## Langham

My assertion was that any objectors to the very modest expense of providing the funeral must be motivated by petty malice and vindictiveness. You said that was not the case - that their objections might have had other grounds, but you have not said what those might be. As I cannot think of any, and you will not offer any, I hold to my original assertion.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> My assertion was that any objectors to the very modest expense of providing the funeral must be motivated by petty malice and vindictiveness. You said that was not the case - that their objections might have had other grounds, but you have not said what those might be. As I cannot think of any, and you will not offer any, I hold to my original assertion.


We could go round in circles like this all day......

You said that objections *must* be motivated by petty malice etc. Please be so kind as to tell us why.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> We could go round in circles like this all day......
> 
> You said that objections *must* be motivated by petty malice etc. Please be so kind as to tell us why.


I cannot conceive of any other possible reasons - petty malice and vindictiveness would seem the most likely cause. Not that the issue has attracted much debate anyway, other than one or two protestors. The idea that their objections reflect any concern over imprudent government expenditure is laughable.


----------



## Balfour

Shaver said:


> This makes no sense whatsoever.
> 
> Your offering no rationale with which to support your allegedly deeply held beliefs but instead treating us to mere empty sloganeering has been very revealing indeed.
> Enjoy your break Sir. You may use it to sharpen your debating skills if you wish. :devil:


It makes perfect sense. "Just because you said it doesn't make it true" can be applied to any statement, and is therefore a facile debating prop. It amused me to fire it back at your statement.

Don't make Chouan's mistake and confuse disinclination with inability. But probably best that we don't actually debate this stuff, eh, given detente?:biggrin2:


----------



## Balfour

And now it really is, "over and out". It's been fun chaps - let me wish you well, and I hope the September event proves to be a success.


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> It makes perfect sense. "Just because you said it doesn't make it true" can be applied to any statement, and is therefore a facile debating prop. It amused me to fire it back at your statement.
> 
> Don't make Chouan's mistake and confuse disinclination with inability. But probably best that we don't actually debate this stuff, eh, given detente?:biggrin2:


Unless, of course, one is able to readily provide sufficient proof to support one's assertions, then the saying of it can make it demonstrably true. Discinclination can easily be perceived as inability. :rolleyes2:

Detente? Agreed.

Take care of yourself Mr B. :icon_smile:


----------



## VictorRomeo

Balfour said:


> And now it really is, "over and out". It's been fun chaps - let me wish you well, and I hope the September event proves to be a success.


Do take care and please do stop by if time permits. Even if just to say hello! VR.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> *I cannot conceive of any other possible reasons *- petty malice and vindictiveness would seem the most likely cause. Not that the issue has attracted much debate anyway, other than one or two protestors. The idea that their objections reflect any concern over imprudent government expenditure is laughable.


Lack of imagination hardly qualifies as proof, now does it? :devil:


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Lack of imagination hardly qualifies as proof, now does it? :devil:


I assure you my own imagination is in perfect working order. I could with more merit accuse you of a lack of imagination, since you have been uncharacteristically coy in suggesting alternative reasons to my own favoured explanation.


----------



## Chouan

There's a certain Robespierreist attitude being shown here. If one's view is right, then it must be right, and others must know that it is right. If others oppose one's view it can only be through malice, as one's view is so manifestly right. Opponents therefore can only be opposing one's view through malice, or vindictiveness, or other grubby motives. Not because their interpretation is different.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I assure you my own imagination is in perfect working order. *I could with more merit accuse you *of a lack of imagination, since you have been uncharacteristically coy in suggesting alternative reasons to my own favoured explanation.


You could try - but with the prevarication exhibited thus far today it will probably be a lot later on this evening before you finally get around to spitting it out. :devil:

Seriously, though: how come you expect everyone who disagrees with you to provide water-tight, logical and coherent arguments but allow yourself the luxury of just blurting out any old thing and excpecting that we must simply accept it?


----------



## Langham

I made an assertion 18 or so posts ago, amplified somewhat by Balfour's characteristic contribution - I think the argument is quite clearly stated. If you or others don't like it, or disagree with, by all means put forward some alternative interpretation or reasons for objecting to the expense of her funeral.

And you're totally missing the point old chap. To recap, much earlier, outrage was expressed at the expense - in fact the figure mentioned proved to be a slight exaggeration. I corrected the figure and made the point that it was mean-spirited to object to the rather trivial expense.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I made an assertion 18 or so posts ago, amplified somewhat by Balfour's characteristic contribution - I think the argument is quite clearly stated. If you or others don't like it, or disagree with, by all means put forward some alternative interpretation or reasons for objecting to the expense of her funeral.


Well if you consider a simple assertion such as 'those who disagree with me are malicious and vindictive' to be a clearly stated argument...... :confused2:

Dialectical Semantics? Pah! I wish I had never bothered reading Engels now. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I made an assertion 18 or so posts ago, amplified somewhat by Balfour's characteristic contribution - I think the argument is quite clearly stated. If you or others don't like it, or disagree with, by all means put forward some alternative interpretation or reasons for objecting to the expense of her funeral.
> 
> And you're totally missing the point old chap. To recap, much earlier, outrage was expressed at the expense - in fact the figure mentioned proved to be a slight exaggeration. I corrected the figure and made the point that it was mean-spirited to object to the rather trivial expense.


The fact remains that a politician who deliberately alienated a significant number of the UK's population, who was loathed by a significant number of the UK's population, who's estate is many millions of £s was buried at our expense through Party Political motives by a Party supported by a minority of the population, for their own ends. £3.6 million is not a trivial sum when we are constantly told that cuts are essential; objecting to the veneration of a politician that I hated, at my expense, for political capital by a Party that I don't support isn't an expression of mean spirit on my part, it is so much deeper than that.


----------



## Langham

What a catalogue of inventions:



Chouan said:


> The fact remains that a politician who deliberately alienated a significant number of the UK's population, who was loathed by a significant number of the UK's population


How do you explain the fact that she was elected and then re-elected a further two times in succession then? She may have been unpopular with some of the electorate, but the facts suggest she was popular with a bigger number.



> who's estate is many millions of £s was buried at our expense through Party Political motives by a Party supported by a minority of the population, for their own ends.


You can't just go out and buy that sort of funeral off the shelf, you know. As I understand it, the funeral arrangements were planned by the last Labour government, so you're incorrect in seeking party political motives. And as for your point about a minority of the population, don't forget that in the past there have been a few governments formed by Labour when fewer votes had been cast for them than for the Tories.



> objecting to the veneration of a politician that I hated, at my expense, for political capital by a Party that I don't support isn't an expression of mean spirit on my part, it is so much deeper than that.


Do you think that should give you a veto over the arrangements? I still think you're at the least churlish, if not mean-spirited.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Well if you consider a simple assertion such as 'those who disagree with me are malicious and vindictive' to be a clearly stated argument...... :confused2:


I said no such thing, as you well know. Now either pay attention, or stop interfering.:mad2:


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> It was a peanuts amount of money - the sort of money a small plc might devote to redesigning its corporate stationery.
> 
> **Unless they wished to appear motivated by pure malice and vindictiveness, no serious person could suggest *withholding that amount, on grounds of economy, to mark the passing of a towering leader recognised as such by politicians on all sides, whether or not they agreed with her policies.





Shaver said:


> Well if you consider a simple assertion such as 'those who disagree with me are malicious and vindictive' to be a clearly stated argument...... :confused2:
> 
> Dialectical Semantics? Pah! I wish I had never bothered reading Engels now. :icon_smile_wink:





Langham said:


> *I said no such thing**, as you well know. Now either pay attention, or stop interfering.:mad2:


:confused2: It kinda looks like you did say such a thing.......


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Well if you consider a simple assertion such as 'those who disagree with me are malicious and vindictive' to be a clearly stated argument...... :confused2:





Shaver said:


> :confused2: It kinda looks like you did say such a thing.......


^^I was not saying and have not said anywhere ever that those who disagree with me are malicious and vindictive - it is ridiculous to attribute those words to me. You must think I have a persecution complex.

What I said in the extracts you showed above was that those persons objecting to spending money on Mrs T's excellent funeral appeared, or were prepared to risk appearing to be motivated by malice and vindictiveness. See?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> How do you explain the fact that she was elected and then re-elected a further two times in succession then? She may have been unpopular with some of the electorate, but the facts suggest she was popular with a bigger number.
> 
> You can't just go out and buy that sort of funeral off the shelf, you know. As I understand it, the funeral arrangements were planned by the last Labour government, so you're incorrect in seeking party political motives. And as for your point about a minority of the population, don't forget that in the past there have been a few governments formed by Labour when fewer votes had been cast for them than for the Tories.
> 
> Do you think that should give you a veto over the arrangements? I still think you're at the least churlish, if not mean-spirited.


In her landslide victory of 1983, the Tories got about 13 million votes, Labour & Libs got 17 million. That suggests that a significant number of people didn't vote for her.
It doesn't give me a veto, but the fact that my taxes are paying for it gives me the right to complain about it!
Feel free to think what you will of me, I would suggest that it isn't mean spirits or churlishness, but simple hatred.


----------



## Haffman

Chouan said:


> Feel free to think what you will of me, I would suggest that it isn't mean spirits or churlishness, but simple hatred.


This is not one of our forum's finest hours.


----------



## Chouan

Haffman said:


> This is not one of our forum's finest hours.


THe thread? The fact that such an appalling PM has such support? Or the fact that such an appalling PM is widely hated? She certainly polarised the population, as was her intention.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> ^^*I was not saying and have not said anywhere ever that those who disagree with me are malicious and vindictive *- it is ridiculous to attribute those words to me. You must think I have a persecution complex.
> 
> What I said in the extracts you showed above was that those persons objecting to spending money on Mrs T's excellent funeral appeared, or were prepared to risk appearing to be motivated by malice and vindictiveness. See?


Extrapolation of your initial premise under application of the inferences associated with natural deduction calculus would readily prove otherwise. :smile:


----------



## doncorleon

Thatcher's legacy has some controversy, I am aware of that, but personally I admire and respect her. She saw people as human beings. Not collective masses.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Extrapolation of your initial premise under application of the inferences associated with natural deduction calculus would readily prove otherwise. :smile:


Shaver, you have pretended to negotiate two logical hurdles. First, by ignoring Langham's careful qualification "appear to be"; second, by responding generally (anyone who disagrees with Langham) to his particular (i.e., the cost of a funeral to mark the passing of a leader) assertion. I'm afraid that your rather obvious pretense is not obscured by gibberish about deduction by extrapolation of premise via inference.


----------



## Langham

*The degeneracy of hatred in a liberal society*



Chouan said:


> THe thread? The fact that such an appalling PM has such support? Or the fact that such an appalling PM is widely hated? She certainly polarised the population, as was her intention.


To express oneself so freely on the object of hatred I find disagreeable and also rather embarrassing - in fact it's degenerate. In other countries there may be genuine reason to hate certain leaders - I can conceive of this being so in various totalitarian regimes where cruel, unjust, arbitrary and even genocidal policies have been adopted - but nothing that happened under Margaret Thatcher's government comes remotely close to justifying such a reaction.

I accept the point that has been made (ad nauseam) that her policies were divisive, but that's all. Nor was that at all the purpose of her policies (as has been baldly asserted above) - which were and are widely accepted internationally to have saved this country from imminent economic doom, while also opening up free enterprise and opportunity for the first time in 200 years to anyone in this country regardless of background or class. People who can't see this may have forgotten, or were too young to appreciate, or perhaps lead lives that are so cushioned that they are actually unable to appreciate, how desperately poor and falling-apart this country had become by the 1970s.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Shaver, you have pretended to negotiate two logical hurdles. First, by ignoring Langham's careful qualification "appear to be"; second, by responding generally (anyone who disagrees with Langham) to his particular (i.e., the cost of a funeral to mark the passing of a leader) assertion. I'm afraid that your rather obvious pretense is not obscured by gibberish about deduction by extrapolation of premise via inference.


You would like to think so, wouldn't you? However it is my assertion that the 'careful qualification' takes the form of a negated goal horn clause. Imagine that you are trying to prove Phi from Gamma, where ~Phi is a negated goal, and Gamma is a knowledge base of facts and rules. Suppose you apply the set of support strategy, in which no resolution ever involves resolving two clauses from Gamma together. To wit making a statement intended to be percieved by the reader as a truth but dissembling with a phrase such as 'appears to be' whilst still making a definitive case, then, inductively, every resolution combines a negated goal with a fact or rule from Gamma and generates a new negated goal. Moreover, if you take a resolution proof, and trace your way back from the null clause at the end to ~Phi at the beginning, since every resolution involves combining one negated goal with one clause from Gamma, it is clear that the sequence of negated goals involved can be linearly ordered. That is, the final proof, ignoring dead ends has the form. It's basic first order resolution. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> You would like to think so, wouldn't you? However it is my assertion that the 'careful qualification' takes the form of a negated goal horn clause. Imagine that you are trying to prove Phi from Gamma, where ~Phi is a negated goal, and Gamma is a knowledge base of facts and rules. Suppose you apply the set of support strategy, in which no resolution ever involves resolving two clauses from Gamma together. To wit making a statement intended to be percieved by the reader as a truth but dissembling with a phrase such as 'appears to be' whilst still making a definitive case, then, inductively, every resolution combines a negated goal with a fact or rule from Gamma and generates a new negated goal. Moreover, if you take a resolution proof, and trace your way back from the null clause at the end to ~Phi at the beginning, since every resolution involves combining one negated goal with one clause from Gamma, it is clear that the sequence of negated goals involved can be linearly ordered. That is, the final proof, ignoring dead ends has the form. It's basic first order resolution. :icon_smile_wink:


I rest my case.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> I rest my case.


You do? Wow. I didn't expect to win quite so easily. :icon_smile:


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> To express oneself so freely on the object of hatred I find disagreeable and also rather embarrassing - in fact it's degenerate. In other countries there may be genuine reason to hate certain leaders - I can conceive of this being so in various totalitarian regimes where cruel, unjust, arbitrary and even genocidal policies have been adopted - but nothing that happened under Margaret Thatcher's government comes remotely close to justifying such a reaction.
> 
> I accept the point that has been made (ad nauseam) that her policies were divisive, but that's all. Nor was that at all the purpose of her policies (as has been baldly asserted above) - which were and are widely accepted internationally to have saved this country from imminent economic doom, while also opening up free enterprise and opportunity for the first time in 200 years to anyone in this country regardless of background or class. People who can't see this may have forgotten, or were too young to appreciate, or perhaps lead lives that are so cushioned that they are actually unable to appreciate, how desperately poor and falling-apart this country had become by the 1970s.


I would suggest that you find my view of her disagreeable and embarrassing because you can't conceive of people having such a different view to your own. 
I simply don't agree that the country was as bad as you'd have us believe. Neither do I agree that she saved this country from "imminent doom", nor that she opened "free enterprise and opportunity for the first time in 200 years to anyone in this country regardless of background or class". She and her government deliberately sought to attack those she saw as her enemies, those that she described as traitors, the "enemy within", and her ideologically driven policy brought poverty and unemployment to many. 
You are fully convinced that her policies were economic policies, not ideological, and improved Britain. I am convinced of the opposite view. Furthermore, the Britain that we live in today, after 30 years of Thatcherite policies, followed by New Labour as well as by the Tories, is proof of the failure of her economic and ideological policies. 
I am fully aware of what life was like in the 1970's, leaving 6th form and joining my first ship in 1974. 
You seem to think that your view is a "truth", an accepted fact, so those who disagree must be ignorant, misguided, or malicious. We are none of those things; we have a different view from yours, based on knowledge and experience.


----------



## Langham

^ The views I have put forward are not exclusively my own - such views are widely shared, both in this country and many others. These views, incidentally, are based on knowledge and experience too.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^ The views I have put forward are not exclusively my own - such views are widely shared, both in this country and many others. These views, incidentally, are based on knowledge and experience too.


There are many who think she was wonderful, there are many who hated her. It isn't ignorance or misguidedness or foolishness or maliciousness that led to that view. If you're embarrassed by the expression of the view that she wasn't wonderful, then you might be useful to you to work out why so many people hated her. It wasn't because of pettiness or mean spiritedness or malice or Marxist sentiment.
As a PS, her successors, people like Gove, still use her rhetoric of confrontation and aggression, when they speak of people who oppose them. Those who express doubts about the practicality and purpose of Gove's new curriculum are described by him as the "enemies of promise". As if those who don't view his ideas with favour are somehow seeking to deny a future to Britain's children.


----------



## Chouan

Some interesting views expressed recently in the Guardian:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-r...et-love-life-letters-review#start-of-comments

reviewing the recent tv programme about her early life, which I missed, funnily enough, and this

https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/23/margaret-thatcher-biography-adviser-early-warning

She doesn't seem to have been very popular amongst her fellow Tories either.....


----------



## tocqueville

Reading this thread makes me grateful I have no strong opinions either way with regard to the late PM.

One thing I can say: I am jealous of the British for having intelligent conservatives, including politicians whose views I respect. Ours have gone off the deep end.


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> Reading this thread makes me grateful I have no strong opinions either way with regard to the late PM.
> 
> One thing I can say: I am jealous of the British for having intelligent conservatives, including politicians whose views I respect. Ours have gone off the deep end.


I've been to DC many times. Very shallow waters. You ought to leave from time to time and try the "deep end". You'll be swimming in intelligent ideas in no time. 
Seriously, both the left and the right are bereft of seriously thoughtful politicians, but there are ample intellects on both ideological sides. Those who think otherwise just live in echo chambers.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Reading this thread makes me grateful I have no strong opinions either way with regard to the late PM. One thing I can say: I am jealous of the British for having intelligent conservatives, including politicians whose views I respect. Ours have gone off the deep end.


 We have intelligent politicians?! Where? All I might observe is a bunch of over-privileged drips, possessed of a strong sense of entitlement at proportional inverse to their talent, yelping ragged quasi-intellectual fripperies cultivated within their limited yet concededly expensive educations. They are all a bunch of rotters. Or they *ahem* 'appear to be'.

At least U.S politicians are funny.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> At least U.S politicians are funny.


C'mon...... You have Boris!


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Reading this thread makes me grateful I have no strong opinions either way with regard to the late PM.
> 
> One thing I can say: I am jealous of the British for having intelligent conservatives, including politicians whose views I respect. Ours have gone off the deep end.


I'd be appreciative if you could name some, I'm not aware that there are any. There are some "smart" self-seeking millionaires and multi-millionaires who think it their god given role to patronise and admonish the lower orders, to point out their shortcomings and scold them, whilst helping out their fellow millionaires.
I do know a failed Tory candidate in the last General Election who is, in many respects, a thoroughly decent sort, and not a millionaire, in the same line of work as myself; we qualified together back in 1999. However, as he wasn't elected, would he count as a politician? Or is he simply a teacher of History? He's briefly mentioned here:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/16/historians-gove-curriculum


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> C'mon...... You have Boris!


Fair do's. It's true that we have Boris.....Nazi saluting the German athletes at the olympics, a lovable imbecile. :redface:


----------



## Chouan

Only he's not an imbecile, he's a very clever operator, a populist demagogue whose buffoonery is a blind to his ambition. He is every bit as ruthless and manipulative a politician as the others, only his apparent eccentricity and bumbling persona hides that. He's as dangerous, more even, than the rest, especially with the support of his poisonous family.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Johnson

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Johnson_(writer)"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Johnson_(writer)

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Johnson


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Only he's not an imbecile, he's a very clever operator, a populist demagogue whose buffoonery is a blind to his ambition. He is every bit as ruthless and manipulative a politician as the others, only his apparent eccentricity and bumbling persona hides that. He's as dangerous, more even, than the rest, especially with the support of his poisonous family.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Johnson
> 
> [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Johnson_(writer)"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Johnson_(writer)
> 
> [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Johnson


I have heard that opinion expressed and do not neccessarily disagree. However as his existence only marginally intersects with my own via his bufoonery then Occam's razor allows me to take him as I find him. The custard hair'd fraud. :icon_smile_wink:

.
.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> There are many who think she was wonderful, there are many who hated her. It isn't ignorance or misguidedness or foolishness or maliciousness that led to that view. If you're embarrassed by the expression of the view that she wasn't wonderful, then you might be useful to you to work out why so many people hated her. It wasn't because of pettiness or mean spiritedness or malice or Marxist sentiment.
> As a PS, her successors, people like Gove, still use her rhetoric of confrontation and aggression, when they speak of people who oppose them. Those who express doubts about the practicality and purpose of Gove's new curriculum are described by him as the "enemies of promise". As if those who don't view his ideas with favour are somehow seeking to deny a future to Britain's children.


I think you've slightly missed the point I was making, but I will forgo further repetition.

With regard to Gove, surely we have a right to expect that he is entirely, totally, utterly committed to his reforms, in the hope that this will lead to some long-awaited improvement in our schools? That being so, he - like anyone who has committed his all to a course of action - is correct to characterise his opponents in that way. In fact I would say he is doubly right, as our education system, by and large, is patently rotten from top to bottom, and there seem to be a great many mediocre educationistas who have a vested interest in making sure it stays that way.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> I think you've slightly missed the point I was making, but I will forgo further repetition.
> 
> With regard to Gove, surely we have a right to expect that he is entirely, totally, utterly committed to his reforms, in the hope that this will lead to some long-awaited improvement in our schools? That being so, he - like anyone who has committed his all to a course of action - is correct to characterise his opponents in that way. In fact I would say he is doubly right, as our education system, by and large, is patently rotten from top to bottom, and there seem to be a great many mediocre educationistas who have a vested interest in making sure it stays that way.


Any evidence? Or just an assertion?
Have you looked at Gove's proposals? Or do you just believe him to be right by an act of faith? Is there any point in asking these questions? as your mind is clearly made up without actually knowing anything, beyond your existing beliefs and what the Telegraph, Mail and Express tells you, I should imagine. Actually, given your earlier statement that the Welfare State should be dismantled, is it the role of government to decide what should be taught anyway?
I'd be very interested to see if you have any original ideas on this.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> Any evidence? Or just an assertion?
> Have you looked at Gove's proposals? Or do you just believe him to be right by an act of faith? Is there any point in asking these questions? as your mind is clearly made up without actually knowing anything, beyond your existing beliefs and what the Telegraph, Mail and Express tells you, I should imagine. Actually, given your earlier statement that the Welfare State should be dismantled, is it the role of government to decide what should be taught anyway?
> I'd be very interested to see if you have any original ideas on this.


You seem to think you know exactly how my opinions are formed, don't you? Well you're wrong - it's not as simple as you imagine. In fact I was a school governor for five years - a large inner city comprehensive of c.1,000 pupils, during which period I was closely involved in various aspects of running the place, including interviewing applicants for teaching posts, so I tried to keep abreast of matters relating to education. My views on education are largely informed by my time there - a time I remember as a long-running struggle with largely lackadaisical and complacent staff who needed shock therapy in order to improve their standards.

I would not be averse to total privatisation of education, along with dismantling various other state apparatus, but at the moment the molly-coddled British public is still addicted to the welfare state baby-bottle. By and large, the general public have a tendency to treat with scorn and contempt things that are free - perhaps thought should be given to introducing a system of charging for schools (medicine, too)? I believe you work in the private sector, so presumably you are in favour of fee-paying arrangements for education?


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> You seem to think you know exactly how my opinions are formed, don't you? Well you're wrong - it's not as simple as you imagine. In fact I was a school governor for five years - a large inner city comprehensive of c.1,000 pupils, during which period I was closely involved in various aspects of running the place, including interviewing applicants for teaching posts, so I tried to keep abreast of matters relating to education. My views on education are largely informed by my time there - a time I remember as a long-running struggle with largely lackadaisical and complacent staff who needed shock therapy in order to improve their standards.
> 
> I would not be averse to total privatisation of education, along with dismantling various other state apparatus, but at the moment *the* *molly-coddled British public is still addicted to the welfare state baby-bottle*. By and large, the general public have a tendency to treat with scorn and contempt things that are free - perhaps thought should be given to introducing a system of charging for schools (medicine, too)? I believe you work in the private sector, so presumably you are in favour of fee-paying arrangements for education?


Brilliant stuff!  Mixed metaphor, pompous proselytization and self righteous indignation in one succinct sentence. What an utterly marvellous pastiche. I like it. I like it a lot. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Langham

^Perhaps you don't like what I say, but it's all true, isn't it.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Extrapolation of your initial premise under application of the inferences associated with natural deduction calculus would readily prove otherwise. :smile:





Shaver said:


> You would like to think so, wouldn't you? However it is my assertion that the 'careful qualification' takes the form of a negated goal horn clause. Imagine that you are trying to prove Phi from Gamma, where ~Phi is a negated goal, and Gamma is a knowledge base of facts and rules. Suppose you apply the set of support strategy, in which no resolution ever involves resolving two clauses from Gamma together. To wit making a statement intended to be percieved by the reader as a truth but dissembling with a phrase such as 'appears to be' whilst still making a definitive case, then, inductively, every resolution combines a negated goal with a fact or rule from Gamma and generates a new negated goal. Moreover, if you take a resolution proof, and trace your way back from the null clause at the end to ~Phi at the beginning, since every resolution involves combining one negated goal with one clause from Gamma, it is clear that the sequence of negated goals involved can be linearly ordered. That is, the final proof, ignoring dead ends has the form. It's basic first order resolution. :icon_smile_wink:


Anyway, what do you call all that if it isn't pompous pastiche, eh?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> You seem to think you know exactly how my opinions are formed, don't you? Well you're wrong - it's not as simple as you imagine.


I suppose it's the same kind of assumption you used on me, reads the Guardian etc. etc.



Langham said:


> In fact I was a school governor for five years - a large inner city comprehensive of c.1,000 pupils, during which period I was closely involved in various aspects of running the place, including interviewing applicants for teaching posts, so I tried to keep abreast of matters relating to education. My views on education are largely informed by my time there - a time I remember as a long-running struggle with largely lackadaisical and complacent staff who needed shock therapy in order to improve their standards.


So, your experience in one school is sufficient for you to form an opinion on all schools? You can generalise on Britain's education, sorry, state funded, education system because you were a governor at one. Parent-Governor, or appointed governor? 
Were you as dogmatic in your approach with the staff as you are on this thread? I would suggest, and it is only a suggestion, that your responses to my criticisms of the Leaderene are symptomatic of a political view that would not be popular with most teachers. Is it possible that your view of people whose political ideas do not exactly coincide with yours would be less than positive?
Would you be able to explain what you mean by "largely lackadaisical and complacent staff"? Some teachers, as in all professions, are less good than others, but you seem to be making sweeping generalisations about a national education system based on very limited real knowledge, even if your views are accurate, and are not coloured by your political viewpoint.



Langham said:


> I would not be averse to total privatisation of education, along with dismantling various other state apparatus, but at the moment the molly-coddled British public is still addicted to the welfare state baby-bottle.


So what would your solution be to the problem of those that I referred to as the "less able" in a way that you found patronising? How would you describe those incapable of accepted levels of endeavour, and how would you address the problem of their existence?



Langham said:


> By and large, the general public have a tendency to treat with scorn and contempt things that are free - perhaps thought should be given to introducing a system of charging for schools (medicine, too)?


I wasn't aware that medicine, or schools, were free. I was under the impression that National Insurance payments and taxation was the method by which the NHS and education was funded? I thought that we paid for these things out of wages, so that health Care was "free at the point of use"?



Langham said:


> I believe you work in the private sector, so presumably you are in favour of fee-paying arrangements for education?


If people wish to pay fees for their children's education, then they are, of course, free to do so. Although I do take exception to the charitable status, with the consequent tax relief that places such as Eton claim. Your presumption of my favouring the idea is erroneous, however. I am employed by an Academy, one of those privately sponsored and run schools that our Thatcherite governments have imposed on us to get rid of publicly accountable education. Based on the mantra that "private is best" most schools in most LEAs are now run by commercial organisations, and current plans are that they will soon be allowed to run on a profit basis.

I see that you haven't addressed Gove's new curriculums. I'd be interested in your views, although I think that I've a fair idea of what they'd be. Let's narrow it down a bit and you can tell us what you think of his new History curriculum. 
Must dash now, as I have some year 7s to indoctrinate.


----------



## Langham

^That's rather a long gaseous emission/questionnaire, some answers to which you may find in (or be able to deduce from) my earlier postings - I think my views are quite clear. I have noticed your favoured modus operandi seems to be to miss the point and jump to your own conclusions regardless of what people say, so I shall spare myself the trouble of addressing your points directly.


----------



## Shaver

Note to self: when people offer legitimate alternative perspective to my own simply refute this by asserting that they have missed my clearly expressed point and moreover simply jumped to self-serving conclusions. 

This trite get out clause will save me the bother of putting my views to the test of morality or reason. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Langham

OK, after Shaver's rather characteristic riposte to my earlier answer I feel moved to make a fuller answer, now that I have a moment.



Chouan said:


> I suppose it's the same kind of assumption you used on me, reads the Guardian etc. etc.


But you do, don't you? Just as I read the Telegraph (I'm not even as widely read as you thought I was).


> So, your experience in one school is sufficient for you to form an opinion on all schools? You can generalise on Britain's education, sorry, state funded, education system because you were a governor at one. Parent-Governor, or appointed governor?


Absolutely. I can state with confidence that I know more about the state of state education in this country than 90% of the lay population. My children attended better schools than the school at which I was a governor. I myself attended a rudimentary type of borstal as a youngster, and my wife a Swiss finishing school, so I feel I have considerable and varied experience to draw on.



> Were you as dogmatic in your approach with the staff as you are on this thread? I would suggest, and it is only a suggestion, that your responses to my criticisms of the Leaderene are symptomatic of a political view that would not be popular with most teachers.


I would not characterise my approach, either on this thread or with the staff, as dogmatic. Rather, as one informed by experience of life and a certain scorn for _other_ people's dogmas.



> Is it possible that your view of people whose political ideas do not exactly coincide with yours would be less than positive?


Yes it certainly is possible - I am right and it follows that they necessarily must be wrong. Nevertheless, I would hope I respect their right to believe differently, even if this does result from an incorrect appreciation of the facts on their part.



> Would you be able to explain what you mean by "largely lackadaisical and complacent staff"? Some teachers, as in all professions, are less good than others, but you seem to be making sweeping generalisations about a national education system based on very limited real knowledge, even if your views are accurate, and are not coloured by your political viewpoint.


Please read my post more carefully - you will see that I was referring specifically to the school of which I was a governor. Due to certain local political issues, various members of staff were refusing to present themselves for work. Others were slovenly in dress and speech. I felt this attitude - even if their presence would have been at best of marginal utility - was disrespectful of the school and the pupils. Eventually, but only after untold trouble, the recalcitrant staff were either sorted out and made to shape up, or let go and replaced by fresh blood.



> So what would your solution be to the problem of those that I referred to as the "less able" in a way that you found patronising? How would you describe those incapable of accepted levels of endeavour, and how would you address the problem of their existence?


If you are talking here about the pupils, their interests are manifestly served very poorly by a great many schools here. You will be aware of this (I hope). I attribute this to an inappropriate curriculum, taught by indifferent teachers whose own grasp of numeracy, grammar and foreign languages is defective.


> I wasn't aware that medicine, or schools, were free. I was under the impression that National Insurance payments and taxation was the method by which the NHS and education was funded? I thought that we paid for these things out of wages, so that health Care was "free at the point of use"?


Correct, however the perception is that they are free, and that there is little choice in the matter. I would prefer it if those with children (I am including myself here) made provision for their children's education, rather than rely on the state to attend to this matter on their behalf.



> If people wish to pay fees for their children's education, then they are, of course, free to do so.


That is very broad-minded of you.



> Although I do take exception to the charitable status, with the consequent tax relief that places such as Eton claim. Your presumption of my favouring the idea is erroneous, however. I am employed by an Academy, one of those privately sponsored and run schools that our Thatcherite governments have imposed on us to get rid of publicly accountable education. Based on the mantra that "private is best" most schools in most LEAs are now run by commercial organisations, and current plans are that they will soon be allowed to run on a profit basis.


If you object to this, I suggest you kick up a stink about it - threaten to resign unless they alter the arrangement to one of your suggesting.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> But you do, don't you? Just as I read the Telegraph (I'm not even as widely read as you thought I was).


Actually, I don't, partly for personal reasons that I won't go into here, unless a colleague or friend refers an on-line article to me. I tend to read the Independent and the Spectator (sent to me by a friend when he's finished reading it) and Private Eye.



Langham said:


> Absolutely. I can state with confidence that I know more about the state of state education in this country than 90% of the lay population. My children attended better schools than the school at which I was a governor. I myself attended a rudimentary type of borstal as a youngster, and my wife a Swiss finishing school, so I feel I have considerable and varied experience to draw on.


You may state that with confidence, but your experience of, I assume, some form of boarding school, and your role as a governor, however recent, and your childrens' school experience doesn't give you, of itself, the authority or knowledge to assert that our public education is in a state of collapse, or whatever the exact expression was that you used. In this discussion I'm indifferent to others' views, it's your assertions that I'm questioniong.



Langham said:


> Please read my post more carefully - you will see that I was referring specifically to the school of which I was a governor. Due to certain local political issues, various members of staff were refusing to present themselves for work. Others were slovenly in dress and speech. I felt this attitude - even if their presence would have been at best of marginal utility - was disrespectful of the school and the pupils. Eventually, but only after untold trouble, the recalcitrant staff were either sorted out and made to shape up, or let go and replaced by fresh blood.


I assumed that it was specifically referring to your school, perhaps I hadn't made myself clear enough.



Langham said:


> If you are talking here about the pupils, their interests are manifestly served very poorly by a great many schools here. You will be aware of this (I hope). I attribute this to an inappropriate curriculum, taught by indifferent teachers whose own grasp of numeracy, grammar and foreign languages is defective.


No, I was referring to your comments on the Welfare State, which you stated elsewhere that wished to see dismantled. I was concerned as to how those less fortunate than ourselves in ability and aspirations would be treated in the absence of such an institution. As far as pupils are concerned, and their education, again you are masking sweeping assertions. I don't agree that "their interests are manifestly served very poorly by a great many schools", it certainly isn't manifest to me.
As far as the inappropriate curriculum that you, again, assert, I've yet to hear your views on the new one proposed by Gove, and how it could be implemented. The single most obvious way of improving education is, of course, the one improvement that will never be made, which is reducing class sizes. The main reason why private/Public schools do better, apart from more facilities paid for by large fees paid by parents, is smaller class sizes.



Langham said:


> Correct, however the perception is that they are free, and that there is little choice in the matter. I would prefer it if those with children (I am including myself here) made provision for their children's education, rather than rely on the state to attend to this matter on their behalf.


You say that the perception is that education is free, you did, however, state that it* is* free.



Langham said:


> If you object to this, I suggest you kick up a stink about it - threaten to resign unless they alter the arrangement to one of your suggesting.


An interesting suggestion..... not very helpful though in terms of practical advice. I'll just use subversion from within.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> Anyway, what do you call all that if it isn't pompous pastiche, eh?:icon_smile_big:


As I say, its first order resolution.

Schaefer's dichotomy theorem et al.


----------



## Langham

^^Thanks for correcting me on your reading matter, Chouan.

You are right, I have made a number of assertions and sweeping generalisations, which you don't seem to accept I am allowed to make. There we must differ.

As to the welfare state, yes I did say earlier I would like it to be dismantled. Please don't bore me with the pore wee doggie argument. My reasoning is that, well-intentioned though it might once have been, it is no longer a satisfactory model for looking after the poor, weak, sick and elderly and we soon will not be able to afford it in any case (ageing population etc) so the sooner it is reformed and done away with the better. Its octopus-like coils can be replaced by basic minimal provision for the truly needy - which was the original intention in any case.


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> ^^Thanks for correcting me on your reading matter, Chouan.
> 
> You are right, I have made a number of assertions and sweeping generalisations, which you don't seem to accept I am allowed to make. There we must differ.
> 
> As to the welfare state, yes I did say earlier I would like it to be dismantled. Please don't bore me with the pore wee doggie argument. My reasoning is that, well-intentioned though it might once have been, it is no longer a satisfactory model for looking after the poor, weak, sick and elderly and we soon will not be able to afford it in any case (ageing population etc) so the sooner it is reformed and done away with the better. Its octopus-like coils can be replaced by basic minimal provision for the truly needy - which was the original intention in any case.


I didn't say that you couldn't make sweeping generalisations; but sweeping generalisations based on minimal knowledge, experience and understanding are pointless at best, and dangerous at worst. Similarly, assertions, without evidence are equally worthless as an argument. If an unsupported assertion is made in an exam at GCSE by History students it would result in a Level 2 mark, which would lead to an F Grade. A C is recognised as a pass.

Further to my point yesterday evening, given your assertion that our current school curriculum is inappropriate, although established by a Thatcherite government, I am still keen to hear/read your views on Gove's proposals for the new History Curriculum.


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> I didn't say that you couldn't make sweeping generalisations; but sweeping generalisations based on minimal knowledge, experience and understanding are pointless at best, and dangerous at worst. Similarly, assertions, without evidence are equally worthless as an argument. If an unsupported assertion is made in an exam at GCSE by History students it would result in a Level 2 mark, which would lead to an F Grade. A C is recognised as a pass.
> 
> Further to my point yesterday evening, given your assertion that our current school curriculum is inappropriate, although established by a Thatcherite government, I am still keen to hear/read your views on Gove's proposals for the new History Curriculum.


Perhaps you are one of those unintentionally gauche and socially clumsy people who cannot help rubbing people up the wrong way, but I suspect your downright rudeness to me, crass as it is, is deliberate. Normally I would be quite happy to impart my views on the school curriculum, including that for history, in the hope that you might perhaps profit, but the nature of our exchanges so far is not such as to encourage expenditure of any further time or effort on my part.

I apologise to anyone else who may have taken the trouble to read this thread.


----------



## Chouan

Kingstonian said:


> Yeah. Privatise the railways. Split everything up, so one company can blame another, and then land the passenger with the most expensive fares in Europe.
> 
> Brilliant.


Curious recent development, in that the East Coast Main Line, formerly run by Stagecoach until the franchise was taken away from them, and now State run, is one of the most efficient, passenger friendly and profitable of all the rail franchises. So efficient and profitable that it is now a Tory priority for re-privatisation. Curious isn't it.....


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> It is the lingering malaise of welfarism that accounts for 'broken Britain', families like the odious Philpotts of Derby. Truly, the welfare state is a vivid illustration of the road to hell being paved with good intentions.


Curious that a recent report on that odious man's children suggests that they were always very well behaved, had exemplary attendance and time-keeping, were always clean and appropriately dressed, had an exemplary attitude to learning, were making very good progress at school and were likely to do very well, having aspirations to improve their lives.
Perhaps the Welfare System was actually doing here what it was supposed to do?


----------



## Chouan

Langham said:


> Perhaps you are one of those unintentionally gauche and socially clumsy people who cannot help rubbing people up the wrong way, but I suspect your downright rudeness to me, crass as it is, is deliberate. Normally I would be quite happy to impart my views on the school curriculum, including that for history, in the hope that you might perhaps profit, but the nature of our exchanges so far is not such as to encourage expenditure of any further time or effort on my part.
> 
> I apologise to anyone else who may have taken the trouble to read this thread.


Why would I be rude to you, or any other member? I would appreciate it if you could point out any examples of rudeness to me; I certainly can't find any. Unless you see a request for you to explain and justify your views as rudeness? I am clearly irritating you, but the only cause I can see is that I don't accept your assertions.
I do hope that your interactions with others in the Green Jackets' Mess were less sensitive to disagreement than what you show here. Or did your seniority ensure apparent agreement? I've sailed with Masters and Captains who had a similar reaction towards disagreement with them on non-operational matters.


----------



## Shaver

After receiving a particularly vindictive PM from a fellow who I am forced to conclude must be rather easily 'rubbed up the wrong way' I will vacate this thread. If I may be permitted I shall collect my wits and thus unfold myself as I depart:

"Three men were out walking in the marketplace; a shepherd, a merchant and a rabbi. The shepherd who was marginally more learned than his family and friends, and so never lost an argument, believed himself to be always right. The merchant whose family and friends were all of a same mind, and thus always agreed with one another so he too, believed himself to be always right. The rabbi was a fearsome fellow, and his congregation deferred to his wisdom in all matters and so, he also believed himself to be always right. Each of them spied a gold coin resting in the dust. They set to dispute as to the ownership of the coin - each of them claiming it as his own of course. The shepherd described how he would use the coin to buy food for his hungry family. The merchant advised that he alone knew best how to turn profit from the coin. The rabbi claimed he would apply the coin to the further worship and glorification of his faith. During the squabble that ensued the man who had dropped the coin, its rightful owner, happened by and picked it up then walked on unconcerned. Here endeth the lesson."

_St. Shaver's First Epistle to the Corinthians 2:7

.
.
.
..
_


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> _St. Shaver's First Epistle to the Corinthians 2:7
> _


^ Should that not read "Contrarians"


----------



## Chouan

VictorRomeo said:


> ^ Should that not read "Contrarians"


 No, it shouldn't.......


----------



## VictorRomeo

Chouan said:


> No, it shouldn't.......


Oh, I don't know, I thought that was pretty funny....


----------



## Chouan

VictorRomeo said:


> Oh, I don't know, I thought that was pretty funny....


 On the contrary.....


----------



## VictorRomeo

Chouan said:


> On the contrary.....


 I like it!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

https://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/08/gerry-adams-thatcher-caused-great-suffering-in-ireland


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

https://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/22950


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

https://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art/33084/London+meeting+recalls+Thatchers+toxic+legacy


----------



## Langham

I wish I had come across this blog earlier:

https://beingmanly.blogspot.co.uk/

I quote from it:
_
Schadenfreude_ is, quite obviously, not typically a particularly English quality. At the moment, however, one wouldn't know it. By all means speak ill of the dead, but in the name of humanity stop raising a glass to death. It is unbecoming of the dignity that so many people who detested Thatcher claimed to wish to uphold.


----------



## Chouan

This is interesting, from the same source.
" My England of the 1980s was a grim, knee-capped, hopeless era in which Thatcher brandished a political crowbar. I have no fond affections for her, her ideology, or her political legacy."


----------



## Langham

Chouan said:


> This is interesting, from the same source.
> " My England of the 1980s was a grim, knee-capped, hopeless era in which Thatcher brandished a political crowbar. I have no fond affections for her, her ideology, or her political legacy."


Yes, I think the point has already been sufficiently demonstrated that not everyone was a fan of Lady T. The reason I quoted the same writer was that he was making a necessary point (more succinctly than I had been able to manage, in among the various other political issues) that nevertheless her passing could, and should be marked with proper dignity (which in the event it largely was).


----------



## Chouan

Quite. .As I pointed out early on in the thread, I certainly wasn't, and wouldn't be, celebrating her death.


----------

