By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I have never agreed with everything anyone does and also agree there was good and bad in what she did, what I can't get my head around is people going as far as celebrating someone's death, it just feels wrong to me... Probably excluding the likes of hitler etc
In principle was the poll tax such a bad thing in so much as if there are 10 adults living in a house using all the services etc why shouldn't they pay more than 2 people living in a house using the same services etc? Some of the issues with the poll tax as I remember them was caused by the way councils used it to score points and generate more income than before... But time may have clouded my memory
In some stuff posted earlier on here I seem to remember that the numbers that voted for her did not change that dramatically between all three terms and were no worse than most of the governments we have had since.
I would just like to start of by saying that this post is NOT comparing Thatcher to Hitler, it is replying to a post that mentioned Hitler and is expanding on the idea that was used to illustrate.
MkPaul in you post you suggested you could understand (probably) celebrating the death of someone like Hitler but not Thatcher. My point is, if you are against celebrating any death then I have some sympathy for not understanding why people are celebrating the death of Thatcher. If however, you can see why some would celebrate some deaths, even if for you it would only be in extreme cases, then it suggests that it's not the celebration of death per se that you disagree with, but whether Thatcher deserves to dishonoured in this way.
In other words it's just down to where you draw your line in the sand. For me and an awful lot of others, both on and off this forum, Thatcher is over that line, fir you she's not - that is the only difference.
Thatcher gave workers a real say in whether or not they wanted to strike by introducing legislation that ensured industrial action by majority voting. This stopped the heavily Labour financed unions calling strikes for petty reasons. An act that at the time outraged unions but now seems completely logical.
Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change.
Thatcher gave workers a real say in whether or not they wanted to strike by introducing legislation that ensured industrial action by majority voting. This stopped the heavily Labour financed unions calling strikes for petty reasons. An act that at the time outraged unions but now seems completely logical.
Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change.
"Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change."
Proof positive that it was a potential economic scam.
Thatcher gave workers a real say in whether or not they wanted to strike by introducing legislation that ensured industrial action by majority voting. This stopped the heavily Labour financed unions calling strikes for petty reasons. An act that at the time outraged unions but now seems completely logical.
Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change.
The unions weren't financed by the Labour party. What are you on about?
As for it being completely logical … The other week my employer threatened to break our long standing house agreement on terms on conditions. We had to have three votes in person and a postal ballot just for the union to be able to say to management that we would take action of this was pursued. Union reforms weren't just about breaking the power of union leaders; they were about reinforcing the power of managements. Which is rarely a good thing for working people.
The unions weren't financed by the Labour party. What are you on about?
As for it being completely logical … The other week my employer threatened to break our long standing house agreement on terms on conditions. We had to have three votes in person and a postal ballot just for the union to be able to say to management that we would take action of this was pursued. Union reforms weren't just about breaking the power of union leaders; they were about reinforcing the power of managements. Which is rarely a good thing for working people.
Your union could have said we don't think this is right and will ballot our members if you continue down this route ? Same effect really
You start by saying you are not comparing Thatcher to Hitler but then in reality do so in the fact that the line you draw groups Thatcher and Hitler. Clearly you do not think Thatcher is a bad as Hitler and I accept that but nevertheless you have accepted there is a group in your eyes that does contain both.
Of course there are many groupings that contain both of them, some of which you and I are members - the human race, there are some groups were they are members and we are not - world leaders, and there are some groups in which you, I and Hitler are members and Thatcher isn't - males.
What I was trying to get at was that if you could line up the world, past and present going from the worlds nicest person at one end to the worlds nastiest at the other, then we would all have our place on it, and at some point people will draw a line in that list beyond which they feel people will have "crossed the line" and will rejoice in their demise. Different people will set up the line in a different order, and will set their markers in different places, but for most there will be a line.
There I managed to say what I thought I had said earlier with out mentioning any name. Hope that is clearer.
Fair point ... But the reason I say Hitler etc is the killing of millions of people rather than having political views or introducing changes that you don't agree with ... Therefore I think the line for celebrating the death of my nan for example is far closer to the line for celebrating MT's death that the difference between MT and Hitler? That's why I can not understand it
Fair enough I don't know your nan, but was she instrumental in getting a facsist dictator out of being extradited to face charges, or a supporter of Aparthied and the Khmer Rouge?
If not that might hint why for some the line lies somewhere between your nan and MT!
Your union could have said we don't think this is right and will ballot our members if you continue down this route ? Same effect really
Yes, they said that. But managements take no notice of unions until they are sure there is some sort of genuine threat. At which point a ludicrously convulted process — you realise you have to have a ballot on whether you are willing to be balloted, right? - comes into play. The laws surrounding industrial action are now so deliberately complicated that most unions have to use lawyers to check the legality of any industrial action, and that it is impossible for any union to jump through all the legal hoops quickly enough to respond to any urgent threat to Ts and Cs from management. If a management is ruthless enough to do things with no notice, then there's nothing the workforce can do about it, because the union is legally prevented from responding quickly enough.
None of that is about trying to protect working people from oppressive unions. It's about trying to ensure managements can do what they want when they want.
Thatcher gave workers a real say in whether or not they wanted to strike by introducing legislation that ensured industrial action by majority voting. This stopped the heavily Labour financed unions calling strikes for petty reasons. An act that at the time outraged unions but now seems completely logical.
Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change.
Yes, they said that. But managements take no notice of unions until they are sure there is some sort of genuine threat. At which point a ludicrously convulted process — you realise you have to have a ballot on whether you are willing to be balloted, right? - comes into play. The laws surrounding industrial action are now so deliberately complicated that most unions have to use lawyers to check the legality of any industrial action, and that it is impossible for any union to jump through all the legal hoops quickly enough to respond to any urgent threat to Ts and Cs from management. If a management is ruthless enough to do things with no notice, then there's nothing the workforce can do about it, because the union is legally prevented from responding quickly enough.
None of that is about trying to protect working people from oppressive unions. It's about trying to ensure managements can do what they want when they want.
And after that you have to give 14 days notice of industrial action to the company, after 6-7 weeks of balloting, voting results etc. by which time you have lost your case, or your work mates gone down the road. Unfortunately NW you are wasting your breath with some people as they don't WANT to get it.
Of course there are many groupings that contain both of them, some of which you and I are members - the human race, there are some groups were they are members and we are not - world leaders, and there are some groups in which you, I and Hitler are members and Thatcher isn't - males.
What I was trying to get at was that if you could line up the world, past and present going from the worlds nicest person at one end to the worlds nastiest at the other, then we would all have our place on it, and at some point people will draw a line in that list beyond which they feel people will have "crossed the line" and will rejoice in their demise. Different people will set up the line in a different order, and will set their markers in different places, but for most there will be a line.
There I managed to say what I thought I had said earlier with out mentioning any name. Hope that is clearer.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
The group consisting of World Leaders and the group consisting of human males are groups based on a factual identity for want of a better phrase. The group of people that you or I would celebrate over their deaths is a purely personal group. You compare X and Y and consider they sit together one side of the line I might compare X and Y and consider they sit either side of the line it really is a simple as that but we are still making a comparison.
Well she was lucky in that through the first two terms she was fighting against a completely divided and ineffective opposition.
Two years into her first term she was massively popular and IMHO only the Falklands War puller her out of that. Inflation was raging, unemployment was soaring, it was ugly.
When she won her second term she won far fewer votes - it was just that Labour were in pieces at the time.
When she cam to office there were 10 Tory MP's in Scotland. When she was done there were ZERO. Poll tax anyone?
In fact the SNP openly credit her for giving them the opportunity to progress their particular brand on unhinged politics. They are even more nuts than she was but the serve as a reaction to the contempt that she showed to the Scottish people.
Yes she did a lot of good things - but by Christ did she make people hate her as a person. I respect some pf the things, totally disagree with others she did but loathe the way she went about things.
Totally agree. In addition she laid the ground break up of the Union.For many Scottish people she epitomises what Tories mean today and therefore there is only one blue MP in the whole country.Scottish people (who are generally community minded) look South and ask themselves "does it make sense to be attached to a country which consistently votes for a Tory Government when we never want one?" The other side of this coin is that if Scotland (& perhaps Wales) left the Union, English people may be stuck with Tory Governments forever. I live in a town which already has this situation and I can tell you it is not healthy and elections mean zilch because the turnout is only those 20% who read the Mail and loyally vote for what they are sure to get anyway.
Thatcher gave workers a real say in whether or not they wanted to strike by introducing legislation that ensured industrial action by majority voting. This stopped the heavily Labour financed unions calling strikes for petty reasons. An act that at the time outraged unions but now seems completely logical.
Maggie was also one of the first world leaders to warn about climate change.
You obviously dont know much about Trade Unions. They have always been democratic organisations and voting to strike has been a fundamental from day one. Thatcher merely beaurocratised the process in a way which makes it more difficult to conduct a strike. The idea of a strike being illegal its just plain daft. What is wrong with any group of people making a decision and then adhering to it?
Totally agree. In addition she laid the ground break up of the Union.For many Scottish people she epitomises what Tories mean today and therefore there is only one blue MP in the whole country.Scottish people (who are generally community minded) look South and ask themselves "does it make sense to be attached to a country which consistently votes for a Tory Government when we never want one?" The other side of this coin is that if Scotland (& perhaps Wales) left the Union, English people may be stuck with Tory Governments forever. I live in a town which already has this situation and I can tell you it is not healthy and elections mean zilch because the turnout is only those 20% who read the Mail and loyally vote for what they are sure to get anyway.
This is what really throws me. You ask why should Scotland be ruled by the Tories when there is only one Tory MP in Scotland. A valid argument you want Scotland itself to decide who governs it. However then you rather patronisingly go on to say it will leave the English people "stuck" with a Tory Government. Are the English people not capable of deciding who they want to govern them
"Poverty went up under Thatcher, according to these figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In 1979, 13.4% of the population lived below 60% of median incomes before housing costs. By 1990, it had gone up to 22.2%, or 12.2m people, with huge rises in the mid-1980s.
With it came a huge rise in inequality. This shows the gini coefficient, which is the most common method of measuring inequality. Under gini, a score of one would be a completely unequal society; zero would be completely equal. Britain's gini score went up from 0.253 to 0.339 by the time Thatcher resigned."
That was exactly my point. The poor got richer, but not as fast as the rich did. So everyone was better off, so of course her opponents immediately went about changing the definition of poverty to being a % of median income rather than about how much money they actually had.
I suppose that's the beauty of socialism, the misery is shared out equally so no one can complain about inequality.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
