Margaret Thatcher's Funeral

esteve

Rascasse wrote: »

Really? I've always known him a socialist.

I know Wikipedia may not be the most high brow of sources but still;

I can trust wikipedia in this case, so where does it say he is a socialist? It seems to say that his political affiliation is based on may different ideals, as you have pointed out, and these are left leaning yes, but there is nothing there saying he is a staunch socialist or anything as such for that matter. In fact he is quite libertarian, and one of his main beliefs, or philosophies is the following...

""What I focus on, frankly, is based on a very elementary moral principle. I realize it's almost universally rejected, but I'd still like to reiterate it. Our prime concern should be our own responsibilities. The prime concern for anybody should be the predictable consequences of your own actions."

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Crime rates and inflation seem to be positively correlated. Drop the inflation and it seems you drop the crime rates.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44578241/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/crime-decline-why-low-inflation-among-theories/#.UXcb_8rtpmc

Yes i would agree with this, that lowering inflation would lower crime rates. But also better education lowers crime rates, amongst other things. I live in Brazil and in the 70s Brazil was more or less on par, if not ahead of South Korea. Korea invested heavily in different areas, especially education. Brazil didn't and currently has one of the highest murder rates in the world and one of the lowest rated education systems in the world. But this is getting completely off topic.

I am not completely anti-thatcher, i think she had to deal with the unions, and there were different ways to do this, and she chose her way. I cannot however, as is the case in most media and by her supporters, ignore her foreign policy record, with regard to Suharto and Pinochet. For me, this act defines her, just as Iraq has more or less defined Bush's legacy.

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

Yes i would agree with this, that lowering inflation would lower crime rates. But also better education lowers crime rates, amongst other things. I live in Brazil and in the 70s Brazil was more or less on par, if not ahead of South Korea. Korea invested heavily in different areas, especially education. Brazil didn't and currently has one of the highest murder rates in the world and one of the lowest rated education systems in the world. But this is getting completely off topic.

I am not completely anti-thatcher, i think she had to deal with the unions, and there were different ways to do this, and she chose her way. I cannot however, as is the case in most media and by her supporters, ignore her foreign policy record, with regard to Suharto and Pinochet. For me, this act defines her, just as Iraq has more or less defined Bush's legacy.

I don't ignore her foreign policy record but I don't think it should define her. We should all be defined by our own actions only and Maggie was no dictator herself.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't ignore her foreign policy record but I don't think it should define her. We should all be defined by our own actions only and Maggie was no dictator herself.

Fair enough, i respect that.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

prisons provide employment

So does digging holes and then filling them in again only someone has to pay for it. Prisons are full of those who are incarcerated because of 'moral policing'. That's destruction of wealth on a grand scale and that's without considering the ethics of incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

self admitted socialist

This lame McCarthyite attempt to discredit Chomsky is lazy bullshit. If you have a problem with what Chomsky has written then exercise a little intellectual integrity and refute his individual points.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So does digging holes and then filling them in again only someone has to pay for it. Prisons are full of those who are incarcerated because of 'moral policing'. That's destruction of wealth on a grand scale and that's without considering the ethics of incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

Did you read my link above about inflation rates being linked to crime rates?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This lame McCarthyite attempt to discredit Chomsky is lazy bullshit. If you have a problem with what Chomsky has written then exercise a little intellectual integrity and refute his individual points.

I'm not trying to discredit the poor guy I'm gust saying someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum would have an unfavourable view of the iron lady.

Socialist hates Thatcher shock!

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm gust saying someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum would have an unfavourable view of the iron lady.

They're only unfavourable in the opinion of Thatcher disciples which is neither here nor there. Chomsky's points are either facts or they're not regardless of whether he's a socialist, capitalist, communist, anarchist or numismatist.

If Chomsky's points are not facts then it would be easy for you to demonstrate this and if you read the posting guide you'll see that this is fairly standard.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're only unfavourable in the opinion of Thatcher disciples which is neither here nor there. Chomsky's points are either facts or they're not regardless of whether he's a socialist, capitalist, communist, anarchist or numismatist.

If Chomsky's points are not facts then it would be easy for you to demonstrate this and if you read the posting guide you'll see that this is fairly standard.

What part do you want me to comment on? Though it'll probably have to wait 'til tomorrow

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What part do you want me to comment on? Though it'll probably have to wait 'til tomorrow

I don't want you to comment on anything, I was simply pointing out that 'OMG he's a Socialist' is not an argument. Chomsky is known for being pretty rigorous with his sources so good luck with refuting his points.

Also, I'm sure you're aware that GNP/GDP are reductive economic measurements. I'd imagine putting 500 thousand slaves to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week would improve economic measurements considerably but no very few people would advocate that.

jank

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I do not.
I am talking about social divisions caused by the actions of one Government and one PM. You are insisting on claiming credit for her and her government, credits that would have happened and did happen anyway, elsehere..

So on one had you think the economic free market revolution would have happened anyway but critising her is fair game regardless. Certain individuals have huge influence on history and whether you agree with her or disagree with her you cannot deny that of her. History did not just sweep her by…

Elsewhere? Yeap, the 80’s was a great time for Ireland, about 300,000 people left these shores most of them to the UK to work. Many a meal put on an Irish table was bought by a wage earner working in Thatchers UK.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Simplistic and typically Tory. Many of Britain's current woes are as a direct result of Thatcher's Big Bang greed fest and New Labour's banking dereg fiasco...

Tell me, how is Thatcher is responsible for the current 120 billion deficit? The banks make up a tiny tiny amount of the deficit. A picture speaks a thousand words

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said any of that. Understanding why something happens does not mean you agree or condone it.
..

The thing is you don’t understand. You want to blame policies of an old dead woman to score a cheap point rather than blame young criminals, because that is what they were. Again, why was there NO riots in Wales or the North of England where most of the industries Thatcher closed were based. Surely they were the ones that should have rioted?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Glad to get that off your chest? You have ignored almost everything I said and projected your own redtop bile at it. If you believe it was all that then perhaps you are part of the problem.
..

I am responsible for my own actions. I don’t want nor need a government handout. I don’t rob or loot peoples shops or homes because I want something. I go out and earn it. But sure ‘I’ am the problem. People are responsible for their own actions. It speaks volumes that you want to give these criminals a pass. Go off to North Korea and have a look at their egalitarian paradise. I hear it’s a very equal society.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You still haven't made any intellectual attempt to understand or explain why the division is so entrenched and bitter. Words like 'juvenile' and 'from the left' don't really cut it, I'm afraid.
There is no doubt Thatcher has had influence I'm afraid. Mythologising what she achieved is wrong though as those unemployment and poverty figures I posted and which you blithely ignored, show.

It’s so bitter because she won, basically. Nobody remembers the losers. Socialists in the 70’s were dreaming of a time when the whole world would join up in their left wing revolution, where the west and its downtrodden workers would join the east in unity. Kind of ironic that miners in Poland wanted out! A decade later it was all over, the Berlin wall fell and the socialist/communist world of united workers that many yearned for was over forever. I suppose she made people wake up to reality of the world. A reality that a capitalist, liberal and the free market for all its flaws, works much much better than any other system.
Its understandable of course, when you have a nice dream and you wake up, you want to go straight back to sleep to continue that dream, but knowing you cannot makes you pissed. She was there at the closing bell of the communist utopian world, no wonder many resent her. However, one can continue to hate or get on with life.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't want you to comment on anything, I was simply pointing out that 'OMG he's a Socialist' is not an argument. Chomsky is known for being pretty rigorous with his sources so good luck with refuting his points.

Where did I say "OMG he's a Socialist?" Fact is I've never even heard of this guy before so I have no preconceived hatred of him. Unlike I suspect you and Maggie.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Also, I'm sure you're aware that GNP/GDP are reductive economic measurements. I'd imagine putting 500 thousand slaves to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week would improve economic measurements considerably but no very few people would advocate that.

Actually it wouldn't, slaves cannot consume the products they produce so your country would be left as a net exporter with no way to progress to knowledge or service based.

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

So on one had you think the economic free market revolution would have happened anyway but critising her is fair game regardless. Certain individuals have huge influence on history and whether you agree with her or disagree with her you cannot deny that of her. History did not just sweep her by…

Elsewhere? Yeap, the 80’s was a great time for Ireland, about 300,000 people left these shores most of them to the UK to work. Many a meal put on an Irish table was bought by a wage earner working in Thatchers UK.





Tell me, how is Thatcher is responsible for the current 120 billion deficit? The banks make up a tiny tiny amount of the deficit. A picture speaks a thousand words

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg







The thing is you don’t understand. You want to blame policies of an old dead woman to score a cheap point rather than blame young criminals, because that is what they were. Again, why was there NO riots in Wales or the North of England where most of the industries Thatcher closed were based. Surely they were the ones that should have rioted?






I am responsible for my own actions. I don’t want nor need a government handout. I don’t rob or loot peoples shops or homes because I want something. I go out and earn it. But sure ‘I’ am the problem. People are responsible for their own actions. It speaks volumes that you want to give these criminals a pass. Go off to North Korea and have a look at their egalitarian paradise. I hear it’s a very equal society.










It’s so bitter because she won, basically. Nobody remembers the losers. Socialists in the 70’s were dreaming of a time when the whole world would join up in their left wing revolution, where the west and its downtrodden workers would join the east in unity. Kind of ironic that miners in Poland wanted out! A decade later it was all over, the Berlin wall fell and the socialist/communist world of united workers that many yearned for was over forever. I suppose she made people wake up to reality of the world. A reality that a capitalist, liberal and the free market for all its flaws, works much much better than any other system.
Its understandable of course, when you have a nice dream and you wake up, you want to go straight back to sleep to continue that dream, but knowing you cannot makes you pissed. She was there at the closing bell of the communist utopian world, no wonder many resent her. However, one can continue to hate or get on with life.

Socialism and versions of it hasn't gone away you know! I have already said she had great influence, that is why so many want to 'tramp the dirt down'.
And it is hilarious that anybody would be trumpeting capitalism and free markets at the moment, given that the world is frantically trying to put back on the lid Thatcher and Reagan so irresponsibly took off.
Again, nobody is saying that the rioters are or where right, but the only way you are going to stop them happenng is to understand what caused them, and there are many reasons for that, chief among them being, deprivation, lack of educational opportunities and the abscense of hope. I know who I look to, to provide that.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where did I say "OMG he's a Socialist?" Fact is I've never even heard of this guy before so I have no preconceived hatred of him. Unlike I suspect you and Maggie.

Brilliant, 'I don't know who he is but I know he's a socialist?'

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Brilliant, 'I don't know who he is but I know he's a socialist?'

You're unbelievable, I put the evidence down in front of you and show you why free market capitalism works but you stubbornly refuse to accept the evidence and change your mind. Go on then enlighten me why socialism is not a total failure of an ideology. Show me facts and figures and who knows I may admit I'm wrong. Unlike you my mind is for changing.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're unbelievable, I put the evidence down in front of you and show you why free market capitalism works but you stubbornly refuse to accept the evidence and change your mind. Go on then enlighten me why socialism is not a total failure of an ideology. Show me facts and figures and who knows I may admit I'm wrong. Unlike you my mind is for changing.

You put some evidence down in front of us, which doesn't tell the real social story. Refuting those graphs, are the poverty stats that I and Chomsky posted which you still haven't responded to or refuted, prefering instead to attack the messengers. Loads more graphs and stats on availibility of education, uptake of education etc etc etc also refute it.
You'll have to ask a 'Socialist' to defend that ideology as I never said I was one.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You put some evidence down in front of us, which doesn't tell the real social story. Refuting those graphs, are the poverty stats that I and Chomsky posted which you still haven't responded to or refuted, prefering instead to attack the messengers. Loads more graphs and stats on availibility of education, uptake of education etc etc etc also refute it.
You'll have to ask a 'Socialist' to defend that ideology as I never said I was one.

Where? What you posted was a critique of thatcherism. It does not show how socialism could have achieved a better result. That's what I want you to prove. That socialism leads to higher welfare then capitalism.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It does not show how socialism could have achieved a better result.

And I said that where?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I said that where?

Ah ok so you think thatcherism was the best foreseeable solution to Britain's problems. I agree.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ah ok so you think thatcherism was the best foreseeable solution to Britain's problems. I agree.

You didn't find it then?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You didn't find it then?

I didn't say I had ever found it I asked you a question. And I'll ask you again now because you don't want to answer it. Do you support socialism over thatcherism? If so provide me with evidence to back up that view. Now note I'm not looking for a critique of thatcherism because I accept that ideology was not perfect. I'm looking for evidence from you, facts and figures, that show socialism could have done a better job.

If you can't provide this evidence I shall assume that you like me favour thatcherism over socialism and this debate is over.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I didn't say I had ever found it I asked you a question. And I'll ask you again now because you don't want to answer it. Do you support socialism over thatcherism? If so provide me with evidence to back up that view. Now note I'm not looking for a critique of thatcherism because I accept that ideology was not perfect. I'm looking for evidence from you, facts and figures, that show socialism could have done a better job.

If you can't provide this evidence I shall assume that you like me favour thatcherism over socialism and this debate is over.

You can do your level best to turn this into a thread about capitalism v socialism, I ain't playing. And your exit strategy is as transperant as your glorification and revisionism of Thatcher's reign.
How about you refute what Chomsky and I are actually saying, not what you think we are saying?

esteve

Capitalism can exist within a socialist system, and socialism can exist within a capitalist system. To believe that there is only one system that truely works, whether that be pure ´free´market capitalism, or pure socialism is an extreme ideology. And worth mentioning, there is absolutely nothing free about the current system, except that it uses the word ´free´, marketing at its best if you ask me.

This thread has gone completely off topic, maybe aother thread is needed for this.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can do your level best to turn this into a thread about capitalism v socialism, I ain't playing. And your exit strategy is as transperant as your glorification and revisionism of Thatcher's reign.
How about you refute what Chomsky and I are actually saying, not what you think we are saying?

lol my exit strategy? If I want an exit strategy I click the little red X on the top right hand side of my screen.

I don't want to refute Chomsky's points because I accept that Thatcherism/Capitalism is not perfect but it's the best system we have. But you and Chomsky disagree with this. You say socialism is a better system to capitalism so I want you to show me in facts and figures why Socialism would have done a better job to raise the gdp per capita of the United Kingdom over the same time period. Providing I have already demonstrated that GDP per capita is linked positively with HDI.

And I don't mean a critique of Thatcherism, if I google critique of Thatcherism a million pages will come up, I never said Thatcherism was perfect but i want you to show me why Socialism is better. Focus on the positives not the negatives.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol my exit strategy? If I want an exit strategy I click the little red X on the top right hand side of my screen.

I don't want to refute Chomsky's points because I accept that Thatcherism/Capitalism is not perfect but it's the best system we have. But you and Chomsky disagree with this. You say socialism is a better system to capitalism so I want you to show me in facts and figures why Socialism would have done a better job to raise the gdp per capita of the United Kingdom over the same time period. Providing I have already demonstrated that GDP per capita is linked positively with HDI.

And I don't mean a critique of Thatcherism, if I google critique of Thatcherism a million pages will come up, I never said Thatcherism was perfect but i want you to show me why Socialism is better. Focus on the positives not the negatives.

No, I will not defend something I never declared, you are really reaching now.
I laid out why I think MT failed and why her government was bad for Britain. It goes beyond mere economic success.
If children and adults are living in poverty, if they are deprived by lack of educational resourcing of a way out, then I deem any government overseeing that as a failure. If a society is riven apart by draconian and forced change then I blame the force for that. Thatcher did more than oversee that, she convinced decent people to see the poor as freeloaders and pariahs and she turned her country on itself and would have further divided it, until her own party turned on her.
Again, it was not what she did so much as HOW she did it.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I will not defend something I never declared, you are really reaching now.
I laid out why I think MT failed and why her government was bad for Britain. It goes beyond mere economic success.
If children and adults are living in poverty, if they are deprived by lack of educational resourcing of a way out, then I deem any government overseeing that as a failure. If a society is riven apart by draconian and forced change then I blame the force for that. Thatcher did more than oversee that, she convinced decent people to see the poor as freeloaders and pariahs and she turned her country on itself and would have further divided it, until her own party turned on her.
Again, it was not what she did so much as HOW she did it.

How she did it? There is no other way to achieve those results, if you disagree prove me wrong. Again I don't want a critique of Thatcherism
I want you to show how your preferred method would achieve better GDP per capita. Keeping in mind GDP per capita is linked with HDI and I'm sure you'll agree a higher HDI is a good thing.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no other way to achieve those results, if you disagree prove me wrong.

To be honest, i believe it is you who has to prove such a statement. We will never know if other methods may have in fact worked better, but to say that her way was the only way to achieve such results is impossible to say and to conclude.

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

To be honest, i believe it is you who has to prove such a statement. We will never know if other methods may have in fact worked better, but to say that her way was the only way to achieve such results is impossible to say and to conclude.

Well that's the thing. There is no other way in my view. But Happy holds a contradicting view so I want him to argue something that isn't just a critique of Thatcher.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well that's the thing. There is no other way in my view. But Happy holds a contradicting view so I want him to argue something that isn't just a critique of Thatcher.

Okay, but her way, in your view, was the only way to achieve such results, but as this is impossible to conclude, it is therefore debatable, hence boards.ie. I do think her policies are somewhat responsible for the following, whether this is a good or bad thing is another question...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

Okay, but her way, in your view, was the only way to achieve such results, but as this is impossible to conclude, it is therefore debatable, hence boards.ie. I do think her policies are somewhat responsible for the following, whether this is a good or bad thing is another question...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564

Looks like a good thing to me, if London isn't the capital of the world it's going to be NYC. Might as well have the money closer to home.

I understand what you're saying but I provided happy with figures to support my view but all he's supplied so far is a criticism of thatcher. I want him to actually move on from this and provide figures to support his view. It's pointless pointing out Thatcher's flaws because I'm well aware of them. I never said she was perfect.

Happyman42

esteve is right, there is no way to know if 'different' would have been better, all we can do is assess what was done.
But for what it is worth, I will concentrate here on what I think was her 'negative' impacts on Britain. I will leave out her dubious and damaging foreign policy and relationships.
The myth that Thatcher had a singular vision is complete nonsense and revisionism, she was an oppurtunist and extremely lucky a number of times during her reign. Tories and her faithful lapdogs like to quote her soundbite 'The lady's not for turning' as something heroic when the fact is the lady did 'turn'. It was THATCHER who granted publc sector workers huge pay rises, doubled VAT rates and sent the consumer price index through the roof. Thatcher, not the Unions. After 18 months and with unemployment having rocketed to 3 million in 2 yrs (think about that figure...3 million 'people') and manufacturing decimated she abandoned her skewed version of monetarism policies and slavish pursuit of lower inflation. Inflation rose from 10% to 22% in that period and wages exploded.
The Thatcher government caused the above by it's monetarist policy, which was abandoned...hence - IT DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN THAT WAY'.
Basically Thatcher decided she could live wth high unemployment, it didn't concern her because she had no concern or compassion for people. Her early years where an unmitigated disaster for real people. Yes she brought inflation down but she wrecked manufacturing and the lives of many many people, who would never recover and where never helped to recover.
All that need not have happened if the government had taken a structured approach to the economy that protected jobs and consequently, people.
A few figures
Between 1980 and 1983 industrial capacity fell by 25%
The overall tax burden rose from 39% to 43%
The top rate of tax for the rich fell from 83% when she took office to 40% when she left.
VAT, which affects the poor most, rose from 7% to 15% and income tax for the poor rose by 6%

She wasted and squandered North Sea Oil revenues by using them to uderwrite tax cuts instead of (like Norway) investing them for her peoples future.
The cash from privatisation allowed Nigel Lawson to balance the budget, thus saving her skin. That privatisation did not create 'free markets' as all she did was hand vital utilities over to monopolistic cartels, which went on to exploit the hardest hit...the poor.
SHe intefered in Schools, local government and massively cut funding to both and imposed draconian laws on trade unions. Her battle with the miners cost Britain a conservatively estimated 2.5 Billion, not to mention the social damage it done. Many of her colleagues claim that her prompt and unstructured closure of the pits was motivated by sheer bloodyminedness and bitterness. IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE DONE LIKE THAT, the rest of Europe downsized it's mining industry in a structured way for the exact same reasons that Britain did, but it didn't result in the same division and destruction of people.
Her 'property owning' policy of selling council houses has resulted in the present crisis in housing in Britain and the chronic shortage of social housing. British taxpayers are STILL paying billions in housing benefits most of which goes to a Thatcher created private landlord class.
Crime rose dramatically during her term to an incredible 79%. Riots in Toxeth and Brixton marked her begining and riots throughout Britain over the Poll Tax marked her end.

She did defeat the Left and the Unions, but that is not neccesarily a good thing, as all responsible, moral and compassionate government must have elements of both the left and the right.

Rascasse

Sorry to drag this back on topic, but as expected the cost of Thatchers funeral was grossly exaggerated by the left wing press. Total cost of £3.6m pounds. £1.6m for the service and £2m for police pay.

This doesn't take into account how many of those police would have been working anyway, so that £2m in reality would be less.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4903067/Thatcher-funeral-cost-just-36m-a-THIRD-of-reported-figure.html