|
U-Know! Forum » Fantasy Political Funeral |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
CraigR 479 posts |
May 08, 2013, 16:13
|
||
|
You are geoffry_prime with a grammar/spell checker and I claim my £5. ;-)
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
May 08, 2013, 16:37
|
||
|
jshell wrote: The UK was bankrupt, the unions had the country on it's knees - they cared about nothing but their own political agendas, the IMF were running us, the rubbish piled up on the streets and the dead went unburied for weeks. The hospitals would only accept emergency patients. In short, the Left had completely fucked the UK out of the park, it was a basket case. This is a matter of record. Actually, I disagree with that assessment and I challenge the notion that it's simply "a matter of record". It's one version of history, and I'd suggest it's a highly politicised version that doesn't necessarily chime with reality. It fails to distinguish between causation and correlation. Yes, by 1979 the UK was essentially bankrupt. But to suggest the unions or "the Left" were the cause is questionable (in my opinion). The problems faced by the UK were at least as much a result of global factors as they were a result of any national policy. By 1979 the entire world was in a mess - with the arguable exception of Japan, but that was for very specific reasons unique to them at the time, and the upwards trajectory they were on during the 1970s was far from sustainable as we now know. The oil shocks of the mid-70s had taken a toll on the global economy. On top of that, the 70s saw the beginning of a huge global economic shift endangering much of the developed world's manufacturing base. This wasn't the result of UK Labour Party policy, it was the result of free-market globalisation, the industrialisation of the so-called "developing" world and largescale systemic unemployment* in the west. The Labour response to this was far from perfect (I'm not a Labour supporter by the way). But I'd honestly argue that it was better than the Tory (slash'n'burn) response. In reality, by the end of the 1970s the "developed" economies needed to change significantly. They did this by embracing a peculiarly right wing form of quasi-free-market capitalism (via Thatcher and Reagan, but also many others) built on an entirely unsustainable foundation of public asset liquidation and debt creation. My own view is that the time was ripe for a significant change in a very different direction, and that it would have been far preferable. But it wasn't to be, so we'll never know. The appearance and elevation of Thatcher was entirely understandable of course. She didn't mastermind the neoliberal onslaught, no more than did Reagan. She was just the logical expression of a cultural response to the economic crisis. Unfortunately, just because something is understandable doesn't make it positive. Lung cancer is an entirely understandable biological response to smoking three packs a day. Doesn't make it a desirable one. And can I also suggest that we put the "Thatcher's economic miracle" myth to bed for once and for all. Her policies were economic lunacy. She just got lucky by coming to power when North Sea Oil production was ramping up. Given the massive windfall it provided, it would have taken a real effort for any government not to see a steady increase in GDP during the period. What's so tragic is how she blew that money on enriching the financial sector and entrenching it right at the heart of the British economy. Her ultimate legacy - like that of neoliberal economics in general - is one of massive debt, an obscenely bloated financial sector that's lost all touch with the real economy, and social inequality on a grand scale. Subsidising a major employer is a far better use of public money than putting the workers on the dole. You can disagree with that statement and hold up balance sheets to prove I'm wrong... but I've yet to see any balance sheet that properly accounts for the public good, community cohesion and social justice. Like yourself, I also see many sides to Thatcher. For me though, none of them are good. ----- * By "systemic" unemployment, I simply mean that full-employment is actively resisted by the prevailing economic system and can never be achieved without fundamental changes to that system.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
May 08, 2013, 20:53
|
||
Thank god you posted that. I had a fear I'd have to make a similar effort post. :)
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
May 08, 2013, 23:41
|
||
|
And it's worth mentioning that Maggie was, in her heart, an inveterate snob, and that, crucially, informed her policies and demeanour. And this wasn't the in-bred down-the-noseness of the cartoon upper classes. That's still ugly, but more understandable in respect of background and life-experience. Ignorance underwriting a different kind of 'bliss' you might say. Maggie was the grocer's daughter that, did, to her credit, manage to transcend her background with respect to the mores of the time. But, with that, she also seemed to see anything that might be perceived as 'less', or that didn't match the upwardly mobile but still narrow aspirations of her dad (Mum not so beloved, apparently. Sez a lot), as being somehow inhabiting the realms of contemptible. Her snobbery (and intrinsic, even subconcious contempt) was the fuel that drove the machine. Her policies, NO, policy! - regarding anything north of Watford was almost a laughable, grotesque realisation of her snobbery. There's a cartoon hideousness about it all that is almost in the realms of gallows humour had not the reality and actuality of it all been so devastatingly appalling, wantonly destructive and despicable. She was a monumental snob, and Britain suffered for it.
|
|||
|
CraigR 479 posts |
May 09, 2013, 00:09
|
||
|
Aye. She was a fucking shithouse.
|
|||
spencer 3071 posts |
May 09, 2013, 10:11
|
||
There was a review of an apparently excellent new biography in the Independent t'other week. For all her trumpeting of her roots and her grocer father, once she achieved high office she distanced herself from him, and may not even have gone to his funeral. She also freely admitted that she ditched men she was far more attracted to in favour of Denis because of his position and prospects. Total self serving cow, really. And thats the least of it.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
May 10, 2013, 12:51
|
||
|
CraigR wrote: You are geoffry_prime with a grammar/spell checker and I claim my £5. ;-) I don't think you read my post, I haven't claimed any love or reverence for her. I tried to be balanced, which is not in the name of the Thatcher slagging game, I suppose.
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
May 10, 2013, 12:55
|
||
|
Lawrence wrote: From what I heard, however, was that when Pinochet lost the plebiscite he was going to start another bloody coup but (ironically!) it was actually the military who stopped him. I just think Pinochet was a disturbingly rotten character all around, and it always disgusts me how his followers always make a big claim about him 'saving Chile'. It's the kind of thing that makes me sick to my stomach. I think he was rotten too, to the core. As they used to say: Even Mussolini made the trains run on time - but I believe that's been disproved now! If you have any links or references to the military stopping Pinochet rather than him fulfilling his promise, then I'd love to read it and put the record straight. I like to know who I'm hating, and why! :-)
|
|||
|
jshell 333 posts |
May 10, 2013, 13:31
|
||
|
Ha, you picked the part that makes me sound like a Thatcher supporter and then whitewashed the fact that under left-wing control we didn't know when the lights would next go out. My family were in manufacturing back then and I'm from old Mining family. But, I remember those Marxist c##ts with venom and vitriol. The swing to the Right, and to Thatcher was almost guaranteed. By them, and by them alone. You cannot have militants ruining businesses and trying to play their own political games to the detriment of the Govt and population of the day without something going 'bang'. Those TU's, often beloved of the left, brought Thatcher into power more surely than the voters who elected and then re-elected her. I enjoy your posts, and missed them btw, unlike the majority of mindless, 'right-on' drivel oft spouted on here. On your final point though, we are agreed. In many cases I support the creation of part-subsidised employment rather than Merrick's old 'give em dole if they'd rather that' stance. I want people to have a reason to partake in society, to pay tax and NI and feel some sense of self worth with ensuing self respect. Resultant crime rates should fall, urban areas should be safer and cleaner and it should have a +ve affect on society as a whole. You're no Labour supporter? I'd love to hear more. I'm headed the UKIP path, myself. Yeah, yeah, the racist Europhobes, if you believe the hype. Phoney Tony & Gordie Clown nailed the UK to the mast and Dangerous Dave set the remains on fire. The only way out is to ditch the burden of the EU. On another note and just reflecting: It's funny just how few of Thatchers policies were overturned by Labour afterwards.
|
|||
|
CraigR 479 posts |
May 10, 2013, 14:11
|
||
I don't think you read mine. You see that little winky icon under the text? That's widely accepted as meaning 'I'm joking/pulling your leg/making light'.
|
| Pages: 11 – [ Previous | 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
