Riot police called to streets as 'the left' celebrate Thatcher's death - with more planned for funer
129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40222682]how do you know they didn't do their research?
like, not saying they've all read deeply into it, but you can't say [B]everyone[/B] is just a mindless sheep.[/QUOTE]
Erm I know these people, they know SHIT about politics, they talk about nothing but football all day.
I'm not saying everyone is a mindless sheep. Just most of them.
Why are people celebrating her having a stroke and dieing anyway? If it was about her being no longer in charge of the country they would have celebrated that over 20 years ago (and I probably would have to if I was alive at the time)
There's no difference between the state of things the day before her death and the day after, so obviously it's the actual act of someone dieing these people are so happy about
This is interesting to watch from an outside perspective. I don't know anything about British politics to comment, but again I find it surreal to see people celebrating the death of a person. More so than Osama because she was a leader of a country.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40223167]This is interesting to watch from an outside perspective. I don't know anything about British politics to comment, but again I find it surreal to see people celebrating the death of a person. More so than Osama because she was a leader of a country.[/QUOTE]
well the death of Osama was entirely extrajudicial and representative of the kind of scummy wetwork the US had been doing for the past decade or two, but Thatcher was just someone dying in their home of comparatively quite natural causes. the two aren't really comparable on any level
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40223167]This is interesting to watch from an outside perspective. I don't know anything about British politics to comment, but again I find it surreal to see people celebrating the death of a person. More so than Osama because she was a leader of a country.[/QUOTE]
I'm actually pleasantly surprised that most people on Facepunch seem to be more moderate with Thatcher and not outright hating her and calling her a witch, people on r/ukpoltics and SA are saying some vile things that I know are completely over the top.
Was Thatcher perfect? Nope, she messed up quite a few things, she also fixed quite a few things - enough for Labour to adopt more conservative policies with New Labour.
All this, "Lets have a party outside of her funeral because we all think she was evil" is the most childish shit I've ever seen, thankfully these comments have been rare on Facepunch.
Shit I'm no fan of Thatcher but [I]dancing in the streets?[/I] Christ, calm down.
right celebrate her death by causing damage to stuff that's great guys
[QUOTE=Thom12255;40223251]I'm actually pleasantly surprised that most people on Facepunch seem to be more moderate with Thatcher and not outright hating her and calling her a witch, people on r/ukpoltics and SA are saying some vile things that I know are completely over the top.
Was Thatcher perfect? Nope, she messed up quite a few things, she also fixed quite a few things - enough for Labour to adopt more conservative policies with New Labour.
All this, "Lets have a party outside of her funeral because we all think she was evil" is the most childish shit I've ever seen, thankfully these comments have been rare on Facepunch.[/QUOTE]
New Labour had to adopt more conservative policies to content with the conservative opinion of the public.
Everyone berates new Labour for "spending too much" when it was Thatcher's cuts that caused the need for such spending.
As for the statement on page 1 that the public sector was a mess, yeah it probably was, thats why you put money into it and improve it so it can start being profitable again rather than selling it all for short term gain. Did we really need to sell all our public transport and industry?
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40223731]New Labour had to adopt more conservative policies to content with the conservative opinion of the public.
Everyone berates new Labour for "spending too much" when it was Thatcher's cuts that caused the need for such spending.
As for the statement on page 1 that the public sector was a mess, yeah it probably was, thats why you put money into it and improve it so it can start being profitable again rather than selling it all for short term gain. Did we really need to sell all our public transport and industry?[/QUOTE]
Coal and steel industries kinda had to go. There was no way in hell you could save them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40223904]Coal and steel industries kinda had to go. There was no way in hell you could save them.[/QUOTE]
Coal mines had to go yes, however it was done in such a ham handed manner and left so many miners without jobs, it was something that needed to be handled with so much more finesse.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40224083]Coal mines had to go yes, however it was done in such a ham handed manner and left so many miners without jobs, it was something that needed to be handled with so much more finesse.[/QUOTE]
Those who lost jobs got other jobs.
[QUOTE=Vasili;40224393]Those who lost jobs got other jobs.[/QUOTE]
prize for the biggest load of bullshit read in this thread goes to
[QUOTE=Cone;40223243]well the death of Osama was entirely extrajudicial and representative of the kind of scummy wetwork the US had been doing for the past decade or two, but Thatcher was just someone dying in their home of comparatively quite natural causes. the two aren't really comparable on any level[/QUOTE]
It's not like the Pakistani intelligence agency was hiding him so that telling them about the raid would be a hilariously bad idea right? It's not like he was responsible for millions of deaths and one of the leaders of one of the most oppressive groups ever known. It's not like they're going to just waltz into his house and kindly ask him and all his hideout buddies to surrender.
[QUOTE=PassTheBong;40220867]if she was so bad why did anyone vote for her?[/QUOTE]
Well she won an election (landslide) due to patriotism; winning the Falklands War
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40223731]New Labour had to adopt more conservative policies to content with the conservative opinion of the public.
Everyone berates new Labour for "spending too much" when it was Thatcher's cuts that caused the need for such spending.
As for the statement on page 1 that the public sector was a mess, yeah it probably was, thats why you put money into it and improve it so it can start being profitable again rather than selling it all for short term gain. Did we really need to sell all our public transport and industry?[/QUOTE]
Labour adopted more conservative attitudes to get elected, the tribal loyalty of the North was guaranteed - all Tony Blair had to do was appeal to conservative middle and south England and he would win, which he did.
Thatcher doubled spending for Healthcare, Education and Defence - all things she considered to be Government areas, whilst cutting subsidies to industry. Labour doubled spending in these areas again and hugely increased the welfare state. Consider that in 1980 'other government spending' was £22bn, in 1990 it was £35bn and that in 2005 it was £79bn.
The public sector even included British Airways and British Petroleum in the 70s - these companies are now hugely profitable in private hands and were not when they were state owned, do you think pumping money into them would have helped in anyway?
[QUOTE=shackleford;40224491]Well she won an election (landslide) due to patriotism; winning the Falklands War[/QUOTE]
The Falklands war lasted 2 months in 1982 - she won re-elections in 1983 and 1987, the last of which was 5 years after the war ended. The war alone did not ensure her re-election.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40224502]The Falklands war lasted 2 months in 1982 - she won re-elections in 1983 and 1987, the last of which was 5 years after the war ended. The war alone did not ensure her re-election.[/QUOTE]
'She won [U]an[/U] election' I was talking about the 1983 re-election. The victory in the Falklands was a major contributing factor that ensured her re-election in 1983.
This would of ensured her power as prime minister until the next election.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40224431]prize for the biggest load of bullshit read in this thread goes to[/QUOTE]
Are we going to assume they have stayed unemployed for the past, what? 28 years?
[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=shackleford;40224491]Well she won an election (landslide) due to patriotism; winning the Falklands War[/QUOTE]
Don't be cynical, the war did not win her reelection alone.
[QUOTE=Vasili;40224715]Don't be cynical, the war did not win her reelection alone.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, I don't think it is possible to win an election just from winning a war. Certainly it helps, but remember that Churchill lost in the next election after WWII.
[QUOTE=Vasili;40224715]Are we going to assume they have stayed unemployed for the past, what? 28 years?
[/QUOTE]
people left school with no qualifications because they were guaranteed a job in the local works, be it coal or steel, and it's very difficult to retrain when you've been working in a specialist trade for 15 years, earned a good wage and there's no jobs in your area anymore, because all the industry is gone.
Sure, some found employment and retrained, but you can't seriously believe that all of them just found jobs like that with no formal qualifications behind them.
[QUOTE=shackleford;40224675]'She won [U]an[/U] election' I was talking about the 1983 re-election. The victory in the Falklands was a major contributing factor that ensured her re-election in 1983.
This would of ensured her power as prime minister until the next election.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=58&view=wide#cameron]Look at the figures here under Thatcher[/url] - between May 1982 and January 1983 her opinion poll ratings were stagnant, only later in 1983 and onwards did her popularity increase.
The Falklands war was April - June 1982, the victory there doesn't correlate with her popularity.
[QUOTE=Vasili;40224393]Those who lost jobs got other jobs.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is true. But it was not people did not get new jobs instantly, it lasted for quite a few years, so this is why the unemployed got pissed off and relied on the dole.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40224502]Labour adopted more conservative attitudes to get elected, the tribal loyalty of the North was guaranteed - all Tony Blair had to do was appeal to conservative middle and south England and he would win, which he did.
Thatcher doubled spending for Healthcare, Education and Defence - all things she considered to be Government areas, whilst cutting subsidies to industry. Labour doubled spending in these areas again and hugely increased the welfare state. Consider that in 1980 'other government spending' was £22bn, in 1990 it was £35bn and that in 2005 it was £79bn.
The public sector even included British Airways and British Petroleum in the 70s - these companies are now hugely profitable in private hands and were not when they were state owned, do you think pumping money into them would have helped in anyway?
[/QUOTE]
Many of the private companies she sold COULD have been made profitable had money been put into them, instead Thatcher opted for short term gain.
Also there is a reason for the North supporting Labour over the Tories and that is due to the Tories only caring for the South. In Thatcher's terms she essentially put all of the money into the South, dragging all of the industry out of the North into the South.
Only people who like Thatcher are middle class/upper class Southerners and that's because they're the only group who benefited from her.
[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vasili;40224715]
Don't be cynical, the war did not win her reelection alone.[/QUOTE]
The war pretty much did win her the election, prior to it everyone was angry at her for messing the country up.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40224809]people left school with no qualifications because they were guaranteed a job in the local works, be it coal or steel, and it's very difficult to retrain when you've been working in a specialist trade for 15 years, earned a good wage and there's no jobs in your area anymore, because all the industry is gone.
Sure, some found employment and retrained, but you can't seriously believe that all of them just found jobs like that with no formal qualifications behind them.[/QUOTE]
You still have to credit her for the transition towards a service economy.
Britain couldn't stay as an industrial one forever.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;40224809]people left school with no qualifications because they were guaranteed a job in the local works, be it coal or steel, and it's very difficult to retrain when you've been working in a specialist trade for 15 years, earned a good wage and there's no jobs in your area anymore, because all the industry is gone.
Sure, some found employment and retrained, but you can't seriously believe that all of them just found jobs like that with no formal qualifications behind them.[/QUOTE]
How is it Thatchers fault people left school without proper qualifications? Tradition is not a effective way to run a country. The north hated the dead end industry that was a life of coal and steel mining. What they wanted was choice and new options, they hated the unions just as much as Thatcher did. They forced a majority of workers to protest into being pennyless. Privatization brought a harsh but needed blow to the overbloated and dead industry's otherwise known as the coal mines, it was costing the country more to keep a few in jobs than it was worth to sustain a nation. You want to blame someone for the divided north? Look no further than the socialist unions at the time. Lets not forget all the black outs, the petrol shortages, the demand for the army to mutiny, the forced strikes, the socialist and IRA conspiracies all promoted by these unions at the time. They had government by the balls and a medicine was introduced, one that was harsh yes but it kept the nation alive (and I'm not being melodramatic by any means). In fact when these measures were introduced the country boomed and unemployment dropped.
Business changes and so does economy, our grossly outdated nationalized industry could not compete against foreign competitive private businesses and our prices were through the roof due to over priced British coal. The same people who complain today are the same people who complained about the tractors in the industrial revolution, or the steam engines or the otherwise modernization Thatcher brought to Britain.
I'm not saying it was pretty by any means, but her end justified the means. Hating her because foolish people didn't finish school over a belief of being sorted for the rest of their lives is hardly her fault.
And not some found employment, all found reemployment in time, the northern wasteland is largely a myth.
[IMG]https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/537063_10151588233166672_1808607806_n.jpg[/IMG]
BUCKFAST ON FOX NEWS
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40224904]Many of the private companies she sold COULD have been made profitable had money been put into them, instead Thatcher opted for short term gain.[/quote]
Private companies are generally better at making profits than the state. The state should be there to protect workers and not the industries.
[quote]Also there is a reason for the North supporting Labour over the Tories and that is due to the Tories only caring for the South. In Thatcher's terms she essentially put all of the money into the South, dragging all of the industry out of the North into the South.[/quote]
What wealth is there left in the North? The industries were running at a loss, and actually weren't creating wealth at all.
[quote]Only people who like Thatcher are middle class/upper class Southerners and that's because they're the only group who benefited from her.[/QUOTE]
I'm Scottish and I am quite sympathetic towards her.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40224823][url=http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=58&view=wide#cameron]Look at the figures here under Thatcher[/url] - between May 1982 and January 1983 her opinion poll ratings were stagnant, only later in 1983 and onwards did her popularity increase.
The Falklands war was April - June 1982, the victory there doesn't correlate with her popularity.[/QUOTE]
It says c. 1000-2000 British Adults 18+ took this questionnaire/opinion poll.
Do you really think that this is reliable?
[QUOTE=shackleford;40225087]It says c. 1000-2000 British Adults 18+ took this questionnaire/opinion poll.
Do you really think that this is reliable?[/QUOTE]
It's called sampling.
[QUOTE=butt2089;40224502]Thatcher doubled spending for Healthcare, Education and Defence - all things she considered to be Government areas, whilst cutting subsidies to industry. Labour doubled spending in these areas again and hugely increased the welfare state. Consider that in 1980 'other government spending' was £22bn, in 1990 it was £35bn and that in 2005 it was £79bn.
The public sector even included British Airways and British Petroleum in the 70s - these companies are now hugely profitable in private hands and were not when they were state owned, do you think pumping money into them would have helped in anyway?[/QUOTE]
That's why simple reforms of the public sector was needed to make them efficient, instead of selling em off.
[editline]10th April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40225127]It's called sampling.[/QUOTE]
Is it reliable?
[QUOTE=shackleford;40225191]Is it reliable?[/QUOTE]
Usually. A sample size of about 2000 is actually considered large.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.