cancel2 2022
Canceled
Cardiff Cockney is what people from West Wales call anyone who lives there.
Tears at thatchers death
- Thread starter Lowaicue
- Start date
Cardiff Cockney is what people from West Wales call anyone who lives there.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
typical intellectually impotent neocon/teabagger....when they can't refute information that proves their contentions wrong, they merely change the subject to another batch of their patented bullhorn.
Grow the fuck up, you Super Freaking Fool. Or continue to laugh, clown, laugh.
Last edited:
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
The chronology of posts shows that you are wrong.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
I haven't heard that for a while.
OnearmSword
New member
She most certainly did and did it so well it appeared to be almost a miracle. Only somebody of Churchill's abilities and stature could have pulled it off like that. Her enemies now braying like jackasses only serve to highlight what a great feat she performed! She was one of the greatest ladies ever to be an exceptional and brilliant leader! USA needs a Thatcher now instead of the dimwit jackass now in charge.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
You still honestly believe that socialism means that everyone should be poor, don't you. Why aren't you living in Hampstead? Why do you have to slave away in the cold and dismal north of England to put bread in your children's mouths. Surely, as a tory, you should have a house or two in the Cotswolds and ride to hounds on high days and holidays. What's gone wrong?
It is yet another example of 'binary thought'.
Have tories ever asked themselves why half the country hated the MT hearted one? Do you honestly think one in two of your fellow countrymen is wrong? or misguided? or stupid? What kind of arrogance makes tories think it is they, and only they, who are right?
Can you name one other prime minister (with the exception of Churchill) who has had a full state funeral and then ask yourself how many PMs since the war have been hated to the degree that the UK hated thatcher?
I see we have another Brit here now. Living in Newport or somewhere like that (not really Wales in the minds of some). like me, a southerner, like me one of those who were not greatly affected by thatcher, but unlike me he appears to have very little humanity or conscience about him.
My Cockney friends would definitely agree with him.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Socialism means everyone should be poor, among other things.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
It is a well known fact that Queen Elizabeth was no great fan of thatcher. This from the Guardian (also in the Mail)
Buckingham Palace raised concerns about the ceremonial funeral with military honours for Lady Thatcher that is to be attended on Wednesday by the Queen and more than 2,000 guests including every surviving British prime minister, the Guardian understands.
As invitations were sent out to world leaders, including all surviving US presidents and Hillary Clinton, it emerged that concerns were expressed at the highest levels about whether it is appropriate for such a controversial figure to be escorted on her final journey by more than 700 military personnel.
In discussions about the funeral held over recent years, it is understood that questions were raised by senior figures about whether it would be right to associate the military with such a divisive figure, according to a well-placed Whitehall source.
Buckingham Palace raised concerns about the ceremonial funeral with military honours for Lady Thatcher that is to be attended on Wednesday by the Queen and more than 2,000 guests including every surviving British prime minister, the Guardian understands.
As invitations were sent out to world leaders, including all surviving US presidents and Hillary Clinton, it emerged that concerns were expressed at the highest levels about whether it is appropriate for such a controversial figure to be escorted on her final journey by more than 700 military personnel.
In discussions about the funeral held over recent years, it is understood that questions were raised by senior figures about whether it would be right to associate the military with such a divisive figure, according to a well-placed Whitehall source.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
I know the PM is not the head of state, but doesn't the office command the British military forces?
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Queen Elzabeth II is Head of the Armed Forces and Commander-in-Chief. I guess in theory she has the right to decide but, in practice it falls to the government of the day...more's the pity.
However, when the palace 'expresses misgivings' it is tantamount to strong advice. The PM might put up a case, but he is better with the Queen as an ally than as an enemy.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You should watch last night's Question Time especially what Ming Campbell had to say about her. I believe you suffer from the same blind hatred that afflicts so many others and clouds their ability to objectively analyse the '80s. I could ask you much the same question, if you love socialism so much why are you living in a city which is based on unbridled capitalism?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Low, I know that you are an unreconstructed collectivist but you really should read this article by Simon Heffer written in 2009, it sums exactly why she was needed.
You had to be there to grasp the scale of Margaret Thatcher's revolution
As a first-time voter in 1979, Simon Heffer recalls the euphoria that greeted a new dawn for Britain.
We are victims of our upbringing. Anyone coming to political consciousness as I did in the 1970s will understand why Mrs Thatcher happened, whether we support what she did or not. I have always struggled to see what there was not to support. The country in which I spent my teens was a catastrophe. Socialists of all stamps – and I mean Heath as well as Callaghan and Wilson – had impoverished it and stunted the ambition of our people. When I hear those in their 20s or early 30s trot out the received line on the person they call "Thatcher", I think: if you were not there, and you have not taken the trouble to explore in depth what life was like for those of us who were, you cannot properly understand.
The six or seven years before she won her revolutionary victory in May 1979 formed a litany of failure and embarrassment. Once Heath lost control of the economy, after he allowed the money supply to grow at 30 per cent in 1972-73 (with the predictable 27 per cent inflation by 1975), only a revolution was going to solve the problem. Heath went out in March 1974 sounding the note that would resound through Britain for the following five years: that elected government, having forced a confrontation with the largely undemocratic forces of trades unionism, would (pending further developments) always take second place to it. It was that even more than the inflation that brought Britain to its knees two-and-a-half years into Labour's rule.
Instead of taking the sensible course of restraining spending, Labour chose instead to keep its foot on the accelerator. It was determined not to make an enemy of the unions as Heath had done. In an era with a huge public sector (for the nationalised industries were omnipresent, overmanned, unproductive and expensive) the unions with members on the state payroll had huge clout. Acronyms like NUPE, Aslef, Cohse, the GMB and of course the NUM came to dominate the consciousness of the nation. It was not so much what Mr Wilson or Mr Callaghan said that went: it was what the likes of Jack Jones, Hugh Scanlon, Joe Gormley and other unreconstructed heroes of the working-class movement wanted that really mattered. Britain was not part of the Soviet Bloc; but when one watched television pictures of these tobacco-stained old men with their bad teeth and their ill-fitting suits walking in and out of Downing Street like they had season tickets – they had – one felt quite often that one was.
Remember the country they made. If you moved house and wanted a telephone installed you could wait for up to six months for the honour. The great nationalised car industry into which they poured epic amounts of public money made poorly designed, thirsty rust-buckets. I know there will be some of you reading this who paid good money for an Austin Maxi or a Morris Marina; God will forgive you. British Rail in the 1970s was a synonym for decline, low standards and inefficiency. And then there were two groups of workers who would be the ruin first of the Labour government, and then of the union movement itself. There were the local government workers who brought about the Winter of Discontent, which put Labour out of power for 18 years, and, most sinister of all, the National Union of Mineworkers, which offered itself in 1984-85 as the model that proved the days of Britain being run by unelected syndicalists were over.
I had the vote for the first time in 1979. The cover of Private Eye the week after Mrs Thatcher won carried a picture of her taken during the election campaign, leaning over an old man in a hospital bed; the balloon coming out of her mouth said: "Wake up! It's a new dawn for Britain!" It echoed a feeling I had at five in the morning on May 4, as I drove back in a cool misty dawn through the countryside after an election party. The collectivist nightmare was over. A Britain of endless strikes, food subsidies, third-rate products and jobbery was, suddenly, consigned to history. If there has been a better time to be 19 than in 1979, I wait to be told.
Had Callaghan won, or had a Conservative Party led by a Heathite such as Whitelaw come to power, the old film would have been replayed again and our decline would have become steeper. Britain on the eve of the 1980s was dominated by industries unrestructured since the war, unresponsive to markets, and as a consequence of that and their management by bureaucrats starved of investment. Maintaining these commercial fictions would have propitiated the unions; it would have driven us closer to bankruptcy and crushed any opportunity people here might have had of a better standard of living. Thatcherism is caricatured as the rich getting richer and the devil taking the hindmost. The rich did get richer. The unrich often became rich, thanks to deregulation. People whose families had for generations done blue-collar jobs now did white-collar ones. And the huge additional tax revenues produced by this prosperity, born of reform, tax-cutting and deregulation, meant that a generous welfare state – probably too generous – took the hindmost instead of the devil. Anyone who looked at Britain in 1990 when Mrs Thatcher left office and compared it with when she came to power would have found a largely unrecognisable country. That was the triumph of ideology.
It was not purely about the spread of wealth, nor the creation of great social mobility that comes with a true meritocracy; it was about the spread of freedom. Just think how few people owned shares in the 1970s, and indeed how large a minority still did not own their homes. The extension of ownership, whether of people buying their council houses and improving them, or of buying shares and taking responsibility for their own futures, took the state out of the lives of millions and provided a liberation. Of course Leftists hated it, and still hate it: they hate anything that removes their opportunities for control. The greatest liberation of all was from high rates of tax. Mr Cameron should recall that on coming to power the Conservatives cut the top rate of income tax from 83 to 60 per cent and the rate on unearned income from 98 to 60 per cent. People not only had more scope to choose how to spend the money they earned; they had the incentive to work harder and earn yet more. It was a virtuous circle that, in the interests of all our futures, we must hope has been abandoned only temporarily.
It is not Mrs Thatcher's fault that her successors have squandered her legacy, and have done so by ignorance of economics. No economist herself, she was never afraid to surround herself with the most brilliant of thinkers – Fritz Hayek, Alan Walters, Ralph Harris and others of that school – and take their advice. What is less appreciated is that she made sure she understood exactly what they were saying, and why the policies of the free market would have the outcome they did, before she implemented them.
Her arrival as prime minister, 30 years ago next Monday, and the breaking of the discredited consensus that it effected, remain the most positive and important events in our post-war history. If anyone tells yhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/5237817/You-had-to-be-there-to-grasp-the-scale-of-Margaret-Thatchers-revolution.htmlou otherwise, then (either literally or metaphorically) they weren't really there.
You had to be there to grasp the scale of Margaret Thatcher's revolution
As a first-time voter in 1979, Simon Heffer recalls the euphoria that greeted a new dawn for Britain.
We are victims of our upbringing. Anyone coming to political consciousness as I did in the 1970s will understand why Mrs Thatcher happened, whether we support what she did or not. I have always struggled to see what there was not to support. The country in which I spent my teens was a catastrophe. Socialists of all stamps – and I mean Heath as well as Callaghan and Wilson – had impoverished it and stunted the ambition of our people. When I hear those in their 20s or early 30s trot out the received line on the person they call "Thatcher", I think: if you were not there, and you have not taken the trouble to explore in depth what life was like for those of us who were, you cannot properly understand.
The six or seven years before she won her revolutionary victory in May 1979 formed a litany of failure and embarrassment. Once Heath lost control of the economy, after he allowed the money supply to grow at 30 per cent in 1972-73 (with the predictable 27 per cent inflation by 1975), only a revolution was going to solve the problem. Heath went out in March 1974 sounding the note that would resound through Britain for the following five years: that elected government, having forced a confrontation with the largely undemocratic forces of trades unionism, would (pending further developments) always take second place to it. It was that even more than the inflation that brought Britain to its knees two-and-a-half years into Labour's rule.
Instead of taking the sensible course of restraining spending, Labour chose instead to keep its foot on the accelerator. It was determined not to make an enemy of the unions as Heath had done. In an era with a huge public sector (for the nationalised industries were omnipresent, overmanned, unproductive and expensive) the unions with members on the state payroll had huge clout. Acronyms like NUPE, Aslef, Cohse, the GMB and of course the NUM came to dominate the consciousness of the nation. It was not so much what Mr Wilson or Mr Callaghan said that went: it was what the likes of Jack Jones, Hugh Scanlon, Joe Gormley and other unreconstructed heroes of the working-class movement wanted that really mattered. Britain was not part of the Soviet Bloc; but when one watched television pictures of these tobacco-stained old men with their bad teeth and their ill-fitting suits walking in and out of Downing Street like they had season tickets – they had – one felt quite often that one was.
Remember the country they made. If you moved house and wanted a telephone installed you could wait for up to six months for the honour. The great nationalised car industry into which they poured epic amounts of public money made poorly designed, thirsty rust-buckets. I know there will be some of you reading this who paid good money for an Austin Maxi or a Morris Marina; God will forgive you. British Rail in the 1970s was a synonym for decline, low standards and inefficiency. And then there were two groups of workers who would be the ruin first of the Labour government, and then of the union movement itself. There were the local government workers who brought about the Winter of Discontent, which put Labour out of power for 18 years, and, most sinister of all, the National Union of Mineworkers, which offered itself in 1984-85 as the model that proved the days of Britain being run by unelected syndicalists were over.
I had the vote for the first time in 1979. The cover of Private Eye the week after Mrs Thatcher won carried a picture of her taken during the election campaign, leaning over an old man in a hospital bed; the balloon coming out of her mouth said: "Wake up! It's a new dawn for Britain!" It echoed a feeling I had at five in the morning on May 4, as I drove back in a cool misty dawn through the countryside after an election party. The collectivist nightmare was over. A Britain of endless strikes, food subsidies, third-rate products and jobbery was, suddenly, consigned to history. If there has been a better time to be 19 than in 1979, I wait to be told.
Had Callaghan won, or had a Conservative Party led by a Heathite such as Whitelaw come to power, the old film would have been replayed again and our decline would have become steeper. Britain on the eve of the 1980s was dominated by industries unrestructured since the war, unresponsive to markets, and as a consequence of that and their management by bureaucrats starved of investment. Maintaining these commercial fictions would have propitiated the unions; it would have driven us closer to bankruptcy and crushed any opportunity people here might have had of a better standard of living. Thatcherism is caricatured as the rich getting richer and the devil taking the hindmost. The rich did get richer. The unrich often became rich, thanks to deregulation. People whose families had for generations done blue-collar jobs now did white-collar ones. And the huge additional tax revenues produced by this prosperity, born of reform, tax-cutting and deregulation, meant that a generous welfare state – probably too generous – took the hindmost instead of the devil. Anyone who looked at Britain in 1990 when Mrs Thatcher left office and compared it with when she came to power would have found a largely unrecognisable country. That was the triumph of ideology.
It was not purely about the spread of wealth, nor the creation of great social mobility that comes with a true meritocracy; it was about the spread of freedom. Just think how few people owned shares in the 1970s, and indeed how large a minority still did not own their homes. The extension of ownership, whether of people buying their council houses and improving them, or of buying shares and taking responsibility for their own futures, took the state out of the lives of millions and provided a liberation. Of course Leftists hated it, and still hate it: they hate anything that removes their opportunities for control. The greatest liberation of all was from high rates of tax. Mr Cameron should recall that on coming to power the Conservatives cut the top rate of income tax from 83 to 60 per cent and the rate on unearned income from 98 to 60 per cent. People not only had more scope to choose how to spend the money they earned; they had the incentive to work harder and earn yet more. It was a virtuous circle that, in the interests of all our futures, we must hope has been abandoned only temporarily.
It is not Mrs Thatcher's fault that her successors have squandered her legacy, and have done so by ignorance of economics. No economist herself, she was never afraid to surround herself with the most brilliant of thinkers – Fritz Hayek, Alan Walters, Ralph Harris and others of that school – and take their advice. What is less appreciated is that she made sure she understood exactly what they were saying, and why the policies of the free market would have the outcome they did, before she implemented them.
Her arrival as prime minister, 30 years ago next Monday, and the breaking of the discredited consensus that it effected, remain the most positive and important events in our post-war history. If anyone tells yhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/5237817/You-had-to-be-there-to-grasp-the-scale-of-Margaret-Thatchers-revolution.htmlou otherwise, then (either literally or metaphorically) they weren't really there.
Last edited:
Lowaicue
英語在香港
I think if you look back on your own posts and the implicit criticism of the left contained within them, particularly reference to me 'counting my wealth', to me living in a capitalist economy, to 'champagne socialists' and there were several other comments in a similar vein, you will agree that for me to finally and once only fire your own bullets back at you was completely justified.
Anyway, there is no point in continuing with this. I am not 'consumed' with hatred but I certainly blame her for the worst excesses of capitalist meanness and destruction to my country to have occurred in my lifetime.
There it will stay and I will not try to persuade you to leave your comfort zone and will not be tempted to leave my zone of indignation and my loyalty to the intelligent people of Britain.
Strange who the left are. Artists, scientists, thinkers, philosophers (and it is the same in the US).In the full knowledge that it could never happen I would be proud indeed to be counted among their number.
When I was young I marched behind Canon Collins (remember him?), Michael Foot and others of the left, crowding into Hyde Park to try to catch just some of their wisdom. I cheered on Tariq Ali, Jack straw and the left wing satire movement. I stood on the pierhead in Liverpool with the dockers (with whom I did not entirely agree) as an observer. I had my car stopped and recorded dozens of times during 1984/5 as I drove to my office in Derbyshire.
I watched people start to wake up after the war and realise how their lives were being run by the ruling aristocracy. As a young child I was taught that one had no need to talk or mix with the working classes, I watched slum kids and thought of them as a different species. I was taught to manage not to be managed. I was taught to kneel on Sundays and have afternoon tea and when I finally achieved some small part of adulthood, I learned (I was not consciously taught) that the life we lived in the 1950s was unjust and only a cigarette paper away from the slavery that only happened in far off countries.
Thatcher was for half the country, an abomination. She will be remembered.
Ding dong.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
What a moving post.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yep... moved right through his colon and out his ass with the other crap.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Be quiet Superfreak don't ruin everything with your coarseness like a gavone. Which is Italian for pig-man if you didn't know.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Obama is a politician.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
lol... his post was certainly an overly emotional rant. Sorry I pointed out that it was also full of crap. That said, given the people he followed, it is not surprising. Michael Foot was a tool who wanted to nationalize the banks again. He was a nut. Which is why Thatchers party crushed his. The people were tired of the nonsense. They wanted their country to prosper again. Under Thatcher, it did.