User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 58

  1. #1
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default Margaret Thatcher

    Does anyone have any opinions they would like to share of her leadership, policies and legacy?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Dead, Dead, Dead

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rixton-glasgow

    Fair comment during a state sanctioned sychopantic praise session in parliament:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/v...thatcher-video

    I felt the comments of the leader of the labour opposition, that he would respect the feelings of those who admired her, and also of Gerry Adams, who they rushed out to get an opinion from on the day it was announced, that it was soon to speak of it when her family was yet to mourn her but that she had caused a lot of harm and hurt by her policies were extremely fair.

    Thatcher gave us Blair and Blairism:-



    Which was much more than the conversion of the labour party to Thatcherite fiscal conservatism/capitalism by its ditching of traditional pledges to nationalisation and adopting privatisation, even in areas the conservative party would not have, but through the sanctioning of selfishness making conviction politics a thing of the past and politics a legitimate career for charlatans and performance artists like Blair seeking places at the table as privilieged elitists.

    Thatcher described the ANC as a terrorist organisation seeking to undermine the legitimate democracy which was white supremacist Apartheid Africa, she wasnt in office at the time of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, when British Loyalist terror groups were able to detonate bombs of a sort they were never able to make prior to or subsequently in the Irish Republic and which it has long been alledged was an example of collusion between terrorists and British security or intelligence forces, but carried on the policies of previous administrations by permitting the deaths of the hunger strikers.

    To give some context when Britain was continuing to occupy India and being fought by Ghandi they would not permit Ghandi to die during any of his hunger strikes and they considered Indians to be subhuman at this time, a time when racialist ideology was popular and broadly accepted, ten hunger strikers in Northern Ireland were killed in their hunger strike. The British havent forgotten this shameful episode in Irish history either because they've continued something of a propaganda war, subsequently releasing documents and claiming that secret talks were taking place which consequently mean the blame for the ten deaths rests with Sinn Fein negotiatiors who would not call off the hunger strike rather than with the British government.

    Thatcher deliberately dismantled all heavy industry and production in Scotland and England, the north of england was decimated and has not recovered since, the policy of the government at that time has been described in documents released subsequently as "managed decline", the reason being that these sectors of the economy had organised labour and organised labour was treated as a quasi-terrorist subversive enemy. The tactics used against minning communities were on a par with anything practiced by the dictatorships which Thatcher did support, such as Pinochet, the ranks of the police forces at the time were swollen somehow, something which remains unclear and it is suspected included security forces, private security, ie mercenaries.

    During the Falklands war the Argentinians deployed Exocit missiles destorying or significantly damaging British transport and battle ships, killing British personnel, these were supplied by British arms traders in contracts negotiated by the government in the first place. The decision to fight the Argentinians, who were a military junta supported by Reagan and Thatcher as anti-communist to begin with, was largely premised upon the possibility of oil resources being discovered rather than any real issue of sovereignty as it is suggested even today. It was also an opportunity to demonstrate militancy and militarism to the Russians and these kinds of actions remain popular even today.

    I hope that she says hi to:-



    And



    With which I'm sure she'll be spending eternity. They'll all have a lot in common.

    I also think that its incedible and ridiculous that the individual who said there was no such thing as society is having a state funneral funded from the taxes of society.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Oh aye, I forgot the poll tax, which was tax upon population and households, an attempt at a sort of flat tax.

    It was a massively regressive move, as all flat taxing is, and introduced in Scotland a year before England and the rioting in England was so serious and so destabilising that they abandoned it. By which point the Scottish had paid a years taxes and which went straight to the English revenue.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Apparently she's already closed down three furnaces in hell. XD

  5. #5
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Apparently she's already closed down three furnaces in hell. XD
    About time, too, those furnaces were an expensive misallocation of limited resources forced on the rest of hellish society by institutionally privileged, out-of-control unions.

  6. #6
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Many of the arguments against Margaret Thatcher have relied on emotive rhetoric. Reading and listening to some of the rants and facebook memes one would almost believe that she were some sort of demonic dictator rather than someone that had been democratically elected by the British public three times. There's no doubt she made mistakes. After being in power for so long it would be inevitable that she would. However, I believe that the policies she followed were implemented for what she believed to be the greater good. This would fit in with her being a rational ENTJ. I personally find the arguments made by trade unionists, communists and socialists to be completely ludricrous, lacking both historical perspective and an understanding of the kind of economic theories that were being followed. I also get annoyed at the current socialist rhetoric being spouted about how government debt can be reduced by borrowing more money for make work programmes, that cuts to public services can be avoided without increasing taxation and that politicians and the state know best how to invest the public's money. Unlike David Cameron, Margaret Thatcher was not born into the elite classes. She was highly educated, very hard working and believed that those kinds of attributes should enable people from any background to become successful. Her policies were radical at the time, but now seem somewhat constrained given the current changes to welfare and public service procurement that have been introduced by the previous labour government and the current government. I believe she won the economic argument and there is plenty of evidence showing that the most successful economies are the ones with the least state control. However, it is still too soon to put her whole career into perspective, but I'm interested to see how she will be perceived in another 5, 10 or 20 years.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valis View Post
    Many of the arguments against Margaret Thatcher have relied on emotive rhetoric. Reading and listening to some of the rants and facebook memes one would almost believe that she were some sort of demonic dictator rather than someone that had been democratically elected by the British public three times. There's no doubt she made mistakes.
    Emotions are part of life. Why is this problematic to you?

    She didn't make mistakes. She designated "enemies within" and "enemies without" and crushed them ruthlessly, often taking their lives (Irish prisoners, Argentinean conscripts) or simply destroying their industries (British dockers, printers, mienrs, steelworkers, etc.).

    Here view of politics was one of war. So people will respond in the same way.


  8. #8
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    About time, too, those furnaces were an expensive misallocation of limited resources forced on the rest of hellish society by institutionally privileged, out-of-control unions.
    Well just so long as she replaced the cost of all that with a far greater one and excised the worth ethic from entire communities for three to six generations we can all call that a success then cant we?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,653

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valis View Post
    Many of the arguments against Margaret Thatcher have relied on emotive rhetoric.
    That's a shame, I'll bet you're focused on those rather than the rational arguments though.

    Reading and listening to some of the rants and facebook memes one would almost believe that she were some sort of demonic dictator rather than someone that had been democratically elected by the British public three times.
    Do you know the statistics for what her majorities were in those parliaments? Do you think it had anything to do with knee jerk reactions to the Heath government being kicked out of office and authoritarian populism? All things which are roundly and fairly attacked when its Mugabe, Chavez or any other leader behaving in that fashion?

    There's no doubt she made mistakes.
    Like? Or is that just a "emotive" relating prior to listing accolades?

    After being in power for so long it would be inevitable that she would. However, I believe that the policies she followed were implemented for what she believed to be the greater good. This would fit in with her being a rational ENTJ.
    OK, by that rationale, then Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Serbs, the Hutu Militia (need I go on?) were all rational ENTJs.

    I personally find the arguments made by trade unionists, communists and socialists to be completely ludricrous, lacking both historical perspective and an understanding of the kind of economic theories that were being followed.
    Perhaps you can stop emoting about the capitalist folk devils for a moment then and consider the arguments by leading lights of the UK conservative party during the eighties advocating Keynesianism, attacking monetarism and socialism such as Ian Gilmour in Britain Can Work and Dancing with Dogma?

    I also get annoyed at the current socialist rhetoric being spouted about how government debt can be reduced by borrowing more money for make work programmes, that cuts to public services can be avoided without increasing taxation and that politicians and the state know best how to invest the public's money.
    That's not socialist rhetoric, socialist rhetoric is about a classless society, acknowledging the limits of markets and market forces (particularly with reference to key social priorities) and the cultural externalities of class struggles and economic ideologies.

    Its just economics to reach those conclusions about economic policy, it is not that the government is a better judge of spending, that is patently ridiculous but also not something which any advocate of government spending, mixed economies or interventionism has argued since at least before the second world war. Its to do with economies of scale and information and risk, no private firm can afford to run the risks that government do when spending, no private firm could operate with the kind of losses which government does.

    The under funding of public services is always going to be problem, recessions and crisis make it an even more pressing issue, the reason being that money is not circulating in the economy, without money there can be no consumers or consumption, no demand and therefore no supply, so all that can be expected is a further and further contraction of the economy, perhaps some elites can survive that and deal with that, transnationals can because they can move elsewhere but for the majority that means more and more high street closures, less business viability in the small to medium and even national business enterprise level.

    None of that has anything what so ever to do with socialism, anything that isnt a rabid free market capitalist idea is not automatically "socialist", this is another great harm inflicted by Thatcherism, it closed the public mind, framed the debate and has stopped any real critical thinking or thinking at all really and the political left has colluded with all that.

    Unlike David Cameron, Margaret Thatcher was not born into the elite classes. She was highly educated, very hard working and believed that those kinds of attributes should enable people from any background to become successful.
    What were Thatcher's qualifications then? The communities which she doomed to dependency and unemployment were hard working too, they believed in upward mobility too, some of them were individually fool enough to vote for her or join the scabs and scab unions at the time. What does it matter if Cameron is a member of an elite if the politcal philosophy in any case is supportive of elitism?

    Her policies were radical at the time, but now seem somewhat constrained given the current changes to welfare and public service procurement that have been introduced by the previous labour government and the current government.
    There were radical and they still are, they never worked, privatisation didnt result in an improved or efficient or equitable service in any of the instances that it was tried, water and other utilities, including telecoms (telecoms was the only success and to be honest it was out paced by technology changes and innovations which introduced competition), most of these were economic natural monopolies, with information problems which make them very resistant to the sorts of economic spontaneous order and self-regulation outlined in the theory.

    The labour and other governments did go further, I consider that a result of a number of factors, perhaps it was about trying to boost public and business confidence, attempts to move beyond policy taboos (although it only happened on the left) but I think it was as much to do with the validation of selfishness which Thatcherism was all about and politicians ruling like absolutist monarchs when the votes were in in their favour.

    Now we're dealing with multiple negative legacies, the economy is literally bent out of shape, the government, any elected government what so ever, is unable to rule as their mandate dictates because of the power of the financial sector, which has proven it is incapable of self-regulation and willing to operate like any privileged union elite of yester year (if they ever existed).

    I believe she won the economic argument and there is plenty of evidence showing that the most successful economies are the ones with the least state control. However, it is still too soon to put her whole career into perspective, but I'm interested to see how she will be perceived in another 5, 10 or 20 years.
    Yeah, like I said, your understanding of economics isnt that great, its seriously coloured by political ideology. That's alright. I hope in time you have a rethink because there's plenty of really good resources available online and offline if you do. By no means take my word for it and by no means consider second thoughts or opposition to Thatcherism to be the preserve of the left wing.

  10. #10
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Emotions are part of life. Why is this problematic to you?

    She didn't make mistakes. She designated "enemies within" and "enemies without" and crushed them ruthlessly, often taking their lives (Irish prisoners, Argentinean conscripts) or simply destroying their industries (British dockers, printers, mienrs, steelworkers, etc.).

    Here view of politics was one of war. So people will respond in the same way.
    Taking the lives of people that were on hungar strikes? Is that possible? People tend to also die when nations declare war.

    The industries still exist. It is still possible to buy coal, steel etc. just from more efficient producers.

Similar Threads

  1. Video: Margaret Heffernan: Dare to disagree
    By Eilonwy in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2014, 12:12 AM
  2. Margaret Yang from the movie Rushmore
    By Guava in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 09:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO