Baroness Thatcher - Dead / RIP

[seagullsovergrimsby]

yes deliberately misleading headline in the Guardian, too embarassing and wishful thinking for words. a few SWP dickheads and daft govan commies. the rest of the country maintained a level of dignity, despite her divisiveness. thats what you should be proud of, not a load of clueless attention seeking muppets.

More events up and down the country are being planned for the weekend when people have a couple of days off.

 

[somerset]

Re: The truly inspirational Baroness Thatcher - RIP

and a subsequent massive reduction in unemployment.

Exactly, by 1987 after 8 years of good firm government, unemployment was falling dramatically.

 

[glasfryn]

exactly what 'FAVOURS' would you be expecting by any government? something for nothing i'm thinking...

I don't see how the inflation of the mid-seventies could originate in the oil price hikes of the early 80s! Many red-brick universities, such as Sussex, opened in the late 60s, offering many degrees in sociology. They were hotbeds of Marxism, so that by the mid-seventies, Marxism had trounced the more gentle, intellectual socialism of old Labour, and political views became more extreme and polarised. I was a Labour voter in those days, but I was never a Marxist, because true Marxism had been misinterpreted and hijacked by the growing cult of the politics of guilt. It continues today with green policies, global warming and suchlike. But the proletariat did rise up. Not through revolution, but through education. The unions of the seventies were self-serving Tsars, the forerunners of the blue, yellow and red political Tsars of today. Margaret Thatcher was the last of the type of politician who believed in her country and worked for her country, whether you agree with her policies or not. Today's politicians are nothing more than career sock-puppets who see politics as a personal piggy-bank and the route to a board job and TV career when they leave Westminster. They change their minds dependent on which lobby-group or multinational has the upper hand.

this I will agree with
so you don't think that people in her government were like this?
did you walk around with your eyes shut then
even she pimped her son to sell arms to those countries she visited and her husband had shares in the South-Atlantic mineral companies and I have no doubt some of the dirty dealings that went on while she was at the helm will come out now she has gone

 

[Albumen]

Well, the country is divided into two groups: those who can make their own judgements, and those who think they cannot, and blame Maggie.

 

[soistes]

Well, we'll have to disagree there. The aristocrat, Tony Benn, was a Marxist through and through and an inverted snob. Do you remember him going round to meetings with his own tin mug, because he thought that's what the riff-raff drank from? As to the redbricks, yes, Sussex opened in 1961. And, yes, sociology had been a university subject for years. The growth of Sociology (Social Science) escalated during the 1960s and 1970s, to my mind, because it was the original "soft option degree". Many people studied it without understanding it, but spouted all the facts-that-weren't-facts they had memorised.

Yes, we'll have to disagree. Not least because the majority of sociology, and indeed social science, has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. Most social scientists today (which would include a range of disciplines: sociology, economics, political science, social psychology) would not describe themselves as Marxists, and most of them would have never read any Marx. Neither do I agree that social science is a soft option, particularly today, and particularly at the quantitative ends of those disciplines which require a fairly complex understanding of statistics, econometrics etc.

 

[HovaGirl]

Please tell me how any government would have gone about reversing the large privitisation programme with bankrupting the country?

They could have stopped the sales of Council Houses. HBOS has lately been privatised, so any re-privatisation could have happened. But, as you say, the country couldn't afford to buy back its old State monopolies, and that is precisely what they were sold off in the first place.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Given it costs no more to collect the rubbish from a £1m house than say a £150k one why should everyone not pay the same for the same service ? When I go into Tescos they don't charge me based on my income or house value.

That said Council Tax is equally unfair - house value doesn't necessarily correlate with an ability to pay ( especially for older people ).

A local income tax would be fairer.

Just noticed this load of cobblers (been working).

When you go in to Tescos you buy according to a budget which is determined by your income. The less you have the less you spend, because, frankly, you can't spend any more. You did notice I said INCOME and assets no? Similarly the less you buy at the shops then the less rubbish and recycling you create.

 

[GNF on Tour]

They could have stopped the sales of Council Houses. HBOS has lately been privatised, so any re-privatisation could have happened. But, as you say, the country couldn't afford to buy back its old State monopolies, and that is precisely what they were sold off in the first place.

ok, thanks for replying. However, I don't think there were that many Council houses left by the time Labour ousted Majors government and I really don't understand your second comment.

 

[HovaGirl]

Yes, we'll have to disagree. Not least because the majority of sociology, and indeed social science, has absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. Most social scientists today (which would include a range of disciplines: sociology, economics, political science, social psychology) would not describe themselves as Marxists, and most of them would have never read any Marx. Neither do I agree that social science is a soft option, particularly today, and particularly at the quantitative ends of those disciplines which require a fairly complex understanding of statistics, econometrics etc.

No I doubt Social Science is such a soft option today, as you say. But I was talking of 40 years ago. It reminds me of Beattie: Well, it's an ology. Today, as you say, Social Science is more quantitive and includes other disciplines which were more indipendent, back in the day. Dad went to the LSE to study economics in the 1940s, and he came out a rampant Marxist whose hero was Tony Benn. But 20 years later, Sociology itself had become a fashionable discipline and was not so well-developed or broad as it is today. At that time, it was exciting to use Sociology to foster that youthful need to want to change the world and those students who discovered Marx, at that time, were inspired to try to change it. When they grew up, they went into Local Government (said with tongue in cheek!).

 

[The Spanish]

More events up and down the country are being planned for the weekend when people have a couple of days off.

ironic isnt it one of the main accusations thrown at her is she made Britain a more callous and nasty society.

 

[ALBION28]

Oh dear! You hide behind a lack of knowledge. Before you comment check the facts. I was a teacher at that time and yes History was removed from the curriculum for a short time, she was paranoid about history and what it would say about her. May I point you in the direction of Owen Jones in the INDEPENDENT to enlighten you.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Just noticed this load of cobblers (been working).

When you go in to Tescos you buy according to a budget which is determined by your income. The less you have the less you spend, because, frankly, you can't spend any more. You did notice I said INCOME and assets no? Similarly the less you buy at the shops then the less rubbish and recycling you create.

OK, it might have been a bad example as I compared paying for a service to paying for a product. Let's take a service you buy ( other than one from a council ) - are you charged based on your property value no - when a plumber comes to fix something he doesn't charge you based on your property price. Given you've called my post cobblers, are seriously suggesting that the cost of collecting rubbish is dependent upon the value of the property it's being collected from ?

Council tax is completely unfair, Poll Tax was slightly ( although only slightly ) better. The people who objected were mainly people who weren't paying rates previously and found all of a sudden that they had to pay for council services - students in particular. Students currently get all the services we pay for under the council tax but pay nothing for them.

 

[HovaGirl]

ok, thanks for replying. However, I don't think there were that many Council houses left by the time Labour ousted Majors government and I really don't understand your second comment.

State monopolies were hemorrhaging State money, much as the benefits system is doing today. Most State monopolies were heavily subsidised by the Government in the late 1970s and the taxes people paid just didn't cover the costs of running them. In selling them off, the Government initially raised money to pay off international State loans, at the same time releasing those monopolies into the market-place, where they would have to make a profit, or go under, but not at the expense of the people's taxes. Any subsequent Government just couldn't afford to buy them back.

As to Council Houses, a lot of ex-council tenants made a killing buying their council house cheaply, and selling it at a huge profit a few years later. This, of course, reduced the amount of social housing stock and went some way to causing the social housing needs problems of today.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Oh dear! You hide behind a lack of knowledge. Before you comment check the facts. I was a teacher at that time and yes History was removed from the curriculum for a short time, she was paranoid about history and what it would say about her. May I point you in the direction of Owen Jones in the INDEPENDENT to enlighten you.

You might of been a teacher BUT when she was elected I was at school and in education until 1988 - every year during that time I studied ...... History !

 

[soistes]

No I doubt Social Science is such a soft option today, as you say. But I was talking of 40 years ago. It reminds me of Beattie: Well, it's an ology. Today, as you say, Social Science is more quantitive and includes other disciplines which were more indipendent, back in the day. Dad went to the LSE to study economics in the 1940s, and he came out a rampant Marxist whose hero was Tony Benn. But 20 years later, Sociology itself had become a fashionable discipline and was not so well-developed or broad as it is today. At that time, it was exciting to use Sociology to foster that youthful need to want to change the world and those students who discovered Marx, at that time, were inspired to try to change it. When they grew up, they went into Local Government (said with tongue in cheek!).

We more or less agree, so a good point to stop!

 

[HovaGirl]

You might of been a teacher BUT when she was elected I was at school and in education until 1988 - every year during that time I studied ...... History !

I was interested in going into teaching in the mid-80s but I was appalled at the lessons which pretended to be history. Two double lessons to draw a picture of a Tudor rose. More double lessons in the inspiring idea of the students having empathy with a factory worker in Russia after the revolution. My kids were at junior school then, and didn't learn any history at all. At senior school in the 90s, they didn't learn much more. I had to teach them, just as I had taught them to read in the mid-80s.

 

[DJ Leon]

Judge away if that makes you happy it is not going to alter anything is it. I just dont understand some of the vile rhetoric you would think she was in the same league as Hitler or Myra Hindley, have your day in the sun slagging off a dead person who did what she thought was good for the country even if she did in your eyes get it wrong.

Her policies changed the world - of course people have a strong opinion of her. Even if you think she was right, surely you can understand why she is reviled by some. She's an incredibly divisive person.

Do I really need to say that doing what you think is right, does not mean that you are above criticism?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

State monopolies were hemorrhaging State money, much as the benefits system is doing today. Most State monopolies were heavily subsidised by the Government in the late 1970s and the taxes people paid just didn't cover the costs of running them. In selling them off, the Government initially raised money to pay off international State loans, at the same time releasing those monopolies into the market-place, where they would have to make a profit, or go under, but not at the expense of the people's taxes. Any subsequent Government just couldn't afford to buy them back.

As to Council Houses, a lot of ex-council tenants made a killing buying their council house cheaply, and selling it at a huge profit a few years later. This, of course, reduced the amount of social housing stock and went some way to causing the social housing needs problems of today.

BT split from the Post Office in 1980 and made money for the Government before privatisation in 1984.

 

[ALBION28]

You might of been a teacher BUT when she was elected I was at school and in education until 1988 - every year during that time I studied ...... History !

With respect, you were a student, you were not behind the scenes, some schools defied her and as I pointed out it was a short time and she relented reluctantly. She headed off on a new direction introducing 1265 her yearly hour directive, the national curriculum and the introduction of Sats All flawed.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

yes deliberately misleading headline in the Guardian, too embarassing and wishful thinking for words. a few SWP dickheads and daft govan commies. the rest of the country maintained a level of dignity, despite her divisiveness. thats what you should be proud of, not a load of clueless attention seeking muppets.

When you say "deliberately misleading headline in the Guardian", I have just flicked through all three sections of the Guardian twice and have not found that headline anywhere, either prominent on the front page or tucked away on page 5, if you get my drift.

It might be on their website, I suppose, or are you making it up?