Britain's "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher dies

[nameless]

TROLL

 

[Blabyboy]

If she was so hated at the time, how did she win those elections? The numbers disagree - and I state again, I am no pro-Thatcher supporter, but I do acknowledge her standing, which of course is a different thing entirely. I acknowledge the standing of Hitler and Lenin in their respected countries but I'm no fan of them either.

I was making the point with tongue firmly in cheek but you made it for me as well, 3 times is pretty impressive for any PM.

 

[Blabyboy]

I don't think so, though it's possible.

Thatcher was not only responsible for lots of untimely death, she was also responsible for instilling a callousness and brutal individuality into society. The Ayn Rand of England. Not quite as extreme, but the sensibility was the same, and the results were felt.

The one on the top does set the tone and the middle class is always ready to sell off the common good for short term monetary gain and lower taxes. The voters refuse to acknowledge it until they see that the society their children grows up in is more brutal, than it used to be, and there are more poor people and people struggling.

A few win big, the majority lose a lot. That is the nature of the beast.

I disagree, but what I'm really interested in, is the "lots of untimely death"(s) point. What are you referring to there please?

And thanks for the Ayn Rand reference, never heard of her, but her wikipedia reads with many points of interest.

 

[Blabyboy]

@Decker.

I don't think we did turn on him, we are allowed to vote out PM's if we think they haven't fulfilled the promises outlined in their manifesto and it doesn't mean we hate them, they're just less relevant for the here and now

Chruchill did warn of the problem with Hitler, and at that time, and in that context he was correct. But after WWII, his ideologies were more dated. He is still venerated as our greatest PM in practically every poll that is conducted on the subject. But if you read some of the things he did, or rather withheld during WWII and that was as widely taught in our schools, then people may come to have a less high opinion of him. He was a skilled politician and his gambles came off for the good more times than the bad ones. I'd argue you could say that about all world leaders... but we have to wait at least 30 years, often 50 or more before their more sensitive personal diaries and notes are put in to public record. I guess it gives time for things to play out and for historians to fully appreciate the impact of their decisions.

 

[Kieran]

UK comedy

 

[Jimi H.]

...

And as far as Thatcher? Well, I was not a coal miner nor am I a union member ... but as far as I am concerned ... Maggie saved GB from an economic collapse and you should be damn sad to see her go. Look at conditions there as well as conditions here now. Of course you may have a different result and opinion ... and like I said ... I am an American over here ... and you all are over there.

Decker

I have two comments.

- First, about Churchill: I'm certainly no expert in British politics during WW2, but generally speaking, in Europe, politicians don't go to war to win votes. Even if a politician does a good job in warfare, people don't automatically think that makes him or her a great political leader. Europeans just aren't into military prowess in any comparable way to the U.S., and many among the populaces want to see the military cut to minimums, basically to minimal defense and just sufficient forces to participate with others in a common front, if absolutely needed. Call it cowardice, Europeans are simply more pacifist. Though Thatcher managed to rile up colonial nationalist attitudes from England's 'glorious' colonial past and exploit the Falklands where she demanded sailors and pilots provoke harsh action from Argentina against them.
Btw., did you know Thatcher's son was arrested and fined for complotting in an African coup? I can't help thinking about the saying, that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree..
BBC NEWS | Africa | Thatcher fined over 'coup plot'

- Second, this figure says a lot about European mentality, and what Thatcher coincidentally argued against:

We can talk up and down about imagined trickle down economics and 'freedom' from taxes and all that, the fact is it doesn't work, and there are many poor and working poor Americans. But that's philosophically ok to many Americans, because the 'American dream' is available to everyone, right? Actually, what is available to the vast majority are the crumbs left over by the ultra-ultra rich whoes money remain locked up. How about transferring some of that money from the ultra-rich and the rich to the poor and the working poor? That way the poor can become happier, healthier, and actually get a chance to have a stab at the American dream that the well-off take for granted. And that way, they can better get a life without foodstamps. Food-stamps won't get them anywhere.

There is nothing natural or conservative about a society with vast discrepancies between rich and poor. We are social beings, it creates social tension on all sides. The vast sums locked up while many work poor at minimum wages should make any citizen feel angry. At least Obama has adressed the issue. But the minimum wage is still a joke, except to those who try to live on it.

Cold capitalism = Conservatism? No. And imo, the GOP no longer thinks economically conservative, Reagan started that trend, and e.g. the tax-politics of Lyin' Ryan would have been a catastrophy!

It's the same kind of incompassionate conservatism/laissez-faire economics that Thatcher brought to Europe, and it's still damaging us, more privatizations where we sell off democratic governance, more inequality between rich and poor.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Isn't the movie Zeitgeist (or the follow up) that explains really well that it is the societies that have the greatest discrepancy between rich and poor that have the most addiction, crime, violence and suicide?
Yes, it is unnatural I think to have an enormous amount of wealth and privilege concentrated in a few, whilst a huge majority struggle on?

Problem being, what can be done? Communism doesn't work....

Does anyone need more than $10m each? (I'd be happy with less but let's choose that figure) So what if we had a capitalist society but a cap on individual wealth? It's ridiculous that there is enough wealth to clothe, house and feed everyone but we can't do it? Greed is a horrible thing and I thank my parents I am not greedy, never have been, never will be. I am fond of saying if I won a lottery, I'd happily give more than half of it away, to what I consider people who need it.

 

[Blabyboy]

...Though Thatcher managed to rile up colonial nationalist attitudes from England's 'glorious' colonial past and exploit the Falklands where she demanded sailors and pilots provoke harsh action from Argentina against them.

Er... no. Argentina invaded a British territory illegally and a Task Force was put together and sent to take the territory back. It was under a UN mandate. You *could* make one argument about whether it was right to sink the General Belgrano or not as it appeared to be turning away when torpedoed by a British Submarine, but you can just as easily argue that it can turn around again and carry on into the territorial waters around the islands.

Each leader in war makes what they think are the right 'noises' (speeches) to encourage their own side and to present themselves as the correct argument to the wider watching world. General Galtieri did exactly the same in the lead up to and during the conflict.

Btw., did you know Thatcher's son was arrested and fined for complotting in an African coup? I can't help thinking about the saying, that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree..
BBC NEWS | Africa | Thatcher fined over 'coup plot'

Yes, I did. Did you also know he got lost during a race in the desert. The guy is not the sharpest tack in the packet.

- Second, this figure says a lot about European mentality, and what Thatcher coincidentally argued against:

Yeah, nice graph, but what does the bottom axis actually mean? Do I take it that Finland is the best at the thing you're trying to point out? UK seems about average, lowest taxes, but middle in terms of transfers (what form do these transfers take exactly?).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/12/newsid_2523000/2523841.stm

There is nothing natural or conservative about a society with vast discrepancies between rich and poor.

really? you honestly believe that? Taking a cold hard look at pretty much any society under any philosophical ideology and you'll see inequality. There is always someone who is at the top and always others lower down. That is the natural order of things and the one(s) at the top will always take more of the resources that are important and make sure they have enough before those under them. Same as in the animal kingdom. We might try to fool ourselves that we are far removed from them, but we are not.

We are social beings, it creates social tension on all sides. The vast sums locked up while many work poor at minimum wages should make any citizen feel angry.

That I can agree with, but then you get into Communism and that's even scarier. As has been said countless times by many people "Democracy is the least worse system we have at present".

At least Obama has adressed the issue. But the minimum wage is still a joke, except to those who try to live on it.

Really? has he really? Bringing this back to Mrs T. She once said in an interview that "..the problem with many politicians of today is that when they make a speech, they think they have done something... and they have. They have made a speech." Compare what Obama said he _was_ going to do and what he currently _has_ done.

Cold capitalism = Conservatism? No. And imo, the GOP no longer thinks economically conservative, Reagan started that trend, and e.g. the tax-politics of Lyin' Ryan would have been a catastrophy!

It's the same kind of incompassionate conservatism/laissez-faire economics that Thatcher brought to Europe, and it's still damaging us, more privatizations where we sell off democratic governance, more inequality between rich and poor.

I wonder if you live, or have ever lived in the UK? Can you remember when BT were the only phone company? where you could not do anything to the phone, the phone socket or anything remotely involving the local loop without having to get permission from BT? Can you remember when you only got the gas from British Gas and you paid what they said you would pay, end of discussion? Where was the democratic governance in that?

 

[Jimi H.]

..


Yeah, nice graph, but what does the bottom axis actually mean? Do I take it that Finland is the best at the thing you're trying to point out? UK seems about average, lowest taxes, but middle in terms of transfers (what form do these transfers take exactly?).

I see you're squirming, because as we both know the point is identical to the stated policy of e.g. Thatcher or Reagan: It is natural and even good to have large wage discrepancies (low minimum wage) and low non-progressive income taxes. That way, there's plenty of cattle to man the assembly lines for the fat cats.

..

really? you honestly believe that? Taking a cold hard look at pretty much any society under any philosophical ideology and you'll see inequality. There is always someone who is at the top and always others lower down. That is the natural order of things and the one(s) at the top will always take more of the resources that are important and make sure they have enough before those under them. Same as in the animal kingdom. We might try to fool ourselves that we are far removed from them, but we are not.

I believe you're into classic Social Darwinism, sounds like Ayn Rand and similar ilk?

With regards to what you consider 'natural': We live in a society where the police will protect every single penny of the extremely rich, even while people are dying in the street right outside the doorstep, ok? Is that 'natural'? Well, I guess it depends on your look on the world and your values. There are certainly primitive mechanisms involved in the animal world, or the human world. But do you aspire to that? There are certainly other things at play too.

I think you should reconsider what you determine to be 'natural' to us humans. You see, we are decidely social beings. And we have very strong faculties for judging fairness and correcting injustice. That is part of the human psyche, thus it is as natural as our desire to drive a bigger car than our neighbor, which I happen think is unnaturally motivated by society, in the facric of capitalist society.
So, what you find natural depends to a large degree upon the society you grew up in, live in, and the values of your parents. Regardless, in a democracy that protects the rich, where everyone agrees that private proporty is good, it is just as good and fair to reason that noone really needs 500 personal cars, or the loose change to buy such. There is neither anything natural, nor fair about others not being able to send their kids to college, or another education, to actually do something for themselves. Thus, I'm glad we have democracy and not anarcho-capitalism which would in practice mean a return to feudalism and a barbarian society.

Social unrest and revolution happens when reasonable social structures become perverted. If our arbitrary (not natural, as you think) structures create too much inequality, we can deal with that through the democratic process.

To avoid straining society to the brink of revolution, the Indians in the North West practiced Pot Latch, likewise democratic states use progressive taxation. There is nothing unnatural about that. Also, you could never make crazy money without employing others, even the rich depend on others. We are a society. Should those in employment not be able to live a proper life? How is that 'natural'? Regardless, it's not civilized.

To a Social Darwinist, it may be cool stuff, but I'm happy to say we live in a democracy and that I strive to live in a civilization. If you don't like it or don't find it natural, feel free to find some isolated super-individual island where you can decide everything youself, and don't have to consider others. See how much money you'll make though, see how rich you'll be.. People like you argue as if noone else existed, and as if they lived in a bubble. Wake up and smell reality. And democracy. This isn't anarchy.

..

That I can agree with, but then you get into Communism and that's even scarier. ..

Oh, so it's animal individuality versus communism?

I bet you don't know too much about social democracy? Did you know that the social democratic nations are virtually always in top when it comes to income, health, education etc., just like goggsmackay explained? You should look into it, it's a pattern. Just like it's a pattern that 'trickle-down economics' is a stated lie that makes and allows working poor Americans to vote to the right against their own interests, because of the whole 'good Christian values' scam.

..
..Where was the democratic governance in that?

That sounds like bureaucratic inefficiency. There are solutions to that. Good governance.

However, I'm not a communist, I prefer both a liberal society (democratic, human individual rights, private enterprise) and well-regulated at the same time (against laissez-faire capitalism). The middle ground. Something Thatcher was not. She was extreme.

 

[Kieran]

I see you're squirming, because as we both know the point is identical to the stated policy of e.g. Thatcher or Reagan: It is natural and even good to have large wage discrepancies (low minimum wage) and low non-progressive income taxes. That way, there's plenty of cattle to man the assembly lines for the fat cats.

I believe you're into classic Social Darwinism, sounds like Ayn Rand and similar ilk?

With regards to what you consider 'natural': We live in a society where the police will protect every single penny of the extremely rich, even while people are dying in the street right outside the doorstep, ok? Is that 'natural'? Well, I guess it depends on your look on the world and your values. There are certainly primitive mechanisms involved in the animal world, or the human world. But do you aspire to that? There are certainly other things at play too.

I think you should reconsider what you determine to be 'natural' to us humans. You see, we are decidely social beings. And we have very strong faculties for judging fairness and correcting injustice. That is part of the human psyche, thus it is as natural as our desire to drive a bigger car than our neighbor, which I happen think is unnaturally motivated by society, in the facric of capitalist society.
So, what you find natural depends to a large degree upon the society you grew up in, live in, and the values of your parents. Regardless, in a democracy that protects the rich, where everyone agrees that private proporty is good, it is just as good and fair to reason that noone really needs 500 personal cars, or the loose change to buy such. There is neither anything natural, nor fair about others not being able to send their kids to college, or another education, to actually do something for themselves. Thus, I'm glad we have democracy and not anarcho-capitalism which would in practice mean a return to feudalism and a barbarian society.

Social unrest and revolution happens when reasonable social structures become perverted. If our arbitrary (not natural, as you think) structures create too much inequality, we can deal with that through the democratic process.

To avoid straining society to the brink of revolution, the Indians in the North West practiced Pot Latch, likewise democratic states use progressive taxation. There is nothing unnatural about that. Also, you could never make crazy money without employing others, even the rich depend on others. We are a society. Should those in employment not be able to live a proper life? How is that 'natural'? Regardless, it's not civilized.

To a Social Darwinist, it may be cool stuff, but I'm happy to say we live in a democracy and that I strive to live in a civilization. If you don't like it or don't find it natural, feel free to find some isolated super-individual island where you can decide everything youself, and don't have to consider others. See how much money you'll make though, see how rich you'll be.. People like you argue as if noone else existed, and as if they lived in a bubble. Wake up and smell reality. And democracy. This isn't anarchy.


Oh, so it's animal individuality versus communism?

I bet you don't know too much about social democracy? Did you know that the social democratic nations are virtually always in top when it comes to income, health, education etc., just like goggsmackay explained? You should look into it, it's a pattern. Just like it's a pattern that 'trickle-down economics' is a stated lie that makes and allows working poor Americans to vote to the right against their own interests, because of the whole 'good Christian values' scam.


That sounds like bureaucratic inefficiency. There are solutions to that. Good governance.

However, I'm not a communist, I prefer both a liberal society (democratic, human individual rights, private enterprise) and well-regulated at the same time (against laissez-faire capitalism). The middle ground. Something Thatcher was not. She was extreme.

One of the best posts i've read on here in a long time.

 

[Wade]

Ding Dong: BBC 'compromise' will play 5-second clip of protest song on Radio 1 chart show - News - Music - The Independent

Whether you loved her or hatred her, you got to admit this is pretty funny. From what I understand there is an organized effort to download this song as much as possible to ensure it appears on the top of the pop charts and thus should be featured on the show.

 

[Frank Stalter]

Now being American I did not live with Maggie Thatcher running my country but I did see her working with Reagan and between the two of them they brought down the "evil" Soviet Empire. Outspent them by God! Ran them into the damned ground.
Decker

The people in the Soviet bloc wanted the change, that's why things changed. It really started with protests in China (tank man?) during a Gorbachev visit, but there were other things too. The Polish pope got Poland fired up and it was the Gdansk shipyards that started that ball rolling. Those protests had nothing to do with cruise missiles in Western Europe. Communications tech had improved and people behind the Iron Curtain KNEW that life was better in the west, the quality of life and the culture. Western artists were a huge influence. That missile build ups in the West were the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Bloc is a myth. It is simply more neo-con BS.

 

[Blabyboy]

I see you're squirming,

hah! brilliant. I ask you to simply explain the graph and you don't, and then you try and switch the focus. bravo! bravo!

because as we both know the point is identical to the stated policy of e.g. Thatcher or Reagan: It is natural and even good to have large wage discrepancies (low minimum wage) and low non-progressive income taxes. That way, there's plenty of cattle to man the assembly lines for the fat cats.

That's certainly one way to look at it. The other might be to try and ensure that there is a level of available capacity on demand for any enterprising individual to make use of - the barrier to entering a market is reduced. One only has to look at the Asian market to see how they've cornered this capacity at the moment.

I believe you're into classic Social Darwinism, sounds like Ayn Rand and similar ilk?

nope, I'd consider myself more a mix of classical and modern liberalism depending upon the area under discussion. Certainly, classical liberalism left unchecked could be considered/confused with Social Darwinism. However, as I pointed out in your first post mentioning Ayn Rand, I'd never really heard of her before. The philosophy is certainly interesting, but it's one more in keeping with the idealogies 'usually' taken up by naturalists and people like Richard Dawkins et al.

With regards to what you consider 'natural': We live in a society where the police will protect every single penny of the extremely rich, even while people are dying in the street right outside the doorstep, ok? Is that 'natural'? Well, I guess it depends on your look on the world and your values.

Well, if it's obtained legally, then of course it should be protected. Once you let it be known that it won't be protected then the law loses it's moral hazard. You only have to look at the bailouts by the UK Govt in 2008 to see how quickly moral hazard was removed there with people making a reasoned judgement as to whether they could afford to borrow the money they wanted. And yes, you could argue it's natural from certain philosophies, obviously not from liberalism, but classical liberalism would be pretty close. Liberals have a conflict to resolve here. Liberalism is about giving the individual more freedom and they see Government as one of the agents against that, but on the other hand they cannot be there to catch every person sleeping rough so they depend on/expect the Government via the Police and Welfare agencies to fulfil that expectation via paying taxes and entrusting that the people they elect have some degree of liberal values.

There are certainly primitive mechanisms involved in the animal world, or the human world. But do you aspire to that? There are certainly other things at play too.

I do not 'aspire' to anything like that, for that would imply that my values/ideals are of somehow a lower value. I simply live my life by the values I hold.

Of course other things are at play too, that's why I do not think you can just wrap them all in a philosophy and a graph.

I think you should reconsider what you determine to be 'natural' to us humans. You see, we are decidely social beings. And we have very strong faculties for judging fairness and correcting injustice. That is part of the human psyche, thus it is as natural as our desire to drive a bigger car than our neighbor, which I happen think is unnaturally motivated by society, in the facric of capitalist society.

I am always reconsidering what is natural as I think almost all people do, they are constantly assimilating new information and experiences all the time to build the picture in their head of what is 'natural'. And yes, we are for the most part, social beings, exceptions aside. But I struggle with your assertion for judging fairness and correcting injustice - is that as seen from a person living in a Western capitalist democracy? Humans have many ideals of what is fair, what is justice, some go directly in conflict with others. Taken in absolute isolation, I could agree with you, but place it in the real-world context of the many varied societies that exist on the world today, then I don't agree with you.

So, what you find natural depends to a large degree upon the society you grew up in, live in, and the values of your parents.

Yeah, I can agree with that.

Regardless, in a democracy that protects the rich, where everyone agrees that private proporty is good, it is just as good and fair to reason that noone really needs 500 personal cars, or the loose change to buy such.

Well, firstly, not everyone agrees private property is good, even in a democracy, but sure, you can reason it. However, everyone has the right to self-determination and to dispose of their assets in a manner which they see fit, so long as it is legal - if you are adopting a liberal philosophy. What I think you are conflating with this is a moral position as well as a legal position. i.e. it may be legally right to buy 500 cars, but is it morally right is really your point/question. And so, dragging this back to Mrs T, can we really say that she single-handedly moved society from one that one set of morals to another on her own? To which I would answer no, society would want / grant implicit permission to move in that direction. And the poll tax is a good example where the society of the day, recoiled and said no.

There is neither anything natural, nor fair about others not being able to send their kids to college, or another education, to actually do something for themselves.

Of course there is, the person's in-ability can be derived from their choices made previously. You argue as everything is pre-ordained for an individual and they cannot move to another state which satisfies themselves within a wider society. You argue in a very fatalistic manner. The person can choose not to send their kids to school full stop as one option.

Thus, I'm glad we have democracy and not anarcho-capitalism which would in practice mean a return to feudalism and a barbarian society.

Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism wouldn't.

Social unrest and revolution happens when reasonable social structures become perverted. If our arbitrary (not natural, as you think) structures create too much inequality, we can deal with that through the democratic process.

To avoid straining society to the brink of revolution, the Indians in the North West practiced Pot Latch, likewise democratic states use progressive taxation. There is nothing unnatural about that. Also, you could never make crazy money without employing others, even the rich depend on others.

Stock market allows one way; gambling is another, possessing a perceived rare talent (e.g. a footballer) is another.

We are a society. Should those in employment not be able to live a proper life? How is that 'natural'? Regardless, it's not civilized.

How do we define a 'proper life' really? Civilised conveys morals and so if we say that a society is defined by its morals to create its laws (which help protect and prolong a society) then how is it 'un-natural' if there are no laws that forbid this?

To a Social Darwinist, it may be cool stuff, but I'm happy to say we live in a democracy and that I strive to live in a civilization.

A noble aspiration and one I'm sure no-one would be stupid enough to disagree with.

If you don't like it or don't find it natural, feel free to find some isolated super-individual island where you can decide everything youself, and don't have to consider others.

I'm sensing anger here. At what point did I ever say I don't like it? You've consistently attributed values and views to me which are incorrect, has it ever occurred to you that I may be debating with you, you don't have to hold every last view/moral/philosophy to debate with someone. Surely I demonstrate that I do like it, or at least accept it because I live in it. If I didn't I would find a way to exit it. You can still live within a society and be alone/ isolated. I'm here to test your bounds and your arguments as well my own.

See how much money you'll make though, see how rich you'll be.. People like you argue as if noone else existed, and as if they lived in a bubble. Wake up and smell reality. And democracy. This isn't anarchy.

I've been well aware of reality for many years, I live with it every single day. Even a Social Darwinist would have to acknowledge that others existed so I do not think this is a well-reasoned point.

Oh, so it's animal individuality versus communism?

Not as such no, I was going to go on and develop the argument citing George Orwell's nice allegory in Animal Farm for what happens in Communism.

I bet you don't know too much about social democracy? Did you know that the social democratic nations are virtually always in top when it comes to income, health, education etc., just like goggsmackay explained? You should look into it, it's a pattern. Just like it's a pattern that 'trickle-down economics' is a stated lie that makes and allows working poor Americans to vote to the right against their own interests, because of the whole 'good Christian values' scam.

I know a bit and yes I do know they tend to come high in things like income, health, education - you can argue that they have high incomes because they have to pay higher taxes and they generally pay a lot more for commodities in those states. Ever bought a beer in Sweden, Norway or Denmark? They tend to have a higher notional value for 'happiness' as well.

The problem with your example is that you cite Christian values. But that's a religious moral philosophy where you hand over your choice to another entity, whose doctrine may be at odds with the society you live in. Therefore you may be 'poor' in the majority society's view, but 'rich' in the religious society's value you live by/adopt.

That sounds like bureaucratic inefficiency. There are solutions to that. Good governance.

Apologies, but that sounds like a politicians answer, trotted out every time before an election when asked where the money is coming from to pay for their manifesto.

However, I'm not a communist, I prefer both a liberal society (democratic, human individual rights, private enterprise) and well-regulated at the same time (against laissez-faire capitalism).

Fair enough, I appreciate your views.

The middle ground. Something Thatcher was not. She was extreme.

She certainly was on some things. Some good and some bad.