May have already been posted, but: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher
-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
aphronesis said:
This struck a cord:
Thatcher's strength derived directly from her limitations. If she had been better read, if she had been afflicted with imagination, if she had had a sense of humour, if she had had anywhere near as much insight into the lives of ordinary people as she claimed to have, she would have been unable to pursue her headlong career, riding roughshod over the consensus towards the property-owning debtor economy in which we now struggle. If socialism had been in better shape, she would not have been able to turn it into a dirty word or confuse it with totalitarianism and state monopoly capitalism. If the trade unions had not betrayed their own class, if they had understood the importance of organising all workers, including women, including those in the service sector, if they had not institutionalised inequality, the people might have defended the cause of labour.
The great rebus of our age has thus been in finding a collective response that's truly collective and not merely the flip side of a coin which the class system combats.
Call it power, I don't know. Though it's quite vexing.
rhubroma said:
Are cuckoo birds the lymph of the aviary system? But I thought that conservation provided the lymph that any society needs, as it is this which prevents decay and erosion through care and regeneration. Introducing exotic species can have devastating consequences for either the exotica or the natives, or both. Yet I know that all things decay as time progresses, and that all things pass away.
Glenda Jackson tells it how it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8
I had forgotten about the mass closure of the long term mental institutions, including one very close to me in Bodmin. Throwing the mentally ill out onto the streets. Lovely woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8
I had forgotten about the mass closure of the long term mental institutions, including one very close to me in Bodmin. Throwing the mentally ill out onto the streets. Lovely woman.
Yeah, it was all Thatchers fault. Let's gloss over the fact that the army was called in to run essential services in hospitals because regular employees couldn't be bothered, the winter before Thatcher came to power.
As an aside, I'm always again surprised at the incredibly disorganized mess that British parliament is. How hard is it to shut your mouth when someone else is talking (I know this is tradition and all, but it gives a very chaotic impression).
As an aside, I'm always again surprised at the incredibly disorganized mess that British parliament is. How hard is it to shut your mouth when someone else is talking (I know this is tradition and all, but it gives a very chaotic impression).
The key point is I have the t shirt am an seeing my late brother's truth. Maggies earthbound , me hatey bad woman;lovelife
The people get the government they deserve. Maggie Thatcher kicked Robert Walpole's *** for a reason . . . the British people wanted her.
That's my one rag on the Brits for the year. Please forgive me.
That's my one rag on the Brits for the year. Please forgive me.
And surely the working conditions and/or incentives were just fab, those lazy bums just didnt turn up, right?Arnout said:
Dissing Thatcher is fine and dandy, good thing the witch is dead. Should have sunk in the Falklands, really.
However, as the old beardo said, death is essentially the species devouring its member viz. an individual. The question should be what remains of Thatcherism now?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...doesnt-work.html?mobify=0&intcid=full-site-mo
MarkvW said:The people get the government they deserve. Maggie Thatcher kicked Robert Walpole's *** for a reason . . . the British people wanted her.
That's my one rag on the Brits for the year. Please forgive me.
Agreed.
As for Britannia, I think ADF nailed it some ten years ago: A shoegazer nation forever looking backwards. This is the best FU for the Blair witch project. (Yes, ADF, not ACF.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQsdfnbOevM
Captain Sensible said:
I will put it this way. Give it 20 years. Economic vandals who cannot count without using their fingers and toes, many of whom have made it to positions where they are in charge of the national treasury (surprisingly and shockingly common the last decade) are far worse than most imagine. Why? Because most people do not understand simple economics.
If I were in charge of national education, economics would be compulsory study before leaving school. It would change how people vote because most people have no fraking clue how things really run and tick. Especially market and economic forces. The economic effect of Gordon Brown will be felt in the UK and Europe far longer than anything Margaret Thatcher pulled off. Don't make me drag out the video footage of Brown being ripped a new one in the European parliament by one of the few Brits with enough back bone to stand up to him and his party and call them what they were. It was quite funny, but most people wouldn't have understood the nuances and details behind what was said.
gooner said:
Actually it's relevant for one reason. UK or Germany go down, those countries I listed...well they'll go bottom up.
Study economics champ. Heck you're a Gunners fan, go and take a look at how they run their business. One cannot run deficit budgets forever and think they've done a proper job. Who had the solution to the Great Depression. An Englishman. You can probably figure out who I am talking about considering most of the sound and stable economic theory taught and practiced world wide in Western nations that run a Westminster Finance system (rather than the worse Roman system, aka those nations bailed out within the Euro) is derived from his work. His theories are what should be preached. BTW if they were, those countries would be long on the way to recovery...there wouldn't have been major UK banks/financial institutes being bailed out either.
It's about balance. You see so many things tie together. Of course in the Eurozone with a joint pledge to back one another, everyone SHOULD get a voice. But the underlying habits, behaviour and attitudes on national scale are not in harmony. They are not synchronous. So expecting nations that are polar opposite in almost every aspect I can stick a label to than the two big guns, Germany and the UK, well it won't work dude. It hasn't worked. Worse, a nation that is left leaning and employs major socialist leaning policies (which are not necessarily bad) can head the European Council or whatever it's called. Just like Ireland did. My point wasn't to say these people should not be heard. Censorship is like my major pet hate dude for the record...but that when nations that are broke, that employ policies that are opposed to those employed by the UK and Germany in historical context, who ASK to be given a HANDOUT because their idiot politicians are economic clowns, and are for the majority, left leaning, like those nations I listed, then it's pretty much a guarantee people from said nations will have a go at a moderate right leaning politician who scrapped unions and played a huge part in the downfall of communism.
Short story. It's a given. They be mad. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can ask for the UK to over extend itself and pay for your nations mistakes, but you then think it's okay to bash on one of their leaders? In my corner of the world, you'd be told to ****** off and solve your own issues first.
BTW Gooner...I have every sympathy for the economic plight of those countries I listed. But beggars can't be choosers. Picking on Thatcher when I've made it clear you should be tearing your own pollies a new one for economic crimes...well for me that is beyond rich. It's a joke. I almost expect to read other comments (reading backwards here) and find people blaming her for their nations economic downfall. Unlikely but it's possible.
For the record. I come from a mining town. Blue collar left leaning unions lovers. It's programmed into the people to vote Labor here. They don't even know why...they just do it. I know why they do and for the most part don't hold it against people, but the truth is, their party of preference most elections allies itself with the Greens. The tree hugging morons who want to shut down all primary industry in Australia. BTW, those same Greens held onto crucial power in forming govt after our last election and had a major call on numerous policies...like the carbon tax, that have annoyed almost every voter Down Under. The irony is lost on most people I know that they vote for people who leech off them (unions here steal and rip off money non stop...we call it 'jobs for the boys') and ally themselves with people who want their source of income to go from society completely. How do voters miss this? They're simply not educated and do not know how most system work and more importantly how they should work if they are equitable, generous and fair.
You wanna learn something really special. Go and study accounting theory. If it's taught right the amount of relevant info you will take away about finance systems, historical business systems, modelling and psychology that binds all of these together is staggering.
Short story. Some Irish, Spainards, Dutch and one or two Brits (working class) have issues with Thatcher...tell me something original. It's not like it wasn't crystal clear. Ask them to give me balance...which is where I stand on most things...whole different kettle of fish.
Echoes said:
The major works weren't hers. Laying the groundwork...well there is that.
Euro currency is garbage. Only benefits Germany. Greece need the drachma back, Spain the peseta and Italy the lira. Germany needs to bring the Deutsche Mark.
One cannot expect nations that are fundamentally in opposition to your societal fabric composition, to behave like you do in regards to finances, reporting and regulation. All the loans and refinancing broken economies is doing is delaying the inevitable and forcing other countries in the Euro to carry the slack. So beyond idiotic it isn't funny. But this has nothing to do with Thatcher. Does it relate to how people in those countries would think of a figure like Thatcher? Yes I think it does because historically how those people vote in spirit is opposite to those who voted for Thatcher. Am I surprised they make the most vocal component in this thread? Not a chance. I expected it. The only ones I'm interested in are those of the actual British subjects. More so the ones who lived through it. Both sides of the equation. Always need balance. It trumps bias.
Just a quick question. Have the Argentinians been throwing parties? Or was it just the Europeans? I haven't read anything about them misbehaving over a death. I guess since it didn't involve football, they can behave themselves. Go figure...
King Boonen said:
Oh please. Give me a break. I made a very clear case that in historical terms, that when people look back at who was good, who was ok and who was downright crap, I think Blair will be spoken of in far worse terms than Thatcher or Major will be. Brown worse than him.
In Anglo Saxon nations that employ a Westminster legal and financial system, long political tenures are often the result of global and socioeconomic turmoil during such a tenure. They are also very often proceeded by their rival party holding office for a long time. If said party does not visibly do poorly on key macro national issues, they are kept in power. If they make the average persons life better, they hold power for a long time.
Now contrast UK with Australia. Hawke and Keating, Union backed left leaning Labor men, were in power for 13 or so years until 1996. They are the inverse or the opposite to Thatcher and Major, who give or take election differences falling in different years, held office over roughly the same period. Australia then goes and elects the same ideologically attributed party to Thatchers in Australia. The UK elects Blair and Brown. Both nations govt's hold power for roughly the SAME amount of time. The difference is in Australia, our govt made choices that helped Australians, the UK govt did the opposite. Both parties in both nations have now been replaced. Worse, the replacements have not been popular. Simply voted in to get rid of the OTHER guys. Change for change sake...well in Australia at least.
Actually in Australia, the replacing parties leadership have been so bad they broke a cardinal rule. Don't go against your loyal voters. The Labor party who barely hold govt (through proxies and independents who TURNED on their electorates) in Australia are on course for the largest political defeat in Australian history. Already happened in all the States, will happen Federally.
Why? It's not leadership. It's brand association of the PARTY. All cut from the same cloth these days in the really bad parties. You've been inhaling fairy dust if you think people vote for their local member based on trust or them deserving it. Those who can say that are the EXCEPTION to the RULE. Very rare. People vote for who they have been conditioned to vote for. They only break that, like I said above, when they've been betrayed. That has happened in Australia and I also believe in the UK by the current administrations. Those people are swing voters. They most certainly vote for the PARTY of whom the leader is a major element associated with that BRAND. People vote for the larger picture more than you think. When the die hard loyalists and supporters are defecting to the other side, you know a party has done poorly. In Australia, that is mostly attributed with the leadership. From what I read in the UK papers, it's the same deal.
So you can think people vote for local reps first and foremost...I think you're wrong. Don't even think of getting me started on changing electoral boundaries EVERY election. It is done for one thing, to favour a particular party. It's how our former PM lost his seat in 2007. 50% of the boundaries voters were predominantly voters for his rival party. Note his replacement was famous for being nowhere, absent all the time. A puppet. Maxine McWho? No that isn't a play on Doctor Who but her real surname McKew.
People vote for parties. I've seen it my whole life. The smarter electoral zones are swing voters for the most part. They control who wins in the UK and Australia. NZ too. Even the USA and Canada. Traditional strongholds of particular parties only lose their seats when the ruling PARTY and it's LEADER do really, really, really poorly. The frequency this has been happening the last 7-9 years is actually disturbing.
hrotha said:
Read my above point. I was simply stating that people are by products of their environment. Do you think it's odd nations that are more left leaning in terms of politics over the course of the last 30 years, were the ones making all the anti Thatcher comments?
I was simply saying it's to be expected. And yes, I did say it was a bit rich given those nations are bankrupt. Was I referring to you in that? No...the Irish actually. Which is why I took a dig at Sinn Fein. One of their leader was going off quite a bit...odd I thought given his role in the IRA earmarked him IMO as one who should consider it lucky an SAS unit didn't wipe him from the face of the earth during the 80s. They certainly gave Thatcher enough ammunition to warrant such action, yet, he's alive and a major political force. I find that odd. Actually a testament to how ones perception can sometimes avoid the obvious.
Also I wasn't stating anywhere you or any of the Irish or Dutch don't have gripes with your own political climate. I was simply suggesting that stereo-typically, given your nations history, it's a guarantee someone from said nations would be opposed to Thatcher. What intrigues me is that instead of creating a thread on that, like the Americans on here did to cover last years election, people wanted to talk crap about Thatcher. As I said, what happens domestically IMO, is a closer sphere on how it impacts ones daily life and the quality of all citizens in that nation. Since those people are not living in the UK and/or aren't British, why they'd be hating on them first, is beyond me. As I said, if I have to do some critiquing, I almost always find a way to remind everyone I dislike the idiots in my own neck of the woods first and foremost.
Just saying. Don't mistake me for knocking Spaniards or Irish for voting in govt's that left them in major debt. My country did in 2007 and 2010. All my friends from school did it last two elections. Uni friends...they didn't. But they think differently. Being opposed to your own govt and also playing a psuedo stereotypical card related to national allegiance, ain't cemented in place mutual exclusion. It can and does occur.
I don't like economic vandals. I actually lean to the middle on most things political. I don't like the old "Free hand" market theory crap. I believe in regulation and accountability. But that's because it is what I discovered during study at uni. Free hand right wing market lovers want to be able to do whatever. Like the UCI. It needs to be tempered with forces that restrict glutinous personalities from causing havoc on a grand scale because they lack the ability to restrain themselves. Generally speaking, that equates to me sitting in the middle. I like some of the more socialist approaches to medicine and education, but I don't like the extreme taxation issues places like France have put in place. Basically I believe in limits. So I get where you're coming from and I'm not picking on you. I'm simply letting you define where you stand on those issues. I most certainly wasn't saying you can't dislike Thatcher and also dislike your own politicians. As I said, that type of mutual exclusion does not exist. Maybe if one believed in absolutes.
Actually my biggest concern is that for the second time in two years, an element within the UK thought it would be cool to run amok on the streets, cause trouble, misbehave and make right proper gits out of their nations image...all over a woman dying. With the youth of a nation doing that, most not being old enough to remember Thatcher, well it does not inspire one with confidence. As long as people here weren't doing that, then hate away. It's certainly your right. I was simply saying I expected it from people within certain countries given historic traits and political norms of their nations versus those of Thatcher.
Amsterhammer said:
First off. ACF94...votes Coalition in Australia. That means Liberals and National party. There are moderate ring leaning. Our equivalent to the Tories but more so lately the UKIP.
Next, ACF94 has said to me personally, that he is a DUDE. Studying biology or bio-chemistry at I believe it was RMIT or Melbourne Uni. I can't remember which. I believe they would be finished now. So that makes them about 6-8 years younger than me.
The gender of ACF94 was a contentious topic before ACF94 stated he was in fact a dude. I simply believed his word. Could he be a she? Well I never had reason to question it till that post. It would explain the borderline obsessive Cadel crush being more than fanboyism. Think an Aussie Fleur, but trade Contador for Cadel. Hence the debate around the topic. FFS man, I never even thought Libertine was a chic until it got brought up in January. I simply did not give a darn. I thought it was a play on words. I'm a gamer. I know plenty of chics who've disguised themselves online simply to avoid abuse, cliches and hate simply for having their reproductive organs on the inside rather than outside.
Does that explain ACF94 for you from my perspective? The OP sounded to me like female admiration from another woman. The language mid post in particular. Blackcat for the record, still says ACF94 is a chic, very recently in fact, hence why it stuck out for me. I was simply asking a question.
Answering the national thing. I did that in other posts.
Answering the housing example. Was simply an example. Simple macro economics. Combination of monetary policy, supply and demand, interests rates, other govt policies and some external global forces. Very, very easy to understand. Yes it was a good example. Why? Well why did Ireland and Spain go kaplunk? Housing and building. Proof? Can I walk into either country and find brand spanking new housing estates that have not sold? Darn right I can. So drop the rhetoric on that issue it was simply the best example I could find.
Also regarding you being American. It's not the first time someone has taken offence at me assuming they share the nationality of the country they reside in. Your forum handle has 'Amster' in it and your location says 'Amsterdam.' Now that I do think about it I remember you mentioning such things way back in a US political thread. Was I singling you out. No. I apologise if you thought I was.
What I was doing was simply stating that historically nations can be looked at and stereotyped politically as more left, middle or right leaning in contrast to other nations. Thus I was saying given Thatcher in particular is categorised (you may definitely disagree with this) as being harder and more right wing than her contemporary countrymen, it is of no shock to me that the bulk of comments against her, which is what this thread is mostly made up, were from people whose locations (not necessarily nationality) is akin with lefter leaning politics. I was saying that is a guarantee. Add in the OP was made by a person (whose gender may be in doubt by me...but isn't important) who is staunchly right leaning (maybe a bit more than I am use to myself which is saying something) then the following posts were even more a foregone conclusion.
Confused? I'm not. I'd talk about economics all day and finance, accounting and business theories to back it all up, but my posts are way too long as it is. So hate on Thatcher all you want dude. But if I see a pattern or behaviour repeat itself, I'll probably call it out. As I stated, my example was the first one I thought up because it was relevant to the topic and context I was operating within. Was not personal. Unless your name is Gordon Brown (interchange with your nations equivalent of a Treasurer) and you did not previously or currently work high up for some failed financial conglomerate, it's unlikely I hold you responsible for any economic woes affecting multiple nations. But yes, I do hold nations responsible for WHO they elect. I also do not expect you to dislike whom your countrymen vote in. I don't like my nations government at all. I can make a strong case for them being the worst in history.
Sadly the following is true. 'People deserve whom they elect.' I have heard that one my entire life. Like ebandit said. Polls show Thatcher as both the most popular and hated politician in British history. Now I love stats and I could argue that all day as a cumulative measure such polls are skewed and flawed, but for this time I'll agree. It is very interesting and revealing that a person would be both. I cannot think of any leader in any major country who would top both. It certainly justifies the comments on this thread. Make not mistake people are emotional about her tenure as PM and based on your tone the name Thatcher certainly seems to bring out emotions in people. It also seems she reveled in it. Which is equally strange and disturbing.
Just don't be surprised when you play a card which behaviour wise is stereotypically one specific thing, that others notice it and comment. It's just calling a spade a spade dude. Nothing more. It's not personal or hating. If it were, I'd be name calling and getting shirty and nasty.
Ferminal said:
Where do I start?
First problem though is this will take forever to explain. More so if you don't have a finance or accounting background. It's simple to get but the sheer content is huge.
First question. Do you believe running a budget requires running a budget that is surplus or deficit? Do you know what the major types of finance are? How they work. Do you know what the basic macro-economic equation taught in universities in western nations that implement Westminster style finance systems is? Do you know what the differences between the classical Roman based finance system and the Westminster system is?
If you've studied macro economics as a first year business subject and you did more than pass, you'll get the basics. Throw in some historical studies on accounting, contracts, financing, how they work, what was done in the 1800's onward's in general and mix it with some specifics for your nations and you'll get my point. A simple example. There have been many Treasurers, men who became Prime Minister (Paul Keating is one from Australia, Brown is another) who thought that printing money would ease national economic issues. That it would solve debt. I guess they forgot the basics of ecnomics, where it messes with the part of the equation that touches on interest rates and thus inflation. That's kind of the most important part because it is the corner stone of ALL BORROWING AND FINANCE. Cost of borrowing goes up when that happens.
Put it this way. Nobody at the university I went to, who studied those subjects, spoke kindly of Paul Keating or Labor in general. Why? General rule of thumb was they created more economic pressure and woes than were needed. Brown is the same. I am not saying Cameron's party are all tea and smiles...they're not. It's about the lesser of two evils. In Australia Paul Keating's mess was dealt with by our previous govt under Howard and Costello. Our new govt, the one that came to power in 2007, have amassed debts that by all reports are triple those Keating managed. Took him 13 years to amass a $94 billion debt. Our latest crony mob did that in 5 and then another $150 billion more. That actual numbers are unknown.
My simple point again was a generalisation that is more or less accurate. Economically in certain countries particular parties are far more damaging than others are. It's become so painstakingly clear especially in Australia that it is almost a Golden rule. These parties, namely the Labor party in Australia, if their elected members had to pass a first year economics exam, odds are they'd fail. These people control national purse strings. I don't believe, I know Gordon Brown is of the same ilk. Proof? Wayne Swan, our nations treasurer, was given the global award for worlds best treasurer in 2011. Might also have won it last year. That is beyond a joke for anyone who has studied economics and knows what he has done. That is the point. Most people don't know how economic and finance systems work and interact and they don't know monetary policy and how it should be used. It's the cycling equivalent to people not knowing about LA and USPS doping. They know they're winning or in power and simply don't get it.
People believe if you're in a position of power, then the assumption is you do a good job. I have numerous intelligent friends who think that way about Labor in Australia. Push them on the specifics and they never have an answer. All of it is wide scaled assumptions by the general masses based on the failings of poorly constructed education systems. I don't think these things are a coincidence. I think it's deliberate. Dumb the people down so that they don't know you're a crooked rotten pig and you can hoodwink them. Cycling is the perfect foil and example of this. It's all about SPIN and PR. Perception over reality.
I know this is more parables than facts, but like I said it would take me a LONGER time to explain all the key economic aspects to fully cover the bad traits and patterns evident by Brown's tenure as treasurer. Even then, there is no guarantee you'd believe it. Heck, some of my own intelligent friends don't. Why? Like I said, they've been conditioned their entire lives to think the other way. Sure they're bright, but they're displaying classical cognitive dissonance. Ain't gonna break em...that is up to them to do. Not me. BTW sorry if this is ranting. Last post I am gonna do here because it is off topic.
So he did nothing outside the norm of anything done by any OECD government, from either side of politics?
Interesting you talk about the dangers of a high cost of borrowing given that the low cost of private sector borrowing for a decade is one reason for being where we are right now.
Interesting you talk about the dangers of a high cost of borrowing given that the low cost of private sector borrowing for a decade is one reason for being where we are right now.
Oh UK Debt % relatively unchanged under Brown... I wonder if he tried to buy elections with tax cuts like everyone else during that period?
Galic Ho said:
This is basically correct as it applies to business. However, many things you have written above do not apply to a country that can print its own currency with certain caveats. One simply cannot compare the budget of a country to that of a household or a company. They work very differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard
Another women priminister, I wonder what she thinks of Maggie. I didn't know this just read her Wiki - she came from Barry in South Wales, that's hilarious boyo. I don't know anyone in Wales who talks ln a monosyllabic manner as if before emigrating had a micro chip implanted in their brain.
Another women priminister, I wonder what she thinks of Maggie. I didn't know this just read her Wiki - she came from Barry in South Wales, that's hilarious boyo. I don't know anyone in Wales who talks ln a monosyllabic manner as if before emigrating had a micro chip implanted in their brain.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Tour of the Alps 2024 (April 15 - 19)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 364
-
-
Volta Ciclista a Catalunya 2024 (March 18-24)- Started by Devil's Elbow
- Replies: 2K
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 217
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram