Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Thatcher has dementia

13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Well, if Labour at the time were too awful to vote for, then she can't have been that despised at the time. The only reason Tony Blair kept on winning was because of his politics and not his personality.
    Well not everyone in the country were poor, miners or single mothers. In any case the damage from her core beliefs and polices weren't felt immediately. Indeed, they only became apparent in her last years and we're still feeling them now.

    Back in the 80s it might have been fashionable or even acceptable to embrace greed and refuse to help the poor and needy- luckily today even most Tories realise what nauseating abomination that school of thought really was.

    Perhaps I ought to run the quote through Google Translator for you so that you can get a Spanish translation (what a laugh that will be, eh? :p ). The quote clearly states the objective of her argument : "People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation". Its a sentiment that I can agree with. There is nothing in there about wanting to 'fuck' anyone over. I think you choose to read it that way because you WANT to read it that way.
    What else there is to read about it? It is not a question of 'entitlement'. It's a question of being human beings having even a trace of humanity and decency in them being prepared to help those who need help without questioning whether they're 'worthy' to receive it.

    She had a black heart and was a truly unpleasant person.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin, you make out that all benefits to the needy and vulnerable were suddenly stopped. They weren't.

    "It's a question of being human beings having even a trace of humanity and decency in them being prepared to help those who need help without questioning whether they're 'worthy' to receive it."

    Noone and no country can afford to hand out money without question. That is such a naive stance to take.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Aladdin, you make out that all benefits to the needy and vulnerable were suddenly stopped. They weren't.

    From what I understand of the process now and then, it was easier to sit on benefit and do nothing then.

    But that really isnt the point, Aladdin is going slightly over the top, but the tone of the Tories at that period was most definitely about greed and personal gain being valued above the common good. Having said that social mobility was better under her than it has become under Blair.
  • SkiveSkive Posts: 15,283 Skive's The Limit
    Causing suffering to people is pretty bad, but feeling a twinge of satisfaction when you see karma in action - i dont think thats particularly bad.

    But being disapointed that it's not 'something more terminal' is particularly bad in my mind.
    I can completely understand not caring, but hoping or taking even the slightest satisfaction in something as awful as dementia shows you do care - in an unpleasant way.

    I dunno if you were being completely serious, I just feel very uncomfortable when I see stuff like that especailly when it comes from somebody I regard as pretty sound and nice.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Aladdin, you make out that all benefits to the needy and vulnerable were suddenly stopped. They weren't.

    "It's a question of being human beings having even a trace of humanity and decency in them being prepared to help those who need help without questioning whether they're 'worthy' to receive it."

    Noone and no country can afford to hand out money without question. That is such a naive stance to take.
    Sure. That wasn't the case in Britain though. Thatcher tried to dismantle, or at the very least severely restrict a perfectly fair and functioning welfare system that should be the pride of Britain.

    Her persecution of single mothers alone would merit her being remembered in infamy.

    And we haven't even started to discuss foreign affairs, with her vomit-inducing love affair for raping and murdering fascist butchers, and her husband's rather disturbing affinity for the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

    She was a truly unpleasant and overall damaging PM to this country. As I said, not deserving of dementia, but certainly not deserving of overall positive reviews of her premiership, let alone State Funerals and admiration.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Sure, but that doesn't mean she was doing a good job at all- let alone that she should be revered as one of the best PMs we've had, when in fact she's been arguably the worst and most destructive.

    Arguably she is one of the best, certainly in 1990 the UK was in a much better place than in 1979.

    I'm kinda suprised in some ways that she's not more revered by the left, after all she was instrumental in overthrowing one of the nastier right wing regimes (Argentina), was the first major Western leader to make a speech on the importance of climate change (and by her actions had moved the UK much closer to less carbon emmissions - both by reducing coal and by setting up the Energy Efficiency Best practice Programme) and was the first female Western Head of Government. Before she was in Government she was one of the sponsors for the legislation which made homosexuality legal and she voted for Steel's legislation on abortion.

    Still, she didn't kowtow to unelected union leaders and felt that democratic politicians should run the country - so I can see why certain people hate her.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Regardless of what influence the Falklands War might have had in the fall of the Argentinean regime, I fail to see how anyone with even a passing interest in human rights and opposition to fascist dictatorships could possibly admire Thatcher.

    Seeing as she was an ardent supporter of one of the most brutal fascist monsters to disgrace the Earth, that is.

    As for the rest, I doubt anyone of a left, centre or moderate right persuasion could see her actions as efforts to further gay rights or combat climate change (as if she is likely to believe in man-made climate change anyway...), seeing as her government introduced the disgraceful Clause 28, and that the coal mines were not shut for environmental reasons at all.

    And there is aforementioned promotion of individual greed in detriment of the disadvantaged, her revolting crusade against single mothers, her dislike and repeated attacks on the welfare state or the selling off of council housing, all of which should repulse not only 'lefties' but centrists, moderate right wingers and most apolitical people with an ounce of fairness, justice and compassion in them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    I dunno if you were being completely serious, I just feel very uncomfortable when I see stuff like that especailly when it comes from somebody I regard as pretty sound and nice.

    aw thankyou. Im flattered. I will almost certainly raise a glass when the old cow kicks the bucket though. Sorry to disappoint. Im not sitting there in glee because shes ill but i dont feel sorry for her in the slightest. I think shes an evil old witch
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Regardless of what influence the Falklands War might have had in the fall of the Argentinean regime, I fail to see how anyone with even a passing interest in human rights and opposition to fascist dictatorships could possibly admire Thatcher.

    Seeing as she was an ardent supporter of one of the most brutal fascist monsters to disgrace the Earth, that is.

    As for the rest, I doubt anyone of a left, centre or moderate right persuasion could see her actions as efforts to further gay rights or combat climate change (as if she is likely to believe in man-made climate change anyway...), seeing as her government introduced the disgraceful Clause 28, and that the coal mines were not shut for environmental reasons at all.

    And there is aforementioned promotion of individual greed in detriment of the disadvantaged, her revolting crusade against single mothers, her dislike and repeated attacks on the welfare state or the selling off of council housing, all of which should repulse not only 'lefties' but centrists, moderate right wingers and most apolitical people with an ounce of fairness, justice and compassion in them.

    How do you know what she believes on climate change? her actions certainly seem to suggest she did believe in it.

    The coal mines were shut because they weren't economical to run. Of course it was made worse by the fact that Scargill then stopped maintenance staff going in, so a number of perfectly economical pits became unsafe and were closed. However the by-product of that is a cut in carbon emissions. Of course their is an alternative - we keep the pits open and produce loads of coal which we don't actually use, I'm not convinced that's very sensible.

    She sold off council housing to people who lived in it - giving millions of people the chance to buy their own homes, a massively popular policy with people on lower incomes (and whilst money wasn't put into council housing; it was put into housing associations instead - it being decided that they were a more effective provider of social housing).

    the end product - despite the screams of some - is that after eighteen years of scaremongering about NHS privatisation and the end of the Welfare State neither of these things happened under either Thatcher or Major.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Only because that would be the most unpopular thing the Tories could have possibly done.

    As I said before the closing of the mines is not the worst or only thing she did- though I concede that it's what gets quoted the most. To me the general culture of greed, the widening gap between rich and poor (child poverty doubled under her), the contempt for the disadvantaged, the persecution of certain groups or her highly unpleasant foreign allies are far more significant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Only because that would be the most unpopular thing the Tories could have possibly done.

    As I said before the closing of the mines is not the worst or only thing she did- though I concede that it's what gets quoted the most. To me the general culture of greed, the widening gap between rich and poor (child poverty doubled under her), the contempt for the disadvantaged, the persecution of certain groups or her highly unpleasant foreign allies are far more significant.

    That's like saying Labour would have nationalised all industry except it would have been the most unpopular thing they've ever done.

    Fact - the Tories didn't close down the NHS or abolish the Welfare State. They didn't even attempt to - so whinging about how they would of if they could of seems to be taking counter-factual history to a new high.

    As for her unpleasant foreign allies - she never even met Pinochet before they'd both left power, nor were we ever allied with South Africa (she opposed sanctions on South AFrica, as she did with Iran and Cuba as a) she felt you have more influence by trading with countries and b) sanctions hurt the poorest. You may disagree, but it seems a legitimate view to hold). In fact her main allies were the democratic states of the US and Europe - and remember at the time we had probably two of the three most unpleasent regimes in history opposed to us, together with their allies.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    ...the widening gap between rich and poor (child poverty doubled under her)...
    Explain then why that, under a Labour government, the gap between rich and poor is still getting wider? No political party gives a crap about the poorest in society - that's the depressing truth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Explain then why that, under a Labour government, the gap between rich and poor is still getting wider? No political party gives a crap about the poorest in society - that's the depressing truth.

    Because Blair is a classic Thatcherite. Labour sold out in 1994, there's no difference between the economy policies of New Labour and the neo-liberal 'revolution' Thatcher introduced in the 80's.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Because Blair is a classic Thatcherite. Labour sold out in 1994, there's no difference between the economy policies of New Labour and the neo-liberal 'revolution' Thatcher introduced in the 80's.
    But if these economic policies are so bad, why is no political party ready to disown them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's like saying Labour would have nationalised all industry except it would have been the most unpopular thing they've ever done.

    Fact - the Tories didn't close down the NHS or abolish the Welfare State. They didn't even attempt to - so whinging about how they would of if they could of seems to be taking counter-factual history to a new high.
    Fact- Thatcher cut funding and introduced restrictions in countless areas across the welfare and healthcare systems.

    That's all we need to know when it comes to judging her record, really.
    As for her unpleasant foreign allies - she never even met Pinochet before they'd both left power, nor were we ever allied with South Africa (she opposed sanctions on South AFrica, as she did with Iran and Cuba as a) she felt you have more influence by trading with countries and b) sanctions hurt the poorest. You may disagree, but it seems a legitimate view to hold). In fact her main allies were the democratic states of the US and Europe - and remember at the time we had probably two of the three most unpleasent regimes in history opposed to us, together with their allies.
    That she did not meet Pinochet until she left office is irrelevant. You do not need to meet someone in person to support them. That Thatcher was wholy supportive of Pinochet is a fact.

    As for South Africa, a fancy story about caring for the poorest in South Africa! Given that she didn't give much of a toss about the poorest at home, I somehow find it hard to believe that was the motivation for her endless campaigning against sanctions. I don't think she's a white supremacist or that she approved of such regimes on principle, but the lucrative business deals Britain had with S. Africa must be chief suspect for her stomach-turning support for the regime- which even prompted her to invite Botha to No. 10.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    ... which even prompted her to invite Botha to No. 10.

    She used the opportunity to urge President Botha to end apartheid; to release Nelson Mandela; to halt the harassment of black dissidents; to stop the bombing of African National Congress (ANC) bases in front-line states; and to comply with UN Security Council resolutions and withdraw from Namibia. It was hardly a love-in. The USA has so many problems with Iran, for example, because they refuse to meet the 'enemy'. Meeting the 'enemy' is hardly complicitory.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really? Others believe the invitation was just a cynical attempt to sabotage international efforts to impose economic sanctions to South Africa. In any case, when Botha ignored every single one of those requests, she happily continued to oppose sanctions.

    When even the current Tory leader has apologised for Thatcher's stance on the Apartheid, you know how twisted and perverted it was.

    Do you really think her opposition to sanctions was prompted by her concern about the poor in South Africa? Really?

    I find that an extremely naive belief myself...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Do you really think her opposition to sanctions was prompted by her concern about the poor in South Africa? Really?

    I find that an extremely naive belief myself...

    Every country leader has it's country's own interest at heart. Take Saudia Arabia and the present UK government, for instance. At least in apartheid SA, Black's could still drive. Since the fall of the apartheid government, people are far worse off there then ever before. The apartheid government hugely subsidised bread, corn and other staples, so hunger (and thus crime) was not nearly widespread as it is now.

    My point is that while Thatcher was far from perfect and made some dubious decisions, you throw the baby out with the bath water just because you hate her so much. Evil? A black soul? Like Franco, Saddam or Mugabe were/is evil and have black souls? The comparison just makes your vitriol plain silly. The fact that Gordon Brown was able to have so many years of 'feast' was because her policies did, in fact, lay the ground work for future prosperity.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a huge fan of the woman myself BUT I do try and hold a balanced viewpoint and I am a realist (take your idea a few months ago that all governments should disband their armies so the whole world will live in peace? Yeah, right). The world is not just 'black and white' and every country (look at Russia and Georgia now) will always put their countries interests first.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    At least in apartheid SA, Black's could still drive. Since the fall of the apartheid government, people are far worse off there then ever before. The apartheid government hugely subsidised bread, corn and other staples, so hunger (and thus crime) was not nearly widespread as it is now.

    :eek: are you for real?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :eek: are you for real?

    I am, and so are the news and statistics that come out of South Africa. Read them for yourself.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    are you thinking that apartheid was actually quite a positive regime or something?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    Every country leader has it's country's own interest at heart. Take Saudia Arabia and the present UK government, for instance. At least in apartheid SA, Black's could still drive. Since the fall of the apartheid government, people are far worse off there then ever before. The apartheid government hugely subsidised bread, corn and other staples, so hunger (and thus crime) was not nearly widespread as it is now.

    My point is that while Thatcher was far from perfect and made some dubious decisions, you throw the baby out with the bath water just because you hate her so much. Evil? A black soul? Like Franco, Saddam or Mugabe were/is evil and have black souls? The comparison just makes your vitriol plain silly. The fact that Gordon Brown was able to have so many years of 'feast' was because her policies did, in fact, lay the ground work for future prosperity.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a huge fan of the woman myself BUT I do try and hold a balanced viewpoint and I am a realist (take your idea a few months ago that all governments should disband their armies so the whole world will live in peace? Yeah, right). The world is not just 'black and white' and every country (look at Russia and Georgia now) will always put their countries interests first.

    However most governments do manage or at least try to balance out national interests with doing what's believed to be right. Lines should be drawn somewhere, and it disturbs me greatly that some rulers don't draw them at all, or draw them far too far away in the name of national interest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :eek: are you for real?

    Its an uncomfortable truth, but in some ways blacks were actually better off. It all boils down to what price you put on freedom really, the poverty levels currently suffered by some blacks in South Africa wasnt seen under the previous government.

    Now they have the vote (not that democracy really works there given they only have one party) and they have freedom, but the economic situation for many is dire, the police force is still very much geared to protecting the white middle class and the crime rate is extreme.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    are you thinking that apartheid was actually quite a positive regime or something?

    No, of course not. Sorry if that was how it seemed. :)

    I shall rephrase for clarity.

    SA used to discriminate on colour, as we know, while Saudi Arabia discriminates on sex. Being Black in SA deprived you of the vote but being female deprives you of the vote In Saudi - and even sillier laws that stop women driving, for instance.

    To me, support of the Saudi's is just as abhorrent as any support for apartheid SA.

    But governments do it for whatever national interest they perceive their interests to be.

    An important reason why western governments, including Thatcher, continued their support of SA was because it was a bastion of anti-communism (it's neighbours were falling to communism left, right and centre during what essentially was the Cold War era) and the country is hugely strategic as far as geographical location and natural resources are concerned. SA was more of an issue for western governments than just slapping it on the wrist for its political setup.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    the police force is still very much geared to protecting the white middle class

    No, that's not quite true. The White middle class have mostly left the country. It's mainly the rich and impoverished Whites that remain. These Whites are not protected at all, which is why there is such a growth in 'armed response' security companies over there who have filled the gap that the police have left. I was over there in January and it was very obvious to see. Almost every property has boards on their walls/gates etc advertising their 'armed response' protection.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    No, that's not quite true. The White middle class have mostly left the country. It's mainly the rich and impoverished Whites that remain. These Whites are not protected at all, which is why there is such a growth in 'armed response' security companies over there who have filled the gap that the police have left. I was over there in January and it was very obvious to see. Almost every property has boards on their walls/gates etc advertising their 'armed response' protection.

    That's fair enough, certainly in the cities this is true, round the Garden Route it is different.

    I was thinking on a more broad scale, for example the Police almost completely abandoning the Cape Flats to concentrate on the white centre of Cape Town.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    However most governments do manage or at least try to balance out national interests with doing what's believed to be right. Lines should be drawn somewhere, and it disturbs me greatly that some rulers don't draw them at all, or draw them far too far away in the name of national interest.

    You're an idealist and probably a bit of a romantic at heart (damn you Latin types!). :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    who isnt an idealist? Treating people equally is not some unrealistic expectation. I thought that was a bit patronising :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    who isnt an idealist? Treating people equally is not some unrealistic expectation. I thought that was a bit patronising :)

    It was tongue in cheek. :)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Fact- Thatcher cut funding and introduced restrictions in countless areas across the welfare and healthcare systems.

    That\'s all we need to know when it comes to judging her record, really.

    I would not say that is all.

    One of the first things her administration did was the repeal of the Exchange Control Order. Opportunity was knocking at the door with that. I doubt if most heard it.

    While she was still in power, the Government introduced new denominations of currency that enhanced that initial opportunity.
Sign In or Register to comment.