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.
Options

Blair 'planning State Funeral' for Thatcher

13

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    hello? Stoke calling... plenty of empty council houses here. They're are 3 in my street, mind you they do have broken windows.

    If don't don't fancy buying a council house, look into the private sector.
    :rolleyes: Lukesh, you dont get it do you? Council housing is supposed to be AFFORDABLE housing for people. People buying their council houses has been great for the few that could do it, and an absolute disaster for anyone afterwards who still needed local authority housing. With generally a 3 year waiting list in my area for council houses, and more and more ridiculously priced private houses being built all the time, its a disaster unless youre already pretty well off. . It helped a tiny minority get their own home, which understandably is fabulous for them, but its at the expense of the majority which is a damn shame - the essence of capitalism.

    The private sector is considerably more expensive - out of the reach of many.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's ironic that the leader of the 'centre-left' party supports the most right wing leader the 'centre-right' party has had for a long time.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    sophia wrote:
    What does that matter though? Just because people are too young to remember what life was like under Thatcher, does that mean they can't be critical of her? I'm too young to remember Hitler or Stalin, does that mean I can't criticise them? Just because I was a child when Thatcher was PM, doesn't stop my opinion from being valid - I'm capable of talking to people who do remember, capable of reading.

    I'm too young to remember Thatcher too, I was just commenting that many of her critics weren't even really around at the time.
    sophia wrote:
    Why would anyone believe that the Sun reflects mass opinion? It reflects the opinion of its owners, currently Rupert Murdoch, and tries to dictate public opinion according to its own agenda.

    The Sun reflects the views of its readers. It changes and adapts to the feelings of its readers, hence it went from being staunchly in favour of the Conservatives to cheerleaders of New Labour by 1997. The Sun has stayed relevant to its readers through generally quite successfully gauging their views and taking a similar line.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm too young to remember Thatcher too, I was just commenting that many of her critics weren't even really around at the time.

    Given the aging nature of Europe (including the UK of course), Id say that was a mistaken notion. Most of her critics will in fact be of my age group or older and more than sufficiently cognisant of the impact of her wayward policies and will to power.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    She deserves this. Thank you Blair.


    Thatcher has made us the 4th richest nation in the world, we are no longer the sick amn in Europe. She understood how the world would shape up and she created an economy which is fit for purpose.
    I think she is one if not the best prime minister we have ever had.

    Bless you lady Thatcher.
    For someone who is gay your choice of people you support or admire is certainly fucking bizarre.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Her premiership was one that helped to shpae this country so that all members of society could progress, not just the upper class elite.
    Do you know what you're saying?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He doesn't have a clue Al, isn't that painfully obviously?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    For someone who is gay your choice of people you support or admire is certainly fucking bizarre.
    I agree with her entirely and yes I remember the legislation which she voted infavour which legalissed homosexuality. :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Tbh some of Thatcher's biggest critics seem to be people who were very young while she was PM/people who can't remember it.
    Same could be said of those who claim she was a good PM.

    I don't think that matters to be honest, so long as the person has a basic knowledge of how things were and looks up stuff to cross check. Otherwise we would have no right commenting on the rights and wrongs of any historical figure.
    Among the skilled working class esp I don't think she's as hated as people like to make out. I know both of my grandfathers were strong union people all their lives but supported Thatcher. And if you believe the Sun reflects (rather than dictates) mass opinion it was very firmly behind Thatcher...(The Sun as in 1992 claims it determined the election outcome but it seems rather as noted by its support of Labour from 1997 it more just reflects public opinion). The Sun I believe since the 80s as had the most C1/ C2/D readers.
    The S*n is simply a mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch, and before him for whichever right wing owners it had.

    The Scum is just about as representative of the working classes as Royal Ascot.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Do you know what you're saying?
    Yes stop insulting me. Of course I know what I'm saying or else I wouldn't of said it in the first place!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How is that an insult? :confused::confused:

    I am asking if you do know what you are saying, because you are claiming things that are opposite to the truth and actual events.

    Thatcher damaged the working classes to greater extent than any other Prime Minister in history. From persecuting single mothers and the unemployed (most of which, contrary to right wing and tabloid newspaper bullshit, are not 'scroungers') to destroying entire industries, overseeing the selling of council homes that has resulted in an appalling shortage of affordable housing for the poor, removing free milk from schools, demonising society...

    You must be having a laugh.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    How is that an insult? :confused::confused:

    I am asking if you do know what you are saying, because you are claiming things that are opposite to the truth and actual events.

    Thatcher damaged the working classes to greater extent than any other Prime Minister in history. From persecuting single mothers and the unemployed (most of which, contrary to right wing and tabloid newspaper bullshit, are not 'scroungers') to destroying entire industries, overseeing the selling of council homes that has resulted in an appalling shortage of affordable housing for the poor, removing free milk from schools, demonising society...

    You must be having a laugh.
    No I'm not.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I agree with her entirely and yes I remember the legislation which she voted infavour which legalissed homosexuality. :)
    Oh dear dear dear...

    Luke, Margaret Thatcher didn't legalise homosexuality. :rolleyes: It was done well before she got into power.

    She was a bigoted homophobe who presided over the creation of Section 28 for fuck's sake. You should know more about issues that are an important part of your life.

    Christ...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The S*n is simply a mouthpiece for Rupert Murdoch, and before him for whichever right wing owners it had.

    Newspaper owners naturally have some influence on their publications. The Sun however would not be the enormously popular publication it is if it didn't to some extent represent the views of its readers. (And those readers are mainly C1/C2/D)
    Aladdin wrote:
    The Scum is just about as representative of the working classes as Royal Ascot.

    And I suppose the Guardian is representative of the working class? I'm not a fan of The Sun but it's a misunderstanding to believe the paper dictates to its readers what to think (that's also incredibly patronising). The Sun, skilfully and better than other tabloids tailors its message to the changing views of its readers - who mostly fall into C1/C2/D categories - indeed, as is well known The Sun has a significant lead over its competitors among these groups. It wasn't the Sun wot won it in 1992, nor was it The Sun throwing its support behind Blair that led to Labour winning in 1997 - to a large extent politically The Sun reflects the views of the masses.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Oh dear dear dear...

    Luke, Margaret Thatcher didn't legalise homosexuality. :rolleyes: It was done well before she got into power.

    She was a bigoted homophobe who presided over the creation of Section 28 for fuck's sake. You should know more about issues that are an important part of your life.

    Christ...
    get you're facts right, she was an MP nin the 60's and she voted INFAVOUR of homosexuality.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Newspaper owners naturally have some influence on their publications. The Sun however would not be the enormously popular publication it is if it didn't to some extent represent the views of its readers. (And those readers are mainly C1/C2/D)
    Yeah well 56 million people do not read it.


    And I suppose the Guardian is representative of the working class? I'm not a fan of The Sun but it's a misunderstanding to believe the paper dictates to its readers what to think (that's also incredibly patronising). The Sun, skilfully and better than other tabloids tailors its message to the changing views of its readers - who mostly fall into C1/C2/D categories - indeed, as is well known The Sun has a significant lead over its competitors among these groups. It wasn't the Sun wot won it in 1992, nor was it The Sun throwing its support behind Blair that led to Labour winning in 1997 - to a large extent politically The Sun reflects the views of the masses.
    No it doesn't. I know a number of present and former readers and the immense majority of them got it because of the sport, tits and gossip- a light read for your tea break.

    I have in fact never come across anyone who agrees with the ultra right wing, ultra neo-con, homophobic, disgusting editorial line of the Scum. Though such people certainly exist, they represent but a small minority of the total readership of that depicable piece of shit of a publication.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You have alot to learn about manufactured consent, dis. Minority-corporate interest-controlled media has a long history of public perception manipulation in line with the prevailing ethos of the day. This fact is well known and well used by our western governments and you'd do your claim to academic curiosity a world of credit to inform yourself properly.

    Its no small indicator of the tone of discourse that much of US media and press is controlled by two of the US's major defence contractors (GE and Westinghouse) with the remainder controlled by a handful of other corporations ideologically in sync with their interests.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    get you're facts right, she was an MP nin the 60's and she voted INFAVOUR of homosexuality.
    As probably did hundreds of other MPs, many of whom you no doubt hate.

    The difference is of course that once she got into power she presided over Section 28 and she was an unashamed prejudiced homophobic bigot.

    Do a bit of research for fuck's sake. Next you'll claim Adolph Hitler was a friend of the Jews.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wikipedia is has a great article on it Section 28 no mention of the baroness though.

    ETA: Do you mean by presided that it existed during her government? Because it wasn't repealed until 2000, so it's hardly ringing evidence is it...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is very clearly a reference to the reintroduced bill being defended by then Minister for Local Government, Michael Howard. It is no great stretch to understand that a Government Minister would not actively advocate in favour of a bill unless it was government policy, and in the Thatcher regime, it was patently clear that policy was a top down matter.

    Safe to say she was very much an ardent supporter of the measures.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    possibly.

    Having read the article I feel like it's understandable why it went through. especially after what the gay liberation front said
    'We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family'."
    with AIDs emerging as well, you can see how the general public must have found the adjustment hard, it was transistional legislation
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Barring local authorities from 'promoting homosexuality' in itself is pretty vague, there were never any successful prosecutions and I've no idea what can be defined as 'promotion.' I doubt a court would have ever upheld a prosecution under the act for say, a teacher covering sex education and explaining safe sex in a heterosexual and homosexual context. Of course somebody encouraging children to adopt a similar line to the 'gay liberation front' probably would have fallen foul of the act. And I don't really see anything wrong with that. I can’t say I really see the massive fuss over Section 28. It doesn’t compare to other stuff in some countries, in California for instance there was an initiative to bar gays from holding teaching positions - the Briggs Initiative and it would have almost certainly succeeded had Reagan not become one of the most vocal opponents of it.

    Section 28 was a mistake and things have moved on since then but I think the gay rights lobby itself deserves part of the blame for fuelling the context that Section 28 was formed in. With well known gay rights leaders campaigning for the abolition of the age of consent, some even having close links with the paedophilic NAMBLA and others demanding the destruction of the family it's unsurprising that some people misguidedly panicked.

    Anyway talking of the Conservative party as some bastion of homophobia is pretty selective, of the days we were talking of it was more society as a whole. Within the Labour party, especially up north I'm sure local labour clubs, unions, etc not so long ago were pretty hostile to gays. (Many still are I imagine). And the liberals, well Simon Hughes got into Parliament thanks to a homophobic smear campaign against one of his opponents.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Oh dear dear dear...

    Luke, Margaret Thatcher didn't legalise homosexuality. :rolleyes: It was done well before she got into power.

    She was a bigoted homophobe who presided over the creation of Section 28 for fuck's sake. You should know more about issues that are an important part of your life.

    Christ...

    I think Luke is quiet clear in what he saying. He is not saying Thatcher legalised homosexuality. He is saying that she voted for it. Which she did...
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    As probably did hundreds of other MPs, many of whom you no doubt hate.

    The difference is of course that once she got into power she presided over Section 28 and she was an unashamed prejudiced homophobic bigot.

    Do a bit of research for fuck's sake. Next you'll claim Adolph Hitler was a friend of the Jews.
    She is obviously not homophobic as she voted infavour to legalise gay sex.

    Section 28 is homophobic but there were no cases put forward because of the legislation, it wasn't effective at all.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    r mining town. Overall amongst the working class I think it's pretty mixed though. Tbh some of Thatcher's biggest critics seem to be people who were very young while she was PM/people who can't remember it.

    PMSL! :D I bet you can't even see the irony here can you?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    hello? Stoke calling... plenty of empty council houses here. They're are 3 in my street, mind you they do have broken windows.

    How do you know they're council houses?
    luke88 wrote:
    If don't don't fancy buying a council house, look into the private sector.

    That's an odd non-sequitur. :confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm too young to remember Thatcher too, I was just commenting that many of her critics weren't even really around at the time.

    Well quite. Doesn't stop you praising her up though does it? Even though you're too young to remember. Hypocrite.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I agree with her entirely and yes I remember the legislation which she voted infavour which legalissed homosexuality. :)

    What are you on about?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Newspaper owners naturally have some influence on their publications. The Sun however would not be the enormously popular publication it is if it didn't to some extent represent the views of its readers. (And those readers are mainly C1/C2/D)



    And I suppose the Guardian is representative of the working class? I'm not a fan of The Sun but it's a misunderstanding to believe the paper dictates to its readers what to think (that's also incredibly patronising). The Sun, skilfully and better than other tabloids tailors its message to the changing views of its readers - who mostly fall into C1/C2/D categories - indeed, as is well known The Sun has a significant lead over its competitors among these groups. It wasn't the Sun wot won it in 1992, nor was it The Sun throwing its support behind Blair that led to Labour winning in 1997 - to a large extent politically The Sun reflects the views of the masses.


    Hang on - when did you become the voice of the working classes? What the fuck do you know? Fucking parrot.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    How do you know they're council houses?



    That's an odd non-sequitur. :confused:
    They ARE council houses.
Sign In or Register to comment.