Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
..."T-shirts celebrating the eventual death of Margaret Thatcher - on sale at the TUC conference" made me laugh.
She's not dead yet so let's just think about the fact that one day she will definitely be dead.
**Lady Thatcher is unpopular with many trade unionists, who blame her for the "erosion" of workers' rights during the 1980s and the decline of industries including mining and heavy manufacturing.
**Lady Thatcher's supporters argue that she revitalised the economy and improved the UK's standing in the world by bringing in free market reforms and reducing the influence of powerful trade unions.**
"It shows an ugly side to the hard left who cannot move on from their utter defeat at the hands of this remarkable, but now frail, lady".
Oh yeah, it's got nothing to do with her fucking our country in the arse does it?
like abandonment of sober secured lending.
I would have thought she would have been more and more reviled now people can see her legacy unfold.
(ditto trains and housing)
I' dislike er as much as the next person, but that tshirt seems needlessly vulgar.
she wasnt just a monster, she was unashamed about it and rude to people and dismissive of values or attributes that other humans have.
She denigrated many human virtues saying they were worthless, thus opening up the field to a free for all.
She insulted some humans relationships, and said that community was worthless, that people should be selfish self supporting.
She supported that someone could make a buck by whatever means (as long as it was something that her ilk could do.
Thus selling electric shock batons and other torture equipment to non democratic countries is OK. (Mr Jonathon Aitkin)
Selling weapons to dodgey countries that are not officially condoned (mark thatcher is present to represent that there are no problems as far as the pm is concerned)
making a huge profit at others expense - fine sod them they should have been entrepreneurs themselves......like this tshirt selling guy.
you don't do them?
But perhaps pushing folk out of mining and manufacturing jobs and into more tertiary sector forms of work was a necessary thing to keep Britons in the lifestyles they seemed to expect, and I suspect she takes a lot of undeserved blame simply because she's a woman, when she had to make some (perhaps necessary) tough decisions.
understanding the times.
Britain back then was as full of people 'expecting to be kept in their lifestyle' to the degree it is now (and what I presume you are imagining)
What typified thatcher was that she sold deregulation and shake ups with the expectation and promises that everyone could have MORE, much much MORE if they were prepared to jump on her ship.
The word lifestyle did not exist then.
Lifestyle programs and aspirations came along after she free'ed up the credit markets to the irresponsibility that we are now suffering for, this was fuelled by the superheated housing booms made possible by a few sky high wages for a class that didnt previously have them, and the abandonment of mortgage limitations.
Undeserved blame....because she was a woman :D
'more tertiary sector' by this do you mean businesses that are totally unecessary and unsustainable were it not for the creation of the illusion of 'credit consumerism'? made possible by thatcherism?
So basically what you are saying is that thatcher pushed people out of more necessary and needed jobs into more frivalous 'circus jobs' to keep giving britains the 'circuses' that will keep them sedated into voting for you again? whilst letting the means of britain being self sufficient degrade even further?
Well done. Wasn't the move away from primary and secondary industries to 'circus' ones, as you put it, because the UK didn't have a viable future in things like producing raw materials and manufacturing? We're a small island, unable to compete with the economies of scale in countries like the US and China since the empire receded, and British-made products don't carry the weight they used to. Selling pots of jam to Belgium won't get us through a modern recession.
As for her taking the fall because she's a woman, well, think about it. I'm sure a lot of people in her own party had similar thoughts. The first female PM and incidentally the most hated. The times she was in power in called for hard decisions and successive governments carried them out without massively different agendas (e.g. John Major, who did quite well in the PM poll on these boards recently). Why aspire to be PM, girls? We don't want another Thatcher. The buck for the way the world is today doesn't stop with her. It stops with the international financial powers who apparently answer to no-one, ordinary people (including me) who borrowed money they couldn't pay back, and ultimately human greed, but you wouldn't know that from the way she's so evidently reviled.
I think many politicians are devious cads but I don't think the average man on the street can really understand the magnitude of the decisions they sometimes have to make.
because for me this is an irelevance. Maybe that is an issue for others (and you?)
For me it is a sideshow that is sad, that one of the most awful leaders happens to be a woman, that a woman can be just as shit a leader as some men can, so as a sideshow that was an awful shame, because it woyuld have convinced some mach0o trade unionists that their misogynist views were right.
BUT this has nothing to do with my arguments against her and that Is why I laughed at that point, it may hae been A seperate issue.
BUT being a woman existing in a male dominated world, in no way excuses her anti humanism (unless you are of the view that she was moulded into the opposite of what people normally attribute to the female - motherly caring - so that she cut off any of her soft emotions so that she could 'make it in a mans world'
None of my objections to her, are based on her being a woman, If anything, i originally had hoped she might have been better, I hated men in power (I had no dad) and always had problems with men in authority.
Back then it was never envisaged that mainland china would change to replace all that it has now.
Back then most Plastic goods might have come from china, but that was from the other china 'Taiwan' so I dont think that you understand the times. Also 'the US'? The UK would easily have been able to compete with the US.
I think that you misunderstand the meaning of economies of scale.
It is not to do with the size of the country.
The biggest threat to the UK was that some goods could in theory be manufactured in other countries where the wage requirements were a lot lot less (the US does not fall into this catagory)
At the time only the west and japan were able to make cars that would sell worldwide.
The Uks engineering base/abilities was still able to compete at the highest level.
Over the coming years this was degraded to the point where only arms was in a really healthy state.
Britain led the world in many renewable energy technologies, especially wave. Britain might necessarily have been loosing out in ship building and losing those jobs, BUT missed opportunities to take advantage of the shipbuilding skill.
the UK abandoned all its skilled workforce and stuck them on the dole.
the uk abandoned its ability to create the goods that it did need for its own manufacture
(for instance (anecdotally) the uk lost its copper rolling mills, thus when french lorrymen blocked the channel ports a company i worked for was screwed, because it manufactured bespoke electrical distribution for factories. (a lot of copper cannot be kept in stock like reserves - it costs a lot)
This might seem not significant, yet it is, for the following sort of reason
after WWII, it was acknowledged by some in manufacturing, that it should be essential that the UK should have the means to MAKE anything that it might need. Therefore a conglomeration company was created - IMI (a sister of ICI)
IMI was Imperial metal industries) a collection of different manufacturing sites under one umbrella, between us (sorry them, i used to work for them at the HQ) IMI possessed ALL the (non ferrous) metal working skills, therefore if you needed something, anything, IMI could make it/supply it. some was mass produced and what whatsnt mass produced could always be made bespoke, by some more specialised engineering branch.....ok british companies might have been able to go elsewhere for some things that were not mass produced by imi, but the fact remains that imi could still make anything, and the point of the more bespoke engineering was that it was used for bespoke rarer/newer/experimental stuff
Thus i got signed photos of record breakers like virgin atlantic challenger and Thrust, because a lot od the stuff in these was made by imi companies.
So the UK could make ANYTHING (or try to) and would not pass on costs that were excessive of operational costs to other IMI companies. the original idea was to provide security of continuity for the country, despite what might happen in the world.
What was so dismaying about thatcherism is that it seemed very very 'anti foreigner' and purported to be really really nationalistic.
But then proceeded to sell off things that were ESSENTIAL to the uks future........even out domestic supply systems were sold off to 'foreigners'
The most bizarre examples would occur
1) Thatcher hated local/municiple government in this country
2) her regime touted 'put britain first' (fuck the foreigner) to the UK
3) The UK people previously owned the means of supply of their own water.
4) Thatcherism sold off the supply of water....to the extent that the infrastructure (that my/your ancestors paid to be built) was now owned by people like - LYONS MUNICIPLE COUNCIL
anyway.......the UK still has loads of CLEAN coal.
after they closed down the mines ...
port facilities to import cheap DIRTY coal from places where condemned mining practices were carried out were ready to kick into action.
Mr William Waldegrave actually made a nice wodge of money out of new port facilities to recieve 'child mined':D DIRTY foreign coal.
Britain proceeded to sell off almost everything, losing control of successful british companies means that foreign concerns can favour their own flavour and slightly competing branches. (cadburies is an example of what happened a lot back then)
OK there is a lot more i have to say but this is already long enough
re you last two lines......I am obviously not the man in the street as I do understand the magnitude of the decisions they have to make, snd therefore this defence of her is not applicable to me.
Thatcher led the way in the idea that you can sell off any things that a nation depends on.....the UK could have kept back essentials and hell yes, even nationalise them (I do not mean british leyland.....private motor cars are not essentials, they are an end consumer product whic DID/DOES fit into the capitalist model)
Right now the UK should be in a position where it is self sufficient in energy. The reason it isnt started back in thatchers day. Back then UK had oil it also had(still does) have large coal deposits. The Uk has/d enormous wind/wave energy potential. The UK was well on its way to becoming post industrial. The UK had inovative inventers and engineers. The UK was in a position to reduce heavy industry and create a less frenetic energy consumptive society, concentrating on light innovative industry and solutions. Britain could have gone intensively horticultural, at least trading aome agricultural goods for cereal/staples.
But instead thatcher threw away the rulebook and said to the market....you run things now, it is not the job of government to run the country, we will merely run the people of the country, we will control the people only....(unless they are big managers fucking up something that was previously successful)
You've convinced me. Although I'm not sure we'd be viewed very favourably by the world had we not trusted in the global market and kept everything 'in-house', as it were. Would that extend to not allowing foreigners who settle here to create businesses and send money abroad? Isn't the alternative to what she did a bit nationalist, which is a bit of a dirty word these days?
she did appear nationalistic and anti foreigner, and did seem totally rabidly against immigrants.
yet her opposite extreme was to sell and move stuff 'out of house' more than any other country (that did not have to)
She led the way in selling off national institutions/services to whereever the chips fell. It wasnt a case of just 'keeping up with the global market' more pushing it further than anyone else
to the exent that other countries have not allowed(would not tolerate)
just a few examples - Rolls Royce cars - German, Aston Martin - American, Cadburies - Swiss, Man Utd - American(enabeled and facilitated by UK bank now owned by taxpayer)
Its seems that more aviation related stuff is kept british (? dunno why the difference).
I doubt that the public would ever countenance this sort of thing in other countries, now I know I argued against car manufaturers being interferred with by gov earlier, but the point is that the UK has adopted this weird concept of yeah lets sell off anything thats british, even if it is profitable and has a future, to anyone who can muster enough leverage (no matter how dodgey the lever...hell the uk will even help construct that dodgey lever for an ill advised buyout)
Thus you have some strong british business being taken over by weaker foreign business interests.
You may be aware that the enormous Boots chain is also with a smaller foreign buisiness, which I guess means that the current gov dont give a shit about the head office being a post box in a swiss town (to avoid paying tax here) ...all these attitudes started with thatcher selling off whatever could be sold, now it has turned into a different beast, but in this respect the UK seems to be the least nationalistic of all countries, we seem to have fuck all pride in this respect, whilst other countries avoid it without appearing overly anti foreign........perhaps the UK overcompensate in other areas, by having an element that is strongly anti immigrant and anti foreign individuals? (the mail/express culture)
to show how it is NOW seemingly part of british way of doing things.
where you try to present defences for her that are so weak that they could only be made up by someone who DOES like her
That recent BBC programme on the 70s was strongly anti-union and made Thatcher out to be a good thing.
It's obvious a bit of everything, really, but she definitely didn't care about people who didn't do things her way, and that's fundamentally the rest of us faced. If you didn't measure the success of your life by how much money you had you were a failure and so you got a yawning gap between those who could and did pursue money and those who just wanted to live a simple life but then couldn't afford it.
"so you got a yawning gap between those who could and did pursue money and those who just wanted to live a simple life but then couldn't afford it."
really nice summation that isnt overly dramatic
I guess you could condense most of that belief system to the "morality" of the free market, as espoused by Ayn Rand and other nutjobs.
And I would worry a bit about anyone who wore one- if only on purely fashion grounds.
Don’t get the hoohaa though, not like they were handing them out on entry…
at first glance I'd just think they were a Metallica fan- looks like Master of Puppets artwork...
Left wing press get to give coverage to an event which will literally have no influence on anything,anywhere.
Chav prole rems.
are sold from stalls at fringe events at their party conference too.
When the event occurs the t-shirts will be on sale immediately thus cornering the market and making oodles of cash for the forward-thinking entrepeneur.
you are only allowed to do bad taste or make money if you are a freind of the tories. otherwise they despise you.
I shudder to think what would happen if a politician with views anything like yours became PM.
you can see my serious posts littered elsewhere.
Dont worry you will have my personal protection when I am leader
That's Aidan Burley, the racist who hired Nazi uniforms for a stag do then tried to frame his friends for it when he was rumbled.
Aidan fucking Burley.
Aidan Burley Twitter
Aidan Burley mp
Aidan Burley nazi
Also, his comments on the Olympic opening ceremony: what a thundercunt.
"Dan Hodges, a former union official who writes regularly for the Daily Telegraph, said the T-shirts were "cowardly" and "utterly devoid of any morality" and should be withdrawn from sale."
how can a tshirt be 'cowardly' I think that this shows that the telegraph does not have english as a first language, I mean we all make mistakes but this is just missing what adjectives are meant to apply to.
(PS - where I stand on this issue, thatchers death is now irrelevant as it will not make any difference, it would have made a difference if it had happened as she was driving through her aims, I would have wished it then (as a means to stopping them....although perhaps even better would be if she had descended into undeniable public madness thus discrediting the extremities she was prepared to go to....not that extremities are not sometimes needed, its just that they are not needed to fuel the ability of a few people to get multiple houses/cars/jacuszzis)
i am quite pathetic though.
(i didnt read the stuff in bracket)
Can't stand the woman, but it's never OK to actively wish for someone's death and tout it about by wearing it on your body.
I've gotta disagree with you there
actively wishing it is fine if you hate 'em enough, but couple that by broadcasting it around, and you get a twat.
has facilitated the torture and killing of people in non democratic countries?
but I still don't agree with it, and especially not with the way Thatcher's always singled out for this kind of thing.
Worst Prime Minister of recent times, no doubt about it, and fucked over my family and many others, but she's an ill elderly woman now. Leave her alone. It's cruel.
wait..they did that already.
I'm not saying her legacy should be forgotten, it never should. But there's a big, big difference between political condemnation of someone with damaging socio-economic views, and cheering for her death on a piece of clothing.
leave her alone because she's old
Foreign aid effectively does that.
Her son was sometimes 'just present' for deals (indicating unofficially that the top layer of gov was ok with something)
perhaps instead a human centipede with thatcher at the front, her cabinet behind (archer parkinson baker tebbit aitkin waldegrave) then blair, then cameron, then clegg.
This would represent a symbolic passing down of rehashed ideas as well.
Hmm not cruel enough to thatcher I hear some say?, well I suppose you could sew her up to cleggs b***
he has asked for it.
whose first thought was **Isn't that a cropped version of Master of Puppets?**