Party Planning for Thatcher's death...

pb21

Piquet wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

How, exactly, were socialist policies responsible for the demise of Mac and May? Was the bank taken over by the workers?

In 1996, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005

Was that socially motivated or financially motivated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan

rick_chasey

Sorry, I missed this, (probably quoting false stats) is someone blaming the current financial crisis on socialist ideas?

C'mon...

pb21

Yes, incredibly they are.

Also the USSR was founded on a Laissez-faire philosophy.

Jez mon

Piquet wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

How, exactly, were socialist policies responsible for the demise of Mac and May? Was the bank taken over by the workers?

In 1996, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005

Surely there is a world of difference between the following:

Encouraging banks to lend to those in the bottom half income wise.
Letting banks issue mortgages where there is no real chance the repayments can be met

neeb

Piquet wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

How, exactly, were socialist policies responsible for the demise of Mac and May? Was the bank taken over by the workers?

In 1996, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005

This has to be the worst case of revisionist blame-avoidance (on the part of the financial institutions) I've seen in years! Even if you bought the argument that subprime lending was forced upon the banks by social policy (as if they weren't entirely complicit and willing..), the financial crisis wasn't caused primarily by subprime mortgages, it was caused by the highly complex and artificial financial packages created for and by the bankers / speculators / fat-cat bankers-with-a-W in order to make a fast buck. If subprime lending per se had been the problem, we would have seen the financial crisis coming and avoided it. The reason no-one saw it coming was that the speculators were trading in the financial equivalents of dodgy motors.

piquet

neeb wrote:

The "no such thing as society" quote is famous. Here's another example - "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure."

s

The "bus" quote is a misatribution:
from wiki quote

A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure.
Attributed to her in Commons debates, 2003-07-02, column 407 and Commons debates, 2004-06-15 column 697. According to a letter to the Daily Telegraph by Alistair Cooke on 2 November 2006, this sentiment originated with Loelia Ponsonby, one of the wives of 2nd Duke of Westminster who said "Anybody seen in a bus over the age of 30 has been a failure in life". In a letter published the next day, also in the Daily Telegraph, Hugo Vickers claims Loelia Ponsonby admitted to him that she had borrowed it from Brian Howard. There is no solid evidence that Margaret Thatcher ever quoted this statement with approval, or indeed shared the sentiment.

some years ago i took the trouble to search out the full interview from which the "society" sound bite came.
The full text of the relevant section give a very different impression of her views

Try reading this:

Womens’ Own Thatcher interview….

MT...
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—"It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it". That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: "All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say: "But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say: "Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"
There is also something else I should say to them: "If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit."
……………………………………
But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society.[fo 2] There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.
……………………………………………….
How do you set about teaching a child religion at school, God is like a father, and she thinks "like someone who has been cruel to them?" It is those children you cannot ... you just have to try to say they can only learn from school or we as their neighbour have to try in some way to compensate. This is why my foremost charity has always been the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, because over a century ago when it was started, it was hoped that the need for it would dwindle to nothing and over a hundred years later the need for it is greater, because we now realise that the great problems in life are not those of housing and food and standard of living. When we have[fo 3] got all of those, when we have got reasonable housing when you compare us with other countries, when you have got a reasonable standard of living and you have got no-one who is hungry or need be hungry, when you have got an education system that teaches everyone—not as good as we would wish—you are left with what? You are left with the problems of human nature, and a child who has not had what we and many of your readers would regard as their birthright—a good home—it is those that we have to get out and help, and you know, it is not only a question of money as everyone will tell you; not your background in society. It is a question of human nature and for those children it is difficult to say: "You are responsible for your behaviour!" because they just have not had a chance and so I think that is one of the biggest problems and I think it is the greatest sin.

Kendal Black Drop

Rick Chasey wrote:

neeb wrote:

garryc wrote:

But what really annoys me is that it looks like there will be a State Funneral for her. We should all campaign against it before it's too late to stop.

Yes, that I would not be able to stomach. Apart from anything else it would be incredibly divisive. There would bound to be people who would try to disrupt it and doubtless any demonstrations would be violently suppressed if they threatened to spoil things (probably with the aid of anti-terrorism legislation...)

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18914

That's one I've signed. Well worded...

Thatcher state funeral to be privatised

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

In keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders. The undersigned believe that the legacy of the former PM deserves nothing less and that offering this unique opportunity is an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics Baroness Thatcher spearheaded.

secretsam

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

She was the best Prime Minister we've had.
Our large, unionised, manufacturing industry was dying, ditto the mines.
You lot aren't looking very far to see what manufacturing we have today. Frank, take a ride around Pinxton, see how much manufacturing is going off there today.
Anyone been around Coventry lately? See how many industrial estates there are.
If you want to know the real reason behind the banking crisis, take a look at the socialist policies responsible for the demise of Freddie Mac & Fannie May.
Take a long look at the socialist policies behind the wonders of the EU.
Ask why contracts for major projects have been awarded oversees, how many by your darling socialist government of Blair & Brown?
Take a look at the socialist policies behind the social crisis we have, with the number of broken families, who just expect "The Social" to sort out all their problems and fund their lifestyles.
Get your heads out of your arses & look around at the realities of socialism.

Well, that's your opinion.

Personally, I think that she decimated many services simply to destroy the unions that dominated them, but ducked and chickened out when confronted by one made up of her own people (step forward the BMA).

She took us into an unecessary and costly war simply to win an election

She gave the police powers and decimated civil liberties to make the country bend to her will

She poisoned our relations with Europe whilst pursuing a love affair with the USA, which continues even today

She released financial risk from Pandora's Box by deregulating the financial markets, letting the bankers take over the country and making us all beholden to the Shitty of London

She disastrously sold off industries which were actually natural monopolies (see Water and Sewerage)

On the other hand, there was some good - she did face up to historically over-powerful and retrenched power bases which were strangling innovation and progress, and some of the privatisations did free up and enable market developments in certain industries - telecoms being a prime example.

Overall, not my favourite person, but an important figure in recent history, like it or not. Her legacy lives on, even in the likes of Brown and Blair, so vilified by others.

secretsam

Thatcher state funeral to be privatised

Responsible department: Cabinet Office

In keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders. The undersigned believe that the legacy of the former PM deserves nothing less and that offering this unique opportunity is an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics Baroness Thatcher spearheaded.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18914
[/quote]

Err, hate to point this out but most major state events are at least partly private, my company for example managed the Royal Wedding and Diana's Funeral

I personally think she should be buried in a former Northern mining town, seems appropriate somehow...

Smokin Joe

SecretSam wrote:

She took us into an unecessary and costly war simply to win an election

What utter rubbish.

A facist dictator with an appalling record on human rights invaded British territory and she did what any leader with the means to do so would have done, she mobilised the armed forces to kick him out. She did not win the '83 election because of this (even though her actions had massive public support, leaving aside the middle class looney left), it may have made a slight difference to her majority but anyone who was around at thet time will tell you that Labour under Foot were a music hall joke and completely unelectable, which is why they still could not get back into power in either '87 or '92.

Frank the tank

She sent a signal to the Argentinians by removing the deterent that was there and left only a token garrison on the island.

Foots policies were ones based on public ownership of the utilities amongst other things something I personally totally agree with.

markos1963

SecretSam wrote:

I personally think she should be buried in a former Northern mining town, seems appropriate somehow...

I would imagine the queue of ex miners wanting to relieve themselves of unwanted body fluid would stretch for miles

Smokin Joe

Frank the tank wrote:

She sent a signal to the Argentinians by removing the deterent that was there and left only a token garrison on the island.

Foots policies were ones based on public ownership of the utilities amongst other things something I personally totally agree with.

What, deliberately in the hope of encouraging the Argentinians to invade so she could defeat them to win an election on the strength of it? Bit of left wing cloud cukoo land there.

Mistakes were made with the Falklands but that did not excuse the Argentinians invading it, neither was it certain that british forces would prevail. All it needed was one aircraft carrier to be sunk and the whole thing would have ended in a humiliating defeat, hardly a sure fire election winner.

You being in favour of Foot's policies at the time doesn't alter the fact that Labour's name was poison on a ballot form. Thatcher didn't need the Falklands, she'd have romped home without them.

Frank the tank

Smokin Joe wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

She sent a signal to the Argentinians by removing the deterent that was there and left only a token garrison on the island.

Foots policies were ones based on public ownership of the utilities amongst other things something I personally totally agree with.

What, deliberately in the hope of encouraging the Argentinians to invade so she could defeat them to win an election on the strength of it? Bit of left wing cloud cukoo land there.

Mistakes were made with the Falklands but that did not excuse the Argentinians invading it, neither was it certain that british forces would prevail. All it needed was one aircraft carrier to be sunk and the whole thing would have ended in a humiliating defeat, hardly a sure fire election winner.

You being in favour of Foot's policies at the time doesn't alter the fact that Labour's name was poison on a ballot form. Thatcher didn't need the Falklands, she'd have romped home without them.

It's a forum my owd, and we're entitled to our own opinions "cloud cuckoo land" your opinion, not mine. I put nothing beyond ANY politician ANY party when it comes to endevouring to win an election. Yes we came within a hairs bredth of losing the war when loads of vital kit went down with the Gallahad. The war was won, and a lot of brave men (on both sides) lost their lives. I happen to believe there was a calculated risk taken by Thatcher to further her cause. You or anyone else won't change my opinion.

DF33

she was nice!

wiffachip

just spotted her on BBC4 in that 1977 TOTP programme, didn't realise she had such nice legs

Gaye Advert looking a bit hagard

RichN95.

SecretSam wrote:

She took us into an unecessary and costly war simply to win an election

An unnecessary war? A foreign country invaded British territory. What do you think we should have done? Sit back and say 'OK you have that'?

If you want to criticise her economic policies, fair enough. But going to war against Argentina was a no-brainer.

verylonglegs

Frank the tank wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

She sent a signal to the Argentinians by removing the deterent that was there and left only a token garrison on the island.

Foots policies were ones based on public ownership of the utilities amongst other things something I personally totally agree with.

What, deliberately in the hope of encouraging the Argentinians to invade so she could defeat them to win an election on the strength of it? Bit of left wing cloud cukoo land there.

Mistakes were made with the Falklands but that did not excuse the Argentinians invading it, neither was it certain that british forces would prevail. All it needed was one aircraft carrier to be sunk and the whole thing would have ended in a humiliating defeat, hardly a sure fire election winner.

You being in favour of Foot's policies at the time doesn't alter the fact that Labour's name was poison on a ballot form. Thatcher didn't need the Falklands, she'd have romped home without them.

It's a forum my owd, and we're entitled to our own opinions "cloud cuckoo land" your opinion, not mine. I put nothing beyond ANY politician ANY party when it comes to endevouring to win an election. Yes we came within a hairs bredth of losing the war when loads of vital kit went down with the Gallahad. The war was won, and a lot of brave men (on both sides) lost their lives. I happen to believe there was a calculated risk taken by Thatcher to further her cause. You or anyone else won't change my opinion.

Well I'm not looking to change your opinion but I have to say that whilst usually finding your posts a worthy read and often with foundation the theory that she engineered the whole thing from top to bottom by entincing them into the situation in the first place, all with an election in mind, makes you sound positively barking. It's up there with al Fayed's conspiracies on Diana.

Frank the tank

Never mind, I can't get a coconut everytime. woof,woof.!!

I agree, she couldn't have engineered the whole thing (wars are particularly unpredictable things) but I do believe she took in her eyes a "calculated risk" and it paid off.

finchy

Piquet wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

How, exactly, were socialist policies responsible for the demise of Mac and May? Was the bank taken over by the workers?

In 1996, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005

That isn't socialism.

NickintheLakes

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

She was the best Prime Minister we've had.
Our large, unionised, manufacturing industry was dying, ditto the mines.
You lot aren't looking very far to see what manufacturing we have today. Frank, take a ride around Pinxton, see how much manufacturing is going off there today.
Anyone been around Coventry lately? See how many industrial estates there are.
If you want to know the real reason behind the banking crisis, take a look at the socialist policies responsible for the demise of Freddie Mac & Fannie May.
Take a long look at the socialist policies behind the wonders of the EU.
Ask why contracts for major projects have been awarded oversees, how many by your darling socialist government of Blair & Brown?
Take a look at the socialist policies behind the social crisis we have, with the number of broken families, who just expect "The Social" to sort out all their problems and fund their lifestyles.
Get your heads out of your arses & look around at the realities of socialism.

Some sense at last!

***

What a pathetic thread to have started. To the OP - I do hope someone celebrates your demise one day plus if you achieve a small fraction of what MT did in your own lifetime you will have done very well. I think you need to have a good hard look at yourself as to why you have thoughts like this.

finchy

NickintheLakes wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

She was the best Prime Minister we've had.
Our large, unionised, manufacturing industry was dying, ditto the mines.
You lot aren't looking very far to see what manufacturing we have today. Frank, take a ride around Pinxton, see how much manufacturing is going off there today.
Anyone been around Coventry lately? See how many industrial estates there are.
If you want to know the real reason behind the banking crisis, take a look at the socialist policies responsible for the demise of Freddie Mac & Fannie May.
Take a long look at the socialist policies behind the wonders of the EU.
Ask why contracts for major projects have been awarded oversees, how many by your darling socialist government of Blair & Brown?
Take a look at the socialist policies behind the social crisis we have, with the number of broken families, who just expect "The Social" to sort out all their problems and fund their lifestyles.
Get your heads out of your arses & look around at the realities of socialism.

Some sense at last!

Where? It's just a load of unfounded statements which have been answered elsewhere.

NickintheLakes wrote:

What a pathetic thread to have started. To the OP - I do hope someone celebrates your demise one day plus if you achieve a small fraction of what MT did in your own lifetime you will have done very well. I think you need to have a good hard look at yourself as to why you have thoughts like this.

Vesterberg is trolling. He isn't really going to celebrate MT's death, because he's a right winger. What's funny about this thread is that it started as an attempt at stirring up a fight and ended up to be one of the more intellectual ones on Cake Stop. Maybe it's time to bring things down a level.

Vesterberg

NickintheLakes wrote:

Some sense at last!

***

What a pathetic thread to have started. To the OP - I do hope someone celebrates your demise one day plus if you achieve a small fraction of what MT did in your own lifetime you will have done very well. I think you need to have a good hard look at yourself as to why you have thoughts like this.

johnfinch wrote:

Vesterberg is trolling.

yup

johnfinch wrote:

He isn't really going to celebrate MT's death,

incorrect

johnfinch wrote:

because he's a right winger.

incorrect

finchy

C'mon Vesterberg - you're markwalker/blackpanther.... aren't you? :?:

Aggieboy

verylonglegs wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

She sent a signal to the Argentinians by removing the deterent that was there and left only a token garrison on the island.

Foots policies were ones based on public ownership of the utilities amongst other things something I personally totally agree with.

What, deliberately in the hope of encouraging the Argentinians to invade so she could defeat them to win an election on the strength of it? Bit of left wing cloud cukoo land there.

Mistakes were made with the Falklands but that did not excuse the Argentinians invading it, neither was it certain that british forces would prevail. All it needed was one aircraft carrier to be sunk and the whole thing would have ended in a humiliating defeat, hardly a sure fire election winner.

You being in favour of Foot's policies at the time doesn't alter the fact that Labour's name was poison on a ballot form. Thatcher didn't need the Falklands, she'd have romped home without them.

It's a forum my owd, and we're entitled to our own opinions "cloud cuckoo land" your opinion, not mine. I put nothing beyond ANY politician ANY party when it comes to endevouring to win an election. Yes we came within a hairs bredth of losing the war when loads of vital kit went down with the Gallahad. The war was won, and a lot of brave men (on both sides) lost their lives. I happen to believe there was a calculated risk taken by Thatcher to further her cause. You or anyone else won't change my opinion.

Well I'm not looking to change your opinion but I have to say that whilst usually finding your posts a worthy read and often with foundation the theory that she engineered the whole thing from top to bottom by entincing them into the situation in the first place, all with an election in mind, makes you sound positively barking. It's up there with al Fayed's conspiracies on Diana.

Oh, come on. You've been on here a while. You can't have failed to see his posts stating he goes to watch Hucknall Town, ffs.

Nik Cube

Pete White wrote:

Quite a few places south of Watford too, though I doubt the accumulated arseholes in Wiltshire will be joining in.

I hope they don't bother wit a funeral, and just chuck her in any old hole, just like she did with "society"

Just for clarity there will be a big ole party at mine when the old hag shuffles off hopefully alone and in agony (and some say I'm bitter)

I live in Wiltshire btw

Stevo_666

I think it's hilarious the way Thatcher still manages to rile so many lefties years after she retired from politics. For that alone, I raise my glass to the Iron Lady :-)

carl_p

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think it's hilarious the way Thatcher still manages to rile so many lefties years after she retired from politics. For that alone, I raise my glass to the Iron Lady :-)

+1

At no other time in my life was I as well off than during the Thatcher regime. Scargill vs Thatcher one of the biggest mismatches in history

roryboy

we wont be waving banners, neither shall we be crying in to oor drams up here in Scotland
i dont think she had much time for us. Blair/brown, socialists ? poorest example of socialists
i've ever came across !
As far as party planning goes, well i have to remember she's someones mother. She was great for
Toryism in Scotland, they are almost non existant here. For that reason alone i'll hae a dram to her.

Jez mon

NickintheLakes wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

She was the best Prime Minister we've had.
Our large, unionised, manufacturing industry was dying, ditto the mines.
You lot aren't looking very far to see what manufacturing we have today. Frank, take a ride around Pinxton, see how much manufacturing is going off there today.
Anyone been around Coventry lately? See how many industrial estates there are.
If you want to know the real reason behind the banking crisis, take a look at the socialist policies responsible for the demise of Freddie Mac & Fannie May.
Take a long look at the socialist policies behind the wonders of the EU.
Ask why contracts for major projects have been awarded oversees, how many by your darling socialist government of Blair & Brown?
Take a look at the socialist policies behind the social crisis we have, with the number of broken families, who just expect "The Social" to sort out all their problems and fund their lifestyles.
Get your heads out of your arses & look around at the realities of socialism.

Some sense at last!

***

What a pathetic thread to have started. To the OP - I do hope someone celebrates your demise one day plus if you achieve a small fraction of what MT did in your own lifetime you will have done very well. I think you need to have a good hard look at yourself as to why you have thoughts like this.

So tempting to invoke Godwin's law here.

Achieving a lot doesn't necessarily make you a good PM/anything.

I don't harbour any grievances against her, because a) I'm too young and b) I'm southern But I do empathise (slightly) with those who so despise her, her love affair with privatisation was IMO a mistake, and her war with the unions hurt a large section of society.