Things you have recently learnt

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

According to Wiki, she was both.
Was there no end to the woman's talents?

She also invented soft serve ice cream, so without her no Mr Whippy

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

According to Wiki, she was both.
Was there no end to the woman's talents?

Apparently not. Can we add to the list of talents the fact that she still torments lefties from beyond the grave?

pinno

freddievonrost said:

Classic Spitting Image joke.

Mrs T to waiter: I'll have the steak,
Waiter to Mrs T: And the vegetables?
Mrs T: They'll have the same.

(If your'e wondering, she was dining with her Cabinet.)

More spitting image. After Dennis T got a pacemaker fitted. Mrs T and Dennis lying in bed.

Background noise: 'Tick, tick, tick,tick,tick...'

Mrs T: What's that noise?
Dennis: It's my pacemaker
Mrs T: Well, switch it off - it's keeping me awake.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

According to Wiki, she was both.
Was there no end to the woman's talents?

She also invented soft serve ice cream, so without her no Mr Whippy

Weren't a few of her cabinet partial to Mr Whippy or was it only Madam Whippy?

FreddieVonRost

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

According to Wiki, she was both.
Was there no end to the woman's talents?

She also invented soft serve ice cream, so without her no Mr Whippy

Weren't a few of her cabinet partial to Mr Whippy or was it only Madam Whippy?

I see what you did there. Excellent.

pinno

Baron Von Richthofen ---> freddievonrost?
...and Flashheart. Hmm...

FreddieVonRost

Eat knuckle, Fritz.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

According to Wiki, she was both.
Was there no end to the woman's talents?

I think it’s fair to say Dominic Raab shows us that just because you have lots of important roles doesn’t necessarily mean you have any talent.

ballysmate

As Stevo pointed out, she can still torment lefties from beyond the grave. That is some talent.

rick_chasey

ballysmate said:

As Stevo pointed out, she can still torment lefties from beyond the grave. That is some talent.

Haha I’m too young to remember her. By the time I arrived it was Major.

Nice try though. Shows your age at least

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

ballysmate said:

As Stevo pointed out, she can still torment lefties from beyond the grave. That is some talent.

Haha I’m too young to remember her. By the time I arrived it was Major.

Nice try though. Shows your age at least

You reacting to Bally's post does prove my point though

pinno

Does this constant reference to those left of centre have any constructive use whatsoever?
All it does it polarise people and within it, it is quite hypocritical given that most people will have used institutions that were created under socialist government such as the NHS.

To view Thatcher in complete high regard or on the other hand, to view her as wholly destructive are both wrong.

It was Thatcher who spoke on 'World in action' in 1978 who said that Britain is “swamped by people with a different culture” and in so doing dog-whistled to the racism of the National Front and she also said that "there is no such thing as society".
On the other hand, it was Thatcher who guided us into the single market because she believed that "no matter how frustrating other European nations may be, close cooperation with them brings jobs and economic growth". Which is ironic given the many Tories hell bent on leaving the EU.

She was opposed to the privatisation of British rail saying that it was "a privatisation too far". And yet, Corbyn was chastised for suggesting re-nationalisation of rail.

Thatcher also opposed the privatisation of Royal mail. The Royal Mail sell off was judged by a parliamentary committee to be a botched operation that undervalued the state asset by £1bn.

On the other hand, Thatcher dismantled some very good institutions that got in the way of her political ambitions such as the Highlands and Islands development board and the GLC. She also removed rental authorities and whilst empowering people to home ownership on the one hand, undermined those living in rental properties. There is no doubt that whatever your political persuasion, the housing issue in the UK is of huge concern and the lack of tenancy rights (certainly in England more than Scotland), has never been addressed properly since Thatcher.
It's almost like if you are renting, you are of a lower social class.
The thing that is never mentioned is this: Thatcher removed the 4th tier of government - Parish councils. Government then became more centralised and less accessible. Councils were empowered but were no longer legislators, no longer able to create local, idiosyncratic policies.

My personal view of Thatcher is this: the overwhelming legacy that she left is hedonism. She destroyed the collective. Ironically, the C19 pandemic is probably the first time since the 2nd WW (apart from local incidents of bad weather) that has rejuvenated the collective and generated co-operation on a mass scale.

@rick_chasey: I'm astonished that you hold such strong historical views yet do not have an opinion on an era that was critically pivotal and has shaped and reshaped the social and political landscape of the UK.

Stevo_666

pinno said:

Does this constant reference to those left of centre have any constructive use whatsoever?
All it does it polarise people and within it, it is quite hypocritical given that most people will have used institutions that were created under socialist government such as the NHS.

To view Thatcher in complete high regard or on the other hand, to view her as wholly destructive are both wrong.

It was Thatcher who spoke on 'World in action' in 1978 who said that Britain is “swamped by people with a different culture” and in so doing dog-whistled to the racism of the National Front and she also said that "there is no such thing as society".
On the other hand, it was Thatcher who guided us into the single market because she believed that "no matter how frustrating other European nations may be, close cooperation with them brings jobs and economic growth". Which is ironic given the many Tories hell bent on leaving the EU.

She was opposed to the privatisation of British rail saying that it was "a privatisation too far". And yet, Corbyn was chastised for suggesting re-nationalisation of rail.

Thatcher also opposed the privatisation of Royal mail. The Royal Mail sell off was judged by a parliamentary committee to be a botched operation that undervalued the state asset by £1bn.

On the other hand, Thatcher dismantled some very good institutions that got in the way of her political ambitions such as the Highlands and Islands development board and the GLC. She also removed rental authorities and whilst empowering people to home ownership on the one hand, undermined those living in rental properties. There is no doubt that whatever your political persuasion, the housing issue in the UK is of huge concern and the lack of tenancy rights (certainly in England more than Scotland), has never been addressed properly since Thatcher.
It's almost like if you are renting, you are of a lower social class.
The thing that is never mentioned is this: Thatcher removed the 4th tier of government - Parish councils. Government then became more centralised and less accessible. Councils were empowered but were no longer legislators, no longer able to create local, idiosyncratic policies.

My personal view of Thatcher is this: the overwhelming legacy that she left is hedonism. She destroyed the collective. Ironically, the C19 pandemic is probably the first time since the 2nd WW (apart from local incidents of bad weather) that has rejuvenated the collective and generated co-operation on a mass scale.

@rick_chasey: I'm astonished that you hold such strong historical views yet do not have an opinion on an era that was critically pivotal and has shaped and reshaped the social and political landscape of the UK.

I rest my case, m'lud

rick_chasey

Oldies do seem obsessed with her. It was 30-40 years ago!

briantrumpet

pinno said:

Does this constant reference to those left of centre have any constructive use whatsoever?
All it does it polarise people and within it, it is quite hypocritical given that most people will have used institutions that were created under socialist government such as the NHS.

To view Thatcher in complete high regard or on the other hand, to view her as wholly destructive are both wrong.

It was Thatcher who spoke on 'World in action' in 1978 who said that Britain is “swamped by people with a different culture” and in so doing dog-whistled to the racism of the National Front and she also said that "there is no such thing as society".
On the other hand, it was Thatcher who guided us into the single market because she believed that "no matter how frustrating other European nations may be, close cooperation with them brings jobs and economic growth". Which is ironic given the many Tories hell bent on leaving the EU.

She was opposed to the privatisation of British rail saying that it was "a privatisation too far". And yet, Corbyn was chastised for suggesting re-nationalisation of rail.

Thatcher also opposed the privatisation of Royal mail. The Royal Mail sell off was judged by a parliamentary committee to be a botched operation that undervalued the state asset by £1bn.

On the other hand, Thatcher dismantled some very good institutions that got in the way of her political ambitions such as the Highlands and Islands development board and the GLC. She also removed rental authorities and whilst empowering people to home ownership on the one hand, undermined those living in rental properties. There is no doubt that whatever your political persuasion, the housing issue in the UK is of huge concern and the lack of tenancy rights (certainly in England more than Scotland), has never been addressed properly since Thatcher.
It's almost like if you are renting, you are of a lower social class.
The thing that is never mentioned is this: Thatcher removed the 4th tier of government - Parish councils. Government then became more centralised and less accessible. Councils were empowered but were no longer legislators, no longer able to create local, idiosyncratic policies.

My personal view of Thatcher is this: the overwhelming legacy that she left is hedonism. She destroyed the collective. Ironically, the C19 pandemic is probably the first time since the 2nd WW (apart from local incidents of bad weather) that has rejuvenated the collective and generated co-operation on a mass scale.

@rick_chasey: I'm astonished that you hold such strong historical views yet do not have an opinion on an era that was critically pivotal and has shaped and reshaped the social and political landscape of the UK.

Whatever people say about Thatcher, she had several advantages over the present incumbent: she was undoubtedly intellectually very bright, she was open about her deep-seated and (largely) consistent views (and on which she was elected), she was not workshy, she was (I think) genuinely in politics for what she thought was best for the UK (even if that did bring distress for significant portions of it), and not for her own self-aggrandisement, and recognised the value of dissenting views ("Everyone needs a Willie"). And she was honest.

It's pretty much everything that Johnson is not.

coopster_the_1st

ballysmate said:

As Stevo pointed out, she can still torment lefties from beyond the grave. That is some talent.

It is great to see.

In 40 years time Boris and Maggie will still be tormenting the lefties

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Oldies do seem obsessed with her. It was 30-40 years ago!

This is quite funny from a history graduate 😉

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Oldies do seem obsessed with her. It was 30-40 years ago!

This is quite funny from a history graduate 😉

“The people from my teens and twenties are just so much more important than anyone else!”

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Oldies do seem obsessed with her. It was 30-40 years ago!

This is quite funny from a history graduate 😉

“The people from my teens and twenties are just so much more important than anyone else!”

Though I think it's fair to say that Thatcher was quite important: she is totemic for both the left and the right for good reason - she did help change the face of Britain.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Oldies do seem obsessed with her. It was 30-40 years ago!

This is quite funny from a history graduate 😉

“The people from my teens and twenties are just so much more important than anyone else!”

Though I think it's fair to say that Thatcher was quite important: she is totemic for both the left and the right for good reason - she did help change the face of Britain.

Was totemic.

Not making a historical point, just I’ve noticed people of a certain age seem to reach for thatcher all the time.

Had a boss who does the same and everyone underneath him was under 12 when she stopped, let alone started.

Six PMs since.

Getting on near half the population who won’t remember her.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Oldies do seem obsessed with her. It was 30-40 years ago!

This is quite funny from a history graduate 😉

“The people from my teens and twenties are just so much more important than anyone else!”

Though I think it's fair to say that Thatcher was quite important: she is totemic for both the left and the right for good reason - she did help change the face of Britain.

Was totemic.

Not making a historical point, just I’ve noticed people of a certain age seem to reach for thatcher all the time.

Had a boss who does the same and everyone underneath him was under 12 when she stopped, let alone started.

Six PMs since.

Getting on near half the population who won’t remember her.

I think the fact that she is still invoked by both sides suggests that she is still totemic: my argument is that there is good reason for that, for sound historical reasons. Counting the number of Prime Ministers since Attlee doesn't diminish the case for his importance is establishing post-war Britain and (for instance) the NHS and comprehensive social services (at least, in theory).

morstar

So, to be clear, it is OK to continually reference Churchill but not Thatcher?

Just trying to get the rules clear.

morstar

I think it is perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that some PM’s, as with any job, only keep things ticking over whilst others make more radical impacts.
Radical doesn’t necessarily equate to good though.
Thatcher is remembered because of her impact (whatever your views). BJ wants to be remembered so is going out of his way to have an impact. I genuinely doubt he will be remembered fondly by either side in years to come. Non-tories will hate him, blue will be embarrassed by him in the same way true republicans are by Trump.

briantrumpet

morstar said:

So, to be clear, it is OK to continually reference Churchill but not Thatcher?

Just trying to get the rules clear.

I picked on Attlee rather than Churchill deliberately, given the nature of that government's achievements, and its more likely appeal to RC's principles. But yes, quite. How many chancellors since Hitler... etc. Numbers are irrelevant, and the fact that Thatcher is still totemic undermines RC's argument.

morstar

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

So, to be clear, it is OK to continually reference Churchill but not Thatcher?

Just trying to get the rules clear.

I picked on Attlee rather than Churchill deliberately, given the nature of that government's achievements, and its more likely appeal to RC's principles. But yes, quite. How many chancellors since Hitler... etc. Numbers are irrelevant, and the fact that Thatcher is still totemic undermines RC's argument.

Yes, it is a weird one. So much of where we are today is directly influenced by her re-shaping of the nation.
I understand the young layperson may not know or care about that but it is odd for somebody who frequently cites lessons from history to ignore her relevance. Especially working in finance.

rick_chasey

morstar said:

So, to be clear, it is OK to continually reference Churchill but not Thatcher?

Just trying to get the rules clear.

Ugh Churchill is so over done too. Get over it!

rick_chasey

morstar said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

So, to be clear, it is OK to continually reference Churchill but not Thatcher?

Just trying to get the rules clear.

I picked on Attlee rather than Churchill deliberately, given the nature of that government's achievements, and its more likely appeal to RC's principles. But yes, quite. How many chancellors since Hitler... etc. Numbers are irrelevant, and the fact that Thatcher is still totemic undermines RC's argument.

Yes, it is a weird one. So much of where we are today is directly influenced by her re-shaping of the nation.
I understand the young layperson may not know or care about that but it is odd for somebody who frequently cites lessons from history to ignore her relevance. Especially working in finance.

Honestly Blair did a lot too.

But boomers had already set their course by the time he came around.

pinno

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

So, to be clear, it is OK to continually reference Churchill but not Thatcher?

Just trying to get the rules clear.

I picked on Attlee rather than Churchill deliberately, given the nature of that government's achievements, and its more likely appeal to RC's principles. But yes, quite. How many chancellors since Hitler... etc. Numbers are irrelevant, and the fact that Thatcher is still totemic undermines RC's argument.

Yes, it is a weird one. So much of where we are today is directly influenced by her re-shaping of the nation.
I understand the young layperson may not know or care about that but it is odd for somebody who frequently cites lessons from history to ignore her relevance. Especially working in finance.

Honestly Blair did a lot too.

But boomers had already set their course by the time he came around.

?

Perhaps all your protestations about the current social fabric and landscape has probably more to do with Thatcher than any other PM in the last 50 years.

rick_chasey

pinno said:

rick_chasey said:

morstar said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

So, to be clear, it is OK to continually reference Churchill but not Thatcher?

Just trying to get the rules clear.

I picked on Attlee rather than Churchill deliberately, given the nature of that government's achievements, and its more likely appeal to RC's principles. But yes, quite. How many chancellors since Hitler... etc. Numbers are irrelevant, and the fact that Thatcher is still totemic undermines RC's argument.

Yes, it is a weird one. So much of where we are today is directly influenced by her re-shaping of the nation.
I understand the young layperson may not know or care about that but it is odd for somebody who frequently cites lessons from history to ignore her relevance. Especially working in finance.

Honestly Blair did a lot too.

But boomers had already set their course by the time he came around.

?

Perhaps all your protestations about the current social fabric and landscape has probably more to do with Thatcher than any other PM in the last 50 years.

“The people from my teens and twenties are just so much more important than anyone else!”

When thatcher came to power it was closer to the battle of Stalingrad than we are to her first day in office.

pblakeney

Missing the point that she formed the country into what it was when you were in your teens and twenties. Things would have been very different without her.