Baroness Thatcher admitted to hospital

[dbmtb]

What does that make me then? I have a GT but I don't love it. I don't hate it either.....

(Apart from plain bloody awkward)

 

[mattbrown]

What does that make me then? I have a GT but I don't love it. I don't hate it either.....

(Apart from plain bloody awkward)

bloody liberal!

 

[cornholio's RC200]

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

:shock:

The depths people sink to eh?

 

[silverclaws]

What this all is, is the great experiment, can we make a success of a society that is not ruled by lords, how it always was in the past before people were allowed to have a vote and there vote for change.

A time when lords sat at home and the commoner fought their wars for them, opened and secured trade routes so they can profit on the blood of the common man.

The trouble is, we have all been well trained to rally behind flags and notions of 'country', so we respond when it is desired we must respond, which as ever is a time when the powerful want something securing or made available to them.

But what the past lords and their secret descendants have allowed, is for us to form tribes so we might war amongst ourselves and there by doing so, keep our eye off what they are upto.

Those of you who have risen financially to adopt a different understanding, it doesn't matter, for if you are not a lord, you are a commoner, the only difference is the nouveau riche fight against the great unwashed for them, they need not dirty their hands when they have a trained assassin who works for nothing.

When it all turns to shite as it is designed to do, the lords will again step in to 'save' the country and it's people from their economic demise, we will all become the slaves we once were which is only a small distance from what we are now, we are allowing ourselves to be captured.

Wealth is one thing, power and influence is another the former does not always include the latter and the latter are always working towards taking that wealth.

Together we stand, divided, we will undoubtedly fall.

 

[cornholio's RC200]

WOW!

That's profound - a wonderful piece of prose

Good stuff

 

[suburbanreuben]

Yeah, but it's all downhill from here; the SU bar's just opened...

 

[Neil]

What a glowing legacy
:roll: :evil:

Great she was

She just became a figure head for blame for the problems of the past :roll:

Hardly.

I MIGHT be argued (not be me) that the mass unemployment and collapse of British industry during the 1980s might have just been bad timing on her watch - the delayed results of previous mis-management and failure to adapt.

Not sure I've got much to argue with, there.

But I'd have to be in a VERY magnanimous mood to hear out that argument.

Personally, I can compartmentalise that.

I see where you're going, but I do think the country was where it was at the time, and there are some objective perspectives, where she / her government, did do some necessary things.

Unfortunately, as you lead onto, it wasn't necessarily the objective things that she / her government did, per se, that were so objectionable, but more the way they were done, the lack of balance, and the attitudes it fostered.

Because,as stated, it was the gloating, sermonising MANNER in which those devastating events were handled that did the most lasting damage. And sealed here reputation, in which she reveled.

But ALL the other needlessly punitive and vindictive policies that I mentioned (and many more that I've forgotten) were products of her own twisted, abhorrent view of society - A view that regarded those less fortunate as parasites to be punished, and which promoted boundless individualism, self-interest and greed as a holy doctrine.

This.

That was the problem with her and her government - not necesarily many of the things they took on, that really had to be dealt with - but the attitiude and way it was done, with no apparent concept of those less well off, and the mindset it encouraged.

AND she regarded Mad Ronnie Reagan as a sensible man and a best buddy, FFS!

Well there is that, too.

I've always been divided on Thatcher. I never really bought into her politics, but damnit, she had balls.

I think she dealt with some necessary evils, and during a time that the country really needed change, but many didn't or couldn't accept that. But at the same time, she did some foolhardy, and in some cases callous and downright arrogant things. And as commented, she also (intentionally, or otherwise) encouraged an entire generation (and more, now, because it didn't just stop there) to be self-absorbed and focussed on simply bettering themselves, and who cares what happens to the rest of society.

On the other hand, she was a damned strong leader, and politics aside, a prime minister that many before, and after, could only wish to be as forthright.

And that, unfortunately, can't just be taken in isolation, but has to go in the round - her strength highlighted her weaknesses.

 

[Neil]

Your point about kids with no aspirations is very true.

We have a wasted generation who expect opportunity to be thrown at them.

Why do they expect opportunity to be thrown at them, though?

Would people in the same position (poor, not much in the way of prospects) 30 or 40 years ago have expected the same thing?

 

[KeepItSteel]

Your point about kids with no aspirations is very true.

We have a wasted generation who expect opportunity to be thrown at them.

Why do they expect opportunity to be thrown at them, though?

Would people in the same position (poor, not much in the way of prospects) 30 or 40 years ago have expected the same thing?

IMO, Because of a failed education system and break down of respect.

and no, I dont think kids would have had quite the same attitude 40 years ago. Particularly the from the generations preceeding the 60's.From footage ive seen and people ive spoken to around that age group, more people wanted to work and earn an honest living.

When I mention opportunity being wasted, it mainly comes from experience of my own, witnessing youngsters completely disregarding their education and acting like the school/college/community owe them a favour for having the courtesy to even turn up.

I know of one (underpriveleged) kid who never once applied himself at school. Was expelled/suspended numerous times. Was handed different courses left right & center in order to strengthen his poor skill base, even to a point where he was being offered music lessons and music industry training all because the only thing he liked 'doing' was music.
He even got to attend an award event on the strength of it and be introduced to Robert Plant :shock: (my idol).

Did he complete a single course or utilise a single skill? Did he buggery.
Yet still he complains about the size of the flat the council rent him for £6 per week, and still he complains about just about everything else that he doesnt have thrown at him on a plate.
And from what I hear/see this is a common theme amongst the work shy.

 

[Neil]

Your point about kids with no aspirations is very true.

We have a wasted generation who expect opportunity to be thrown at them.

Why do they expect opportunity to be thrown at them, though?

Would people in the same position (poor, not much in the way of prospects) 30 or 40 years ago have expected the same thing?

IMO, Because of a failed education system and break down of respect.

I'm not seeing cause and effect.

I'd contend the education system has never truly failed, it may have gone through rocky periods, but all the same. And when it does go wrong, where is the causation with change in attitude?

Same thing with "break down of respect" - things like that, and issues with education, don't just drop out of the sky, there's always causation - where's the link to the change in aspirations?

Surely the aspirations thing came from the times when society (not that Maggie accepted the concept - at least on policy) went through a period of being able to aspire, to succeed, and being encouraged to say "Stuff everybody else - me, me, ME..."

and no, I dont think kids would have had quite the same attitude 40 years ago. Particularly the from the generations preceeding the 60's.From footage ive seen and people ive spoken to around that age group, more people wanted to work and earn an honest living.

Agreed - but that's no surprise is it.

It doesn't go to address why, though. I'm not convinced the education system was any better for the poorer in society 40 years ago - yet we both seem to agree, in principle, that peoples' attitudes were largely different then.

When I mention opportunity being wasted, it mainly comes from experience of my own, witnessing youngsters completely disregarding their education and acting like the school/college/community owe them a favour for having the courtesy to even turn up.

I'm not getting your explanation as to addressing the question (ie education system failed), and none of what you've said explains why there's this shift in attitude.

I understand why - it's not something that sits easy with many, but it occurred, all the same.

I know of one (underpriveleged) kid who never once applied himself at school. Was expelled/suspended numerous times. Was handed different courses left right & center in order to strengthen his poor skill base, even to a point where he was being offered music lessons and music industry training all because the only thing he liked 'doing' was music.
He even got to attend an award event on the strength of it and be introduced to Robert Plant :shock: (my idol).

Did he complete a single course or utilise a single skill? Did he buggery.
Yet still he complains about the size of the flat the council rent him for £6 per week, and still he complains about just about everything else that he doesnt have thrown at him on a plate.
And from what I hear/see this is a common theme amongst the work shy.

Then surely the education system didn't fail him - from what you've said, it appears the "system" bent over backwards to accomodate him, and he rejected it anyways.

Why is that - what is it that changed this attitude in society?

When and why did so many expect so much after doing so little?