Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

What is you're view on the celebrations of Margaret thatcher's death? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are many things that Thatcher did politically that I personally didn't agree with, but politics aside I think it is extremely wrong and disrespectful to celebrate the death of anyone. Plus, Thatcher has family alive that are trying to deal with her death....they have done nothing wrong and don't deserve this when they are trying to grieve.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mc1000)
    How, in economic terms, can she be said to have "saved the country" when her legacy has involved the worst recession since the Great Depression? How, in economic terms, can she be said to have saved the country when former mining towns remain in economic ruin? How can she be said to have saved the country when the families of thousands of miners are forced into benefits from the costly welfare state, which perhaps would not have been necessary had the mines not been closed or poll tax enforced?

    Granted, she may have improved the country on a global scale throughout the 1980s - but let's not forget that in doing so she ruined the lives of many, and that the consequences of this are showing today. Her legacy continues to ruin the country.
    How typical, Blaming Thatcher for the recession even though she left office almost 25 years ago. Recessions are an inevitable characteristic of any modern economy and we just happen to be going through a relatively bad one. To blame Thatcher for it is ridiculous. It is as if people like you truly believe that Britain would have been insulated from the demand shocks and contagion that has swept across the whole world.

    The mining towns were doomed for failure irrespective of Thatcher's policies, which is something that the left simply fail to understand. The UK lost its comparative advantage in extractive industries and more importantly manufacturing long before Thatcherite policies were implemented. This was the result of a neglect of low to medium skill levels in Britain by both Labour and Conservative governments in the blind pursuit of Fordism. The policy of Fordism was pursued most strongly by Labour governments, who stupidly tried to pick winners and direct the economy while failing to recognise the threat that unions posed to progression and the UK's ability to compete on the world stage. Thatcher stopped subsidising losers and there was a necessary painful adjustment. In a globalising world Britain was left behind in manufacturing so it had to specialise in the service sector. The left are critical of this and are nostalgic for manufacturing firms who were unable to compete on the world stage and had to be propped up using taxpayers money.

    You claim that Thatcher is responsible for our current problems, yet fail to acknowledge that the post-war consensus policies allowed unions to run everything and the results of this were getting worse and worse as time went on. Stagflation was ridiculous in the mid 1970s, with inflation running at an astonishing rate of 25%, which, contrary to popular belief, was as much if not more a consequence of stop-go policies than the OPEC oil crises. Thatcher stopped this ridiculous inflation - the result was an extremely painful short term recession but without this 'shock therapy' inflation would have fallen much more slowly and the long term costs in terms of output would have been much higher. Losers were no longer bailed out, union power was curtailed (though again, union power would have fallen anyway in a globalising world, as it has in all economies irrespective of government policies - Thatcher just sped up the process and stopped us from living in the past for longer) and the economy became more progressive. What people like you fail to realise is that it is simply not conceivable that we would have mining and manufacturing today - it just isn't. Lefties are nostalgic for the 70s but if we still followed the policies of them times we would not compete in anything and would rely on protectionism and would be a totally insignificant country. This is why New Labour adopted Thatcherism - it was the right thing to do and most of the electorate believed in it.

    Did some people lose out from Thatcherism? In the short term, yes of course. But any policy produces winners and losers. The truth is that even the working class are better off than they would otherwise have been (in absolute, not relative terms, which in my view is better than everyone being poorer!) due to Thatcher abolishing the archaic policies of the post-war consensus. She sped up the inevitable.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mc1000)
    How, in economic terms, can she be said to have "saved the country" when her legacy has involved the worst recession since the Great Depression? How, in economic terms, can she be said to have saved the country when former mining towns remain in economic ruin? How can she be said to have saved the country when the families of thousands of miners are forced into benefits from the costly welfare state, which perhaps would not have been necessary had the mines not been closed or poll tax enforced?

    Granted, she may have improved the country on a global scale throughout the 1980s - but let's not forget that in doing so she ruined the lives of many, and that the consequences of this are showing today. Her legacy continues to ruin the country.
    You are aware of course, that Harold Wilson closed 290 pits in the 60s, compared to the 160 pits that closed in the 80s, and put 315,000 miners out of work compared to the 173,000 that went under Thatcher?

    Silly me, of course you aren't...

    So, as I have put to another, let me ask you what would you have done, considering these industries were expensive failures? How is it the government's fault when a national industry costs more to run than it brings in, and it costs more to dig the coal out rather than import from Australia?

    Do you, and others like you, stick with a car insurance company that charges you £500 more than another, just to save those people's jobs?

    Do you refuse to switch to a cheaper energy supplier because of the effect you leaving British Gas will have on their employees?

    Do you heck. You don't throw good money away when you find you can do the same thing for cheaper, you look for the best deal possible and it amazes me that you think a government would be any different.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would guess the majority of people who are celebrating her death would identify themselves as left wing politically and as such say they have compassion for the most vulnerable in society. Rejoicing in the death of an 87 year old woman who had dementia does not reflect this in my opinion - regardless of her politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sad and pathetic, but I wouldn't try to censor them. Just shows them for who they really are.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ihatebrownbread)
    to be honest I find it a bit distasteful, her death has not made a difference to anything that happened, if she was still alive today the UK would still be the same so I don't see the point in celebrating it. However, I was not alive when she was in power and I did not go through the grief that people in these communities went through- though neither did many of the young people celebrating her death. The real question you have got to ask yourself is did thatcher do what she think was right or did she think her policies were wrong and did not care about the people it effected?

    Many people would argue off course she did not care about the people her policies effected but I do not know as I cant read her mind.
    The real question you have got to ask yourself is why Harold Wilson isn't execrated by the left (and those people in 'those communities' you mention) for his part in the decline of coal mining?

    Do they seriously claim that Wilson was accepting economic realities, whilst Thatcher was motivated by sheer spite?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by medbh4805)
    Franco's death meant the end of his reign as Caudillo and is widely agreed to be the starting point of the Spanish transition to democracy. Thatcher had been out of politics for 20 years and her death brings nothing new. It's not an equivalent situation at all. What is there to celebrate? She died like all of us will do.
    I never said her death brought anything new or changed anything. What I'm highlighting is that it is not morally reprehensible to be happy for the passing of an enemy of freedom and democracy, in the same way that it's not for an enemy of working class Britain. People can mourn Thatcher all they like, but people can celebrate if they want too. Of course it changed nothing, but are we really telling people not to express their emotions?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    There are many things that Thatcher did politically that I personally didn't agree with, but politics aside I think it is extremely wrong and disrespectful to celebrate the death of anyone. Plus, Thatcher has family alive that are trying to deal with her death....they have done nothing wrong and don't deserve this when they are trying to grieve.
    Thatcher's children aren't coming back to Britain in the near future, they said it themselves. It seems as if she raised them in her own image. Oh and the daughter is a racist and the son is a criminal who tried to overthrow a sovereign African nation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Thatcher's children aren't coming back to Britain in the near future, they said it themselves. It seems as if she raised them in her own image. Oh and the daughter is a racist and the son is a criminal who tried to overthrow a sovereign African nation.
    I'd say that no matter what they are like, they don't deserve that. Imagine if you were trying to grieve whilst the nation mocked your dead relative: it's not right.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    I never said her death brought anything new or changed anything. What I'm highlighting is that it is not morally reprehensible to be happy for the passing of an enemy of freedom and democracy, in the same way that it's not for an enemy of working class Britain. People can mourn Thatcher all they like, but people can celebrate if they want too. Of course it changed nothing, but are we really telling people not to express their emotions?
    Joy at an enemy's death when it brings you some tangible benefit is different from celebrating from pure spite. Can you not honestly not see that there is no moral equivalence between the two situations?

    People can express their emotions all they like, it doesn't stop them from appearing sad or pathetic to other people. :dontknow:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Thatcher's children aren't coming back to Britain in the near future, they said it themselves. It seems as if she raised them in her own image. Oh and the daughter is a racist and the son is a criminal who tried to overthrow a sovereign African nation.
    So not only are you're going to ignore the points I raised in a previous post to you (how convenient), you're also going to blame the parents for the sins of the children.

    What, no comments on the Labour warmongers who helped overthrow a sovereign middle eastern nation under false pretenses, or that well known Labour racist, Diane Abbot either?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I do actually...



    So, let me ask you what would you have done, considering these industries were expensive failures? How is it the government's fault when a national industry costs more to run than it brings in, and it costs more to dig coal out of Wales (or anywhere else in the UK) than import from Australia?

    Do you, and others like you, stick with a car insurance company that charges you £500 more than another, just to save those people's jobs?

    Do you refuse to switch to a cheaper energy supplier because of the effect you leaving British Gas will have on their employees?

    Do you heck. You don't throw good money away when you find you can do the same thing for cheaper, you look for the best deal possible and it amazes me that you think a government would be any different.

    The previous Labour government were no different, they put twice as many miners out on their arse. Bet your parents forgot to tell you about that when they were railing about Thatcher...
    In order to address your post I need to clarify that I view things from a Marxist perspectives, therefore I recognise the shortcomings of Capitalism, and State Capitalism included, which is very much what Labour was doing since 1945. Of course it's obvious most of the mines were unprofitable, and you're right about Wilson closing down more than Thatcher. Wilson was always a bit of a rascal though tbh, he drank pints on TV and then went back to drinking brandy off screen. But this is a problem with State Capitalism, in order to maintain the high levels of employment which are impossible under conventional Capitalism, profits must be reduced. Capitalism itself is a system which in its constant need to increase profits gradually reduces levels of employment, or increases working hours to do this. This is only really exacerbated under State Capitalism since it attempts to defy the laws of Capitalism (full employment yet still making a profit) I've just mentioned. As overproduction occors and consumption decreases naturally (since workers are only paid a fraction of the value of what they produce) we find ourselves in an economic crisis. This is where Keynesian economics comes in. It just doesn't work, I think you'll agree! Even Jim Callaghan recognised this in his speech to the Labour Party conference in 1976. The whole issue goes back to 1945 and Attlee's Labour. They made the most progressive reforms of the 20th century, which naturally come out of revolutionary situations might I add, but they didn't go far enough. The people of Britain wanted Socialism. They had seen and experienced the superiority of the planned economy during the war. Full employment, registers of skilled workers, set production plans for each factory. It won us the war. This is why they voted for Labour in record numbers. But Attlee was ultimately a reformist, he thought you could have half a socialist revolution and a mixed economy, a mistake that Hugo Chavez has painfully learned. Attlee should have basically nationalised the lot, and planned the lot. If there ever was a time it was then. So after the wave of nationalisations occured Labour eventually saw that they needed to make economic cuts due to the unsustainable nature of this State Capitalist system, hence the closed mines, cut from NHS budget of £24 million I think, and devaluation of the pound. Anyway back to Thatcher, what I dislike the most is that she completely savaged a key part of the British economy, industry. They weren't even worth privatising according to her. By focusing on the service industry she weakened the overall British economy, and we are feeling the repercussions now. Also she hated the working class in and of itself, describing them as the enemy within etc.

    So what would I have done had I been in Thatcher's situation? Taking into account my own perspective as stated above I don't really think I could answer that question in a way that would satisfy you. The problem has it's roots way before Thatcher, before the 1970's Labour.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    So not only are you're going to ignore the points I raised in a previous post to you (how convenient), you're also going to blame the parents for the sins of the children.

    What, no comments on the Labour warmongers who helped overthrow a sovereign middle eastern nation under false pretenses, or that well known Labour racist, Diane Abbot either?
    Be patient please, I answered your points above...

    And what an earth does that have to do with this! And Diane Abbot? Whether she's racist or not it doesn't make Carol Thatcher any less racist!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The right celebrated when Bin Laden was killed. The lefts time is now, long live collectivism. There is a society and its partying on the streets of all industrial towns. Go on social media look at the hate for the woman and then turn your tv on and notice the difference. The left is rising.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by medbh4805)
    Joy at an enemy's death when it brings you some tangible benefit is different from celebrating from pure spite. Can you not honestly not see that there is no moral equivalence between the two situations?

    People can express their emotions all they like, it doesn't stop them from appearing sad or pathetic to other people. :dontknow:
    So celebration at the demise of enemies should be based on whether or not there is a tangible benefit or not? And also it's not just "spite". People are genuinely happy about this, and I see no reason to criticise them for that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFlash1994)
    Be patient please, I answered your points above...

    And what an earth does that have to do with this! And Diane Abbot? Whether she's racist or not it doesn't make Carol Thatcher any less racist!
    I would say that arguably one unfortunate and ill advised comment makes Carol Thatcher significantly less racist than than Diane Abbot, and so would you, had you seen the racist stuff that she regularly posts to Twitter...
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I'd say that no matter what they are like, they don't deserve that. Imagine if you were trying to grieve whilst the nation mocked your dead relative: it's not right.
    Well the whole government is in the process of canonizing the late baroness! And the BBC was dancing on the grave of Hugo Chavez a few weeks ago! We have to accept this is not an ordinary woman, she did a lot of wrong to many people in this country. Sure it's not right to mock her if you sit of one of the boards of the industries she privatised, but I believe it's justified if you don't agree with her or have felt the consequences of her actions.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I would say that arguably one unfortunate and ill advised comment makes Carol Thatcher significantly less racist than than Diane Abbot, and so would you, had you seen the racist stuff that she regularly posts to Twitter...
    We're not talking about Diane Abbot. Margaret Thatcher is not Diane Abbot's mum. Diane Abbot has not publicly stated that she won't return from abroad for the time being in response to her mother's death.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a fan of Thatcher, but I think we needed someone who was cold enough and determined enough to push through such policies for the benefit of the long term. After all, she adapted our country to the services industries (which we have frightfully more to offer in) and away from manufacturing industries (which are now rightfully thriving on the luxury end of the market).

    Celebrating her death is rather horrid, as is celebrating anyone's death. I'd even hang a big question over the scale of celebration when Osama was shot dead--sure it's a good thing he's gone, but where's the justice in assassination? Who knows.

    I do find it amusing though that most of these people celebrating Thatcher's death happen to be youths, not around when Thatcher was in power, who have been sucked into an anti-Tory trendy left wave of political thinking.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpottedZebra)
    I'd say that no matter what they are like, they don't deserve that. Imagine if you were trying to grieve whilst the nation mocked your dead relative: it's not right.
    Really? So you're honestly saying that, say, when an oppressive, genocidal dictator dies and leaves a power vacuum for democracy, a country shouldn't rejoice?

    That wasn't targeted at Thatcher at all and I agree with feeling uncomfortable about people celebrating her death considering it brings no political or cultural etc. change with it and she was just an elderly woman, but that seems like quite a strange blanket rule to me.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.