Vale Margaret Thatcher

Remove this Banner Ad

chelseagle said:
She's been dead for over a week now and has been effectively dead in public life for around 20 years. For all of her transformative powers politically and economically, the UK has returned back to being in a hole with excess debt and a bleak future.

How truly influential are you if your influence is so short lived? It looks to me as if she made a select group of people a bit better off for a short amount of time. Well done, most people never even get to do that, but she isn't the hero so many make her out to be.
Click to expand...

Presume this is meant to be tongue in cheek
 
Power Raid said:
Doesn't they say more about the people before and after her?

Surely that makes her achievements even grander (even if you didn't like them)?
Click to expand...
One of the arguments is that she was such a massive political force that she fundamentally changed the UK Labour party and British politics. Except Labour just became a party of style over substance (something she certainly wasn't, like her or not there was substance) and the current Conservative party is more molded in their image rather than hers.

If her political legacy is modern Labour and the modern Tories, then she's closer to Ozymandias than Churchill.
 
Power Raid said:
Sorry mate, I was just throwing out the bate to see who would bite.

I couldn't help myself!

I think it would be agreed that whitlam was a maverick to the point he was dangerous. it would also be agreed by most that frazer was an A-grade unimaginative underachiever.

I personally believe that the era under hawke and keating was the great modernisation of Australia. This was followed by Howard who provided the stability and consolidation that Australia had to have post such great change.

Since then we have gone down hill at a rate of knots; the Rudd the Narcissist, Gillard the Betrayer and possibly Abott the Insipid.


No wonder the electorate are frustrated.
Click to expand...

In my (not so) humble opinion the deficiencies in the Whitlam government had their antecedents in the 23 years the Labor Party spent out of power. Almost none of its members in the 1972 parliament had any experience in government, much less in running a ministry. All of the ministerial jobs went to talentless time-servers, to pay them for their loyalty and perseverance. Nearly all of these ministers had agendas they'd been forced to sit on for years. When, at last, they gained power, they were like frenetic pigs at the trough, trying to get their personal projects funded. There was never going to be enough to go round, thus the ludicrous and pathetic attempts to raise money through shysters.

There was also the fear abroad that their government wouldn't last, right from the outset. The Liberals and their lapdogs never accepted the legitimacy of the Whitlam government from day one. Their right to rule had been usurped.

If you add to this the now largely unremarked, but at the time devastating, effects of the 'oil crisis', all the Libs had to do was wait, and Whitlam was stuffed. Fraser was so ambitious and impatient, he was unprepared to wait, twice. The alleged crisis to which Kerr reacted was not a crisis at all. The money to pay the public servants and to meet other commitments was there, the opposition just refused to allow the government to do this.

As for the economic credentials of Hawke and Keating, they were almost solely dependent upon some of the finest minds to ever work in the public's service ( it has been argued that Howard was equally committed to the course of action they took - he never got the opportunity). Admittedly they each had to take the ball and run with it, but to say the ideas were theirs is a stretch. Hawke was one of the vilest men ever to take a political podium. His unfettered ambition made Fraser seem reticent. He was completely ruthless with those on his side of politics and almost completely ineffective in dealing with the other side, in the parliament. The only thing about which he was in any way passionate was Israel.

Keating's main strength was that he was as big an a-hole as Hawke. His power base was the NSW Right, the same folks who plonked Hawke into power. Unlike Hawke, Keating, being a product of this environment, knew better than anyone how to run the numbers, thanks to that lunatic Jack Lang. To give Keating his due though, nobody was more surprised than I when he unveiled his hitherto unknown social agenda, in the early 90s.

Whitlam's major flaw was that he was a bad manager of men, in that he always backed them, even when he shouldn't have. This made life impossible for him eventually, when his underlings showed their disloyalty to him by acting duplicitously, wantonly and, eventually, illegally. So, if anyone's to blame it's the Australian people and, more specifically the DLP, for keeping Labor out of power for so long. That did the country no service and was always going to be unhealthy for good governance. On the other hand, I and those who are so scathing of Whitlam, should think ourselves lucky that neither Evatt nor Caldwell ever got the job. On yet another hand, I'm bereft of an answer when asked to nominate a great Australian PM, so maybe they're all as bad as each other. Maybe this says a bit about us as well.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

skilts said:
In my (not so) humble opinion the deficiencies in the Whitlam government had their antecedents in the 23 years the Labor Party spent out of power. Almost none of its members in the 1972 parliament had any experience in government, much less in running a ministry. All of the ministerial jobs went to talentless time-servers, to pay them for their loyalty and perseverance. Nearly all of these ministers had agendas they'd been forced to sit on for years. When, at last, they gained power, they were like frenetic pigs at the trough, trying to get their personal projects funded. There was never going to be enough to go round, thus the ludicrous and pathetic attempts to raise money through shysters.

There was also the fear abroad that their government wouldn't last, right from the outset. The Liberals and their lapdogs never accepted the legitimacy of the Whitlam government from day one. Their right to rule had been usurped.

If you add to this the now largely unremarked, but at the time devastating, effects of the 'oil crisis', all the Libs had to do was wait, and Whitlam was stuffed. Fraser was so ambitious and impatient, he was unprepared to wait, twice. The alleged crisis to which Kerr reacted was not a crisis at all. The money to pay the public servants and to meet other commitments was there, the opposition just refused to allow the government to do this.

As for the economic credentials of Hawke and Keating, they were almost solely dependent upon some of the finest minds to ever work in the public's service ( it has been argued that Howard was equally committed to the course of action they took - he never got the opportunity). Admittedly they each had to take the ball and run with it, but to say the ideas were theirs is a stretch. Hawke was one of the vilest men ever to take a political podium. His unfettered ambition made Fraser seem reticent. He was completely ruthless with those on his side of politics and almost completely ineffective in dealing with the other side, in the parliament. The only thing about which he was in any way passionate was Israel.

Keating's main strength was that he was as big an a-hole as Hawke. His power base was the NSW Right, the same folks who plonked Hawke into power. Unlike Hawke, Keating, being a product of this environment, knew better than anyone how to run the numbers, thanks to that lunatic Jack Lang. To give Keating his due though, nobody was more surprised than I when he unveiled his hitherto unknown social agenda, in the early 90s.

Whitlam's major flaw was that he was a bad manager of men, in that he always backed them, even when he shouldn't have. This made life impossible for him eventually, when his underlings showed their disloyalty to him by acting duplicitously, wantonly and, eventually, illegally. So, if anyone's to blame it's the Australian people and, more specifically the DLP, for keeping Labor out of power for so long. That did the country no service and was always going to be unhealthy for good governance. On the other hand, I and those who are so scathing of Whitlam, should think ourselves lucky that neither Evatt nor Caldwell ever got the job. On yet another hand, I'm bereft of an answer when asked to nominate a great Australian PM, so maybe they're all as bad as each other. Maybe this says a bit about us as well.
Click to expand...

perfect summary of a brief history in time!
 
Caesar said:
Not this Wikipedia rubbish again. The second bolded section is factually wrong, spending on social services grew under Thatcher:

154441485%20(5).jpg


They're not remotely comparable situations anyway. Hawke and Keating did not have to deal with a tenth of the problems inherited by Thatcher's government.
Click to expand...

What does this graph prove sorry?
 
Malifice said:
What does this graph prove sorry?
Click to expand...

I think it proves governments can't help themselves. If its their they spend it.

they don't have to deal with the consequences as it is the next governments problem. Not to mention, who ever fixes the debt problem is labelled as evil not the person who wasted the funds.
 
Malifice said:
What does this graph prove sorry?
Click to expand...

Oh look, so much has been posted in this thread and major press about how things like healthcare spending increased by 30% in real terms.

At some point you have to make an effort

Pessimistic said:
The point is they dealt with similar issues in a much more balanced, less extremist approach.

There didnt have to be the pain to the extent under thatcher
Click to expand...

And yet even today she's still the preferred, most popular leader of modern times.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/m...e-to-lead-nation-during-a-crisis-8576563.html
 
I didnt know that was a murdoch paper

Look at the competition who else would the tories vote for

Same as when howard won a poll here but was the only conservative option
 
Pessimistic said:
I didnt know that was a murdoch paper

Look at the competition who else would the tories vote for

Same as when howard won a poll here but was the only conservative option
Click to expand...

That's because you don't know very much ;)

Its not

Pessimistic said:
Polls or truth ? I know which I prefer
Click to expand...

Yes the truth is out there, beware the alien abductors...
 
Pessimistic said:
Condescending pratt....except im probably better than you
Click to expand...

Probably ;)

The Passenger said:
lol, i wonder how that poll would've come out if conducted a month earlier.

i guess we'll never know.

but it's a pretty well known fact that people respond positively to events that are fresh in their minds.
Click to expand...

Yes, 1979-1990 seems like only yesterday :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sanders said:
Yes, 1979-1990 seems like only yesterday :)
Click to expand...
It wasn't a very nice period. History shows us, that various western leaders ,completely aware of what they were doing, made decisions that influenced the nature of that not very nice period and that is still felt today.

The bullshit in our media, around events like one of those above mentioned leaders dying, hides that fact from most.

Thatcher was up to her eyeballs in the backing of Saddam Hussien and the age old war against Persian socialism. Well, it was Churchill who stared all that, so his navy could get the oil it needed.

You have to look after your own? don't you? If you concede to the victim of your bullying, your picking on them, because of your own weakness, then you lose and have to face what your trying not to..
 
rayven said:
It wasn't a very nice period. History shows us, that various western leaders ,completely aware of what they were doing, made decisions that influenced the nature of that not very nice period and that is still felt today.

The bullshit in our media, around events like one of those above mentioned leaders dying, hides that fact from most.

Thatcher was up to her eyeballs in the backing of Saddam Hussien and the age old war against Persian socialism. Well, it was Churchill who stared all that, so his navy could get the oil it needed.

You have to look after your own? don't you? If you concede to the victim of your bullying, your picking on them, because of your own weakness, then you lose and have to face what your trying not to..
Click to expand...

delusional nonsense
 
Sanders said:
Yes, 1979-1990 seems like only yesterday :)
Click to expand...

yeah because that's what i was referring too wasn't it

EDIT: actually figured rather than beating around the bush with childish remarks and stupid smiley faces i'd be more direct. the poll is obviously slanted because it was taken a week after her death. so it's her death that is the event that if fresh in people's memory.

a good comparison - lets say your team adelaide won the premiership last year and in the week following it the adelaide rag ran a poll of who is the great adelaide player of all - well players like patrick dangerfield and taylor walker are going to poll much stronger than they otherwise would, and may even beat the likes of andrew mcleod, mark ricciuto and co. but anyone with a brain knows the latter two are (at current moment) still far more accomplished footballers than the above.

this is for our less intelligent readers. you would be smart enough to figure that out i'm assuming.
 
rayven said:
It wasn't a very nice period. History shows us, that various western leaders ,completely aware of what they were doing, made decisions that influenced the nature of that not very nice period and that is still felt today.

The bullshit in our media, around events like one of those above mentioned leaders dying, hides that fact from most.

Thatcher was up to her eyeballs in the backing of Saddam Hussien and the age old war against Persian socialism. Well, it was Churchill who stared all that, so his navy could get the oil it needed.

You have to look after your own? don't you? If you concede to the victim of your bullying, your picking on them, because of your own weakness, then you lose and have to face what your trying not to..
Click to expand...

I tend to agree but would extend the period from 1945 to 1990. The Western world was backing all sorts of groups to secure resources and keep the commies at bay.

Like Thatcher, Reagan, Nixon or not; the alternative were the leaders of Nazism and Communism. The fierce competition between these groups brought out the best (space flight, computer technology and the social reforms) and the worst (backing corrupt regimes, destabilising countries and propaganda designed to install fear).


Much of the Islam terrorism is just resonance from our interference in the middle east during this period.
 
The Passenger said:
yeah because that's what i was referring too wasn't it

EDIT: actually figured rather than beating around the bush with childish remarks and stupid smiley faces i'd be more direct. the poll is obviously slanted because it was taken a week after her death. so it's her death that is the event that if fresh in people's memory.

a good comparison - lets say your team adelaide won the premiership last year and in the week following it the adelaide rag ran a poll of who is the great adelaide player of all - well players like patrick dangerfield and taylor walker are going to poll much stronger than they otherwise would, and may even beat the likes of andrew mcleod, mark ricciuto and co. but anyone with a brain knows the latter two are (at current moment) still far more accomplished footballers than the above.

this is for our less intelligent readers. you would be smart enough to figure that out i'm assuming.
Click to expand...

Nah the problem is your theory is plucked from thin air without any basis. So before patting yourself on the back for your analytic tour de force, you might ask yourself whether the background & context fits with your conclusions

You seem to have decided the poll was taken in a wash of popular national mourning, whilst also disputing the legacy & recognition of achievement

Which is it?

If more people are inclined to view those days favourably upon her passing, what does it say about the halcyon nostalgia of it all

Your point doesn't stand up. That's why it doesn't deserve more than :)
 
Sanders said:
Nah the problem is your theory is plucked from thin air without any basis.
Click to expand...

4.00pm on anzac day. you must have been drunk. polling bias is one of the most common things media uses.

interesting that the other conservative candidates finished down the bottom. 51 per cent of conservatives choose her. it's a pretty pointless poll anyway, conservatives voters gonna go conservative, labour voters gonna go labour, and liberal voters left with no one and the majority are gonna side with thatcher or blair (who's a bit of an idiot too) simply because the other three options are horrid.
 
The Passenger said:
4.00pm on anzac day. you must have been drunk. polling bias is one of the most common things media uses.
.
Click to expand...

couple of problems with this

Saying something exists does not make it applicable here. Just like because good arguments exist, that doesn't yours one ;)

And the wider point swept past you. You claimed, spuriously, that it was just a deadcat bounce based on emotion

The thing is, that only exaggerates the latent groundswell of opinion, it makes more of what is there. That's not the same as claiming it changed the direct of the wind. Which is what you tried to claim.

That a bunch of people who disliked her suddenly got nostalgic about her legacy. Nonsense.
 
Power Raid said:
like her or loathe her, it is impossible to deny she was a great woman
Click to expand...

Very easy to deny. Women are mothers. She didn't mother England,she didn't nurture England, she did not educate England, she did not support England, she didn't love England. She did not produce anything worthwhile for England. If England is male, she did not sooth its soul, she did not settle it or offer any common sense to its instinct.

As a woman, she failed.

If you want to take gender out of it and look at her just as a leader, as she should be viewed...

She did what the boys did, the tory boys. What they've done for centuries. Her first and foremost responsibilities were to that boys club.

She proved that, when you take gender specific roles out of the equation, Women and men really are the same, suffer the same mob mentality and peer pressures.

Perhaps that is her legacy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top