Margaret Thatcher Dies at 87 [Archive]

Kardan

08-04-2013, 12:49 PM

"She was, above all, that rare thing, a conviction politician who was prepared to stand by those convictions for good or ill."

Quote from the BBC obituary. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10364876 if you're interested.

Despite what you may think of her policies (and it sickens me how there is likely a small minority of left-wingers rejoicing at this news), we need more conviction politicians, both left and right of the political spectrum. We need leaders who have guts and principles that they'll defend to the death regardless of their career. Margaret Thatcher had that. RIP.

I've got so many 40/50 somethings on Facebook rejoicing in the fact that she's died, one woman posted:

"YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............ ....PARTTTTTTTTTTTAAAY....that bottle of champagne can FINALLY be opened............................................ ..........................NOW!"

And actually posted a picture of her having some champagne...

I mean, I can understand people really *really* didn't like her, but to publically celebrate her death is really distasteful...

Teabags

08-04-2013, 12:49 PM

can't understand all the hate towards her.
Guessing it's more a PR thing and people have jumped on the bandwagon.

Brice

08-04-2013, 12:49 PM

sux 4 her

Mr-Trainor

08-04-2013, 12:58 PM

Saw this on the news, RIP :(.

FlyingJesus

08-04-2013, 01:02 PM

dbgtz

08-04-2013, 01:03 PM

can't understand all the hate towards her.
Guessing it's more a PR thing and people have jumped on the bandwagon.

She done a lot of unpopular things which definitely shaped the country to what it is though whether it was good or not is another question. I imagine some just joined in because everyone else was like that but I imagine [hope] some people have some rationality behind their thoughts :P

Anyway quite neutral one what she done but sad for her family nonetheless.

buttons

08-04-2013, 01:09 PM

I've got so many 40/50 somethings on Facebook rejoicing in the fact that she's died, one woman posted:

"YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............ ....PARTTTTTTTTTTTAAAY....that bottle of champagne can FINALLY be opened............................................ ..........................NOW!"

And actually posted a picture of her having some champagne...

I mean, I can understand people really *really* didn't like her, but to publically celebrate her death is really distasteful...
have someone my mums age saying "maggie dead, am i supposed to care?" along with "she brought this country to its knees and they're still tearing it apart" (read in poor english grammar). there's a whole lot of 40 somethings liking it. i don't know much about politics, history or her so i'm not making any judgements but i can understand why those alive during her reign can have judgements. however, it's a bit stupid for people who weren't to do so, having seen "rest in hell maggie" from teenagers :S. as i say, don't know much about politics but nevertheless it's still sad when someone dies and no need for the distasteful jokes because she's still a mum, grandmother and whatever else.

also Cerys; you're not alone!! seen a few people my age saying they thought she died ages ago. at least you're not my cousin; "who's margaret thatcher?"

JACKTARD

08-04-2013, 01:40 PM

RIP, bless her.

lawrawrrr

08-04-2013, 01:45 PM

Firstly I'd like to say RIP.

Secondly... I've only just woken up and managed to read my entire Twitter and Facebook timelines from when the news was released. I'd just like to say some of the comments on there, and even on this thread, are completely disgusting. Yeah, you might hate her policies and she might well have directly influenced your family, but rejoicing that someone is dead? Disgusting.

People at the NUS conference are doing the same, apparently about a fifth of the delegates (sent to represent all of their University students' views) yelled and wooped when they found out she died. It's just so inappropriate. She was a politician, for goodness' sake, not a war criminal!! There was less hate on the internet when Kim Jong Un died.

I can understand older people, maybe, having such a strong hatred of her and being... relieved, maybe, at her death, but people of our generation (I've seen people not even alive in her reign, and their families would not be affected, only benefited by her campaigns), who, for the most part, have no idea what her effect was, what she did or in some cases WHO SHE WAS (yes, seriously) who are celebrating her death, mainly to jump on the bandwagon, blindly - and this has been happening for years; we're being indoctrinated to hate these people who we never had a chance to form our own opinion of.

Just remember she was a mother and grandmother: those people have just found out their family is dead. How would you feel if society was laughing, clapping and celebrating your Nan's death? Your Mum's death? You'd probably be quite annoyed. You might not agree politically with her but at least be respectful to those around her.

My favourite part of everything though was when people started to clock that Cameron's not in the country (not strange) and condemned him for that. I'm not even going to get into the fact that THAT'S HIS JOB, HE'S NOT AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY HERE, HE CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO LAY AROUND WAITING FOR OLD POLITICIANS TO DIE (I've had to stop myself from ranting on twitter multiple times today). Anyway, some people found out he's coming back from Europe (which is expected really) and willed his plane to crash, because (as I repeat) "the only thing that could make today better is if Cameron's plane crashes" (oh this is after reading someone who seemed to think that all plane journeys end in crashes and said it was good he's getting on a plane because we can lose 2 in one day) AND a reply to the aformentioned tweet willing the plane to crash "into Clegg".

So not only are some people celebrating a woman's death, they're wishing and praying for two more deaths. No politician is perfect, some less than others, but they're kind of necessary to society at the moment, and for the foreseeable future.

TL;DR: laura ranted about how some people need to learn the facts and be respectful to the dead. no matter if you liked her or not.

TO SUM UP THOUGH here's Martin Luther King.

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy."

AgnesIO

08-04-2013, 01:54 PM

sux 4 her

A fantastic reply.

Firstly I'd like to say RIP.

Secondly... I've only just woken up and managed to read my entire Twitter and Facebook timelines from when the news was released. I'd just like to say some of the comments on there, and even on this thread, are completely disgusting. Yeah, you might hate her policies and she might well have directly influenced your family, but rejoicing that someone is dead? Disgusting.

People at the NUS conference are doing the same, apparently about a fifth of the delegates (sent to represent all of their University students' views) yelled and wooped when they found out she died. It's just so inappropriate. She was a politician, for goodness' sake, not a war criminal!! There was less hate on the internet when Kim Jong Un died.

I can understand older people, maybe, having such a strong hatred of her and being... relieved, maybe, at her death, but people of our generation (I've seen people not even alive in her reign, and their families would not be affected, only benefited by her campaigns), who, for the most part, have no idea what her effect was, what she did or in some cases WHO SHE WAS (yes, seriously) who are celebrating her death, mainly to jump on the bandwagon, blindly - and this has been happening for years; we're being indoctrinated to hate these people who we never had a chance to form our own opinion of.

Just remember she was a mother and grandmother: those people have just found out their family is dead. How would you feel if society was laughing, clapping and celebrating your Nan's death? Your Mum's death? You'd probably be quite annoyed. You might not agree politically with her but at least be respectful to those around her.

My favourite part of everything though was when people started to clock that Cameron's not in the country (not strange) and condemned him for that. I'm not even going to get into the fact that THAT'S HIS JOB, HE'S NOT AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY HERE, HE CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO LAY AROUND WAITING FOR OLD POLITICIANS TO DIE (I've had to stop myself from ranting on twitter multiple times today). Anyway, some people found out he's coming back from Europe (which is expected really) and willed his plane to crash, because (as I repeat) "the only thing that could make today better is if Cameron's plane crashes" (oh this is after reading someone who seemed to think that all plane journeys end in crashes and said it was good he's getting on a plane because we can lose 2 in one day) AND a reply to the aformentioned tweet willing the plane to crash "into Clegg".

So not only are some people celebrating a woman's death, they're wishing and praying for two more deaths. No politician is perfect, some less than others, but they're kind of necessary to society at the moment, and for the foreseeable future.

TL;DR: laura ranted about how some people need to learn the facts and be respectful to the dead. no matter if you liked her or not.

TO SUM UP THOUGH here's Martin Luther King.

"I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy."

Kim Jong-il - Mr. Kim Jong Un is alive and well. Not that it matters, I get what you mean :)

I think what Socialists like to think is that she is a war criminal, over the Falklands and stuff - not saying they are right, but that is what they like to put across.

RyRy

08-04-2013, 01:56 PM

Loads of people on fb making jokes about street parties and stuff in celebration, granted they're mostly socialists who don't have a clue but still it's totally wrong to be that happy about someone's death, especially when it's the death of a great leader rather than a terrorist or something

RIP

It's sad, really sad that people think it's funny to celebrate somebody's death. I hope people who made jokes about her death are prosecuted in the same manner that if somebody was disrespecting a child who was killed on a railway track and posted horrible Facebook messages to their "RIP" wall. That wasn't a theoretical idea I made up by the way, that's what somebody has been prosecuted for before and should happen here as well. Proper sick people in this world.

Just to further add, Thatcher hid the whole Hillsborough disaster and lied and discriminated against scousers, yet would I wish her dead? Honestly? No. I don't think any of the families in the Justice for 96 movement would either, despite the hurt that she's caused them.

Jordy

08-04-2013, 02:23 PM

I think it's quite poignant that the right wing has never celebrated the death of an "enemy" like this. It's quite a comment on a large number on the left who seem above all heartless and disrespectful on the issue, says a lot about their morals.

-:Undertaker:-

08-04-2013, 02:42 PM

I could post a long one on how she turned this country around economically, stood up to the Soviet Union like no other PM, engaged in a just war in the Falklands when the wets would of had her abandon them to Argentina, how she became the first PM to warn of the dangers of the EU and subsquently her party knifed her in the back.... I could mention all of that, but those who want to know and listen will already so I won't bother. In the end, she dragged Britain kicking and screaming into the twenty first century economically and I can't thank her enough.

Rest in Peace, Iron Lady.

I think it's quite poignant that the right wing has never celebrated the death of an "enemy" like this. It's quite a comment on a large number on the left who seem above all heartless and disrespectful on the issue, says a lot about their morals.

This, absolutely.

Orwell (of the old left) once made the observation that it's only in Britain that the left actually seem to loathe their own country.

lawrawrrr

08-04-2013, 02:48 PM

A fantastic reply.

Kim Jong-il - Mr. Kim Jong Un is alive and well. Not that it matters, I get what you mean :)

I think what Socialists like to think is that she is a war criminal, over the Falklands and stuff - not saying they are right, but that is what they like to put across.

Dammit!!!!! Been reading about Korea and stuff lately and I keep getting confused between the two. Haha!

AgnesIO

08-04-2013, 03:01 PM

Dammit!!!!! Been reading about Korea and stuff lately and I keep getting confused between the two. Haha!

Aha, been a place I have been somewhat fascinated by for a long time. Don't forget Kim il-Sung - the true god of North Korea!

HarrySX

08-04-2013, 03:05 PM

ITT: people who were born after she left office.

RIP

Shar

08-04-2013, 03:08 PM

-:Undertaker:-

08-04-2013, 03:11 PM

People are entitled to opinions but the attitude of people and their behaviour, the youth of people today in particular,regarding to Margaret Thatcher's death is horrible. I bet half of these people wouldn't be able to give us a politics/history lesson and probably know **** all about how Thatcher contributed to politics apart from the fact that she was the former British Prime Minister.

R.I.P.

I posted this on Facebook (bare in mind how anti-Thatcher Liverpool wrongly is).

It's amazing to see all those 'by eck me grandad voted Labour' types celebrating the death of the woman they accused of not being 'compassionate' enough and uncaring. You know, maybe it's just me, but celebrating the death of a 87-year old woman who you simply disagree with - that's compassionate it is? no, it's ******* low and disgusting.

As for the usual 'FATCHER HATED LIVERPEWL' - what most people don't actually realise (again, because they've had a history course given to them from their flat-capped Grandad) is that for years regenerating Liverpool with transforming the then-abandoned Albert Docks had been talked about .... yet the Labour controlled Liverpool City Council failed over two decades to do ANYTHING.

It took Margaret Thatcher (you know, the woman who apparently hated we in Liverpool cos thats what your grandad, the historian, says) to appoint Michael Heseltine as Minister for Merseyside who actually put money into the Albert Docks and had it done up - providing some of the first new jobs Liverpool had experienced in decades.

Didn't know any of this? there's loads more. Sometimes it's amazing that what you've been taught all your life from those you surround yourselves with, turns out to be completey one-sided and wrong.

RIP Margaret Thatcher, a woman who dragged Britain kicking and screaming into the twenty first century.

As I said, it's people who have been given a 'history' lesson from their flat capped Grandad.

MyNamesAbbey

08-04-2013, 03:11 PM

I thought she was the one that went in I'm a celebrity.

My bad.. Anyway rip to her x

Brice

08-04-2013, 03:13 PM

A fantastic reply.

tell som1 who cares cos i dont

Edited by Lee (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly.

Shar

08-04-2013, 03:14 PM

I thought she was the one that went in I'm a celebrity.

My bad.. Anyway rip to her x

Was that not her daughter Carol?

AgnesIO

08-04-2013, 03:34 PM

ITT: people who were born after she left office.

RIP

But her actions certainly affected people in this thread - the fact we weren't alive when the decisions were made doesn't mean we cannot voice our opinions on those very decisions.

Circadia

08-04-2013, 03:35 PM

I thought she was already dead, I also thought Nelson Mandela was dead but hes still hanging on.
All I knew about Thatcher was that she took away milk in schools cause of that ever so catchy name 'Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher'
R.I.P

MyNamesAbbey

08-04-2013, 03:35 PM

Was that not her daughter Carol?

Yeah but I always thought it was her whenever I heard the name 'Margaret Thatcher'

lemons

08-04-2013, 03:45 PM

up until recently I thought she was already dead - RIP the Iron Lady!!

AgnesIO

08-04-2013, 03:51 PM

Britain needs to start teaching its history in schools it would seem.

lemons

08-04-2013, 03:53 PM

Britain needs to start teaching its history in schools it would seem.

I do geography!!!!!!!

beth

08-04-2013, 03:56 PM

do not like her, for educated reasons unlike the majority of people... not gonna wish her to rest in peace but i do not agree with those rejoicing in her death. death is not a justice.

also it sickens me how many people under the age of 18 don't know who she is. educate yourselves.

AgnesIO

08-04-2013, 04:04 PM

also it sickens me how many people under the age of 18 don't know who she is. educate yourselves.

Agreed here - as I said above, the education system has to be to blame there (well, that and the parents). British history is fascinating, and should probably be taught before the dear Egyptians come into play (which I seem to remember studying in Year 3, precisely 1 year before studying the Victorian era!)

Chippiewill

08-04-2013, 04:08 PM

It would be pretty funny if they gave her a state funeral.

beth

08-04-2013, 04:10 PM

Agreed here - as I said above, the education system has to be to blame there (well, that and the parents). British history is fascinating, and should probably be taught before the dear Egyptians come into play (which I seem to remember studying in Year 3, precisely 1 year before studying the Victorian era!)

definitely think it lies a little more with the parents. i studied this in year 10 as part of my history GCSE but that was a good 6 years ago now. my parents always encouraged me to read papers, watch the news and make my own decisions. and i'm from a working class family so its not like a privelaged thing or anything.

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 05:10 PM ----------

It would be pretty funny if they gave her a state funeral.

they're not gonna. already confirmed.

Red

08-04-2013, 04:10 PM

'Crime is crime is crime; it is not political' Rip Maggie x
Some of those fb groups and the way people are getting on is disgusting.

AgnesIO

08-04-2013, 04:13 PM

It would be pretty funny if they gave her a state funeral.

Indeed haha - certain she would prefer a privatised one.

definitely think it lies a little more with the parents. i studied this in year 10 as part of my history GCSE but that was a good 6 years ago now. my parents always encouraged me to read papers, watch the news and make my own decisions. and i'm from a working class family so its not like a privelaged thing or anything.

---------- Post added 08-04-2013 at 05:10 PM ----------

they're not gonna. already confirmed.

Yeah - would say it is definitely also the parents. Having said that, I have a slight addiction to checking the news app on my phone when out ;l :L

-:Undertaker:-

08-04-2013, 04:33 PM

It would be pretty funny if they gave her a state funeral.

She'd requested that she not have state funeral, and they've complied with her wishes.

peteyt

08-04-2013, 04:57 PM

tell som1 who cares cos i dont

If you don't care then why bother posting on here. Can you not show some sympathy. When people die they leave loved ones behind who will now be very upset. I'm sure if it was your mother and we didn't care and said so you wouldn't be pleased.

As to the people celebrating - I was born a year before she left office so I don't really know much about her, never really looked into it so I wouldn't judge right now. As people have pointed out on here too many people are just joining the bandwagon - if your going to say anything you should know your facts, don't just say it because everyone else is. Remember that even David Cameron is human. He's lost a child before, and I may have hated when he promised to lower student fees and instead increased them, but I'd still never wish anything like that on anyone.

iBlueBox

08-04-2013, 05:13 PM

She'd requested that she not have state funeral, and they've complied with her wishes.

I think she'll be giving a ceremonial funeral, a slight difference towards a State funeral as that requires an act of parliament to be passed before its took place. Ceremonial funeral the Queens mother and Princess Diana received one. Though I think a ceremonial funeral is very similar.

---

Also on the the topic of Thatcher being a controversial Prime Minister after studying British history (that I absolutely love at a-level) with also being from Merseyside and the Albert Dock area it's rather interesting how most people have reacted and voiced their opinions as many people do still have connections and are very strongly opinionated on her and it's been really apparent from her death today.

Anyway R.I.P Maggie.

Brice

08-04-2013, 05:19 PM

If you don't care then why bother posting on here. Can you not show some sympathy. When people die they leave loved ones behind who will now be very upset. I'm sure if it was your mother and we didn't care and said so you wouldn't be pleased.

As to the people celebrating - I was born a year before she left office so I don't really know much about her, never really looked into it so I wouldn't judge right now. As people have pointed out on here too many people are just joining the bandwagon - if your going to say anything you should know your facts, don't just say it because everyone else is. Remember that even David Cameron is human. He's lost a child before, and I may have hated when he promised to lower student fees and instead increased them, but I'd still never wish anything like that on anyone.

tell som1 who cares cos i dont

Edited by Lee (Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly.

peteyt

08-04-2013, 05:48 PM

tell som1 who cares cos i dont

Please don't just minus rep me because you don't follow my views. If you don't care then prove you don't and stop posting in here. If your going to keep trolling I'm certainly not going to feed you now.

Brice

08-04-2013, 05:54 PM

Please don't just minus rep me because you don't follow my views. If you don't care then prove you don't and stop posting in here. If your going to keep trolling I'm certainly not going to feed you now.

tell som1 who cares cos i dont

Edited by Lee (Forum Super Moderator): Do not create pointless posts.

karter

08-04-2013, 06:10 PM

Rest in peace.

--

Meanwhile in Argentina :

Baroness Thatcher will be remembered for bringing "nothing positive to humanity", the president of the national committee of Argentine Falklands veterans has claimed, as other said they would not "allow a tear" for her.

GommeInc

08-04-2013, 06:13 PM

I've seen more people celebrate her death than the death of people like Osama Bin Laden and Kim Jong-Il. She wasn't that bad. I can't help but think it's brainwashing from the uneducated, which has been passed on to people in our generation from angry parents, relatives, friends and the media (which may be acting through satire than fact). From my understanding, she wasn't "Thatcher the Milk Snatcher", as she was opposed to it but was in the minority of her party.

She was a rare politician, one we will all remember as someone who stood by her convictions rather than the modern politician who seems clueless and unsure how to bring about change, and would rather let something stagnate for fear of upsetting people.

I'm fascinated by the quote that is being chucked around: "There is no such thing as society. Only a man, a woman and their children." Was it really that bad a thing to say?

dbgtz

08-04-2013, 06:25 PM

GommeInc

08-04-2013, 06:36 PM

When you do things right, people won't be sure that you've done anything at all. Most people will only remember her for the bad decisions.
That is true, we all like a bit of controversy and bad press like removing milk from children or killing of the mining industry is right up our street :P She allegedly saved the economy, but no one cares about that.

FlyingJesus

08-04-2013, 07:35 PM

I don't get the no milk thing, I had milk in school and I'm old but not pre-Thatcher

Ardemax

08-04-2013, 07:40 PM

Love how on Twitter everyone's like "OH EM GEE #RIPTHATCHUR" even though they've only heard her name for the first time today,

I think judging her decisions has a time and a place in a different thread and if we celebrate her death more than, as said before, Bin Laden's, we have a problem.

RIP Mrs Iron Lady Woman.

MKR&*42

08-04-2013, 08:03 PM

Love how on Twitter everyone's like "OH EM GEE #RIPTHATCHUR" even though they've only heard her name for the first time today,.

At least they're making a very small effort to show respect eh? :P I'd rather that than all the disgusting comments that have been thrown about today.
----
Although I don't exactly know that much about her time as PM, she certainly seemed like a very influential figure in politics. May she RIP.

Ardemax

08-04-2013, 08:30 PM

At least they're making a very small effort to show respect eh? :P I'd rather that than all the disgusting comments that have been thrown about today.
----
Although I don't exactly know that much about her time as PM, she certainly seemed like a very influential figure in politics. May she RIP.

Maybe so, but jumping on a bandwagon for the sake of jumping on a bandwagon is probably not for respect, but to show how "in-touch" with their political side they are :)

Demi

08-04-2013, 10:02 PM

Not a fan, but won't get involved in political BS, RIP as every other human being deserves regardless of the past.

Southe,

08-04-2013, 10:35 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmomV-ax-s

Chippiewill

08-04-2013, 10:58 PM

Frankie Boyle is hilarious..

https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/321251242984755201

Demi

08-04-2013, 11:03 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmomV-ax-s

AHAHAH THAT IS BRILL!

MKR&*42

09-04-2013, 06:18 PM

AgnesIO

09-04-2013, 06:57 PM

Chippiewill

09-04-2013, 07:02 PM

I could understand people celebrating if she died 30 years ago - she did make some pretty poor decisions, that did ruin peoples lives (ie miners) - but celebrating now when she was just an 87 year old woman with dementia is a little odd.

Agreed, it would be like celebrating the death of Sean Connery when Daniel Craig dies. The person who died is not the Margaret Thatcher of 20 years ago.

Southe,

09-04-2013, 07:16 PM

Wow I just watched C4 news showing some of the 'parties'/riots last night because of her death. When people make comments celebrating someone's death it sickens me, but to see people GENUINELY PARTYING makes my blood boil. Absolutely no faith in humanity anymore.

And it sickens me when someone dies and there made out to be a saint and its considered sick to say anything bad about her because she's dead. She was evil and the fact that ALOT of people are happy about this shows it.

Its alright for people to want Saddam dead or celebrate when Bin Laden was killed but not Thatcher? Not to mention i've seen more older people celebrate than the younger ones.

I personally don't like what she did to the miners, steel works etc, was partly involved with the Hillsborough cover up. Mostly tho, using Scotland as guinea pigs for the poll tax and dubbing us as spongers. Then in 2009 she had the chance to apologize but she refused. Good riddance.

Agreed, it would be like celebrating the death of Sean Connery when Daniel Craig dies. The person who died is not the Margaret Thatcher of 20 years ago.

Nothing of the sort, and i had someone say something along the lines of what you said "she died with dementia and didn't know what she had done" But she did at the time. and people have hated her ever since. Why do you think Scotland has more pandas than they do Torys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz2qKx7nCAU

-:Undertaker:-

09-04-2013, 07:34 PM

To those saying she was simply a little old lady with dementia, that's complete rubbish - yes she had memory loss in her later years, but not complete. In the run up to the 2010 General Election she was advising Lord Pearson (then UKIP leader) on election campaigning and she (only back in January) had an aim at David Cameron by saying, after his speech on Europe, that leaders these days seem to think that simply by making a speech they've done something worthy in terms of policy.

She also commented on the polls a month or so ago (when shown them at her bedside in the Ritz Hotel) that the Tories weren't low enough in the polls and claimed that the government needed to strengthen policy and make tough decisions as by doing so will improve the country and improved poll ratings would then follow. In her final weeks and days, she was more clued up than most of the public on politics.

The idea that she was a mindless vegtable sitting in a bed is total rubbish. And as for the dregs out smashing up things on the street, shame on them. The pictures from Glasgow, Brixton and Liverpool make me ashamed to be a Briton.

The person who died is not the Margaret Thatcher of 20 years ago.

Yes it is, see above.

Southe,

09-04-2013, 07:38 PM

I don't mind the public gatherings, i wouldn't go myself and don't like it when people use it as an excuse to cause bother. Some people are genuinely happy and i have nothing against that.

Ardemax

09-04-2013, 07:47 PM

So if Hitler had survived (somehow) and had grown old with dementia people shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion (and express it) when he died?

Obviously there's a slight difference between Thatcher and Hitler, but you see my point.

MKR&*42

09-04-2013, 08:09 PM

And it sickens me when someone dies and there made out to be a saint and its considered sick to say anything bad about her because she's dead. She was evil and the fact that ALOT of people are happy about this shows it.

I don't agree with her being deemed a saint either, nor do I think it's particularly bad to say anything negative about her after she's dead. However, holding massive street celebrations because she has died is completely unfair. There is no denying she did some pretty bad stuff in her time as PM, but there is no way she deserves to have celebrations like that over her death?

--

Oh and I agree with whoever has said the fact she had dementia shouldn't account for anything at all.

xxMATTGxx

09-04-2013, 10:10 PM

AgnesIO

09-04-2013, 10:12 PM

Slight? There's a big difference between the both.

Very true.

Hitler killed 6m Jew's, Thatcher - well - didn't.

Chippiewill

09-04-2013, 10:43 PM

But she did kill 6m miners with her bare teeth.

Shockwave.2CC

09-04-2013, 10:50 PM

Sad to here this :(

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 09:20 AM

She'd requested that she not have state funeral, and they've complied with her wishes.

There does still appear to be a partially state funded event, still seems rather ironic.

MilksAreUs

10-04-2013, 10:35 AM

Ding dong the witch is dead which old witch? The wicked witch! Ding dong the wicked witch is deadddddd

Yay! - rip tho i wouldnt want death to happen to anyone. But she made peoples lives miserys!

Southe,

10-04-2013, 10:38 AM

Not happy about my tax money being used to give her a fancy send off. Her racist daughter and bankrolling mercenary son can pay the bill.

Have Ding Dong at number 1 and people planning to take pictures of them with there backs turned to a switched of tv during her funereal. Any other things being planned?

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 11:14 AM

Not happy about my tax money being used to give her a fancy send off. Her racist daughter and bankrolling mercenary son can pay the bill.

Whether you agree with her policies or not, she deserves it based on the fact that she led the Falklands War (the only just war we've engaged in since 1945) and like Churchill she's being honoured with a ceremonial funeral, with the family meeting half of the costs.

I think the attitudes shown, ie bringing in family, just go to show how low those on the left are willing to sink concerning her legacy.

Have Ding Dong at number 1 and people planning to take pictures of them with there backs turned to a switched of tv during her funereal.

That's such a graceful and kind comment concerning an 87-year old who has just died, you come across really well.

There does still appear to be a partially state funded event, still seems rather ironic.

I don't see the irony at all. Mrs. Thatcher was never an anarchist, and few would even say she's as far as a libertarian. She stated she did not believe industry should be run and subsidised by the government, she never said anything concerning state funerals and pomp & ceremony.

Indeed of the few things she did say concerning that, she requested also that a fly past not take place as she would consider it a waste of funds.

lemons

10-04-2013, 11:16 AM

Churchill she's being honoured with a ceremonial funeral

Churchill had a state funeral, js :p

security for her funeral will be so big next wednesday probs be protests n everything

AgnesIO

10-04-2013, 11:19 AM

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 11:20 AM

She doesn't need to have any money towards a funeral given by the taxpayer.

She's the one who wanted everything privatised, not the public!

She didn't want everything privatised, please read on her beliefs and what she did in office and then come to a real conclusion. You're just deploying the Joey Bartonesque school of thought, despite the fact that Joey Barton never reimbursed the taxpayer for his short stay in prison.

If she owned an industry and wanted subsidies to her company from the state, then you'd have a point. But she didn't.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 11:21 AM

I don't see the irony at all. Mrs. Thatcher was never an anarchist, and few would even say she's as far as a libertarian. She stated she did not believe industry should be run and subsidised by the government, she never said anything concerning state funerals and pomp & ceremony.

Indeed of the few things she did say concerning that, she requested also that a fly past not take place as she would consider it a waste of funds.

It certainly seems a waste when you could just do the funeral privately and the state not pay for it.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 11:27 AM

It certainly seems a waste when you could just do the funeral privately and the state not pay for it.

You could say that with any historical figure then. Why bother reburying Richard III? why hold a funeral for Churchill? why hold one for the Queen Mother? why bother holding one for Princess Diana? heck, why even have any tradition, pomp and ceremony anymore? scrap the lot, scrap the State Opening of Parliament. Scrap the Britannia as Labour did. Scrap military shows. Scrap the Changing of the Guard and just replace with normal dull security.

AgnesIO

10-04-2013, 11:28 AM

She didn't want everything privatised, please read on her beliefs and what she did in office and then come to a real conclusion. You're just deploying the Joey Bartonesque school of thought, despite the fact that Joey Barton never reimbursed the taxpayer for his short stay in prison.

If she owned an industry and wanted subsidies to her company from the state, then you'd have a point. But she didn't.

The Thatcher Administration started the privatisation of the railways, for a start.

For that reason alone, I cannot stand the woman.

Kardan

10-04-2013, 11:37 AM

I don't mind her having a ceremonial funeral, I'm just bothered by all the people that will cause trouble on the day. It's really not the time and the place for it. The time for it was 23 years ago...

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 11:40 AM

The Thatcher Administration started the privatisation of the railways, for a start.

For that reason alone, I cannot stand the woman.

Because government is so good at running the railways, I mean just look at how good it runs the hospitals/schools/armed forces.

PS - the railways have been de facto re-nationalised before you tell me they're terrible now and that somehow makes state-run ones better.

AgnesIO

10-04-2013, 11:42 AM

Because government is so good at running the railways, I mean just look at how good it runs the hospitals/schools/armed forces.

PS - the railways have been de facto re-nationalised before you tell me they're terrible now and that somehow makes state-run ones better.

I bet it wouldn't cost me £6 to get to the nearest town (11 minute journey!!) if it was government run.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 11:45 AM

I bet it wouldn't cost me £6 to get to the nearest town (11 minute journey!!) if it was government run.

Indeed, because the government would simply take it out of your back pocket via taxation and then subsidise the railways. Like they do now.

The NHS costs you 'nothing' when you arrive at the hospital or doctors, but where do you think the money comes from? it doesn't fall from space.

AgnesIO

10-04-2013, 11:49 AM

Indeed, because the government would simply take it out of your back pocket via taxation and then subsidise the railways. Like they do now.

The NHS costs you 'nothing' when you arrive at the hospital or doctors, but where do you think the money comes from? it doesn't fall from space.

When I eventually start needing the LST service, it will cost me (annually) £4,100 - and that is before inevitable price increases.

Unless the government taxes me an additional £4k per year, I know how I would be better off.

They could even fund it by scrapping the ridiculous HS2 plan.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 11:54 AM

When I eventually start needing the LST service, it will cost me (annually) £4,100 - and that is before inevitable price increases.

Unless the government taxes me an additional £4k per year, I know how I would be better off.

They could even fund it by scrapping the ridiculous HS2 plan.

It wouldn't tax you directly and instantly, no - it never does. It'd add it onto the debt and make you pay even more with the added interest long term - as well as placing that burden on the rest of the country on people who don't even use the railways. I don't want to pay towards your journeys.

The railways should be privatised and privatised properly this time.

AgnesIO

10-04-2013, 11:59 AM

It wouldn't tax you directly and instantly, no - it never does. It'd add it onto the debt and make you pay even more with the added interest long term - as well as placing that burden on the rest of the country on people who don't even use the railways. I don't want to pay towards your journeys.

The railways should be privatised and privatised properly this time.

I guess if you use the railways, you would want it nationalised - just something to make them actually.. work?

I can genuinely count on one hand the amount of times my train has been on time in the morning so far in 2013. Taking into account I get the train every weekday, that is truly appalling.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 12:09 PM

I guess if you use the railways, you would want it nationalised - just something to make them actually.. work?

I use the railways and they do work.

I pay my own fare and I think you should be expected to pay your own aswell, rather than having others pay it for you.

I can genuinely count on one hand the amount of times my train has been on time in the morning so far in 2013. Taking into account I get the train every weekday, that is truly appalling.

Bad service encouraged by government subsidies. If you nationalise them completely again, it'll only compound the problem; if a service isn't driven by profit and expanding the service by making it attractive to new customers, then it's not going to function as well as it would.

At the moment we've got the ridiculous situation where 'private' railways are being subsidised by government - the policy should be sink or swim.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 12:12 PM

You could say that with any historical figure then. Why bother reburying Richard III? why hold a funeral for Churchill? why hold one for the Queen Mother? why bother holding one for Princess Diana? heck, why even have any tradition, pomp and ceremony anymore? scrap the lot, scrap the State Opening of Parliament. Scrap the Britannia as Labour did. Scrap military shows. Scrap the Changing of the Guard and just replace with normal dull security.

Probably not a bad idea actually, it would save a lot of money..

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 12:14 PM

Probably not a bad idea actually, it would save a lot of money..

So in other words, you haven't any attachment to the concept of nationhood or British institutions.

Fair enough, but quite a great many of us value centuries of tradition and history. It is after all, what makes us a nation rather than Orwell's 1984.

Southe,

10-04-2013, 12:33 PM

Whether you agree with her policies or not, she deserves it based on the fact that she led the Falklands War (the only just war we've engaged in since 1945) and like Churchill she's being honoured with a ceremonial funeral, with the family meeting half of the costs.

There's a difference between World War 2 and Falklands (which some people would say it wasn't a just war) and the family should be meeting ALL the costs. If people who want to suck up to here want to pay for part of it then let them do it out of there own pockets.

I think the attitudes shown, ie bringing in family, just go to show how low those on the left are willing to sink concerning her legacy.

That's such a graceful and kind comment concerning an 87-year old who has just died, you come across really well.

I didn't say i was doing it did i? i was merely stating what people are currently doing and was wondering what else people were planning.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/margaret-thatcher-mps-can-claim-%C2%A33750-travel-costs-recall-parliament-872091

"MPs can claim up to £3,750 in travel costs to pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher in parliament today - sparking warnings the bill could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Parliament’s expenses watchdog has confirmed that MPs can put their travel costs to attend the special session of parliament on expenses – including their family.

Taxpayers now face a potentially hefty bill for today’s recall of parliament, where MPs will discuss Baroness Thatcher's contributions to British politics and her legacy following her death on Monday."

More wasted money

Adam

10-04-2013, 03:10 PM

Celebrating somebodies death is disgusting.

End thread.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 03:53 PM

So in other words, you haven't any attachment to the concept of nationhood or British institutions.

Fair enough, but quite a great many of us value centuries of tradition and history. It is after all, what makes us a nation rather than Orwell's 1984.

Point being we're in a financial pit, perhaps we shouldn't be spending money on funerals.

Ardemax

10-04-2013, 04:09 PM

Slight? There's a big difference between the both.

My sarcasm skills have reached expert levels, I see :P

I bet it wouldn't cost me £6 to get to the nearest town (11 minute journey!!) if it was government run.

Indeed, because the government would simply take it out of your back pocket via taxation and then subsidise the railways. Like they do now.

The NHS costs you 'nothing' when you arrive at the hospital or doctors, but where do you think the money comes from? it doesn't fall from space.

Genuine question: are the railway and train services in countries like Germany, Italy, France etc. privatised? Their train services are fantastic.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 04:25 PM

French is state owned
German is private but most stock is held by state
Italy is state owned

On a sidenote Japan was state owned until 1987 but is now made up of 7 private companies, the 6 which provide passenger service rank in the best companies globally. There are also smaller companies for local rail and some regional governments manage their own rail.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 04:53 PM

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/margaret-thatcher-mps-can-claim-%C2%A33750-travel-costs-recall-parliament-872091

"MPs can claim up to £3,750 in travel costs to pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher in parliament today - sparking warnings the bill could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Parliament’s expenses watchdog has confirmed that MPs can put their travel costs to attend the special session of parliament on expenses – including their family.

Taxpayers now face a potentially hefty bill for today’s recall of parliament, where MPs will discuss Baroness Thatcher's contributions to British politics and her legacy following her death on Monday."

More wasted money

Don't agree with the inclusion of family on that. I agree though that any expenses system applies to a state event, just as it would with the State Opening of Parliament.

Point being we're in a financial pit, perhaps we shouldn't be spending money on funerals.

Perhaps, but then again that would also be an argument for cutting everything I stated - and I think that'd be a great shame as those traditions have gone on through war after war, and through bankruptcy. If people are serious about cutting the debt, then the things you have to be looking at are foreign aid, social security, EU payments, the NHS budget, quangos and so on.

My sarcasm skills have reached expert levels, I see :P

Genuine question: are the railway and train services in countries like Germany, Italy, France etc. privatised? Their train services are fantastic.

I constantly hear praise for the railways on the mainland yet the praise, from what I have also read, is largely overdone. In many cases i've heard people complain that the railways in France for instance are far worse than our railways. It depends who you speak to on them, but as I haven't riden in them I can't comment.

I can say however two points - I don't want to be forced into paying for other peoples railway fares via government subsidies (as we are now) and Spain for example has nice shiny railways - which lead to nowhere and the costs + quality of those railway lines are totally unsuited to the areas the railways cover. The railway fanatics in this country have it stuck in their head that we can roll out bullet trains across the country and somehow this will benefit us - maybe it would have post-war, but instead we spent out loan money on the NHS/new school buildings.

Low cost air travel has largely made the railway even more redundant than it was prior to the 1960s with the mass sale of cars.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 06:20 PM

Low cost air travel has largely made the railway even more redundant than it was prior to the 1960s with the mass sale of cars.
A high speed rail network would not be redundant. Air Travel may be low cost, but things like security add frustrating delays. Cars would easily be beat out by 200MPH+ trains.

Frankly however, I really do not see the benefit in the government paying for it, Japan's rail network is pretty damn good, and fast. Yet it's all private now.

Ardemax

10-04-2013, 06:40 PM

I constantly hear praise for the railways on the mainland yet the praise, from what I have also read, is largely overdone. In many cases i've heard people complain that the railways in France for instance are far worse than our railways. It depends who you speak to on them, but as I haven't riden in them I can't comment.

I can say however two points - I don't want to be forced into paying for other peoples railway fares via government subsidies (as we are now) and Spain for example has nice shiny railways - which lead to nowhere and the costs + quality of those railway lines are totally unsuited to the areas the railways cover. The railway fanatics in this country have it stuck in their head that we can roll out bullet trains across the country and somehow this will benefit us - maybe it would have post-war, but instead we spent out loan money on the NHS/new school buildings.

Low cost air travel has largely made the railway even more redundant than it was prior to the 1960s with the mass sale of cars.

The one thing I fail to understand is that a country like Italy, who has suffered greatly economically wise, has a much better railway network than ours.

Also the fares are so cheap. Like super cheap. A ride on the Berlin subway (all day ticket) costs only a couple of euros. Is it £6 something for the Underground?

I wish the government would stop overlooking what is a disappointment. No doubt it would do wonders for our economy too.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 07:02 PM

The one thing I fail to understand is that a country like Italy, who has suffered greatly economically wise, has a much better railway network than ours.

Italy doesn't have the same welfare bills to pay as we do so it's government can spend money on railways as opposed to a gigantic National Health Service like ours. You can't have both, and personally i'd have neither as I don't see why the state should be involved in running healthcare or the railways. I'm not under the illusion that I can vote myself seemingly 'free' things you see.

Also the fares are so cheap. Like super cheap. A ride on the Berlin subway (all day ticket) costs only a couple of euros. Is it £6 something for the Underground?

If the railway is operating at a profit then thats because there's enough customer demand for that service. If it's not and the company in question is recieving government payments then it's not really cheap is it? it just looks cheap on the surface, just as the NHS may appear 'free'.

As for tickets prices, again, are you calling for even more subsidies? if so, why should I pay to subsidise your fare?

I wish the government would stop overlooking what is a disappointment. No doubt it would do wonders for our economy too.

Italy is different from us as it's on the continent and a lot more continent orientated. We are an island of 70m people, not a continent of 400m or an island like Japan of 160m. A lot of these railways were also built a few decades ago and have largely been made pointless with airline travel becoming ever more cheap. The newer lines have largely been wasteful vanity projects of the political class in each country (ie, Spain).

The fact is, people don't like using public transportation because it constricts you. If possible people prefer to use their own car (as opposed to a bus) and prefer to use flexible and reliable airlines (as opposed to more expensive railways). We're moving on from public transport to individual transport and it's a great thing, just as the explosion in the car industry was a great thing for people's ability to travel freely.

Stephen

10-04-2013, 07:14 PM

being nice gets you no where and also causes you to die young

so to add a few extra years to my life i bid the old lady farewell and hope she gets buttraped by hitler in the depths of hell

Ardemax

10-04-2013, 07:22 PM

Italy doesn't have the same welfare bills to pay as we do so it's government can spend money on railways as opposed to a gigantic National Health Service like ours. You can't have both, and personally i'd have neither as I don't see why the state should be involved in running healthcare or the railways. I'm not under the illusion that I can vote myself seemingly 'free' things you see.

If the railway is operating at a profit then thats because there's enough customer demand for that service. If it's not and the company in question is recieving government payments then it's not really cheap is it? it just looks cheap on the surface, just as the NHS may appear 'free'.

As for tickets prices, again, are you calling for even more subsidies? if so, why should I pay to subsidise your fare?

Italy is different from us as it's on the continent and a lot more continent orientated. We are an island of 70m people, not a continent of 400m or an island like Japan of 160m. A lot of these railways were also built a few decades ago and have largely been made pointless with airline travel becoming ever more cheap. The newer lines have largely been wasteful vanity projects of the political class in each country (ie, Spain).

The fact is, people don't like using public transportation because it constricts you. If possible people prefer to use their own car (as opposed to a bus) and prefer to use flexible and reliable airlines (as opposed to more expensive railways). We're moving on from public transport to individual transport and it's a great thing, just as the explosion in the car industry was a great thing for people's ability to travel freely.

The Underground has HUGE demand. Yet ticket prices increases basically year on year. You can't tell me that the London Underground will be replaced by people using their cars because they see it as an alternative. It is not feasible. Nor is it feasible (or cheap) to travel cross-country by car. It is a lot easier and quicker to do it by train and if the ticket prices get sorted out (and catch up with the rest of Europe/the world) then the demand for trains will sky-rocket.

I don't think the train network will ever get out-dated nor should it be underestimated. It is a crucial part of infrastructure.

I agree though, travelling from place to place by airplane is a great thought, but even that is less convenient than the train (add together waiting times plus the distance from the airport to where you actually want to go).

Southe,

10-04-2013, 07:35 PM

So talk of them now having 700 armed guards.. More money and they won't publish the total cost until after.

All i can say is if Scotland doesn't get the Yes vote and we stay united for god sake don't put the Tories in power again.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 08:08 PM

The Underground has HUGE demand. Yet ticket prices increases basically year on year. You can't tell me that the London Underground will be replaced by people using their cars because they see it as an alternative. It is not feasible. Nor is it feasible (or cheap) to travel cross-country by car. It is a lot easier and quicker to do it by train and if the ticket prices get sorted out (and catch up with the rest of Europe/the world) then the demand for trains will sky-rocket.

I don't think the train network will ever get out-dated nor should it be underestimated. It is a crucial part of infrastructure.

I agree though, travelling from place to place by airplane is a great thought, but even that is less convenient than the train (add together waiting times plus the distance from the airport to where you actually want to go).

I hardly think you can compare a railway line in a crowded city of 7m odd (London) is comparable to the concept that we should state fund railways and roll out brand new ones across this country. If the London Underground is state subsidised (I haven't checked) and struggles to be profitable despite the massive usage then I think that goes to prove my point on railways and the future of British transport.

But on the ticket prices being 'sorted' - again, what do you mean by that statement?

Yet ticket prices increases basically year on year.

Nearly everything increases year on year. That's what happens when you have a monetary system backed by nothing.

So talk of them now having 700 armed guards.. More money and they won't publish the total cost until after.

All i can say is if Scotland doesn't get the Yes vote and we stay united for god sake don't put the Tories in power again.

If staying in the Union is based purely on politics and economics to you then by all means leave. You belong to a country because you feel you share the same culture, language, history and are the same people - not the legacy of a Prime Minister or the return of a certain political party.

It's this sort of talk from those in the north that makes me think the Union really is dead.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 08:13 PM

The fact is, people don't like using public transportation because it constricts you. If possible people prefer to use their own car (as opposed to a bus) and prefer to use flexible and reliable airlines (as opposed to more expensive railways). We're moving on from public transport to individual transport and it's a great thing, just as the explosion in the car industry was a great thing for people's ability to travel freely.

I swear you just have a hatred of Trains. Trains as a whole could be VASTLY more cost efficient than planes or cars and over short-medium distances quite a bit faster. Further, you can only fit so many cars onto the roads, far, far, far fewer if you even want to attempt to avoid serious congestion/traffic issues.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 08:20 PM

I swear you just have a hatred of Trains. Trains as a whole could be VASTLY more cost efficient than planes or cars and over short-medium distances quite a bit faster. Further, you can only fit so many cars onto the roads, far, far, far fewer if you even want to attempt to avoid serious congestion/traffic issues.

Then you don't know me, people have thrown the same accusations at me regarding the closing of the mines and industry in this country. My favourite period of Britain, romantic in a way, was when the railways snaked through our industrial towns and cities, when the mills churned out cotton by the load and the sky was dotted with the chimneys producing the smog that made the sunset seem blood red on the horizon. I love seeing the old steam engines in action, I love the grand bridges and tunnels - I feel sad seeing the old carriages sitting abandoned, when tunnels are overgrown with weeds and trees.

But the point is, that it's over. I'm not going to be a Luddite and sit here pretending that I can run a world class (and profitable) railway service from Whitehall and somehow change peoples minds that the hassle of a railway journey is preferable to travelling by car or air.

Trains as a whole could be VASTLY more cost efficient than planes or cars and over short-medium distances quite a bit faster.

Get private investors (who have knowledge of business and industry) to stump up cash and build it and your claim will be proved valid.

Southe,

10-04-2013, 08:27 PM

If staying in the Union is based purely on politics and economics to you then by all means leave.
-I didn't say it was purely based on politics and economics did i? I merely made a point.

You belong to a country because you feel you share the same culture, language, history and are the same people
not the legacy of a Prime Minister or the return of a certain political party.

It's this sort of talk from those in the north that makes me think the Union really is dead.
The Union is dead. A year ago if you asked people about the Yes vote most people i know would have said no or undecided. Last week it was brought up and a large amount of the No's i knew have turned into Yes's and now that our tax money is being used to bury someone who is despised in Scotland is going to push people towards the Yes vote as well.

...

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 08:31 PM

I didn't say it was purely based on politics and economics did i? I merely made a point.

Yes you did. You implied very clearly that your support for the continuted existence of your country was based on the premise that a certain political party (the Conservatives) were never returned to power because of the Thatcher legacy. I loathe the Conservative Party as much as the Labour Party, but never would I call into question the existence of my country based on two awful political parties. The country comes above politics, always.

The thought of 50 years of unbroken Labour rule is more preferable to me than the dissolution of my country.

The Union is dead. A year ago if you asked people about the Yes vote most people i know would have said no or undecided. Last week it was brought up and a large amount of the No's i knew have turned into Yes's and now that our tax money is being used to bury someone who is despised in Scotland is going to push people towards the Yes vote as well.

The Union retains majority support in the polling carried out.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 08:32 PM

Then you don't know me, people have thrown the same accusations at me regarding the closing of the mines and industry in this country. My favourite period of, romantic in a way, was when the railways snaked through our industrial towns and cities, the mills churned out cotton by the load and the sky was dotted with the chimleys producing the smog that made the sunset seem blood red on the horizon. I love seeing the old steam engines in action, I love the grand bridges and tunnels - I feel sad seeing the old carriages sitting abandoned, when tunnels are overgrown with weeds and trees'.

But the point is, that it's over. I'm not going to be a Luddite and sit here pretending that I can run a world class (and profitable) railway service from Whitehall and somehow change peoples minds that the hassle of a railway journey is preferable to travelling by car or air.

Flying by air is hardly preferable since you're effectively rammed into a seat with zero leg room, a train cabin is substantially more spacious. Then for travelling across the country, well, by plane it's INCREDIBLY inconvinient, as you have to turn up at the airport quite a bit early so that you can queue for checking in, security, boarding - the whole deal, which takes a significant amount of time and of course you have to wait for your plane to taxi, take off, etc. The travelling bit, agreeably is speedy, of course at the other end you're waiting a while since inevitably you'll be stuck in a traffic stack circling for 20 minutes then landing, more taxiing, parking, walking, luggage pickup perhaps. Then after all that you're stuck in the countryside you I guess you thne have to catch a train, or public transportation into the city you were planning to visit, or if you have money to burn you could get a taxi - or a helicopter. Most of the time not actually spent flying on the speedy plane really.

Compare that to the train: get the ticket - board the train - leave - speed along at 200MPH with HS rail - arrive - you're already IN the city you were trying to get to.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 08:38 PM

Just to add up here from my reply down below, i'm all for more railway building provided it's all privately funded - indeed, i'd be for relaxing planning rules by a large degree (which I am for anyway) if private companies were willing to invest.

If it's such a good idea what you're proposing and it [the railway system] has such a bright future, then private companies should be coming forward in droves to invest in and build new railway lines. But the fact is, they aren't.

Flying by air is hardly preferable since you're effectively rammed into a seat with zero leg room, a train cabin is substantially more spacious. Then for travelling across the country, well, by plane it's INCREDIBLY inconvinient, as you have to turn up at the airport quite a bit early so that you can queue for checking in, security, boarding - the whole deal, which takes a significant amount of time and of course you have to wait for your plane to taxi, take off, etc. The travelling bit, agreeably is speedy, of course at the other end you're waiting a while since inevitably you'll be stuck in a traffic stack circling for 20 minutes then landing, more taxiing, parking, walking, luggage pickup perhaps. Then after all that you're stuck in the countryside you I guess you thne have to catch a train, or public transportation into the city you were planning to visit, or if you have money to burn you could get a taxi - or a helicopter. Most of the time not actually spent flying on the speedy plane really.

Compare that to the train: get the ticket - board the train - leave - speed along at 200MPH with HS rail - arrive - you're already IN the city you were trying to get to.

I think you're confusing the argument. I'm not asking your personal preferences or mine, i'm saying look at how people are increasingly choosing to travel and accept it - rather than making the void argument that if only we spent billions and billions on the railways (as we have done) that people would come flocking back. The Spanish regional governments most likely argued the same when they built the pointless and wasteful airports and high speed railway lines when there was no need to - the same for the US Federal Government who thought they would change transport habits by building the famous 'bridges to nowhere'. The state in action; complete failure, as usual.

Look at how people vote with their feet as they say, rather than believing everybody has the same personal preferences as you do.

Chippiewill

10-04-2013, 08:46 PM

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 08:49 PM

Oligopoly. Why would the rail companies want to spend money improving the network if they can run a sub-standard service whilst being subsidised by the Government for being so crap and then charge people a ton for it because Planes are so damn inconvenient.

I absolutely agree, thats why i'd remove all the subsidies and force them to stand on their own two feet. Sink or swim, as I said before.

People prefer trains, when they operate at a reasonable speed. I'm not convinced our rail system has actually been improved since the Victorians built it.

As with above, remove the subsidies and get private companies to improve them and we'll see whether they'll be as popular as you claim.

I'm not doubting it either, I think if the railway service was truly privatised it could work pretty well in many areas. My underlying point is, it must be private driven entirely - anything with the state involved in terms of money or direction is like pissing whilst facing the wind.

Southe,

10-04-2013, 08:52 PM

Yes you did. You implied very clearly that your support for the continuted existence of your country was based on the premise that a certain political party (the Conservatives) were never returned to power because of the Thatcher legacy. I loathe the Conservative Party as much as the Labour Party, but never would I call into question the existence of my country based on two awful political parties. The country comes above politics, always.

"All i can say is if Scotland doesn't get the Yes vote and we stay united for god sake don't put the Tories in power again."

1. There is no "support for the continued existence" I want independence. I said "if Scotland doesn't get the yes vote"
2. Where in my sentence did i mention "Thatcher legacy" I'm judging the current government and i don't like them, there ideals and there policies.
3. I didn't question the existence of my country based on political parties.
4. Agreed.

Please don't say things that aren't there in future please. I know what i said and implied.

The thought of 50 years of unbroken Labour rule is more preferable to me than the dissolution of my country.

The Union retains majority support in the polling carried out.
We'll see when the actual voting takes place.

...

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 08:53 PM

...

Oh fair enough, you want independence.

I thought you were one of those false Unionists who just wants to stay in the United Kingdom for the handouts.

Southe,

10-04-2013, 09:20 PM

And its comments like that, that give me reason to want to get out of the union.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 09:39 PM

And its comments like that, that give me reason to want to get out of the union.

I don't like some of the comments Scottish nationalists make, it doesn't make me want to dissolve my country. You probably hear comments you don't like in Scotand, it doesn't make you want to dissolve Scotland now does it?

No, it confirms my thought - that you have no feeling or connection towards the concept of Britain as a nation. And that's perfectly fine, i'm not going to argue over it because it's a stupid thing to argue over; I can no more change what nation you feel to be a part of anymore than I can change your view on what the perfect flower looks like, what wooden flooring you prefer and so on. Nationhood is ingrained within you. Clearly when you look at St. Andrews flag, you feel it's your flag - just as I do when I see the Union Flag.

I just take an issue with people who don't actually feel British but who want to stay part of the United Kingdom for purposes of economics/cash handouts. I don't want the Union to break up at all, but if people are purely voting based on how much money they'll get from London - then i'd say let's end it. That's why i'm annoyed that the Unionists aren't fighting the campaign on history and culture, rather they're simply focusing (or scaremongering some would say) over the economic benefits and disadvantages to Scotland.

AgnesIO

10-04-2013, 11:26 PM

Don't agree with the inclusion of family on that. I agree though that any expenses system applies to a state event, just as it would with the State Opening of Parliament.

Perhaps, but then again that would also be an argument for cutting everything I stated - and I think that'd be a great shame as those traditions have gone on through war after war, and through bankruptcy. If people are serious about cutting the debt, then the things you have to be looking at are foreign aid, social security, EU payments, the NHS budget, quangos and so on.

I constantly hear praise for the railways on the mainland yet the praise, from what I have also read, is largely overdone. In many cases i've heard people complain that the railways in France for instance are far worse than our railways. It depends who you speak to on them, but as I haven't riden in them I can't comment.

German exchange students whilst I was at school joked about our poor train service - that summed up my opinion. Certainly in my region, the trains are appalling. It doesn't help that my train service has been voted the second worst in the UK - sums it up!

I can say however two points - I don't want to be forced into paying for other peoples railway fares via government subsidies (as we are now) and Spain for example has nice shiny railways - which lead to nowhere and the costs + quality of those railway lines are totally unsuited to the areas the railways cover. The railway fanatics in this country have it stuck in their head that we can roll out bullet trains across the country and somehow this will benefit us - maybe it would have post-war, but instead we spent out loan money on the NHS/new school buildings.

Why can't we roll out bullet trains? All I want is a service that arrives on time, every day (not once a month). I don't care how they do that.

Low cost air travel has largely made the railway even more redundant than it was prior to the 1960s with the mass sale of cars.

Bold.

-:Undertaker:-

10-04-2013, 11:52 PM

Why can't we roll out bullet trains? All I want is a service that arrives on time, every day (not once a month). I don't care how they do that.

If private companies want to build + operate them (and thus they'll be profitable) then I haven't got a problem with bullet trains.

AgnesIO

11-04-2013, 10:29 AM

I hardly think you can compare a railway line in a crowded city of 7m odd (London) is comparable to the concept that we should state fund railways and roll out brand new ones across this country. If the London Underground is state subsidised (I haven't checked) and struggles to be profitable despite the massive usage then I think that goes to prove my point on railways and the future of British transport.

3.66m get the London Underground daily, and it is owned by TfL, of Greater London.

Clearly the LU therefore benefits the economy HUGELY.

Nearly everything increases year on year. That's what happens when you have a monetary system backed by nothing.

Not above inflation they don't.

Then you don't know me, people have thrown the same accusations at me regarding the closing of the mines and industry in this country. My favourite period of Britain, romantic in a way, was when the railways snaked through our industrial towns and cities, when the mills churned out cotton by the load and the sky was dotted with the chimneys producing the smog that made the sunset seem blood red on the horizon. I love seeing the old steam engines in action, I love the grand bridges and tunnels - I feel sad seeing the old carriages sitting abandoned, when tunnels are overgrown with weeds and trees.

But the point is, that it's over. I'm not going to be a Luddite and sit here pretending that I can run a world class (and profitable) railway service from Whitehall and somehow change peoples minds that the hassle of a railway journey is preferable to travelling by car or air.

Get private investors (who have knowledge of business and industry) to stump up cash and build it and your claim will be proved valid.

But this argument really doesn't stand. The railway tracks are not the profitable bit - the trains are. It is like telling Ryanair to build itself an airport, or Ford (+ other car companies) and taxi drivers to build their own roads. It simply wouldn't make sense.

Build the train track, then rent it out - then you don't subsidise it, I promise you it would work - if it was efficient, and therefore low priced.

Commuters don't choose to get the train journey because it is super cheap, they do it because it is SO MUCH less hassle than getting a car everyday - which doesn't help ticket price increases, as the companies know this.

http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/02/soaring-rail-profits-are-used-to-cut-fares-abroad-3567491/

High fares paid by British commuters are subsidising rail travel across Europe – and even China – by millions of pounds.
The profits go to international companies often owned by other governments, which use the money to cut fares on their own networks.
As well as raking in expensive ticket prices, foreign train firms shared in a net subsidy of £2.7billion paid to train companies last year.
Shadow transport minister Maria Eagle said: ‘Many of these private companies are at least in part state-owned, so German, French and Dutch state railways – and a little bit of Hong Kong – are running franchises on our system from which they are making not only dividends and nice big pay packets but also profits.’

So brilliant these private train companies are!

Chippiewill

11-04-2013, 10:59 AM

But this argument really doesn't stand. The railway tracks are not the profitable bit - the trains are. It is like telling Ryanair to build itself an airport, or Ford (+ other car companies) and taxi drivers to build their own roads.
I agree with the overall point but many of the airports are privatised too (Thanks to Thatcher no less).

buttons

11-04-2013, 11:59 AM

guys, our generation:

http://tashload.com/Uploader/uploads//1JHenbF.png

top notch arguing from diaz there too. "she made SCOTLAND (no) crap she was the one that stopped milk going to schools and everything". bandwagon at its finest lol

Kardan

11-04-2013, 01:25 PM

buttons

11-04-2013, 01:29 PM

ya i think i had milk and raisins at school. he is just listening to what others say :P

AgnesIO

11-04-2013, 02:02 PM

I still had milk when I was in school in the 90's? :P

I believe it is free milk vs paid milk.

GommeInc

11-04-2013, 02:18 PM

I'm amazed at how much controversy there is revolving around the idea that the Queen may be attending. The arguments seem to be focusing on political bias and if the Queen goes she's out of touch and biased towards the Tories :P

http://www.channel4.com/news/margaret-thatcher-state-funeral-queen-row-guests

It was on my Facebook. The comments on the C4 Fb page are hilarious.

Lee

11-04-2013, 03:59 PM

RIP, there where parties in Liverpool the other night which was disrespectful, but I can see why.

-:Undertaker:-

11-04-2013, 05:59 PM

But this argument really doesn't stand. The railway tracks are not the profitable bit - the trains are. It is like telling Ryanair to build itself an airport, or Ford (+ other car companies) and taxi drivers to build their own roads. It simply wouldn't make sense.

Build the train track, then rent it out - then you don't subsidise it, I promise you it would work - if it was efficient, and therefore low priced.

Commuters don't choose to get the train journey because it is super cheap, they do it because it is SO MUCH less hassle than getting a car everyday - which doesn't help ticket price increases, as the companies know this.

If iniatially there's no infastructure then thats an argument.. but there already exists one so any upgrades should be cheaper and worth investing in should your idea be so economically sound. And besides, it goes to show that again your falling into the trap - you think government wouldn't simply tax the rail operators ridiculous amounts of tax? of course it would, just like it does with any other industry. So who picks up the bill at the end of the day? the consumers do, as all taxes are ultimately passed onto the consumers.

You're arguing in favour of massive spending on the railways with doubtful results at the end... yet all this is simply because you think your ticket is too expensive. A massive build and upgrade like this you will be paying for ultimately as more expensive lines require more expensive maintainence.

So brilliant these private train companies are!

And government isn't corrupt and doesn't do appalling things? at least with the railways (if they were truly private, which they are not) you have the option of not travelling on them which would send a message to any poor railway company that it needs to improve.

Subsidise a bad service and that bad service will only continue/get worse.

RIP, there where parties in Liverpool the other night which was disrespectful, but I can see why.

Being from Liverpool I can tell you that most of the people celebrating probably didn't even know what decade she was Prime Minister.

Ardemax

11-04-2013, 06:00 PM

-:Undertaker:-

11-04-2013, 06:09 PM

I don't think the London Underground struggles to be profitable? They've just launched a new fleet of trains. Hardly scraping for cash.

By that statement I mean reduced to the prices of train tickets across central Europe and, quite frankly, the world. Train operators are literally raking in the money and provide very little in terms of quality service.

Well as I said, I don't know about the London Underground.

But if it is indeed private, not recieving government subsidies and is making a profit... then the train operators absolutely deserve those profits.

Just to clarify, you believe the railway system is a waste of space/money?

The position is clear; privatise the railways properly and allow them to sink or swim. By the state owning or subsidising the railways, you only encourage bad services - the Thatcher sell off of state owned companies in the 1980s proves this.

If a railway line still isn't profitable after all of the above then it ought to be closed - like any other business.

Lee

11-04-2013, 06:19 PM

Being from Liverpool I can tell you that most of the people celebrating probably didn't even know what decade she was Prime Minister.

This is true, I am also from Liverpool and not to say that I did end up get involved in such parties, I can see why these scousers are no matter if they know why or not. A lot of people round here will use anything as an excuse. That's a shame for genuine liverpudlians who may not have their frustrations taken seriously by anybody else anymore.

Chippiewill

12-04-2013, 01:01 AM

iTunes is in good taste for the UK: http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10songs.html

azzaman1234

12-04-2013, 11:11 AM

I find it funny how nobody or very little people voiced their true opinions/hate on her until she was dead? Just like with Jimmy Saville nothing was mentioned about him being a pedophile until after he was dead.

I don't know anything about the woman if I'm honest lol, I'm not one to study into history... It's not my thing but hey. RIP.

Ardemax

12-04-2013, 03:16 PM

iTunes is in good taste for the UK: http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10songs.html

Although it probably shouldn't, that did make me smile slightly seeing that there.

I find it funny how nobody or very little people voiced their true opinions/hate on her until she was dead? Just like with Jimmy Saville nothing was mentioned about him being a pedophile until after he was dead.

I don't know anything about the woman if I'm honest lol, I'm not one to study into history... It's not my thing but hey. RIP.

Very little people voiced their hate about Margaret Thatcher when she was alive? Are you serious?!?!

Regarding Jimmy Saville, a lot of the information was hidden from the public eye by people not affected, rather than the actual people who knew what he did. But I see your point. It's a lot easier to throw stones at people when they can't throw them back.

azzaman1234

12-04-2013, 03:21 PM

Although it probably shouldn't, that did make me smile slightly seeing that there.

Very little people voiced their hate about Margaret Thatcher when she was alive? Are you serious?!?!

Regarding Jimmy Saville, a lot of the information was hidden from the public eye by people not affected, rather than the actual people who knew what he did. But I see your point. It's a lot easier to throw stones at people when they can't throw them back.

Yeah what I mean is that very few in comparison to now she is dead. People who don't even understand what she was doing/wanted to do are now hating her because they are "following the crowd" as such.

Southe,

12-04-2013, 08:18 PM

LiquidLuck.

12-04-2013, 09:05 PM

Wow we talked about her in our History class today and none knew she had died.. RIP.

GommeInc

13-04-2013, 12:49 AM

So apparently theres another group trying to get the song "We love Margaret Thatcher" number 1 and there #10 in itunes.

BBC saying they will only play 5 seconds of Ding dong if it gets number 1. Disgrace if this pro thatcher song gets number 1 are they going to give that 5 seconds as well? you know to the majority of people that hate her and will be offended.
Presumably a Pro-Thatcher song wouldn't be littered with disrespectful and ill-mannered undertones. Being grateful that someone is dead is poor taste regardless of who that person is :P

AgnesIO

13-04-2013, 10:31 AM

Yeah what I mean is that very few in comparison to now she is dead. People who don't even understand what she was doing/wanted to do are now hating her because they are "following the crowd" as such.

It is because whilst someone is not in the news, they won't be on the publics mind.

Jimmy Saville is a different case, as barely anyone really knew of him as a paedophile before it all came out.

---------- Post added 13-04-2013 at 11:33 AM ----------

Presumably a Pro-Thatcher song wouldn't be littered with disrespectful and ill-mannered undertones. Being grateful that someone is dead is poor taste regardless of who that person is :P

I think it would be wrong to play the whole of one and not of the other.

Just my thoughts though.

Grig

13-04-2013, 10:54 AM

This is foolish and sheer idioticy. A few people made out her to be much worse than any other politician in the country. Well, you are wrong. She like any politicians have made mistakes. I would like you to name politicians who have squeaky clean record and you will be hard pressed to find any. If she was that bad, she would not have completely transformed the country's economy, which was lagging behind. Yes, she could have and should have done more to support those who lost their jobs when industry closed in Britain and she was wrong with a few of her taxes, as well as supporting a rogue dictator in Argentina, whilst tarnishing Mandela. However, the good does outweigh the evil and it is sheer stupidity on the amount of people who come here, have very little knowledge of her policies and say how much she was of a "witch".

Also, I am disgusted at the UK's education system. If people did not know she was still alive and thought she died in the 80's, then I am very worried of how your future is going to pan out (no offence). You should at the very least know some of the history of your own country, particularly this period, which I would say was as crucial as the industrial revolution.

I am not taking sides, although I do think she changed the UK for the better. Think about it, you could have been sitting there bailing out EU-member countries right now and the economy would have been far worse. Not only that, but despite people loosing jobs, they actually had social mobility with the opportunity to buy a house etc.

Here are 2 sides of the story, you can decide whichever one you are on (but with good reasoning, all this she was a witch talk makes people look quite silly):

For:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPNulbVADt4

Against:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtClJYJBj8

Chippiewill

13-04-2013, 11:05 AM

Also, I am disgusted at the UK's education system. If people did not know she was still alive and thought she died in the 80's, then I am very worried of how your future is going to pan out (no offence). You should at the very least know some of the history of your own country, particularly this period, which I would say was as crucial as the industrial revolution.
No school is going to cover the last 30 years in a history class (Mostly due to the lack of a consensus on what happened), and certainly no school is going to cover politics outside of a politics lesson. I really see no need for people to memorise which past prime ministers are and are not alive.

Perhaps if they didn't know who the current prime minister it might be an issue..

Grig

13-04-2013, 11:12 AM

MKR&*42

13-04-2013, 11:25 AM

Grig

13-04-2013, 11:30 AM

To add to the discussion above about schools teaching 'this kind of thing'. I can't actually recall having ever being taught about Margaret Thatcher or any of her ideas, and none of my friends seem to know anything either - one of my friends only started learning about her at Government and Politics at AS Level. I had to research her myself to find out about anything to do with her :P

Quite a lot of school students aren't that keen to go and learn about something historical in politics if it is of no benefit to them in the exam/if it is not on the curriculum. I do think its a tad silly to not know she was a former Prime Minister and for people to have an opinion on her when they know anything about her, but someone can't be ridiculed purely because they haven't been taught about her or bothered researching.

All this generation cares about are computer games etc. I like to see knowing history as a marker of intelligence. If these people in the future go into politics, business etc. and don't know why X,Y and Z failed, then they will be committing the mistakes of the past.

It's fine and dandy to not know much about her, but at the very least shut up and don't comment on her when she dies. If one is to make a comment, one would expect they either lived through the period or know the history quite extensively and that is an element that disguists me.

MKR&*42

13-04-2013, 11:40 AM

All this generation cares about are computer games etc. I like to see knowing history as a marker of intelligence. If these people in the future go into politics, business etc. and don't know why X,Y and Z failed, then they will be committing the mistakes of the past.

It's fine and dandy to not know much about her, but at the very least shut up and don't comment on her when she dies. If one is to make a comment, one would expect they either lived through the period or know the history quite extensively and that is an element that disguists me.

Yes this is what I completely agree with. Misinformed opinions a lot of these 'haters' seem to have based on hearsay :P

And it is rather disappointing that more people seem to be losing interest in history and (potentially) politics, there just doesn't seem to be any sign of the situation improving. It's just rather unfortunate law or politics isn't really compulsory at secondary school - it really should at least be conisdered because I have been asked a few worrying questions by people my age about the government and people deserve to have at least some basic knowledge of how the system works.

(Including "who is the current prime minister" @Empired (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=80588); )

jam666

13-04-2013, 11:17 PM

No school is going to cover the last 30 years in a history class (Mostly due to the lack of a consensus on what happened), and certainly no school is going to cover politics outside of a politics lesson. I really see no need for people to memorise which past prime ministers are and are not alive.

Perhaps if they didn't know who the current prime minister it might be an issue..

You make it sound like there are debates in schools about politics: P, but the truth is the only debate is how well can you shout down anyone with a capitalistic attitude. I call it Inter-generational Indoctrination. Schools are a well-established breeding ground for socialists who dominate a VERY large percentage of staff and reside in all tiers and ranks of the education system right from your university chancellor to your primary school teaching assistant. Am i saying the education they provide is bad? Nope it is probably very good, but it is far from politically neutral.

The problem with a left leaning educational establishment is the indoctrination of pupils with socialistic agendas that can't be debated as there is simply no opposition. If you raise your voice against it, your labelled as a rich person who hates the poor and can’t wait to destroy their lives (not quite as dramatic as this but you get the picture). This ultimately leads to what we see today with the unfortunate death of Margaret Thatcher.

There are countless numbers of youths who simply join the band wagon, who have no idea who Mrs Thatcher was or what the country was like before she came into office. Faced with a few home truths they would change their opinion. But it's not just the schools who are to blame it’s the parents. Back to the issue of inter-generational indoctrination we come as the "hate" stems from the children's parents indoctrinating them with "Thatcher is evil" without telling the child both sides of the story or even letting them make their own minds up. If your child believes this is the case after looking at the historical facts then fair enough you are free to believe what you want, but to simply jump on the bandwagon of one sided opinions is crazy and does not pose well for the future of that child.

I’ll just briefly mention the miners’ strike of the 80's. This has been appallingly portrayed by ALL media outlets (most of the media in the country is left leaning but we'll save that for another day). I'm quite fortunate to be able to have experiences from both sides (Thatcher’s and the miners), but Thatcher was ultimately correct. Strange how the left typically cry that Mrs Thatcher destroyed their lives, but what they fail to tell you is the generous pension schemes and HUGE pay outs the miners were given when the mines closed. (one example being my Great Uncle and Aunty, he received a substantial amount from being laid off in the mines that at the time my Great Aunty simply couldn't manage to spend the money which on top of this he also had a generous pension!) It appears that small fact is kept quiet by the unions as they want sympathy, but from WW2 to the time Mrs Thatcher took office, the amount of jobs in the Mining sector went from approximately 750,000 to around 250,000. With that aside you are not going to keep open a subsidized mine that isn't making any money!

As for the track “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” it’s absolutely disgraceful that the BBC decides to air even a small proportion of it when they banned God Save the Queen many years ago. Another biased decision influenced by the left.

Whatever your political view, the longest serving and only women prime minister of the 20th century has died and for that she should be respected. If you’re planning to have a party, then shame on you for not only disrespecting yourself, but also for disrespecting the country.

Chippiewill

13-04-2013, 11:32 PM

The problem with a left leaning educational establishment is the indoctrination of pupils with socialistic agendas that can't be debated as there is simply no opposition. If you raise your voice against it, your labelled as a rich person who hates the poor and can’t wait to destroy their lives (not quite as dramatic as this but you get the picture). This ultimately leads to what we see today with the unfortunate death of Margaret Thatcher. You're complaining about ad hominem whilst committing it yourself. Am I meant to take you seriously or are you being intentionally ironic?

jam666

13-04-2013, 11:40 PM

You're complaining about ad hominem whilst committing it yourself. Am I meant to take you seriously or are you being intentionally ironic?

I was perhaps unclear in my statement. It wasn't an attack on you or the educational establishment, but simply a point of view of which you are free to disagree with.

I accept it may seem that I am being hypocritical in the aspect of indoctrination, but I have formed my own opinion over time that is the result of both my own personal belief and historical research (if you require them, I can give you examples of this but I felt that the need to at this moment of time is unnecessary).

Chippiewill

13-04-2013, 11:53 PM

I was perhaps unclear in my statement. It wasn't an attack on you or the educational establishment, but simply a point of view of which you are free to disagree with.

I accept it may seem that I am being hypocritical in the aspect of indoctrination, but I have formed my own opinion over time that is the result of both my own personal belief and historical research (if you require them, I can give you examples of this but I felt that the need to at this moment of time is unnecessary).

You were complaining about the left position because it 'indoctrinates pupils' with the belief that people on the right are evil, which is ad hominem, but the complaint itself is ad hominem as it's attacking the people who hold the position rather than the position itself.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 08:15 PM

Thatcher's funeral cost = £10 million

"Unavoidable" cuts to Arts Council England = £11.6 million

Food for thought.

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 08:42 PM

Food for thought.

Why are we paying for the Arts? I can understand people being against state funerals in these conditions, but in no conditions would I ever want to fund the arts where prats stand around looking at some god awful art. Art should be the last thing funded by the state.

Somebody made the point about funeral costs on Facebook though, and I can understand - and I put forwards a deal, let's cut the £113m a year that goes from the state into funding the Unions and we'll agree to not pay for the funeral. That's a deal I think Mrs. Thatcher would approve of.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 08:51 PM

Why are we paying for the Arts? I can understand people being against state funerals in these conditions, but in no conditions would I ever want to fund the arts where prats stand around looking at some god awful art. Art should be the last thing funded by the state.

Somebody made the point about funeral costs on Facebook though, and I can understand - and I put forwards a deal, let's cut the £113m a year that goes from the state into funding the Unions and we'll agree to not pay for the funeral. That's a deal I think Mrs. Thatcher would approve of.

Replace the Arts with anything else that is being forced into a cut.

What really annoys me (and this is going off topic) is tax avoidance by major companies. Vodafone in particular. Something to the tune of £7bn I believe?

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 08:58 PM

Replace the Arts with anything else that is being forced into a cut.

I don't understand the point.

What really annoys me (and this is going off topic) is tax avoidance by major companies. Vodafone in particular. Something to the tune of £7bn I believe?

In a way yes, as small businesses have to pay higher rates and this gives companies an advantage. I'd rather have all companies pay less and less tax, rather than focusing on making a select group (who do provide investment and jobs) to pay even more so the state can waste it.

"I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible. The reason I am is because I believe the big problem is not taxes, the big problem is spending." - Milton Friedman

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 09:02 PM

I don't understand the point.

In a way yes, as small businesses have to pay higher rates and this gives companies an advantage. I'd rather have all companies pay less and less tax, rather than focusing on making a select group (who do provide investment and jobs) to pay even more so the state can waste it.

My point being that smaller services are being cut and yet we find the money to spend £10 million to bury someone. Why not spend £10 million on building 500 football pitches in poor areas?

Whether we should lower taxes or not, avoiding billions in tax (and the money has to be found somewhere, e.g. cutting the health service) is not acceptable and should be tackled by the government.

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 09:05 PM

My point being that smaller services are being cut and yet we find the money to spend £10 million to bury someone. Why not spend £10 million on building 500 football pitches in poor areas?

Well you could make the same argument with anything really, and yes it is a point I agree.

The way I see it though - why are the left complaining all of a sudden about a state funeral (something thats traditional, British and only costing so much because morons on the left plan to disrupt it) when they are the ones who refuse to contemplate cutting foreign aid etc.

Whether we should lower taxes or not, avoiding billions in tax (and the money has to be found somewhere, e.g. cutting the health service) is not acceptable and should be tackled by the government.

I'd rather the companies keep the money as opposed to our wasteful government if i'm honest.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 09:09 PM

Well you could make the same argument with anything really, and yes it is a point I agree.

The way I see it though - why are the left complaining all of a sudden about a state funeral (something thats traditional, British and only costing so much because morons on the left plan to disrupt it) when they are the ones who refuse to contemplate cutting foreign aid etc.

I'd rather the companies keep the money as opposed to our wasteful government if i'm honest.

It really wouldn't be a problem is the cuts weren't as widespread as they are (even though spending has gone up, I know, but cuts are taking place). On a side note, I wish we'd cut most of our foreign aid. Though not stop Children in Need/Comic Relief.

I'd rather them pay their taxes so people can keep their jobs. But I guess that's the governments lack of forward-thinking.

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 09:13 PM

It really wouldn't be a problem is the cuts weren't as widespread as they are (even though spending has gone up, I know, but cuts are taking place). On a side note, I wish we'd cut most of our foreign aid. Though not stop Children in Need/Comic Relief.

And this is why spending is never cut properly, everyones for cuts but then if you touch their pet project ie Comic Relief - it's a no, don't cut that. How about Comic Relief being self funding via charity like its supposed to be on the tin?

I haven't the slightest interest in Comic Relief or Children in Need, and I don't want to be forced paying towards it.

I'd rather them pay their taxes so people can keep their jobs. But I guess that's the governments lack of forward-thinking.

Government jobs aren't real jobs though. Again, just check the pages of the Guardian for the ridiculous government jobs that are advertised and the ridiculously high wages they are on. The only real jobs which create wealth are those in the private sector.

Every state funded job is at the expense of one or more private sector jobs.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 09:20 PM

And this is why spending is never cut properly, everyones for cuts but then if you touch their pet project ie Comic Relief - it's a no, don't cut that. How about Comic Relief being self funding via charity like its supposed to be on the tin?

I haven't the slightest interest in Comic Relief or Children in Need, and I don't want to be forced paying towards it.

You're not forced paying towards it? It's a rather depressing opinion to have, what with the ground it has covered in the last few years.

Government jobs aren't real jobs though. Again, just check the pages of the Guardian for the ridiculous government jobs that are advertised and the ridiculously high wages they are on. The only real jobs which create wealth are those in the private sector.

Every state funded job is at the expense of one or more private sector jobs.

Are you referring to public sector jobs not being real jobs? Without them, this country would crumble.

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 09:23 PM

You're not forced paying towards it? It's a rather depressing opinion to have, what with the ground it has covered in the last few years.

Provided no state funds are going towards it, I don't have a problem.

Are you referring to public sector jobs not being real jobs? Without them, this country would crumble.

Wrong, as most things can be done via the private sector. The Raj after all was run by a mere 1,000 odd civil servants. For every area (health, education etc) you decide to keep under state control - its costing you in terms of the fact that the now-smaller private sector has to pick up the tab for it. The point is, the more public sector you have - the bigger the burden placed on the wealth creating private sector.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 09:28 PM

Provided no state funds are going towards it, I don't have a problem.

Wrong, as most things can be done via the private sector. The Raj after all was run by a mere 1,000 odd civil servants. For every area (health, education etc) you decide to keep under state control - its costing you in terms of the fact that the now-smaller private sector has to pick up the tab for it. The point is, the more public sector you have - the bigger the burden placed on the wealth creating private sector.

So your suggestion would be... to fire all public sector workers and employ the equivalent in the private sector?

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 09:31 PM

So your suggestion would be... to fire all public sector workers and employ the equivalent in the private sector?

Begin a programme where government departments are reduced by say 20% per year which allows the private sector then to slowly take up job losses and create new jobs for those who have just lost their jobs. I'm telling you now that its going to have to happen, its just whether we do it by choice or by no choice when we've gone bankrupt.

The amount of people who are employed in the public sector isn't sustainable.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 09:37 PM

Begin a programme where government departments are reduced by say 20% per year which allows the private sector then to slowly take up job losses and create new jobs for those who have just lost their jobs. I'm telling you now that its going to have to happen, its just whether we do it by choice or by no choice when we've gone bankrupt.

The amount of people who are employed in the public sector isn't sustainable.

Agreed on your last point. But to privatise everything in order to create these private sector jobs would have horrific consequences, yes?

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 09:39 PM

Agreed on your last point. But to privatise everything in order to create these private sector jobs would have horrific consequences, yes?

No, why should it? i'm not arguing that we demolish the state from 45% odd of GDP to 30% or below overnight. As I said, have a measured programme whereby government departments lay off 20% staff a year, and look at entire areas (ie, the railways) which could be privatised entirely quickly.

How far to go of course would depend on the governments mandate, personally i'd like to see Health and Education privatised pretty quickly but that'd be politically impossible without years of advocation and argument beforehand... so we'd have to work with what we've got.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 09:48 PM

No, why should it? i'm not arguing that we demolish the state from 45% odd of GDP to 30% or below overnight. As I said, have a measured programme whereby government departments lay off 20% staff a year, and look at entire areas (ie, the railways) which could be privatised entirely quickly.

How far to go of course would depend on the governments mandate, personally i'd like to see Health and Education privatised pretty quickly but that'd be politically impossible without years of advocation and argument beforehand... so we'd have to work with what we've got.

So every family who wants their children to go to school will have to pay astronomical private fees?!

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 09:51 PM

So every family who wants their children to go to school will have to pay astronomical private fees?!

You don't understand how it works do you. Think about it, if i'm to dismantle the state slowly then the tax money which goes to pay for those schools would be refunded and given back to families and individuals. At the moment, is education free? of course not. The only difference is that it has the illusion of being free in that the state takes money away from you in heavy taxation, spends on education (and with a lot of waste thrown in) and then says "da da, here's some free education" - well it's not free education.

If the state spends 20% less on education this year, then 20% must be given back in tax cuts. And so on and so on.

"Idiots don't realise how expensive 'free stuff' is." - Peter Schiff

Education would be one of my last areas anyway, i'd much rather get the state out of the big one which is healthcare.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 09:56 PM

You don't understand how it works do you. Think about it, if i'm to dismantle the state slowly then the tax money which goes to pay for those schools would be refunded and given back to families and individuals. At the moment, is education free? of course not. The only difference is that it has the illusion of being free in that the state takes money away from you in heavy taxation, spends on education (and with a lot of waste thrown in) and then says "da da, here's some free education" - well it's not free education.

If the state spends 20% less on education this year, then 20% must be given back in tax cuts. And so on and so on.

Education would be one of my last areas anyway, i'd much rather get the state out of the big one which is healthcare.

I do understand how it works, yes. Except I know my parents certainly don't have to pay around £15,000 a year (up to £35,000) JUST for education. That's my point.

If everything was privatised it would cost a fortune for a working family to afford. If everyone chips in a little bit (e.g. taxes), then it becomes a more manageable sum.

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 09:59 PM

I do understand how it works, yes. Except I know my parents certainly don't have to pay around £15,000 a year (up to £35,000) JUST for education. That's my point.

If everything was privatised it would cost a fortune for a working family to afford. If everyone chips in a little bit (e.g. taxes), then it becomes a more manageable sum.

Wrong, because the competition would bring price crashing right down.

It is because there is no competition that private schools can charge such prices at the present.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 10:01 PM

Wrong, because the competition would bring price crashing right down.

We're still talking uni prices for school placements though, right?

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 10:04 PM

We're still talking uni prices for school placements though, right?

A schools market would be cheaper seeing as a) wages for staffing aren't as high b) there's a bigger market for it c) school resources aren't required at the same level as universities.

Because the state does it now (runs education) we're all paying more for it than we would if it were privatised, because the state is very good at wasting money. It's just because you don't directly pay the school, you don't notice it. It really wouldn't surprise me if private schools managed to provide a x2 better education at half the price it costs to run a state school.

Ardemax

15-04-2013, 10:07 PM

A schools market would be cheaper seeing as a) wages for staffing aren't as high b) there's a bigger market for it c) school resources aren't required at the same level as universities.

Because the state does it now (runs education) we're all paying more for it than we would if it were privatised, because the state is very good at wasting money. It's just because you don't directly pay the school, you don't notice it. It really wouldn't surprise me if private schools managed to provide a x2 better education at half the price it costs to run a state school.

I guess there's going to be the inevitable problem of insuring that all the teachers are up to a respectable teaching standard, what with no universal regulations. Your thoughts?

-:Undertaker:-

15-04-2013, 10:16 PM

I guess there's going to be the inevitable problem of insuring that all the teachers are up to a respectable teaching standard, what with no universal regulations. Your thoughts?

Some schools would be better than others, just as they are now. However, as schools are pitted against one another in competition it will be imperative that the school in question improve otherwise it'll suffer financially - whereas at the moment it doesn't matter all that much, as the school is unlikely to lose funding (although in recent years this has been a tactic of the state to improve schools).

It's the same with voting as with funding - if something is bad and doesn't work properly, it will only improve when brought under pressure.

Ardemax

16-04-2013, 06:05 PM

Some schools would be better than others, just as they are now. However, as schools are pitted against one another in competition it will be imperative that the school in question improve otherwise it'll suffer financially - whereas at the moment it doesn't matter all that much, as the school is unlikely to lose funding (although in recent years this has been a tactic of the state to improve schools).

It's the same with voting as with funding - if something is bad and doesn't work properly, it will only improve when brought under pressure.

But what about the schools in poorer areas whose academic success will be extremely limited if all their funding comes from students? Would you not allow any government intervention to support them?

-:Undertaker:-

17-04-2013, 03:45 AM

But what about the schools in poorer areas whose academic success will be extremely limited if all their funding comes from students? Would you not allow any government intervention to support them?

As i've said before, this wouldn't be a 'pull the rug from underneath' move - it'd take many years. But as for the government sometimes stepping in, yes maybe initially, but as the society prospered and became wealthier i'd want charities/business to start stepping in just as they did before the creation of the welfare state - with both hospitals and schools.

The problem is, once you start allowing the government to subsidise certain schools - it leads to the prices all being pushed up as the schools can then spend as much as they want and not have to worry about going into the red, as the state will always back them up.