Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:56 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And Hitler was not, alone, responsible for the Holocaust.

Good point. As Albert Meltzer wrote: "What would the crimes of Hitler have amounted to had he to carry them out by himself?"

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:36 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

A Prime Minister who feels no obligation to look after the population, who feels that its up to each individual to look out for themselves (however well or ill equipped that individual is) is a Prime Minister who didn't fully understand the job description when he/she came for the interview.

There isn't an interview it's decided by a democratic process where people choose it.

I think the electorate didn't understand the job description otherwise they would have voted for Callaghan, Foot or Kinnock

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:22 am  

McLaren_Field wrote:

Nothing more to add but a quote from the woman herself whilst holding the office of Prime Minister in her third term...

A Prime Minister who feels no obligation to look after the population, who feels that its up to each individual to look out for themselves (however well or ill equipped that individual is) is a Prime Minister who didn't fully understand the job description when he/she came for the interview.

I am briefing neither for nor against Thatcher, but sad to say your quote is deliberately selective misrepresentation, as this was not what Thatcher was saying at all. The bit you missed out was:

people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—" It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it" . That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people:"All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say:"But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say:"Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"

To briefly paraphrase that particular quote, she was saying that instead of being a safety net to help those unfortunate enough to need help, she thought that there were now those manipulating the system, and who would not work simply as the dole paid just as well.

To suggest she was saying in that quote that those ill-equipped to look after themselves should nevertheless have to do so is simply wrong. You cannot claim a person who clearly states that benefits should ".. reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help" in fact said the opposite.

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:33 am  

I know likes of Cod-ed think we should/could turn the clock back 30 years that is simply unrealistic. If Thatcher had not got into power do you honestly think we would still have a mining industry as it was? The world doesn't seem to be missing our coal does it?

Our manufacturing base when the Tories came in was uncompetitive and that was before the Chinese really got a grip. Our unit cost of production was too high and our quality was shoddy, especially in the public owned industries. Benn was suggesting protectionist measures to counter our inefficiencies. We had huge union labour manipulation issues - the unions had pushed through increase of close to 30% in the wake of Heath's defeat Strikes were called if there were no paper in the loos or the tea lady didn't serve the union rep first. The country had had enough of the tail wagging the dog and the government's inability to control the unions. Do you honestly think Postman Jim would have put Arthur, Scanlon, Jones et al in there place?

Someone had to get a grip - monetarism has proved to be a flawed mechanism in the long term but the country was dealing with rampant inflation 11% in 1974, 9% in 1975 almost double the highest previous figure since 1947- something had to be done. How anyone could take the likes of Healey seriously after he needed IMF intervention to prop up the pound. With it came budget cuts to public spending - notice a pattern here when Labour get in?

Whilst Thatcher may have many faults the thought of five further years of Callaghan, Healey, Benn etc does not bear contemplation - you think things were bad under Thatcher?

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:11 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

To suggest she was saying in that quote that those ill-equipped to look after themselves should nevertheless have to do so is simply wrong. You cannot claim a person who clearly states that benefits should ".. reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help" in fact said the opposite.

And yet as we saw then and we have seen again in the past twelve months the "demon" of those who apparently spend all day long sitting on their doorstep drinking cheap lager on the proceeds of "the dole" while "society" picks up the tab is seemingly untouchable while those with genuine debilitating illnesses, the one who should be in the safety net, are the ones who are soft targeted by zealous civil servants driven by an office target to strike off as many of those "demons" as possible - there are several who use these boards who will relate.

Its certainly a conundrum to see how to get "the demons" back into work at a time when the formally employed are joining their ranks in increasing numbers, if the aim is to reduce dependency on state aid at a time when more are requiring it (even in the short term) then again, that is a cruel failure of a government to protect and aid its population and you have to ask if they are not prepared to accept that responsibility then what is the purpose of a government ?

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:07 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Someone had to get a grip - monetarism has proved to be a flawed mechanism in the long term but the country was dealing with rampant inflation 11% in 1974, 9% in 1975 almost double the highest previous figure since 1947- something had to be done. How anyone could take the likes of Healey seriously after he needed IMF intervention to prop up the pound. With it came budget cuts to public spending - notice a pattern here when Labour get in?

Inflation was just under 10% when Mrs Thatcher left office in 1990 so it's hard to say that she was a raging success on getting on top of inflation.

As for a pattern, when the Tories get in you usually get
- industrial unrest
- social disorder
- high unemployment

What we need is strong governments that can deal with unions and strikers, focus on the rule of law so people don't think they can take liberties, and clamp down on the lazy and scroungers but Tory governments breed all three problems.

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:01 pm  

I remember breaking the news to my grandmother that my grandfather had died the night before. And then telling her the same thing several times again in the next 30 mins. Eventually she said to me "Who's died, me?". At that point I realised the futility of it.

Cant blame anyone who decides to break any ties rather than destroy the way they regard a loved one. As long as they are sure that she's being taken care of and is comfortable I wouldnt blame them at all for keeping their distance.

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:00 pm  

My mum went the same way.
She didn't know me from Adam, but I still visited her in the nursing home.
One time I went to see her and she was asleep and grumpy when she was aroused, and she then fell straight back to sleep.
Rather than sign out 5 minutes after I signed in, I spent a respectful twenty minutes looking at the photos on her bedroom wall of our relatives.
I thought 'that's it', so I arranged that every time my sister visited I would go at the same time. That way I could talk to my sister and talk AT my mum and not feel such a spare part.
She died last August ... officially.

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:15 pm  

My aunt currently resides in a care home in an advanced state of dementia, I haven't been to visit her since she was admitted there two years ago, have no wish to do so then or now even though she was the aunt who introduced me to art and encouraged me to keep drawing all the way through school - I've got no wish to visit her as she is not the person that I recognise and she will not recognise me, my brother visits now and again but the last time he was there he left quite quickly when it was obvious that she was frightened of him and didn't know what he was doing in her room, to cap it all her husband died last February and she hasn't been told, her daughter doesn't see the point and I agree with her.

Re: Poor Lady Thatcher? : Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:45 pm  

For those who have suffered a near and dearest relative in this set of illnesses: sympathy from another who remembers long hours visiting a home.

I actually have no time for Thatcher and am as against her having a State Funeral as I could be. I also have no truck with the views of my fellow Red. However, please remember that she is not suffering: her friends and relatives are.