I can't argue with that but when a politician does things that are necessary but not popular then they rarely get thanks, that's why politicians these days tend to talk the talk but not walk the walk, because sorting out problems and getting the job done sometimes involve measures that aren't popular. That's why it's a true measure of the effectiveness to see how much of what they do is reversed later on down the line.

 

Maybe because her major policy legacies are damn difficult to undo without completely changing the political landscape? The anti-capitalist movement is gathering steam little over 20 years since she left office. Compared to Keynesianism, that's not a particularly long time.

Maybe because her major policy legacies are damn difficult to undo without completely changing the political landscape? The anti-capitalist movement is gathering steam little over 20 years since she left office. Compared to Keynesianism, that's not a particularly long time.

She managed to chage the political landscape in just 11 years though? So clearly it can be done with enough political willpower surely?

She managed to chage the political landscape in just 11 years though? So clearly it can be done with enough political willpower surely?

 

In some ways, yes. In other ways her successors have seen huge changes (the reinvestment in education under Blair, for instance).

In some ways, yes. In other ways her successors have seen huge changes (the reinvestment in education under Blair, for instance).

It could be argued that that is just a redirection of funds. Anyway clearly we won't agree :)

Well, put it this way, even The Daily Torygraph doesn't think that she should have a State Funeral.. It would be far too divisive and almost impossible to police.. We may end up with even more riots. I think a lot people who have been advocating this in politics or in the news are either too thick or perhaps to young to realise just how much resentment and anger Thatcher's name still inspires amongst many in the country....

 

Frankie Boyle puts it best I think...

 

"They could give everyone in Scotland a shovel and we could dig a hole so deep, we could hand her over to Satan personally...!"

 

BOOM..... :lol:

Well, put it this way, even The Daily Torygraph doesn't think that she should have a State Funeral.. It would be far too divisive and almost impossible to police.. We may end up with even more riots. I think a lot people who have been advocating this in politics or in the news are either too thick or perhaps to young to realise just how much resentment and anger Thatcher's name still inspires amongst many in the country....

 

Frankie Boyle puts it best I think...

 

"They could give everyone in Scotland a shovel and we could dig a hole so deep, we could hand her over to Satan personally...!"

 

BOOM..... :lol:

 

I LOVE that quote. If the Torygraph isn't even advocating it, hopefully the Government will see sense.

Well, put it this way, even The Daily Torygraph doesn't think that she should have a State Funeral.. It would be far too divisive and almost impossible to police.. We may end up with even more riots. I think a lot people who have been advocating this in politics or in the news are either too thick or perhaps to young to realise just how much resentment and anger Thatcher's name still inspires amongst many in the country....

 

Frankie Boyle puts it best I think...

 

"They could give everyone in Scotland a shovel and we could dig a hole so deep, we could hand her over to Satan personally...!"

 

BOOM..... :lol:

I think she should be given a state funeral in view of the profound way she changed the country (for good or ill depending on your viewpoint) but she should be recognised formally. However I agree that cremation is probably best if a certain section of people found out where she was buried then it would only lead to vandalism or even worse, sad really that people can't let the dead rest but hey ho that's life.

I think she should be given a state funeral in view of the profound way she changed the country (for good or ill depending on your viewpoint) but she should be recognised formally.

 

Nope, sorry, completely disagree.. People should only be honoured if their legacy is actually positive. That can be said for Churchill, it cannot be said for Thatcher. Everything that is going wrong with our economy now started with her, and continued with Major, Blair and Brown... They're all scum, simple as, and the country doesn't respect them, or their legacy (do you honestly want to see Tony fukkin' Blair get a state funeral? It's pretty much the same thing really as giving Thatcher one).... Churchill may have been an aristocrat, he may have made mistakes, but he was a man of honour. Thatcher and her cronies had no such honour, they did everything for the banks and for the 1%, Thatcher probably would have done a deal with Hitler and Mussolini. Churchill was respected by the common man and woman, Thatcher never will be.... Therefore, she does not deserve the honour.. I would piss on her grave, absolutely...

 

You talk about the way Thatcher "profoundly changed" the country... Well, so did Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan by the creation of the NHS and the Welfare State. Now THAT is something worthy of respect....

I LOVE that quote. If the Torygraph isn't even advocating it, hopefully the Government will see sense.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterobo...-from-this-one/

Margaret Thatcher deserves every honour – apart from a state funeral

Peter Osborne

 

Plans to give the former prime minister a state funeral insult many honest, patriotic people

 

For all the sad picture of Maggie Thatcher in old age portrayed in Meryl Streep’s new film, our former prime minister remains magnificent: brave, impervious, indomitable, the giantess of our time.

 

Nevertheless, preparations for her death are inevitably afoot. No official announcement has been made, but it is already widely understood that she may be granted the very rare honour (outside the Royal family) of a state funeral, which would probably take place at St Paul’s Cathedral.

 

The discussions have been held in secret, without public debate, through a series of meetings in the inner recesses of what used to be known as the British Establishment. The most recent of these, reportedly chaired by Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude and attended by Sir Malcolm Ross, a senior member of the Royal household who oversaw the sensitive funeral arrangements for Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, took place last week. I understand this meeting agreed that, while not on the scale of royalty, Baroness Thatcher will get a fine public send-off.

 

Such secrecy is understandable: public discussion of the funeral arrangements of any living person can be distasteful and upsetting. However, this decision to grant a state funeral, with all it involves in terms of honour, ceremony and cost, is controversial. It needs to be challenged now, because when the time comes it may be too late, and the atmosphere too fraught, to change course.

 

I believe it would be wrong to give Lady Thatcher a state funeral, even though I accept that she was a very great woman, one of the six or seven most important and admirable prime ministers to occupy Downing Street in the almost 300 years since the office was invented.

 

The problem is that talk of a state funeral for Lady Thatcher reflects a troubling failure to understand what such events are about. They are so very rarely awarded because they have been designed for a category of great men and women who have come to represent the nation as a whole, rather than a particular sect or faction.

 

The first of these are monarchs. It is they who represent the British state in all its pomp and glory, while their heads of government (prime ministers) fulfil a much more workmanlike function. So all monarchs receive a state funeral: that is because they are above politics.

 

The second class are warriors. Horatio Nelson was given a state funeral after his heroic death at Trafalgar in 1805, and so was the Duke of Wellington in 1852 (acknowledgment of his superb role in the defeat of Napoleon, not for his undistinguished premiership later). Earl Haig, Britain’s leading First World War general, viewed by some historians as an unimaginative butcher, was awarded a state funeral in 1928.

 

The third class are brilliant men: Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin both got state funerals. Finally, we come to politicians. Only four prime ministers have been awarded the honour in the past 200 years – Wellington, Palmerston, Gladstone and Churchill. Of these, Churchill was the symbol of our lonely resistance to Hitler in 1940; Palmerston (probably lucky to get his) and Gladstone both stepped down in ripe old age, by which time they had almost completely transcended party politics.

 

Does Margaret Thatcher rank alongside those two massive figures? I believe that she does. She transformed Britain very largely for the better during her great premiership of 1979-1990; like Gladstone, she sought to inject a powerful morality into the heart of our national life.

 

Yet her greatness as a prime minister is not enough. State ceremonies can be very damaging unless (as with the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton) the whole nation can come together.

 

This will not happen after Lady Thatcher’s death. There are too many people – for example, shipyard workers from Glasgow, miners from Yorkshire and the Welsh valleys – whose livelihoods were destroyed during her premiership. They struggled against her government passionately at the time, and many still abhor her memory.

 

Here is an up-to-date example. On Tuesday, David Farham, a former miner, had a letter published in his local newspaper, The Shields Gazette. He wrote: “I am proud to say I was on strike for 12 months in the 1984-5 strike, when Thatcher used the full might of [the] state to defeat us.

 

“I would stand on a picket line now if it would prevent her having a state funeral. She had a near-pathological hatred of trade unions, and referred to us as the 'enemy within’, but what did we do that was so treacherous?

 

“We struck to prevent pit closures and protect jobs – with disastrous consequences. Look at the ghost towns of former pit villages which she left devastated.”

 

As it happens, I reluctantly take the view that Mrs Thatcher was right to take on the trade unions as she did, even though the human consequences were dire. But Mr Farham – who accurately states in his letter that there are “hundreds of thousands like me” – has every right to believe what he does. He is a British citizen just as much as the most ardent of Thatcher fans, with the proviso that, as a miner, he probably worked harder and risked more for his country than they did.

Yet the British Establishment is now planning to insult Mr Farham, and the many honest and patriotic people who agree with him, by making Lady Thatcher the first prime minister to be given a state funeral since Churchill. This cannot be right. Clem Attlee was deputy prime minister during the Second World War, and went on to lead the Labour government which founded the National Health Service and created the modern welfare state. He was mourned at a quiet funeral at Temple Church near Westminster. Harold Macmillan was put to rest at a small service near his Sussex home.

 

Such modesty does not suit our self-aggrandising modern politicians. Wander around Portcullis House (itself a hugely expensive monument to the hubris of the political class). There are gorgeous portraits on the wall, paid for by the taxpayer, even of absurdly minor figures: Diane Abbott, Menzies Campbell, Paul Boateng.

 

Prime ministers used to retire quietly. Now they expect to be treated as if they were ex-presidents, with entourages and large corporate offices. And once Lady Thatcher has been given her state funeral, why not Brown, Blair, Major and Cameron?

 

It is nearly 50 years since Sir Winston Churchill died. When the boat containing his coffin passed through Docklands, London dockers lowered their cranes as a mark of respect. It was such a profoundly moving moment because these working men were saying that, while Churchill had been born an aristocrat, he was also one of them because he had led them in the war against fascism. I wonder how many of those dockers would have paid such a tribute to Margaret Thatcher.

 

She cannot be blamed for this. The proposal for a state funeral came from Gordon Brown, who used it, I would guess, at least in part as a device to suck up to the Conservative Right at a time when he was trying to destabilise David Cameron.

 

By all means allow Margaret Thatcher to be buried, as Attlee was, in Westminster Abbey. This greatest of modern politicians should be honoured beyond measure when she dies. But David Cameron, the Prime Minister who loves to pretend that “we are all in this together”, would be well advised to lay the idea of a state funeral to rest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I would imagine there are many things upon which Peter Osborne and I would completely disagree, but on this we speak with the same(ish) voice.. Particularly with regards to how many hundreds of thousands of working class people will be insulted by this.. As he says, Churchill was an aristocrat, and yet ordinary working class people respected him because he defended the country against tyranny in the form of the Third Reich, and didn't try to appease Hitler..

Nope, sorry, completely disagree.. People should only be honoured if their legacy is actually positive. That can be said for Churchill, it cannot be said for Thatcher. Everything that is going wrong with our economy now started with her, and continued with Major, Blair and Brown... They're all scum, simple as, and the country doesn't respect them, or their legacy (do you honestly want to see Tony fukkin' Blair get a state funeral? It's pretty much the same thing really as giving Thatcher one).... Churchill may have been an aristocrat, he may have made mistakes, but he was a man of honour. Thatcher and her cronies had no such honour, they did everything for the banks and for the 1%, Thatcher probably would have done a deal with Hitler and Mussolini. Churchill was respected by the common man and woman, Thatcher never will be.... Therefore, she does not deserve the honour.. I would piss on her grave, absolutely...

 

You talk about the way Thatcher "profoundly changed" the country... Well, so did Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan by the creation of the NHS and the Welfare State. Now THAT is something worthy of respect....

I don't really think Blair changed this country on anything like a level that Thatcher did so he definitely doesn't deserve one- a man known for having no convinction other than to win an election by promising nothing and delivering less. As with a lot of things it all depends on luck and happenstance- would Churchill be held in such esteem had the war not have happended? I very much doubt it, yes he rose to the occasion no doubt (despite your assertions I don't think Thatcher would have made a deal- the Faulklands I think proves that as does her attitude to Europe however that can't be proved one way or another). i would agree with you that Atlee probably did deserve a state funeral too though.

I don't really think Blair changed this country on anything like a level that Thatcher did so he definitely doesn't deserve one- a man known for having no convinction other than to win an election by promising nothing and delivering less. As with a lot of things it all depends on luck and happenstance- would Churchill be held in such esteem had the war not have happended? I very much doubt it, yes he rose to the occasion no doubt (despite your assertions I don't think Thatcher would have made a deal- the Faulklands I think proves that as does her attitude to Europe however that can't be proved one way or another). i would agree with you that Atlee probably did deserve a state funeral too though.

 

She changed the country alright.. For the absolute worst... Everything that has happened in the past 30 years that is bad about Britain is down to her.... -_-

 

And now we have Son of Thatcher, David Cameron, who frankly should be taken out and shot like a dog before he does even more irreperable harm to the country....

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterobo...-from-this-one/

Margaret Thatcher deserves every honour – apart from a state funeral

Peter Osborne

 

Plans to give the former prime minister a state funeral insult many honest, patriotic people

 

For all the sad picture of Maggie Thatcher in old age portrayed in Meryl Streep’s new film, our former prime minister remains magnificent: brave, impervious, indomitable, the giantess of our time.

 

Nevertheless, preparations for her death are inevitably afoot. No official announcement has been made, but it is already widely understood that she may be granted the very rare honour (outside the Royal family) of a state funeral, which would probably take place at St Paul’s Cathedral.

 

The discussions have been held in secret, without public debate, through a series of meetings in the inner recesses of what used to be known as the British Establishment. The most recent of these, reportedly chaired by Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude and attended by Sir Malcolm Ross, a senior member of the Royal household who oversaw the sensitive funeral arrangements for Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997, took place last week. I understand this meeting agreed that, while not on the scale of royalty, Baroness Thatcher will get a fine public send-off.

 

Such secrecy is understandable: public discussion of the funeral arrangements of any living person can be distasteful and upsetting. However, this decision to grant a state funeral, with all it involves in terms of honour, ceremony and cost, is controversial. It needs to be challenged now, because when the time comes it may be too late, and the atmosphere too fraught, to change course.

 

I believe it would be wrong to give Lady Thatcher a state funeral, even though I accept that she was a very great woman, one of the six or seven most important and admirable prime ministers to occupy Downing Street in the almost 300 years since the office was invented.

 

The problem is that talk of a state funeral for Lady Thatcher reflects a troubling failure to understand what such events are about. They are so very rarely awarded because they have been designed for a category of great men and women who have come to represent the nation as a whole, rather than a particular sect or faction.

 

The first of these are monarchs. It is they who represent the British state in all its pomp and glory, while their heads of government (prime ministers) fulfil a much more workmanlike function. So all monarchs receive a state funeral: that is because they are above politics.

 

The second class are warriors. Horatio Nelson was given a state funeral after his heroic death at Trafalgar in 1805, and so was the Duke of Wellington in 1852 (acknowledgment of his superb role in the defeat of Napoleon, not for his undistinguished premiership later). Earl Haig, Britain’s leading First World War general, viewed by some historians as an unimaginative butcher, was awarded a state funeral in 1928.

 

The third class are brilliant men: Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin both got state funerals. Finally, we come to politicians. Only four prime ministers have been awarded the honour in the past 200 years – Wellington, Palmerston, Gladstone and Churchill. Of these, Churchill was the symbol of our lonely resistance to Hitler in 1940; Palmerston (probably lucky to get his) and Gladstone both stepped down in ripe old age, by which time they had almost completely transcended party politics.

 

Does Margaret Thatcher rank alongside those two massive figures? I believe that she does. She transformed Britain very largely for the better during her great premiership of 1979-1990; like Gladstone, she sought to inject a powerful morality into the heart of our national life.

 

Yet her greatness as a prime minister is not enough. State ceremonies can be very damaging unless (as with the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton) the whole nation can come together.

 

This will not happen after Lady Thatcher’s death. There are too many people – for example, shipyard workers from Glasgow, miners from Yorkshire and the Welsh valleys – whose livelihoods were destroyed during her premiership. They struggled against her government passionately at the time, and many still abhor her memory.

 

Here is an up-to-date example. On Tuesday, David Farham, a former miner, had a letter published in his local newspaper, The Shields Gazette. He wrote: “I am proud to say I was on strike for 12 months in the 1984-5 strike, when Thatcher used the full might of [the] state to defeat us.

 

“I would stand on a picket line now if it would prevent her having a state funeral. She had a near-pathological hatred of trade unions, and referred to us as the 'enemy within’, but what did we do that was so treacherous?

 

“We struck to prevent pit closures and protect jobs – with disastrous consequences. Look at the ghost towns of former pit villages which she left devastated.”

 

As it happens, I reluctantly take the view that Mrs Thatcher was right to take on the trade unions as she did, even though the human consequences were dire. But Mr Farham – who accurately states in his letter that there are “hundreds of thousands like me” – has every right to believe what he does. He is a British citizen just as much as the most ardent of Thatcher fans, with the proviso that, as a miner, he probably worked harder and risked more for his country than they did.

Yet the British Establishment is now planning to insult Mr Farham, and the many honest and patriotic people who agree with him, by making Lady Thatcher the first prime minister to be given a state funeral since Churchill. This cannot be right. Clem Attlee was deputy prime minister during the Second World War, and went on to lead the Labour government which founded the National Health Service and created the modern welfare state. He was mourned at a quiet funeral at Temple Church near Westminster. Harold Macmillan was put to rest at a small service near his Sussex home.

 

Such modesty does not suit our self-aggrandising modern politicians. Wander around Portcullis House (itself a hugely expensive monument to the hubris of the political class). There are gorgeous portraits on the wall, paid for by the taxpayer, even of absurdly minor figures: Diane Abbott, Menzies Campbell, Paul Boateng.

 

Prime ministers used to retire quietly. Now they expect to be treated as if they were ex-presidents, with entourages and large corporate offices. And once Lady Thatcher has been given her state funeral, why not Brown, Blair, Major and Cameron?

 

It is nearly 50 years since Sir Winston Churchill died. When the boat containing his coffin passed through Docklands, London dockers lowered their cranes as a mark of respect. It was such a profoundly moving moment because these working men were saying that, while Churchill had been born an aristocrat, he was also one of them because he had led them in the war against fascism. I wonder how many of those dockers would have paid such a tribute to Margaret Thatcher.

 

She cannot be blamed for this. The proposal for a state funeral came from Gordon Brown, who used it, I would guess, at least in part as a device to suck up to the Conservative Right at a time when he was trying to destabilise David Cameron.

 

By all means allow Margaret Thatcher to be buried, as Attlee was, in Westminster Abbey. This greatest of modern politicians should be honoured beyond measure when she dies. But David Cameron, the Prime Minister who loves to pretend that “we are all in this together”, would be well advised to lay the idea of a state funeral to rest.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I would imagine there are many things upon which Peter Osborne and I would completely disagree, but on this we speak with the same(ish) voice.. Particularly with regards to how many hundreds of thousands of working class people will be insulted by this.. As he says, Churchill was an aristocrat, and yet ordinary working class people respected him because he defended the country against tyranny in the form of the Third Reich, and didn't try to appease Hitler..

This is generally a supporting appraisal of Thatcher- you agree? :o :D

 

His argument is flawed though countless monarch's over time have done jack shit for this country, and several made it much poorer and regressive during their watch.

 

In his second class he usees the great warriors argument but there is a thin line between great warrior and imperial invader- witness Richard II outside Parliament (yes obviously he's a monarch too but he did little more than plunder and squander money) Later ones such as Wellington/ Nelson though I concur with.

 

Thridly great men- yes I agree but take Darwin for example- he was enormously divisive in his time for taking on organised religion and the church in relation to the origin of the species, it's only in later years that this has come to be seen as "probably" how it happened (though again we'll never know probably, and if he's wrong then we'll have honoured a man who wrote a book of fiction. Nothing wrong in that but then you have Dickens etc shouldn't they get something?

 

We both agree that she is a divisive figure that much is obvious, and as much as we complain about modern life, but it also bought many positive things, consumerism, choice, open markets and all that entails, the right to work without union interference (in its 1970s sense) so it isn't all bad. Surely we have to look at these objectively without presonal prejudice and say whether these are broadly good things. We can't just brush the 80s under the carpet and say nothing good came of them, a lot of what happened was ugly but necessary for a more efficient society. If we compare where we were in 1979 and where we were in 1990 then the changes are largely for the better. Once a politician loses power can they still be held accountable for things some 20 years later when there are plenty who could have undone/ reversed the things they had done? We aren't born with foresight. :(

She changed the country alright.. For the absolute worst... Everything that has happened in the past 30 years that is bad about Britain is down to her.... -_-

 

And now we have Son of Thatcher, David Cameron, who frankly should be taken out and shot like a dog before he does even more irreperable harm to the country....

Given that the country is totally altered from the 70s and assuming as you say all bad things are due to Thatcher, then who is responsible for the good things? Blair/ Major/ Brown/ Cameron? :o

I don't really think Blair changed this country on anything like a level that Thatcher did so he definitely doesn't deserve one- a man known for having no convinction other than to win an election by promising nothing and delivering less. As with a lot of things it all depends on luck and happenstance- would Churchill be held in such esteem had the war not have happended? I very much doubt it, yes he rose to the occasion no doubt (despite your assertions I don't think Thatcher would have made a deal- the Faulklands I think proves that as does her attitude to Europe however that can't be proved one way or another). i would agree with you that Atlee probably did deserve a state funeral too though.

 

Churchill got one for being a war hero, not a Prime Minister. If Attlee didn't get one then neither should the Milk Snatcher, they both had similar levels of influence. If at any point her longevity is used as a reasoning for her getting one then Blair HAS to have one as well, he stayed in the job almost as long and wasn't kicked out by his own party.

Churchill got one for being a war hero, not a Prime Minister. If Attlee didn't get one then neither should the Milk Snatcher, they both had similar levels of influence. If at any point her longevity is used as a reasoning for her getting one then Blair HAS to have one as well, he stayed in the job almost as long and wasn't kicked out by his own party.

He was, the labour party were just slightly more subtle about it

I don't really think Blair changed this country on anything like a level that Thatcher did so he definitely doesn't deserve one- a man known for having no convinction other than to win an election by promising nothing and delivering less. As with a lot of things it all depends on luck and happenstance- would Churchill be held in such esteem had the war not have happended? I very much doubt it, yes he rose to the occasion no doubt (despite your assertions I don't think Thatcher would have made a deal- the Faulklands I think proves that as does her attitude to Europe however that can't be proved one way or another). i would agree with you that Atlee probably did deserve a state funeral too though.

Erm, are you talking about the Thatcher who sent a Foreign Office minister (Nicholas Ridley) to Argentina to try and come up with a deal which would eventually have led to the Falklands being handed over?

 

Most of Churchill's career was a miserable failure. However, he is generally regarded as having more than redeemed himself by his leadership from 1940-45. So, clearly, he would not have been held in high regard without the War. In fact, he would probably barely be remembered.

He was, the labour party were just slightly more subtle about it

 

You can dress it up any way you like but he didn't go through the ignominy of losing a leadership election - not even Brown did :lol: Blair may have been politely shown the way to the door, and many were glad to see him go, but he wasn't kicked out in anywhere near the same way.

She changed the country alright.. For the absolute worst... Everything that has happened in the past 30 years that is bad about Britain is down to her.... -_-

I can't remember which comedian said it but he said it best when he said 'she brought the country kicking and screaming into another century .... the 19th century'

 

And now we have Son of Thatcher, David Cameron, who frankly should be taken out and shot like a dog before he does even more irreperable harm to the country....

 

No - Tony Blair was the son Margaret Thatcher never had. David Cameron could best be likened as her pet poodle or suchlike!

 

Kath

We both agree that she is a divisive figure that much is obvious, and as much as we complain about modern life, but it also bought many positive things, consumerism, choice, open markets and all that entails, the right to work without union interference (in its 1970s sense) so it isn't all bad. Surely we have to look at these objectively without presonal prejudice and say whether these are broadly good things. We can't just brush the 80s under the carpet and say nothing good came of them, a lot of what happened was ugly but necessary for a more efficient society. If we compare where we were in 1979 and where we were in 1990 then the changes are largely for the better. Once a politician loses power can they still be held accountable for things some 20 years later when there are plenty who could have undone/ reversed the things they had done? We aren't born with foresight. :(

 

What's so positive about the type of rampant consumerism that we have now...? I see it as being a part of what's decayed our society and created a generation of selfish, stupid "individuals" who think more of the vapid idiots they see on Realilty TV shows than they do of their parents, teachers and others who are making a positive contribution to society..

 

Choice..?? Choice only exists if you're rich enough to afford it. If you're poor, you have to live beyond your means in order to achieve "choice"... And ultimately, it's the bad credit that's accumulated from this supposed "choice" and this rampant consumerism and this ridiculous desire that people seem to have that they "must" have something, that's led to the credit crunch and our current financial state.. It's all been built on a house of cards... As Tyler Durden says in Fight Club - "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off".

 

Open Markets?? Again, a total fallacy.. We dont have Free Markets. What we have is Crony Capitalism and Corporatism which stifles and strangles real entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, and creates false "gods" out of twats like Lord Sugar, Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who stole all of their ideas off of much more talented and creative people who never got the recognition they deserved....

 

This is what your Thatcher and Reagan gave us.... I grew up with this shite, I know all about it, I know a hell of a lot more about it than probably about 90-odd percent of everyone on this site, and a hell of a lot more than I really want to... So, seriously I dont need to be lectured on it.... No offence mate, but I lived it, so I know that it's all a lie and just "Emperors New Clothes"... -_-

No - Tony Blair was the son Margaret Thatcher never had. David Cameron could best be likened as her pet poodle or suchlike!

 

So, you're not arguing that Cameron shouldn't be taken out and shot like a dog then.... :lol: