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'

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

 

Kath

 

 

Cameron is more son of Stanley Baldwin than Margaret Thatcher!

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"... -_-

 

 

Brilliant!!!! :yahoo:

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"... -_-

 

Precisely. I could tell as soon as Dasher made that post that it was going to get ripped to shreds :lol:

I like Gezza :(

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by Griff

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"... -_-

 

To take your points in turn....

 

1- Isn't this the basis of Liberal politics though? You allow people to become what they want to be- there are no guarantees what you're going to get or that you will happy about it. If people are more greedy and selfish then it's because that is how they have chosen to be, we live in a freer society than most, I don't pretend to say that it's perfect but it's better than any known alternative in the world and certainly better than communism or marxism.

 

2- Choice- there are, as you know, many factors included in the credit crunch, many of the debts accrued were accured by government in the name of "doing good" for society by both parties. Yes we are seeing the results now of bank corruption and poor government choices of all hues, in the last 30 years only on two occasions have we not run a fiscal deficit, under the last years of Thatcher and the early years of Blair. You will doubtless appreciate that not everyone has the same experiences as you did under Thatcher, my parents for example are life long labour supporters and come from the central belt of Scotland as indeed I do, but conceed (somewhat bregrudgingly) that without RTB they would never have been able to buy a house so some in the working classes did profit considerably under her. They bought shares at the time, but have not lived beyond their means in other ways so it isn't quite as cut and dry as some would make out- all had that opportunity but only some took it for various reasons.

 

3- Open markets- again ours is not perfect but I would much rather live in this country than countries without an open market.

 

I appreciate that you may have grew up with this "shit" as you term it, you're not the only one, so did I :D

 

Neither am i attempting to "Lecture" you- this is a forum and we exchange opinions and views. I welcome debate as I'm sure you do so I assure you no offense was taken :)

To take your points in turn....

 

1- Isn't this the basis of Liberal politics though? You allow people to become what they want to be- there are no guarantees what you're going to get or that you will happy about it. If people are more greedy and selfish then it's because that is how they have chosen to be, we live in a freer society than most, I don't pretend to say that it's perfect but it's better than any known alternative in the world and certainly better than communism or marxism.

 

2- Choice- there are, as you know, many factors included in the credit crunch, many of the debts accrued were accured by government in the name of "doing good" for society by both parties. Yes we are seeing the results now of bank corruption and poor government choices of all hues, in the last 30 years only on two occasions have we not run a fiscal deficit, under the last years of Thatcher and the early years of Blair. You will doubtless appreciate that not everyone has the same experiences as you did under Thatcher, my parents for example are life long labour supporters and come from the central belt of Scotland as indeed I do, but conceed (somewhat bregrudgingly) that without RTB they would never have been able to buy a house so some in the working classes did profit considerably under her. They bought shares at the time, but have not lived beyond their means in other ways so it isn't quite as cut and dry as some would make out- all had that opportunity but only some took it for various reasons.

 

3- Open markets- again ours is not perfect but I would much rather live in this country than countries without an open market.

 

I appreciate that you may have grew up with this "shit" as you term it, you're not the only one, so did I :D

 

Neither am i attempting to "Lecture" you- this is a forum and we exchange opinions and views. I welcome debate as I'm sure you do so I assure you no offense was taken :)

 

"Better than any known alternative in the world" is a bit misleading when you only compare it to extreme left positions. Moderate socialism or even old-fashioned centrism would surely be a better alternative to neo-liberalism, given that Keynesian economics never caused a recession as bad as this one.

 

 

"Better than any known alternative in the world" is a bit misleading when you only compare it to extreme left positions. Moderate socialism or even old-fashioned centrism would surely be a better alternative to neo-liberalism, given that Keynesian economics never caused a recession as bad as this one.

Keynesian economics hadn't thought of such a thing as "Stagflation" which plagued the world in several major econmies for most of the 70s which is how people like Friedman and Hayek started to be listened to in the first place. If a new way was found I would be all ears. I'm not entirely sure what "Centerism" means these days- the nature of politics is that the centre is always shifting say from the 70s to the 00s. As for moderate Socialism I don't trust ANY government to spend my money as effectively as me everyone has their own agendas and politics and parties don't vary on that one, the nature of governemnt is wasteful.

 

Again it could all be down to timing and relativity, we didn't get the name of the "Sick man of Europe" in the 70s for nothing. What we haven't returned to, which was deemed inescapable, is the double figure inflation which was the scurge of the 70s.

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

 

TBH - the more I see of Nick Clegg - the less I dislike Cameron!!!!

 

Back to the Thatcher thing though - it may, in the words of The Borg be 'futile' - but I think I'd throw a party!

 

Kath

Again it could all be down to timing and relativity, we didn't get the name of the "Sick man of Europe" in the 70s for nothing. What we haven't returned to, which was deemed inescapable, is the double figure inflation which was the scurge of the 70s.

Inflation was higher when Thatcher left office than it was when she seized power.

 

My definition of liberal politics is that "my freedom ends where your nose begins". So, yes, I want to maximise freedom but not if that means exploiting others excessively. That's why I support measures like the minimum wage, the working time directive and mandatory paid holiday.

 

Keynesian economics hadn't thought of such a thing as "Stagflation" which plagued the world in several major econmies for most of the 70s which is how people like Friedman and Hayek started to be listened to in the first place. If a new way was found I would be all ears. I'm not entirely sure what "Centerism" means these days- the nature of politics is that the centre is always shifting say from the 70s to the 00s. As for moderate Socialism I don't trust ANY government to spend my money as effectively as me everyone has their own agendas and politics and parties don't vary on that one, the nature of governemnt is wasteful.

 

Again it could all be down to timing and relativity, we didn't get the name of the "Sick man of Europe" in the 70s for nothing. What we haven't returned to, which was deemed inescapable, is the double figure inflation which was the scurge of the 70s.

 

You might trust yourself to spend your own money but do you trust big business? If the nature of the public sector is wasteful, then the nature of the private sector is to maximise profit for its shareholders at all costs. Certain things which were sold under Thatcher (the railways, for example) for no reason other than to generate a bit of quick cash are now no longer operating in the public interest.

You might trust yourself to spend your own money but do you trust big business? If the nature of the public sector is wasteful, then the nature of the private sector is to maximise profit for its shareholders at all costs. Certain things which were sold under Thatcher (the railways, for example) for no reason other than to generate a bit of quick cash are now no longer operating in the public interest.

Trains were privitised under Major not Thatcher.

 

I think the original point back in the 80s was that everyone could be a shareholder, or that certainly buying shares could be done by the average person in the street thusly we would/ could all be shareholders though I appreciate that probably didn't turn out to be the case 10 years later.

Edited December 29, 201113 yr by Gezza76

Trains were privitised under Major not Thatcher.

 

I think the original point back in the 80s was that everyone could be a shareholder, or that certainly buying shares could be done by the average person in the street thusly we would/ could all be shareholders though I appreciate that probably didn't turn out to be the case 10 years later.

 

My mistake. That was never going to work though... we already have a way of making sure we're all shareholders, it's called "state ownership".

Trains were privitised under Major not Thatcher.

 

I think the original point back in the 80s was that everyone could be a shareholder, or that certainly buying shares could be done by the average person in the street thusly we would/ could all be shareholders though I appreciate that probably didn't turn out to be the case 10 years later.

If privatisation had been started by Labour, the Tories and their friends in the press would have described it as a stealth tax. We would have seen headlines like "Labour make you pay to buy something you already own"

My mistake. That was never going to work though... we already have a way of making sure we're all shareholders, it's called "state ownership".

"State Ownership" doesn't mean we (as people or indivduals) own anything, do the Chinese people own their railways, or the north Koreans own any of their amenities? or the Cubian citizens for example. Money goes into the government coiffers and we know exactly what happens to it then....

 

I think the truth is that "the people" will never get their hands on the materials that generate wealth regardless of the party, the question then becomes who do you want to run business, business or politicians? each with their own agendas and priorities and which generates the most profit? Profit is necessary for everything including social programmes/ welfare.

It's a complete fallacy that Anglo-American-style capitalism is the only way and communism etc. are the only alternatives. There are many different kinds of capitalism - for example, I doubt many would mind living under a German-style capitalism, or under the Nordic model - forms of capitalism that are very efficient but which still enshrine workers' rights and stop corporatism running rampant.

 

Gezza falls into the standard libertarian hole of assuming far more sovereignty and control that the people have over their lives in a tabula rasa scenario than they really do - governments, societies and corporatist systems are all deeply influential over our livelihoods and outcomes. I think it's a fallacy to suggest that allowing people to live their lives as they wish enshrines freedom - negative freedom yes, but the amount of positive freedom we've had infringed by these negative freedoms which allow rampant greed is innumerate. Not all people are capable of forcing their way through and the current system is slanted massively towards those who can take all they can get at whatever expense.

"State Ownership" doesn't mean we (as people or indivduals) own anything, do the Chinese people own their railways, or the north Koreans own any of their amenities? or the Cubian citizens for example. Money goes into the government coiffers and we know exactly what happens to it then....

 

I think the truth is that "the people" will never get their hands on the materials that generate wealth regardless of the party, the question then becomes who do you want to run business, business or politicians? each with their own agendas and priorities and which generates the most profit? Profit is necessary for everything including social programmes/ welfare.

I don't think anyone is calling for complete nationalisation, so your final question and false choice is moot. And on that matter, you speak of agendas and priorities as if they're a bad thing. ALL spenders have agendas and priorities, but I'd rather trust natural monopolies, utilities and public provisions to an organisation that runs them in the interest they were set up for, not for profit. Businesses only have shareholders and maximal profit as a priority. Profit does not always go hand in hand with what is good in public provision.

I don't think anyone is calling for complete nationalisation, so your final question and false choice is moot. And on that matter, you speak of agendas and priorities as if they're a bad thing. ALL spenders have agendas and priorities, but I'd rather trust natural monopolies, utilities and public provisions to an organisation that runs them in the interest they were set up for, not for profit. Businesses only have shareholders and maximal profit as a priority. Profit does not always go hand in hand with what is good in public provision.

 

Exactly. He asks "who do you want to run business, business or politicians?" but that's assuming that public SERVICES should have the attributes of big business in the first place.

Trains were privitised under Major not Thatcher.

 

I think the original point back in the 80s was that everyone could be a shareholder, or that certainly buying shares could be done by the average person in the street thusly we would/ could all be shareholders though I appreciate that probably didn't turn out to be the case 10 years later.

 

That was just utter baloney... PR/Spin bullsh!t... A really under-hand and sneaky method of selling off national assets to foreign investors and hedge funds... The vast majority of people who bought shares in the 80s wouldn't know a Gilt from a Derivative, they didn't have clue one about how the Stock Exchange worked (or rather didn't work as it's now become apparent)..

 

..And here's another reason to say "rot in Hell Twatcher...." <_< I'd always suspected this to be the case, now it appears the proof has come out into the light...

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/31/th...nst-un-mandate/

 

They prosecuted the guys who supplied the "Super-Gun" to Saddam, so why the f**k did she get away with it...? Belgrano + this = War Criminal.. State Funeral..?? My arse....