Search This Blog


Thatcher's Children [boardwalk]

Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 22nd post - 28 Aug 2004 12:10 BBC Today Boards

Or rather, son.
Does anyone sympathise with this Michael Barrymore look-alike reptile in his predicament?
Personally, I can't help feeling that rearing a generation who go about provoking wars for the sake of profit is what Thatcherism is all about, and is therefore how she should be remembered.
And the sooner the better.

re: Thatcher's Children Don Glen - 1504th post - 28 Aug 2004 13:29
On the other hand, there are those of us who try not to let our unthinking prejudices get in the way of facts. Mrs Thatcher was one of the great Prime Ministers, in that many of the reforms she introduced have not been repealed by future governments, and many of those policies have been copied world wide. You clearly have no memory of the state this nation was in when she came to power. Not for nothing were we known as the sick man of Europe. I wont bore you with detail, as I am sure such facts would not interest you.
She made errors of judgement (who doesn't, politician or mere mortal?) but on the whole she was a courageous and reforming P.M. who single handedly laid the foundations for the prosperity which New Labour try to take credit for, and are seemingly intent on destroying. One thing is certain. History will be kinder to her than it will to Blair. Now if you want to talk about provoking wars, THERE is a good starting point.

re: Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 26th post - 28 Aug 2004 14:42
Facts? I see no facts.
But we agree that Blair provoked a war? And who's political heir is Blair? And If YOU remember, it was the price of oil which was the problem in the 70's, not lack of Thatcherism. And what caused that problem? A war (Yom Kippur) which Thatcher exploited shamelessly in order to gain power.
Like mother like son.
As for her wonderful achievements, I take it you mean the Great Taming of the Unions.
Very creditable, to try to eliminate the right of common people to negotiate their own wages while allowing their bosses to live tax-free. Is that one of the gifts you're talking about?
The stability of the last ten years is the result of relative stability in the oil price and in the middle east, notwithstanding Israel's war against the Palastinian people.
We are now in a new game, oil is expensive and non-Islamic reserves of oil, such as those in Equitorial Guinea, must have been very tempting to enterprising young chaps with a secure grounding in the money to be made out of war and raw materials, like young Mark and his chums. And now they're in jail. Surely even you must see a certain pleasing symmetry in that. What I asked was if you had any sympathy with the young rascal. Obviously you do, because you adore his mother... Please explain.
Swallow the Thatcher myth if you like, with her defending the White Cliffs from the alien red hordes. The actual facts are much more difficult, and for a lot of people meant poverty and death.
Which is why I hope that Sonnyboy's fate means the myth is now a little bit deader, and we can concentrate on undoing the mess that we are in.
A mess brought about directly by the culture and economic system Thatcher promoted.

re: Thatcher's Children bill - 90th post - 28 Aug 2004 15:05
The Yom Kippur War was in 1973 and oil rose to about $35 a barrel. The oil price subsequently retreated a bit before rising again in 1979 as a result of the Iran-Iraq war.
If you were around in 1979 you would know that Labour wlost the election not becuase of the oil price but because the unions were trying(and under labour very nearly succeeding) to run the country. Britain was the sick man of Europe. It does not matter what one's politics are, it was a fact.

re: Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 29th post - 28 Aug 2004 16:26
The price of oil had never been higher in real terms and caused a global recession. Remember? And you're saying this had no effect on living standards and industrial action? Not to mention the IMF blackmail which saw public sector spending slashed ('frozen') was the term IF you remember.
I don't know what Daily Mail fanzines you've been reading, but I was there. If you didn't have your head so deep in the sand you'd recognize that this country has been run for the last fifty years by more or less the same bunch of international corporations. Thatcher was their poodle then as Bush'n'Blair are now. Sorry to make you cry, but she was merely the front for the real operation. The pizza parlour below the mafia HQ, but no less despicable for that.
If you insist on facts, I wish you would come up with some. Saying 'Thatch was Great - Unions are from Hell' is not enough.

re: Thatcher's Children bill - 95th post - 28 Aug 2004 16:49
I am not sure I entirely understand everything you are saying. What do you mean by "The price of oil has never been higher in real terms and caused a global recession." Do you mean the price of oil was very high in real terms and that it caused a global recession? Are we talking about 1973 or 1979. If as I assume you are referring to 1979, yes I do remember that period when the then Labour Chancellor Denis Healy had to go cap in hand to the IMF because the UK, unlike our major competitors, had almost managed to bankrupted itself.
Since you say you remember you will recall that the dead were not even being buried in some places the industrial anarchy was so bad.
There is no point in responding to your more intemperate comments, viz. "If you didn't have your head so deep in the sand". I understand the object of this MB was intelligent debate not name calling.

re: Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 32nd post - 28 Aug 2004 16:59
The WAGES were so bad. 'Industrial Anarchy' has causes, and the cause then was runaway inflation caused by the high price of oil, which has never been as high in real terms before or since. Saying that you have your head in the sand is not intemperate. You are ignoring the facts of political power, and you must know them, so you must be in denial of them, or as the quaint expression goes: 'Burying your head in the sand.'
There are much less quaint expressions, especially in the face of someone who caused so much human suffering. But acknowledging human suffering never was the forte of the Chicago School's failed experiment in Social Manipulation.

re: Thatcher's Children bill - 97th post - 28 Aug 2004 17:04
Thank you for a more temperate reply. I did not trouble with the rest of your gratuitous comments as there seemed little point.

re: Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 34th post - 28 Aug 2004 17:19
'Gratuitous' - you don't think that there's any justification for saying that Thatcher caused suffering? Then you really HAVE had your head comfortably in the sand for the last thirty years.
And I'll tell you the point, The JUSTIFICATION is to ensure that the vicous, spineless, nasty little ideology known as Thatcherism gets the memory it deserves. Because only when the Thatcher myth is unwritten will we be able to grow up as a nation and move on. And if her own son can help with that project, so much the better.
How do you stand on his Thatchership's little difficulty? You never did say, in spite of being asked twice?

re: Thatcher's Children bill - 100th post - 28 Aug 2004 17:28
I did not use the term "gratuitous" with regard to the substantive points you were attempting to make.
I used the word "gratuitous" in its sense of without cause or unjustified with regard your personal comments.
I am delighted that you are interested in my opinion generally as well as more particularly with regard to "his Thatchership's" by whom I assume you mean Sir Mark Thatcher.
I have no particular knowledge of him nor any brief for him. I understand he he has proclaimed his innocence and therefore will await the decision of hte court in due course.

re: Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 36th post - 28 Aug 2004 17:35
So you agree that Thatcher was a vicious little gangster with no regard for human life, because that is the substantive point I was 'trying' to make.
I'm glad we agree, and sorry that your feelings were hurt.
I will ask again, Do you have any sympathy for Sir Thatchalot? Not 'Is he guilty as sin?' Not 'Is he a nice person?' Do You Feel Sorry For Him?
I get the sneaky feeling that what's at work here is the same syndrome which/that kept misleading the opinion polls about the Tory ratings in the 90's. Namely, nobody wanted to be seen to approve of them, but secretely, they did.

re: Thatcher's Children bill - 102nd post - 28 Aug 2004 17:46
Of course you did not hurt my feelings, and why should you have. You obviously have very strong opinions and choose to express in unnecessary and gratuitous language.
To reiterate, I am interested in debate but not in name calling.
I have no more or no less sympathy for Sir Mark Thatcher than for anyone else in his predicament.

re: Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 41st post - 30 Aug 2004 20:19
Which is how much? Some? None? A lot?
In the spirit of enquiry. This was meant to be a sample of general sympathy.
You know exactly how I feel, mainly because of the way I tell you - gratituitous or not. So share.

re: Thatcher's Children David Aston - 135th post - 29 Aug 2004 10:25
Although, Little, I can hardly believe what I'm saying given vile Thatcherism, I do have some sympathy on the basis that, possibly wrongly, I am fearful of how "due process" might work in Equitorial Guinea. Also she is a mother, and they all love their kids, pretty much. On a slightly lighter note, did I actually catch Carol T. looking as though she had just had a makeover at Legoland, giving the impression she didn't give a toss about her brother but was worried about her Mom?

re: Thatcher's Children Little Richardjohn - 40th post - 29 Aug 2004 17:47
I know, the delights of Third World despotisms will be new to him, at least from the recieving end. Nevertheless, he knew what he was getting into (all right - 'allegedly') and didn't care about either the people who would suffer in E.G. OR about his mother, apparently.
His twin sister, as you say, obviously couldn't care less.
It's funny how the old become deserving of sympathy no matter what. It's understandable when they're old and weak, but Thatcher isn't weak. So why feel for her?
Are the rules of callousness changing as the population gets older? Because, personally, I think she deserves everything she gets. And if this episode serves to put her career in perspective, so much the better.

re: Thatcher's Children Mafia - 1st post - 30 Aug 2004 15:01
I am hoping he gets deported to the country in question and subjected to close questioning. I understand torture is used in their interogations.
Good luck Mark.
Probably what will happen is Mark Thatcher will skip the country on a false passport on a ship.

re: Thatcher's Children blairbrown tony - 604th post - 30 Aug 2004 15:13
That's not fair - MArk Thatcher is innocent until proven otherwise!! Anyway his mum will intervene, swinging her handbag as usual, and sort it all out for the little lamb.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please comment here. Naturally, all comments are reviewed before publishing.