|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The legacy of Thatcherism?
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Svitlana2
By contrast, in 1977 Jim Callaghan (who came from a naval family and had been a naval officer during the war, but didn't have anything like all this fal-de-ral at his funeral)...
...err actually his father originally enlisted to got out of Ireland, eventually rising to Chief Petty Officer.
Young Jim started life as a Tax Officer, which job he did for nearly 7 years before becoming a full-time trade union official. He joined the Royal Naval Reserve as a rating and was called up as such before being offered an RNVR Lieutenancy in 1944 but he never served on board ship as such since he never completed the training due to prolonged treatment for TB before being given a desk job prior to demob. He was out of the Servce in time to stand for election (in Cardiff) in 1945.
He began campaigning in his RNVR uniform but went into civvies pretty swiftly having been heavily barracked by a group of RN veterans while campaigning - I know, my mother was a junior cog in his army of foot-soldiers. For all time he was always referred to in Cardiff as "stoker Jim".
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Ooops. So sorry, SvitlanaV2, mea culpa.
I should have noted it was a post from Albertus.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Saul
But why oh why the wall to wall media coverage?
Because in many parts of the world she is seen as someone who shamed/exposed their own governments into behaving better towards their people....
In the US, they see the UK as a nation which is kindly disposed towards them
Some of the "they" in the U.S. to which you refer might beg to differ. I sure as hell do. Since the time of Thatcher's U.S. pal Reagan the government of this political entity in which we reside has done precisely the opposite of behaving better towards its people, except for the very rich.
(For just one example out of many many, the days are long past when the average person could get a post-secondary education without the expectation of a lifetime of debt hanging over their head. I consider myself very blessed that i was able to complete my college education before the evil that was the "Reagan Revolution" took place.)
[ 19. April 2013, 01:04: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
We can argue about the scale of the funeral, the style of the funeral, the cost of the funeral, etc, etc, etc. We can debate whether Baroness Thatcher was worthy of such attention.
What I think has surprised many and annoyed many, is the public reaction to the funeral procession - you could almost hear the BBCs disappointment that no coal/milk bottles were thrown; you could tell they were waiting for the skirmishes at the side of the road, the howls of protest, the visible placards, the sight of crowds of people turning their backs. And, as far as the live coverage of the procession was concerned, it never happened!
We heard a some muted booing - and David Dimbleby commented on it.
We saw a couple of skittish horses at one point and DD commented that someone had thrown 'something' but they didn't know what - it could have been roses!
The applause, the cheering, the flowers indeed; actually, the numbers of people: ten deep in some places. It reflected the fact that actually, to the annoyance of the Left, some in the media and some Shipmates here, this was a popular occasion supported by a great many people who believe that Margaret Thatcher was indeed a great stateswoman, worthy of such an honour - even if you didn't agree with everything she did.
Now.
I know that there were places where people expressed their displeasure up and down the country but there were no alternative funeral street parties, that I am aware of.
I know that on the route, at Ludgate Circus for example, there was a lively crowd of protesters - but they had been just about drowned out by Baroness Thatcher's supporters as they clapped and cheered louder. It was only on the news that the BBC showed these people (and an ugly bunch they were) and showed us quite clearly, by their sunique position, that these people were actually not represenative of the feelings of most of those people who were attending the procession.
There will be all sorts of excuses made as to why the protests were muted and sparse - I would simply suggest that Mrs Thatcher was a lot more popular to most British people (young people included) than the Left would actually want to admit.
The proof was the funeral procession itself - and regardless of what some say about the cost, the truth is most people appear to believe it was fitting.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Or else it means that most of the Left think street parties protests at a funeral are inappropriate.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
quote:
posted by Svitlana2
By contrast, in 1977 Jim Callaghan (who came from a naval family and had been a naval officer during the war, but didn't have anything like all this fal-de-ral at his funeral)...
...err actually his father originally enlisted to got out of Ireland, eventually rising to Chief Petty Officer.
Young Jim started life as a Tax Officer, which job he did for nearly 7 years before becoming a full-time trade union official. He joined the Royal Naval Reserve as a rating and was called up as such before being offered an RNVR Lieutenancy in 1944 but he never served on board ship as such since he never completed the training due to prolonged treatment for TB before being given a desk job prior to demob. He was out of the Servce in time to stand for election (in Cardiff) in 1945.
He began campaigning in his RNVR uniform but went into civvies pretty swiftly having been heavily barracked by a group of RN veterans while campaigning - I know, my mother was a junior cog in his army of foot-soldiers. For all time he was always referred to in Cardiff as "stoker Jim".
Well, yes, his father was a CPO. He was born in Portsmouth and always had an affinity with the Navy. I count that as a naval family, if not a hugely long-standing one. I think he did actually serve on board ship - IIRC accoprding to kenneth O Morgan's biography, at the time of VJ Day he was in the Indian Ocean, although he didn't see combat. But my point is that Callaghan knew a bit more about defence than Thatch did.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think you can extrapolate from the paucity of protesters at the funeral. I have fierce objections to Thatcher, but I would not disrupt a funeral, as I think it's tacky.
I think Cameron may see it all as a double-edged sword. He has to win next time, otherwise, he will be compared with the Great Leader, unfavourably. Aren't the knives already being sharpened, and the regicide planned?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
This shows the popularity of the funeral in Bradford.
In Leeds.
In Edinburgh.
In Westminister.
I'm not saying that no-one was in London, but let's just say that there was less people in the UK who wanted to show respect during the wedding than expected. Of course, this was a work day, but still, if people really cared they could have taken a day or few hours off. Or retired people.
I doubt the unemployed would be too interested.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
\
I think Cameron may see it all as a double-edged sword. He has to win next time, otherwise, he will be compared with the Great Leader, unfavourably. Aren't the knives already being sharpened, and the regicide planned?
So on the one hand we have David Cameron, who is nearly as popular as John Major, and on the other we have Ed "as much personality as Niel Kinnock" Milliband. Does that mean it's down to the Sun?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Oh Muddy, thou dost protest too much! The right would have loved it had there been mass "Thatcher's Dead!" parties - they could have pointed at all the wicked evil lefties.
Sorry we didn't live down to your expectations, but the main response, apart from some varied quality gallows humour, has been irritation that we're all being somehow expected to agree with the "you may not agree with everything she did but at least she had convictions and she rescued the country from the wicked unions etc. etc." line, which frankly I consider bollocks.
Up here I can't find anyone with a kind word for her. I know people like Deano exist, but they're rare.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it means that Cameron is on double or quits. The right wing may be temporarily quiet at the moment, because of the Thatcher-gasm, but they will be watching. Cameron is not in an enviable position, because he has to reclaim votes lost to UKIP, which means tacking to the right (e.g. vote Labour for a benefit scrounger neighbour), yet this might lose votes in the centre (hug a husky).
I watched that late night programme last night with Andrew Neill, and it was quite amusing as they had one guy on who said that Labour could not win, and Portillo basically saying that the Tories couldn't.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
This shows the popularity of the funeral in Bradford.
In Leeds.
In Edinburgh.
So no-one made a special journey to a windswept city centre to watch a funeral? Hardly surprising (though I can see how the photos are amusing).
quote:
In Westminister.
I'm not saying that no-one was in London, but let's just say that there was less people in the UK who wanted to show respect during the wedding than expected. Of course, this was a work day, but still, if people really cared they could have taken a day or few hours off. Or retired people.
In your view, how many were expected v. the number who did attend? The reports I've read suggest there were more well-wishers than expected and the photograph you've posted of the situation in London is misleading (though I suspect you know that). There are plenty of photos on the internet showing the large crowds, but if you can't find any I can e-mail you some of the photos that I took.
quote:
I doubt the unemployed would be too interested.
This unemployed man was.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it means that Cameron is on double or quits. The right wing may be temporarily quiet at the moment, because of the Thatcher-gasm, but they will be watching. Cameron is not in an enviable position, because he has to reclaim votes lost to UKIP, which means tacking to the right (e.g. vote Labour for a benefit scrounger neighbour), yet this might lose votes in the centre (hug a husky).
I watched that late night programme last night with Andrew Neill, and it was quite amusing as they had one guy on who said that Labour could not win, and Portillo basically saying that the Tories couldn't.
Cameron is in deep doo doo. He is happy to have the ''Thatcher effect'' rub off on him and his government.
That Thatcher as Cameron spouted a few days ago, ''saved'' this country is a bit rich coming from Cameron as he and his party stabbed her in the back in 1990. It was an in house coup d'etat.
Saul
[ 19. April 2013, 09:53: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Then again, the economy will determine it. If there is some growth before long, the Tories may benefit. Hence I expect some Keynesian stuff to be rolled out, although it won't be called that!
Yes, the irony of Thatcher, the Great Leader, being assassinated by her own side, is one of history's jollies. Cameron does not want to join her.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Hawk,
I have to say that reply was incorrect. Service at St.Paul's, coffin bearers from the services, attendance by H.M. Queen and all the accoutrements of an English grand hurrah send off - come on you've got to be joking.
Is that the definition of a State funeral now? Just because you haven't got a clue what a State Funeral is, doesn't mean that anything that makes you go 'oooooh' qualifies as one. Sorry for the disapointment.
There are strict protocols for what a State Funeral is. Thatcher's was just a Ceremonial funeral.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I was surprised there weren't Soviet style banners that adoring members of the public could have waved outside the church.
I am surprised that the BBC that Charles Moore (Thatcher's biographer) lambasted and berated so visciously for it's anti Thatcher stance, wasn't made to play funereal music 24/7 down it's media channels.
Why surprised? Is it because of all the people that the state forced to attend the funeral and cheer her coffin, all the papers that were censored and banned for daring to print negative things about her. Oh, wait, that didn't happen because we're not living in a communist dictatorship, despite your wild fantasies.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
No, a quiet dignified, and as private as would be possible service would have sufficed.
But then again that was the rational and dignified option.
According to you.
It's always amusing when people claim their own opinion is the only rational and dignified opinion. It's everyone else that's wrong!
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Hawk,
I have to say that reply was incorrect. Service at St.Paul's, coffin bearers from the services, attendance by H.M. Queen and all the accoutrements of an English grand hurrah send off - come on you've got to be joking.
Is that the definition of a State funeral now? Just because you haven't got a clue what a State Funeral is, doesn't mean that anything that makes you go 'oooooh' qualifies as one. Sorry for the disapointment.
There are strict protocols for what a State Funeral is. Thatcher's was just a Ceremonial funeral.
And it was tiny compared to the only other 2 ceremonial funerals held in living memory - HM the Queen Mother and Diana, Princess of Wales.
The QM's cost £8m but just look at the huge scale of it all.
Baroness T's funeral was a fraction of the size and therefore was appropriate and far less expensive.
As I said before, had she been put in a bin bag and thrown over a wall someone would have complained about the cost of the bin bag!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Look, this State Funeral/ Ceremonial Funeral thing is largely irrelevant: it's the difference between Bling ++ and Bling +++, but the contrast is with previous PMs (apart from Churchill, Gladstone, Wellington and Palmerston) who had merely Bling or even Bling -.
The one respect in which it's NOT irrelevant is that AIUI a State Funeral has to be authorised by Parliament and that authorisation must include a budget being voted for it. I'm sure this isn't the only reason that Thatch's funeral was Ceremonial rather than State, but in the current economic and political climate Boy George and Call-me-Dave must have been mightily relieved not to have to publish the expected costs in advance.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
I'm not saying that no-one was in London, but let's just say that there was less people in the UK who wanted to show respect during the wedding than expected.
The photo you linked to is very interesting - I wonder when it was taken? As it was taken from almost exactly the spot where I was standing (for the 30 seconds it took for the hearse to go by) and the whole place was crowded then - as I say, for about 30 seconds. Numbers of people seem to have wandered out from the surrounding offices to pay their respects - as did I.
However, I'm not sure people had realised they were watching a wedding.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
I'm not saying that no-one was in London, but let's just say that there was less people in the UK who wanted to show respect during the wedding than expected.
The photo you linked to is very interesting - I wonder when it was taken? As it was taken from almost exactly the spot where I was standing (for the 30 seconds it took for the hearse to go by) and the whole place was crowded then - as I say, for about 30 seconds. Numbers of people seem to have wandered out from the surrounding offices to pay their respects - as did I.
However, I'm not sure people had realised they were watching a wedding.
M.
One public celebration tends to blur into another (happy now Muddy? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Hmmm, may I just remind you that Baroness Thatcher was 87 when she died. It was not an unexpected event and it was long-anticipated and long-prepared for.
And might it alter things in the minds of some to know that in actual fact the arrangements for this funeral were agreed by Messrs Blair and Brown under their tenures as PM?
Did you really think that on the evening of Baroness T's death Dave and George had a quick meeting at No. 10 in order to sketch out all the funeral plans they way they wanted them, including booking the bands and the military and sending a quick note to the Queen asking if she happened to be free?
This was planned years ago - don't forget she was having strokes before 2002!! She could have dropped dead at any time over the last decade and the Labour Government were prepared and the funeral would have looked just the same under brown as PM and is did under Cameron.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ah dinnae really care. I'm one of those who lament that we don't actually have a proper lefty party in the UK any more, so what Blair and Brown would have approved of means very little to me.
I was disappointed enough to learn that Blair had apparently had Thatcher around to give him advice at the beginning of his time as PM.
If it's been planned so long in advance, why were they unable to tell us how much it's actually cost? You could be right that it's less than the £10 million, but you've got to understand why the lack of an official figure is leaving space to speculation, surely?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah dinnae really care. I'm one of those who lament that we don't actually have a proper lefty party in the UK any more,
Ah, like in the 1970s and 80s?
Oh that would be good.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ah dinnae really care. I'm one of those who lament that we don't actually have a proper lefty party in the UK any more,
Ah, like in the 1970s and 80s?
Oh that would be good.
I didn't say they'd get elected. Unfortunately. I've never quite understood why, but very few people seem willing to abandon the defence strategy of threatening to poison the earth and turn children to dust ((c) Leon Rosselson) for example.
I can dream.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
This shows the popularity of the funeral in Bradford.
In Leeds.
In Edinburgh.
So no-one made a special journey to a windswept city centre to watch a funeral? Hardly surprising (though I can see how the photos are amusing).
It was the middle of the day! Even on a windswept and rainy day our city centres are usually full of people. In all those cities there must have been hundreds of people in the streets, they just didn't care to worship at the Thatcher shrine.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
I daresay there were areas where a lot of people were. I'm just questioning how many of these areas there were.
So why did you link to that photo? I had assumed that you had posted the link to demonstrate that that particular area was empty at the time the hearse was passing. It was not.
I do not have personal knowledge of other parts of the route but I do have personal knowledge of that part.
M.
Edited to add: All I am doing is suggesting that that photo in particular is misleading.
[ 19. April 2013, 13:10: Message edited by: M. ]
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
There are strict protocols for what a State Funeral is. Thatcher's was just a Ceremonial funeral.
Paid for by the State. Which Thatcher wished would become insignificant.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And might it alter things in the minds of some to know that in actual fact the arrangements for this funeral were agreed by Messrs Blair and Brown under their tenures as PM?
No. Blair, Brown, Cameron, Osborne: all the same as far as I can see.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Furthermore, the bailouts were the result of a situation that developed on Labour's watch, notwithstanding that Thatcher could be argued to have set it in motion, oh, some 22 years before.
Or you could argue that the Tories under Thatcher shifted the Overton window sufficiently that further regulation of the financial industries wasn't politically feasible regardless of intent. As alienfromzog points out above, the Tories are hardly champing on the bit to regulate after (or before) the event.
I'm not sure what the Overton window is, but it seems to me that 9 years (1997 to 2008) is enough time to become responsible for its location.
Plenty of countries round the world had Thatcherite reforms, including this one (and it is interesting to note how much less reviled their proponents are than Thatcher is in the UK). Their banks did not get themselves tied in knots like those in the UK.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
This shows the popularity of the funeral in Bradford.
In Leeds.
In Edinburgh.
So no-one made a special journey to a windswept city centre to watch a funeral? Hardly surprising (though I can see how the photos are amusing).
It was the middle of the day! Even on a windswept and rainy day our city centres are usually full of people. In all those cities there must have been hundreds of people in the streets, they just didn't care to worship at the Thatcher shrine.
If that was the case, then presumably the photos would show lots of people going about their business but not watching the screens?
I can't speak for anyone else, but watching a politician's funeral on a giant outdoor screen seems a bit odd to me. If I was living in the provinces and wanted to watch it, I'd stay at home to do so, otherwise I'd ignore it and go about doing whatever I needed to do.
Though I suppose if one is celebrating her death then one might camp outside one of these big screens with one's fellow travellers to make an event of it.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I'm not sure what the Overton window is, but it seems to me that 9 years (1997 to 2008) is enough time to become responsible for its location.
Absolutely, and his mistakes on this point were largely confined in following the ideological example of Mrs Thatcher.
quote:
Plenty of countries round the world had Thatcherite reforms, including this one (and it is interesting to note how much less reviled their proponents are than Thatcher is in the UK). Their banks did not get themselves tied in knots like those in the UK.
Yes, and the difference was an over active financial sector (see point one), and an overheated housing market (see point one).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Repeat: other countries, including this one, underwent Thatcherite reforms but retained perfectly healthy financial sectors.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
We had our warning with the Baring's Bank fiasco, chose to ignore the spread of sharp practice, and have now paid the price.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
The Achilles heel, I would suggest, with ''Thatcherism'' and the legacy of Thatcher is fundamentally - selfish greed.
Unbridled Thatcherism was -in part - responsible for the catastrophe of Northern Rock in 2007/08.
The financial market even under Labour's Blair/Brown saw the city of London as if it could do no wrong. This Labour worship of Mammon was built on Thatcher and Major's deification of the city of London.
When the scale of the greed and inept investments came to light people were shocked. My view is that Thatcher laid the foundation of this manic greed and self obsession - the get rich quick mentality and **** everyone else.
Thatcher supporters may argue that the good lady was prudent and would not be so crass as to support unbridled venality and greed. But her deregulation set the tone for the Harry Enfield ''loadsamoney'' stereotype - which had some reflection in actual reality IMHO. This barrow boy in the city culture, tended to enthrone money and financial markets almost as a godlike can do no wrong divinity. It was the easy money factory and the worship was something many of us participated in. Credit was oh so easy and it was borrow borrow borrow.
This for me is the legacy of Thatcher, it helped set the scene for the triple dip recession , in part, that we are now in.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The Achilles heel, I would suggest, with ''Thatcherism'' and the legacy of Thatcher is fundamentally - selfish greed.
Unbridled Thatcherism was -in part - responsible for the catastrophe of Northern Rock in 2007/08.
The financial market even under Labour's Blair/Brown saw the city of London as if it could do no wrong. This Labour worship of Mammon was built on Thatcher and Major's deification of the city of London.
When the scale of the greed and inept investments came to light people were shocked. My view is that Thatcher laid the foundation of this manic greed and self obsession - the get rich quick mentality and **** everyone else.
Thatcher supporters may argue that the good lady was prudent and would not be so crass as to support unbridled venality and greed. But her deregulation set the tone for the Harry Enfield ''loadsamoney'' stereotype - which had some reflection in actual reality IMHO. This barrow boy in the city culture, tended to enthrone money and financial markets almost as a godlike can do no wrong divinity. It was the easy money factory and the worship was something many of us participated in. Credit was oh so easy and it was borrow borrow borrow.
This for me is the legacy of Thatcher, it helped set the scene for the triple dip recession , in part, that we are now in.
Saul
Two things.
What do you think London was built on? It certainly wasn't sheep-farming!! It has always been a trading/mercantile/banking city. There are Guilds and Societies and warehouses (now flats) to show that for centuries London has been the very centre and focus of finance and commerce. You cannot say that MT invented wealth creation - it's the very soul of London.
And secondly you are incorrect.
We are NOT in a triple dip recession.
Though it's not good news yet:
see here
[ 21. April 2013, 12:01: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The Achilles heel, I would suggest, with ''Thatcherism'' and the legacy of Thatcher is fundamentally - selfish greed.
Unbridled Thatcherism was -in part - responsible for the catastrophe of Northern Rock in 2007/08.
The financial market even under Labour's Blair/Brown saw the city of London as if it could do no wrong. This Labour worship of Mammon was built on Thatcher and Major's deification of the city of London.
When the scale of the greed and inept investments came to light people were shocked. My view is that Thatcher laid the foundation of this manic greed and self obsession - the get rich quick mentality and **** everyone else.
Thatcher supporters may argue that the good lady was prudent and would not be so crass as to support unbridled venality and greed. But her deregulation set the tone for the Harry Enfield ''loadsamoney'' stereotype - which had some reflection in actual reality IMHO. This barrow boy in the city culture, tended to enthrone money and financial markets almost as a godlike can do no wrong divinity. It was the easy money factory and the worship was something many of us participated in. Credit was oh so easy and it was borrow borrow borrow.
This for me is the legacy of Thatcher, it helped set the scene for the triple dip recession , in part, that we are now in.
Saul
Having a bogeywoman to blame for everything one thinks is wrong with Britain today lets one off addressing actual issues now. It's all so much easier. She wrecked the mining communities, rather than that they had dug out all the coal. Scargill was demanding the right for people to carry on being paid danger money to dig out exhausted coal seams in dangerous and filthy condition. She made financiers greedy, rather than that they might themselves be selfish crooks. It's rather like preachers who attribute every sin to demons.
It's 22½ years since she left office. There was a Conservative administration which hung for its full term after her, and then three Labour ones totalling 13 years. That's a comparable duration to everything between the end of the war and Harold Wilson's 100 days in 1964.
Blaming her for everything is an excuse for people who haven't the vision to imagine how things could be and then try and do something to improve them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I don't think the coal was mined out. FRom a variety of sources:
According to 2011 estimates, Britain still has a total coal reserve of 3,196 million tonnes (surface and underground). Labour list.org
The UK Coal Forum estimated the UK's underground coal reserves to be about 105 million tonnes in 2009. In addition to these underground reserves, there are surface-level coal fields, but mining these requires planning permission. EDFenergy.com
Britain has sufficient coal reserves for 200 years...
At the moment, most of the coal in Britain is too deep and inaccessible to be economically viable.
Daily Mail
The UK has abundant reserves of coal, according to the latest assessment given by then Energy Minister Charles Hendry in July 2011:
Underground 2,344 Mt
Surface 852 Mt
Total 3,196 Mt
ukcoal.com
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The Achilles heel, I would suggest, with ''Thatcherism'' and the legacy of Thatcher is fundamentally - selfish greed.
Unbridled Thatcherism was -in part - responsible for the catastrophe of Northern Rock in 2007/08.
The financial market even under Labour's Blair/Brown saw the city of London as if it could do no wrong. This Labour worship of Mammon was built on Thatcher and Major's deification of the city of London.
When the scale of the greed and inept investments came to light people were shocked. My view is that Thatcher laid the foundation of this manic greed and self obsession - the get rich quick mentality and **** everyone else.
Thatcher supporters may argue that the good lady was prudent and would not be so crass as to support unbridled venality and greed. But her deregulation set the tone for the Harry Enfield ''loadsamoney'' stereotype - which had some reflection in actual reality IMHO. This barrow boy in the city culture, tended to enthrone money and financial markets almost as a godlike can do no wrong divinity. It was the easy money factory and the worship was something many of us participated in. Credit was oh so easy and it was borrow borrow borrow.
This for me is the legacy of Thatcher, it helped set the scene for the triple dip recession , in part, that we are now in.
Saul
Two things.
What do you think London was built on? It certainly wasn't sheep-farming!! It has always been a trading/mercantile/banking city. There are Guilds and Societies and warehouses (now flats) to show that for centuries London has been the very centre and focus of finance and commerce. You cannot say that MT invented wealth creation - it's the very soul of London.
And secondly you are incorrect.
We are NOT in a triple dip recession.
Though it's not good news yet:
see here
Well, I think we're straining at gnats here aren't we?
Even the arch Tory ''Daily Express'' business pages talks about it, OK we're not actually in the ''church'' of triple dip but we're through the lychgate and almost through the door.
http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/393538/Flatlining-UK-at-risk-of-triple-dip-recession
I wouldn't disagree with you and (I am not a socialist BTW) about the city of London.
You may have noted that I didn't blame ''capitalism'', I actually fired off at unbridled greed and this is what was set off in Thatcher's Britain. It continued after her demise and it was the free enterprise culture with no limits and it was the no limits that got us into this mess we're in.
Credit and easier and totally no holds barred credit - credit and a lack of understanding that you can't just go on living on credit got us into this mess.
The city of London ethos clearly changed in the 1980s and that WAS part of Margaret Thatcher's legacy - and I am not saying she is to blame for all our ills, but the unleashed city greed is partly to be laid at her door IMHO. Thus it is part of her legacy to the nation.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Well, I think we're straining at gnats here aren't we?
Even the arch Tory ''Daily Express'' business pages talks about it,
Not really. There's a definition of 'recession' and the UK economy doesn't fit that definition on the current data.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Having reserves of coal that are inaccessible is, to me, a definition that the mines are 'mined out.'
In any case it's a cheek that the Labour party would talk about the coal that's left when it was Harold Wilson that closed more mines than Mrs T ever did.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I think we could bat this one until Kingdom come could we not?
Standard Chartered take a rather downbeat view:
quote:
Sarah Hewin, head of research on European economies at Standard Chartered, said the UK will not be able to avoid a triple-dip recession. She said: "The real weak spots of the economy are manufacturing and construction. Employment is still rising, but wages are weak. The economy is moving ahead but there is a lot of stopping and starting. "We won't avoid a triple-dip recession. We are at risk, but we'll see a pick up later in the year."
At the end of the day we're on the brink of another wobble.
Of course it would be wrong to blame all ills on Thatcher and I haven't in fact done this if you read my posts have I?
But the post war one nation ideal perished in 1979 when Thatcher was made Prime Minister. The body politic wasn't happy of course and the big bogey of the Tories - Trade Unionists - were still too strong for Thatcher.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
... The city of London ethos clearly changed in the 1980s and that WAS part of Margaret Thatcher's legacy - and I am not saying she is to blame for all our ills, but the unleashed city greed is partly to be laid at her door IMHO. Thus it is part of her legacy to the nation.
That's the same sort of moral thinking as 'it's the man behind the bar who sold me the beer who is to blame because I beat my wife'.
Human nature has its strengths but also its weaknesses. Give some people the opportunity to be greedy and dishonest in their own favour, and they will take it. Give some leaders of the commanding heights of the Trade Union Movement in the 1970s the opportunity to exploit economic decline to use their power base to try and take over the state, and they too will take it. Give a dodgy South American cabal of generals with domestic problems of their own the temptation to distract attention from them by grabbing two islands that don't belong to them, and they too will give way to the temptation.
What distinguishes the better from the worse human being isn't whether we escape being tempted. The temptations are different, but are always there. It's whether we give into them. But it's also, when we do, whether we accept responsibility or whether we blame somebody else - it's all his, or in this case, her fault. 'The serpent or the woman tempted me and I did eat'.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, but this cuts another way too. You have to take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions, even though you might not desire those consequences. In fact, quite a lot of what governments do - like deregulating the financial sector- is done with a view to allowing or encouraging other people to act in particular ways. So when, as a government, you are planning or designing courses of action, you need to think about what the likely outcomes will be, and accept responsibility for them.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
... The city of London ethos clearly changed in the 1980s and that WAS part of Margaret Thatcher's legacy - and I am not saying she is to blame for all our ills, but the unleashed city greed is partly to be laid at her door IMHO. Thus it is part of her legacy to the nation.
That's the same sort of moral thinking as 'it's the man behind the bar who sold me the beer who is to blame because I beat my wife'.
Only if the man behind the bar actively wanted to promote wife-beating. That would be a more accurate analogy.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
posted by Albertus
Yes, but this cuts another way too. You have to take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions, even though you might not desire those consequences. In fact, quite a lot of what governments do - like deregulating the financial sector- is done with a view to allowing or encouraging other people to act in particular ways. So when, as a government, you are planning or designing courses of action, you need to think about what the likely outcomes will be, and accept responsibility for them.
Reasonably foreseeable consequences maybe, but I fail to see how anyone can blame Margaret Thatcher, or her "ism" for the shambles at Northern Rock.
Northern Rock failed in 2007 - nearly 16 years after Margaret Thatcher left office and more than 10 years after Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took over as PM and Chancellor.
The so-called De-regulation of the City - more commonly called "Big Bang" was in 1987: it was primarily to do with investment selling and dealing and covered, among other things
- separation of selling and research departments in investment houses
- separation of dealing departments and nominee holding departments to present boiler-house dealing
- registration of every person involved in dealing in stocks, shares, government gilts and unit trusts
- registration of every person holding a position as either a director or in the finance department of all dealing houses and stockbrking firms, including those that were part of a retail bank
- mandatory statements being sent by nominee services to all clients on whose behalf they held shares and other investments
- for the first time all dealing and broking firms could be subject to inspection: if the regulator thought fit this could be without notice
Big Bang did NOT affect the inspection regime of retail banks, which was left to the Bank of England. Building Societies had their own regulatory authority.
The so-called "light-touch" regulatory system for banks was brought in under Gordon Brown soon after Labour's general election victory which brought an end to 18 years of Tory rule. A lot of the big ideas in the light-touch regime were produced by Ed Miliband during his period as a Special Advisor to the Shadow Treasury team under Harriet Harman and then Gordon Brown and were then further worked on by Ed Balls. The final regulatory framework was a joint effort between Balls and Miliband with Brown taking overall charge as Chancellor.
It was THIS piece of legislation that brought about the perfect conditions for a catastrophe such as Northern Rock to happen. A lethal combination of de-mutualisation, granting of banking licences without any health-check on whether the staff (directors and investment teams, in particular) were up to the job, and a total lack of any meaningful oversight meant that Northern Rock could throw its investors' - still largely its customers from when it was a mutual - money into worthless junk bonds based on US sub-prime debt.
The near-collapse of the whole UK banking system must be laid at the feet of the people who put in place the conditions for it to come about - and they are Gordon Brown and Eds Ball and Miliband.
Make no mistake, the Tory Big Bang and accompanying legislation were not to blame for Northern Rock, RBS or HBOS/Lloyds. Furthermore, after the collapse of Barings (a merchant bank, not a retail outfit) the Tories strengthened the inspection regime for ALL banks to ensure that investors' money was safe and that banks and their employees didn't play casino with clients' money.
The case of HBOS/Lloyds, in particular, is tragic: Lloyds was a pretty well-run bank that was, effectively, strong-armed into taking over another Scottish instutition to prevent a collapse by Messrs Brown and Darling.
Consequences??? Well, Margaret Thatcher is still being blamed for many things but the banking crisis of 2007 to now is nothing to do with her. In fact, she mistrusted the whole "city" thing and was also deeply suspicious of what a windfall could do to otherwise sensible people and institutions - that was one of the reasons why she (wrongly, IMHO) made sure that councils couldn't touch the money from the sale of council houses. Don't forget, when eventually the Labour government post 1997 loosened controls so they could invest this money, many councils promptly sank it into junk bonds and the like or thought it prudent to invest it in Iceland...
[ 21. April 2013, 17:58: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I think if you read my post I am not blaming Thatcher for sudden infant death syndrome. For avian flu or indeed premature melting of ice cream other things that popular myth and magic may like to imagine that the ''baddie'' has done.
What I meant was that Thatcher set the scene for unbridled greed by the de-regulation. The spirit of the age was moved by Thatcher and that spirit was one of greed and selfishness. That was the parody by Harry Enfield (loadsamoney) it's not a question of the blame Maggie for all bad things; that would be a nonsense. But she was a key player in this deregulation which in turn did lead on to a market which would brook no opposition (it became greedy and engorged) and even the Labour government of Blair and Brown was in thrall to it's power and wealth.
Of course that is IMHO.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
