[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2013-April-09, 10:46, said:

And Westboro Baptist Church planned to picket Roger Ebert's funeral, because of his pro-gay stance (in their press release they called him a "fag enabler"). I can't find any news that says whether they actually showed up yesterday.

Looking at the url of that group's website, it's clear they're logical well balanced individuals ...

Hatred runs deep particularly in the north of England and Scotland against Margaret Thatcher. My epitaph for her would be "She overdid something that needed to be done".

[eagles123]

mr1303, on 2013-April-08, 16:26, said:

Those who are celebrating an 87 year old woman dying of a stroke need to have a good hard look at themselves.

As evil as Thatcher was celebrating her death is wrong.

[mike777]

eagles123, on 2013-April-09, 11:53, said:

As evil as Thatcher was celebrating her death is wrong.

Interesting that people think Thatcher was evil.

I see Scottish miners were dancing in the street

[mikeh]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-09, 11:37, said:

Looking at the url of that group's website, it's clear they're logical well balanced individuals ...

Hatred runs deep particularly in the north of England and Scotland against Margaret Thatcher. My epitaph for her would be "She overdid something that needed to be done".

Hmmmm......I can see why the miners and others may feel that way, since it is very hard for people to be at all objective about their own situation, but from the outside looking in, it is difficult to make a persuasive case that she overdid the breaking of the unions.

The unions, and in particular, the coalminers, were dominated and led by a fanatical cadre of leaders, determined to flout the law and advocating violent resistance as well as labour action calculated to wreak economic havoc on an already economically damaged nation. They were working in mines that had long since become uneconomic, and consistently rejected any attempt to introduce modern working practices.

In essence, they saw themselves as above the law, and were de facto in a rebellion in that they wanted the government overthrown and their jobs made secure no matter how ruinous that was for the country nor what laws were passed by a democratically elected government.

They had been enabled in this partly through the extreme left wing Labour Party (Blair was arguably closer in economic philosophy to Thatcher than he was to the Labour Party at the time of the miners' revolt) and partly through the insipid behaviour of previous Conservative Prime Ministers.....notable Edward Heath, who was notorious for backing down from the unions.

The result of the union busting was that many areas of the UK enjoyed an economic boom, and the country became far more competitive than it had been for several decades.

It is true that the coal-mining industry and the communities dependent on it never revived, but that was inevitable. The choice was never between the health of the coal-industry and the health of the rest of the nation. Both were sick, and both were going to get much sicker. What Thatcher did to the mining was to accelerate the inevitable while saving the rest.

It was akin to amputating a limb infected with gangrene, in the days before antibiotics. Yes, the limb would have remained somewhat viable a little longer, were it not amputated, but eventually both it and the body to which it was a part would be dead.

I am not generally conservative in my politics and I certainly didn't agree, from afar, with all that she did but as someone who was raised for 13 years in a class-ridden, hide-bound UK, I applaud the stance she took on the unions.

One characteristic that more politicians should strive to emulate is that she ALWAYS said what she meant and meant what she said: she had intellectual integrity. She was a realist in the sense that very few modern conservatives seem to be. She saw things as they were, not as she'd like them to be. She would have had no time for the US climate deniers, for example.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2013-April-09, 12:40, said:

Hmmmm......I can see why the miners and others may feel that way, since it is very hard for people to be at all objective about their own situation, but from the outside looking in, it is difficult to make a persuasive case that she overdid the breaking of the unions.

<snip>

I am not generally conservative in my politics and I certainly didn't agree, from afar, with all that she did but as someone who was raised for 13 years in a class-ridden, hide-bound UK, I applaud the stance she took on the unions.

One characteristic that more politicians should strive to emulate is that she ALWAYS said what she meant and meant what she said: she had intellectual integrity. She was a realist in the sense that very few modern conservatives seem to be. She saw things as they were, not as she'd like them to be. She would have had no time for the US climate deniers, for example.

Hmm, I edited my post immediately after posting and that edit has got lost.

I edited it to "She overdid THINGS that needed to be done".

I was thinking about some of the financial deregulation that has led to problems that have surfaced later. I believe employers being able to take a holiday from contributing to pension schemes in good times originated with Nigel Lawson under her, and had this not happened, we wouldn't have had so many go broke in bad times for example.

The big union barons needed curbing in a major way, that wasn't so much overdone, although some of the violence by the police on anybody who didn't conform http://en.wikipedia....f_the_Beanfield for example immortalised in song by the Levellers as well as the miners and the attitude to the Liverpool fans in the Hillsborough disaster was encouraged by the government.

[kenberg]

mikeh, on 2013-April-09, 12:40, said:

One characteristic that more politicians should strive to emulate is that she ALWAYS said what she meant and meant what she said: she had intellectual integrity. She was a realist in the sense that very few modern conservatives seem to be. She saw things as they were, not as she'd like them to be. She would have had no time for the US climate deniers, for example.

This certainly is something that at this time I like to concentrate on. My father was a carpenter, my uncle was an iron miner, my first wife's father was an iron miner until his heart attack. After that he tended bar.

Unions are rough. So are the owners of mines. And the bosses in many other industries. As I said elsewhere, it is pretty much an article of faith with me that taken as a whole, unions have had a positive effect, very positive. But nothing is constant, and where there is money there is greed, corruption and stupidity. Definitely not all on one side, it is not right to think of the saintly owners as bedeviled by the evil unions.

It's a very complicated situation. How to get a decent break for the blue collar worker? The unions said "Join us, we will take get it done. It won't be pretty, but it will be done". The force came from the workers who were desperately interested in the outcome. Now, many of the most vocal supporters of labor could not be trusted with an axe.

Anyway, this is the RIP thread and so may her soul rest in peace. There is a lot to argue over, but we can do it on another thread another day.

[mikeh]

kenberg, on 2013-April-09, 17:19, said:

This certainly is something that at this time I like to concentrate on. My father was a carpenter, my uncle was an iron miner, my first wife's father was an iron miner until his heart attack. After that he tended bar.

Unions are rough. So are the owners of mines. And the bosses in many other industries. As I said elsewhere, it is pretty much an article of faith with me that taken as a whole, unions have had a positive effect, very positive. But nothing is constant, and where there is money there is greed, corruption and stupidity. Definitely not all on one side, it is not right to think of the saintly owners as bedeviled by the evil unions.

It's a very complicated situation. How to get a decent break for the blue collar worker? The unions said "Join us, we will take get it done. It won't be pretty, but it will be done". The force came from the workers who were desperately interested in the outcome. Now, many of the most vocal supporters of labor could not be trusted with an axe.

Anyway, this is the RIP thread and so may her soul rest in peace. There is a lot to argue over, but we can do it on another thread another day.

I am 100% in favour of the right to unionize, but I suspect you may not be aware of how the more extreme left union leaders in the UK in the 50's through into the early 80's operated in what were almost entirely state owned enterprises. The unions largely controlled one of the major politivcal parties, and thus had considerable political power. When Labour governed, the unions were in some way in control of the ownership as well as the workers. And when the Conservatives were in power, until Thatcher, they allowed themselves to be held hostage.

[mike777]

mikeh, on 2013-April-09, 22:46, said:

I am 100% in favour of the right to unionize, but I suspect you may not be aware of how the more extreme left union leaders in the UK in the 50's through into the early 80's operated in what were almost entirely state owned enterprises. The unions largely controlled one of the major politivcal parties, and thus had considerable political power. When Labour governed, the unions were in some way in control of the ownership as well as the workers. And when the Conservatives were in power, until Thatcher, they allowed themselves to be held hostage.

the worst part was that the union did not own the mines, the worst part was the govt did not own the mines. If the govt owned the mines at the very least they could let the power owners...the union...rule. I assume at some point the law of supply and demand will or will not matter./


to be honest perhaps the worst part was whoever did own the mines did not sell. TO use your words they allowed themselves to be held hostage.

btw I am 100% union....with you.

[Mbodell]

mr1303, on 2013-April-08, 16:26, said:

Those who are celebrating an 87 year old woman dying of a stroke need to have a good hard look at themselves.

I agree that is true if you are talking to someone who knew the dead person personally. I'm not sure it is true if you talk about a world leader or influential person. Especially when there are others celebrating them (what, if any, is the appropriate response to public lionization of a figure you disagreed with upon their death? Is any criticism kicking the dead?). I mean I found it a little tacky when done in public, but could certainly understand a lot of celebrations for a dead bin Laden. Maybe enemy leaders aren't the same as domestic opponents, but arguably the policies of a gov't could do a lot of harm to a lot of people, potentially more pain even then a terrorist enemy, so it doesn't seem completely different.

That said, I agree that I wouldn't be celebrating even though I'd disagree with many of her policies (but then again, she was mostly before my time and in another country - who knows what I'd feel if she was of my time and country).

[mike777]

Mbodell, on 2013-April-09, 23:08, said:

I agree that is true if you are talking to someone who knew the dead person personally. I'm not sure it is true if you talk about a world leader or influential person. Especially when there are others celebrating them (what, if any, is the appropriate response to public lionization of a figure you disagreed with upon their death? Is any criticism kicking the dead?). I mean I found it a little tacky when done in public, but could certainly understand a lot of celebrations for a dead bin Laden. Maybe enemy leaders aren't the same as domestic opponents, but arguably the policies of a gov't could do a lot of harm to a lot of people, potentially more pain even then a terrorist enemy, so it doesn't seem completely different.

That said, I agree that I wouldn't be celebrating even though I'd disagree with many of her policies (but then again, she was mostly before my time and in another country - who knows what I'd feel if she was of my time and country).

I AGREE 100% with your main point.


"Maybe enemy leaders aren't the same as domestic opponents, but arguably the policies of a gov't could do a lot of harm to a lot of people, potentially more pain even then a terrorist enemy, so it doesn't seem completely different...."

[Cyberyeti]

I fully expect to see wild celebrations on the streets of various Arab countries when either of the Bushes or Blair expire. This is pretty normal. It can also be normal to celebrate the death of hated domestic political figures, I believe it happened in Chile after Pinochet died.

[kenberg]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-10, 03:10, said:

I fully expect to see wild celebrations on the streets of various Arab countries when either of the Bushes or Blair expire.

So do I. After planes were flown into the twin towers there were more than a few out in the streets firing guns into the air in wild celebration. I guess we could say that it is useful to know where people stand. I can't think of anything else good to say about it.

[kenberg]

mikeh, on 2013-April-09, 22:46, said:

I am 100% in favour of the right to unionize, but I suspect you may not be aware of how the more extreme left union leaders in the UK in the 50's through into the early 80's operated in what were almost entirely state owned enterprises. The unions largely controlled one of the major political parties, and thus had considerable political power. When Labour governed, the unions were in some way in control of the ownership as well as the workers. And when the Conservatives were in power, until Thatcher, they allowed themselves to be held hostage.

True. I am sort of aware, but not really. I saw the 1959 movie (I checked the date) I'm All Right, Jack. A pretty sardonic look at unions, politcs, society, etc. I can't guarantee an accurate memory here, but there was something along the lines of an MP being interviewed about the government's role in settling a strike: :"We will take prompt and effective action, and you can rest assured that we will not interfere."

[RMB1]

Chavez's death was a cause of celebration from politicians in other countries but celebration is frowned on for Thatcher.

When she resigned in 1990, we liberal pinko scientists at work cheered, while the admin staff wept; feelings haven't changed since.

[Cyberyeti]

RMB1, on 2013-April-10, 04:53, said:

Chavez's death was a cause of celebration from politicians in other countries but celebration is frowned on for Thatcher.

Yes but I didn't notice many street parties from the people of any particular country

Quote

When she resigned in 1990, we liberal pinko scientists at work cheered, while the admin staff wept; feelings haven't changed since.

I think the divide is more mining areas+Liverpool/the south than anything else, but undoubtedly education level has an effect also.

[kenberg]

It's true that these things go both ways. Jack Kennedy was not admired nearly so much when he was alive as he has been since he died. And some have made a virtual saint out of Reagan.

I recall after Kennedy was shot someone saying to me that he didn't think much of Kennedy when he was alive, and saw no reason to change his mind now. This seems fair enough. But cheering over the death of Margaret Thatcher at this point seems sick to me.

[Mbodell]

RMB1, on 2013-April-10, 04:53, said:

Chavez's death was a cause of celebration from politicians in other countries but celebration is frowned on for Thatcher.

Yeah. I fully expect street parties and celebrations in Florida when Fidel Castro passes away. I wonder if people will react to that with the same (or more) condemnation as they have for individuals who may be privately celebrating Thatcher's death (as some friend's of original post in this thread were).

[barmar]

There's a qualitative difference between leaders who were widely regarded as despots or evil dictators, e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Bin Laden; and leaders who were merely divisive, like Thatcher. Running a country practically always entails taking actions that large segments of the population will disagree with, sometimes violently so. And sometimes pundits will equate these leaders with the likes of Hitler, but this is clearly hyperbole (aka bullshit).

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2013-April-11, 07:01, said:

There's a qualitative difference between leaders who were widely regarded as despots or evil dictators, e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Bin Laden; and leaders who were merely divisive, like Thatcher. Running a country practically always entails taking actions that large segments of the population will disagree with, sometimes violently so. And sometimes pundits will equate these leaders with the likes of Hitler, but this is clearly hyperbole (aka bullshit).

Well there are large areas of England (mining areas of Yorkshire for example) where in the view of the locals Thatcher wanted to "exterminate the miners" and that feeling persists there, so the comparison in the view of those who make it (not me, I'm from the south) is valid. I think lumping Castro in with the others is just as ridiculous as you think adding Thatcher would be, IMO he was far from the foaming at the mouth monster that the others were.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-April-11, 08:26, said:

Well there are large areas of England (mining areas of Yorkshire for example) where in the view of the locals Thatcher wanted to "exterminate the miners" and that feeling persists there,

But it's an obvious overreaction. Taking away people's jobs is a far cry from sending them to gas chambers.

Maybe it's the culture. We don't have riots over here over football matches, either. Nixon was probably the most "evil" President we've had in recent memory, and in time we've been able to see that even he did much good, despite being a crook.

Quote

so the comparison in the view of those who make it (not me, I'm from the south) is valid. I think lumping Castro in with the others is just as ridiculous as you think adding Thatcher would be, IMO he was far from the foaming at the mouth monster that the others were.

World history is not my strong suit, and I tend to lump most dictators together.