Baroness Thatcher dead

There is genuine hatred for Thatcher, she was a lightning rod for the changes that were happening at the time as the 80's changed the UK.

During the 90's she was elevated to Demigod status by both sides, the left regarding her as some demonic creature, the right as something pure. The truth, as ever, was different from both extremes.

I also suspect that, due to the era, her gender had quite a large bearing on it too - Blair and Brown caused much greater harm to the UK, yet there is much less heat generated over their condemnation.

I didn't say that they were out of desire. I said that they were unjustified and not necessitated by the Cold War. There is leeway within a broad policy of opposing the Soviet Union and multiple options in any given situation.
This is obvious of course - but for you to recognise it here would drastically undermine your positive assessment of Thatcher by revealing in her a ruthless indifference to human suffering in pursuit of her fanatical ideology. So you're forced to concoct bollocks like "it was that or nuclear war!" and dress that up as some sort of concession to "complexity" when it's precisely the opposite.

You are correct when you say that my views have changed in respect of Northern Ireland, its history and the relationship with the UK. But this is just false, equating a rejection of the British narrative as support for their opponents.

Then your entire argument is pretty much sunk.

If such decisions were not based on desire, then they were based on what the government believed was appropriate at the time given the situation.

Either Thatcher actively wanted to support them, or she deemed it a necessary evil, there's isn't exactly a spectrum between "want"/"not want".

Obviously they felt it was justified, perhaps in historical perspective they were not justified - but as I stated earlier we have the benefit of hindsight. Throughout history decisions have been made that later were seen to be erroneous, but the decision makers at the time have not that benefit.

Now this is comedy, I've been quite content to point out her flaws and mistakes in government - it is you who is only taking a one dimension stance. Your selection of adjectives alone basically screams "butthurt"

No, I'm taking the grown up view that they were decision made of their time, and based on the information and options they had available to them, and the alternative to that was nuclear war.

I know I'm correct

If you misrepresent my argument in that way, then it's easy to sink it. All you're doing now is pointing out that they felt their own decision justified in their own terms. Well, duh. But we are entitled to analyse it and take a different view.

Repetition of stupidity.

I've heard so many figures thrown about for the cost of the funeral!

I just hope that there's some decorum at the actual event regardless of an individual's feelings on the woman.

Your argument is the application of hindsight in order to maintain a negative view. It was asinine from the start.

Yes, that does indeed sum you up.

Glad you've developed a sense of self-awareness.

I hope it's not stupid money, I mean dead's dead. Making a big deal of it is just state dick-waving and providing yet more classy moves from the members of the left making dick moves.

Livingstone has, shockingly, been eminently classy - refuting her politics whilst still being respectful to the person.

Ha! She's been blown out of all proportion and is the figurehead of the global changes.

History will place her as an effective, if flawed leader - a Janus between two eras, who succeeded in defeating the overreaching Unions, and who failed to regenerate the industrial heartlands leaving divisive wounds. It's a pity she didn't listen more to Heseltine on such things.

The Left will retain her as a pet boogeyman.

What a facile statement. Piss off you dumb wetback.

The cost of the funeral will be driven up by the real possibility of middle class Wolfie Smith wannabes kicking off.
How many schoolznhospitalz or superannuated climate change officers could be funded by that?

I'd argue this is down to the culture war. When you have the likes of Charlie Brooker shaping the narrative there's no hope for a disinterested analysis. Take away foreign policy and Blair's own destructive policies are largely looked upon favourably in Islington and Broadcasting House.

Well, this thread has certainly been one of the most interesting on here in a while.

You know, these debates make me laugh. The teeth grinding left scream hell over their targets of hatred, but if you then mention the Labour examples, they disown them and say "yeah, they're all cunts as well".

So what sort of leadership should our country have? President Livingstone? Parliamentary majority for the Green Party?

This thread is full of the same tiresome lack of reality from the likes of Dan and Rick. It's all very well having political hate figures, and then disowning the other lot when it suits, but you never hear any proposals for how things should be done from such people. It's just popular grandstanding from the usual suspects.

You know, I had to laugh that BBC coverage of the so called Thatcher Death Parties yesterday. The showed the one in Brixton. Now, thinking Brixton, you'd immediately think of disenfranchised black people who remember the Brixton riots. Instead, it was the usual 20 year old hipsters, all white, in their charity shop clothes busy telling us how fucking bad Maggie was. They were, at best, swimming in their daddy's bollocks when she was in office! Typical bandwaggoning from the same old crowd.....and you can bet then very few of them grew up on a council estate and know what a hard day's work is.

You don't pay much attention, do you?

As for "the other lot", I regard Tony Blair, for instance, as a major war criminal, and have spent much more time criticising him than I ever have Thatcher.

Ok then, who would you have running the country?

I'm familiar with Blair an Brown by name but am woefully uninformed on their contributions in the eyes of the people there.

How many major western national heads of state have you NOT regarded as "war criminals" Rick?

You seem to have a pretty low threshhold for using that definition.

I don't care about personalities. But if we're talking about immediate change, while having next to no confidence in the individuals, I'd prefer the policies espoused by Milliband/Balls than those of Cameron/Osbourne. Looking further afield, I'd like to see the emergence of social democracy somewhere along the lines of the Scandinavian model, coming either from some new political movement or from inside an existing one. My views aren't exactly unknown around here...

Well, your "I wouldn't vote for Labour" just backs up what I said.

Who do you think could run the show to your satisfaction?

The same Labourites who were busy saling us down the shitter under Brown?
What policies of their's do you agree with?

And how exactly would this work? Which political parties in the UK are poised to bring us this? Also, which "Scandinavian model" are we talking here? Oil rich Norway's? Sweden? Denmark? All the same are they?

Your ego is quite astonishing. Do you really think that I, for one, commit to memory all that you say here?

Brookers prolly a bad example - I mean, he has one of the most extreme Libertarians in Doug Stanhope on his show!

I see where you're coming from, but I've never truly bought into the Culture War. Sure, the Beeb and it's excess of Trustafarians ensures a bias, but north of Watford people tend to brush that aside. They more remember the Thatcher Effect on their local area and the tales of woe for parents/grandparents.

So,if my politician serves more than three years, how does a government push through policy that will take longer then three years to come to fruition?

Why is law pointless? I'd say that my career has been a damn sight less pointless than some might say your's has been. You want change, do something about it. Right now I see empty trousers calling for change but doing fuck all about it.

Amusing that you said "no offence" above. This is offensive and indicates a total detachment from reality about the nature of law and what it is. All you can see is the superficial and argument portrayed on TV. There is a great deal more to it and it simply affords a way of thinking that can be useful in politics.

But, really, targeting the likes of lawyers is irrelevant. Why? Because in a democracy anyone can run for office. There are plenty of wealthy scientists, doctors, engineers and so forth, who coual easily run for office. They choose not to. Not only is that not the fault of lawyers or businessmen, but it is also the choice of these people not to enter politics. That is true democracy.

Oh, and since the premiership of Lord Douglas-Home (who wasn't a lawyer), only two Prime Ministers have been lawyers with only one, Blair, spending any credible amount of time in practice. The proof is in the pudding and, frankly, you're talking utter tosh.

I think that their economic policies are more sensible at present.

I don't know "exactly" what form it would take. It's a general aspiration, not a political manifesto. And it's not invalid for virtue of being unlikely.

If you have such little idea about what I post and can't be expected to know, then perhaps you shouldn't carp about my not taking positive political positions?

Fundmentally. Tyson may be good and what he does in his field, but your quote is loaded with ignorance. To believe that quote is to believe that the legal profession is about, and only about, arguing, and that is why lawyers go into politics. Utter nonsense. Whilst, of course, those who are litigators develop skills for debate and argument, the idea that this is the cornerstone of the profession is not only absolute crap, it is insulting to the extent that it implies that all a lawyer wants to do is argue and does not form or pursue his or her own convictions.

Furthermore, your post a quite in relation to American politics. Whether you like it or not American politics aren't the same as British politics, and it is the latter that we are discussing. As I have illustrated to you already, the majority of our post war Prime Ministers fall outside of the professions you highlighted and therefore the notion that the country has been controlled by lawyers or businessmen is a disingenuous fallacy.

You mean, erm, cuts?

The differences are fairly minimal at the moment, and Balls is one of the reasons we can't spend our way out of trouble having borrowed at the top of the economic cycle (funny how latter-day Keynesian converts forget that piddling little bit about running a surplus during the boom years)

Of course they're studiously avoiding too saying too much at the moment.