well no we don't. I don't blame it on the idle poor: they are idle and poor because socialism made them idle and poor,. A point you have failed to grasp. Without an endless supply of victims, how can a party that purports to care about victims get anyone's vote?
Replacing 19th century toffs who at least understood and were educated and brought up to act - at least ostensibly - in the public interest, by a bunch of chancers who saw that an endless supply of serfs represented and endless source of political power and the wherewithal to take it from the toffs, and transfer it into their own grubby hands.
Any working man or man on a low wage should vote for *any other party* than Labouror the communists. They are the people they warned you about.
If you actually care about people - really care, rather than fashionably affect to care -right now you should probably be voting UKIP, who seem to be more genuinely 'socialist' than any other party.
She had a very strange way of implementing that with the miners...
Never knew there was a 'shirking class' It's one trait which isn't class dependant.
So only those two 'classes' disliked her policies? Didn't realise how out of touch you are.
This quote from an article by Russell Brand sums up my view:-
***********************
I can't articulate with the skill of either of "the Marks" ? Steel or Thomas ? why Thatcher and Thatcherism were so bad for Britain but I do recall that even to a child her demeanour and every discernible action seemed to be to the detriment of our national spirit and identity. Her refusal to stand against apartheid, her civil war against the unions, her aggression towards our neighbours in Ireland and a taxation system that was devised in the dark ages, the bombing of a retreating ship ? it's just not British.
My last 10 years in paid employment involved automating production in what was largely a *batchwork* manufacturing facility. In 1972 the 3 UK factories employed around 5000 people. By 1983, when I too was made redundant, head count was down to around 1500 and one site. Partly international product rationalisation partly automated production lines. Not hugely due to my sole efforts but a symptom of what was happening to our post war industrial base.
I don't think unionisation played much part in what happened or that the work force was in any way lazy. Craft unions had their hands out whenever outside labour was required but this was usually settled by the availability of unrestricted overtime.
I don't think Maggie caused any of this but it happened in a civilised way due to changes in employment legislation.
I'm afraid my view of organised labour is coloured by the demise of the London Docks and British Leyland.
She certainly tapped into the toff's aversion to getting their hands dirty. For a shopkeeper's daughter, she had an awful lot of time for the likes of Peter Walker and other reptiles
No she didn't. Her stance, and I consider it honest, was that the state should not subsidise the production of coal.
The rest of the miner's dispute was whipped up by those within the union who did not like democracy. Very little was spoken by the union about pay, conditions or economic realities. The rhetoric was to "smash the Tories" or, reducing it to the truth, to overthrow the democratically elected government of the UK.
Really? You don't observe a class within the UK whose main aim to avoid doing a fair day's work for a fair days pay?
If you're going to erect strawmen, try to make sure that your workmanship on stick binding, sack-sewing and stuffing with straw is better than the one above. I did not say that only two classes disliked her policies.
This doesn't bode well. You are aware that Brand is a fatuous, brainless, whining oaf aren't you?
He can't articulate with the skill of the average fourteen year old, so that admission is only a surprise to him.
Thatcher made many mistakes she was deeply flawed, as are all politicians. Personally I consider her stance on gays to be abhorrent. However I suspect she was CoE and the church preached vile things about gays and still continues to do so. Its followers are blinkered on the subject.
The "war" against the unions was instigated by the unions. What the unions didn't like was that she was the rock that broke them.
Such aggression that she brokered a peace deal and worked amicably with the Irish government even though they reneged on the deal?
A tax, and an ill considered one at that, is not "a taxation system". Not was the Poll Tax medieval. In the Middle Ages Brand would not have had the vote, or any need to pay tax because we would have been a feudal tenant - owing everything to his master.
The Belgrano was not bombed, it was sunk by a torpedo. Brand shows his fuckwittery again. Nor was the Belgrano "retreating". Ships don't retreat they disengage in the hope of returning to fight again.
To claim that it is "just not British" is arrant nonsense. The Royal Navy has, for centuries, sunk fighting ships that enter into combat zones irrespective of which way the bow of the ship was pointing at the time.
No doubt you and your poster boy consider the sinking of the Bismarck to be unjustified since it was, at the time of being torpedoed, in "retreat" from the Royal Navy.
If the Captain of the Belgrano didn't want his ship to be sunk he had a clear choice. Staying in harbour and away from the exclusion zone was the choice that would have ensured the safety of his crew.
Then why didn't she simply sell it off? As was done with other industries that attracted government subsidies?
Which came first - her stated intentions of 'breaking' the unions, or the Scargill rhetoric about overthrowing the government? Which even he knew couldn't happen. That would be down to the electorate.
No - I don't know what a 'class' is. People tend to be individuals to me.
But I could. Split equally into those who don't give a stuff for anyone other than themselves, and the rest.
I'm commenting on what he said. Is that difficult to understand? In the same way as I'm commenting on the things Thatcher got so very wrong. Which doesn't necessarily mean everything.
A friend of mine commented that his uncle died in a hospital bed in staffordshire while 'Snatcher' died in a bed in the Ritz hotel, I think that says a lot.
where she'd been since christmas if I hread right. Surely if she wasn;t well she should have been in hospital.
She wasn't trying to. The miners declared war and were beaten. If it had been about pay and conditions they would probablly have won and would have had the support of the power workers. however they were clever enough to see what was happening unlike you and the miners.
well there you have the comments of the stupid. the belgrano was not retreating and posed a serious threat. It was war and the threat was eliminated as it should have been. the sub could have sunk all the support ships.
Why ?, surely she spent her last days where she wanted to be.
perhaps she'd been happier in a NHS bed ? if she didn;t want to be in the Ritz Hotel I'm sure she would have lived somewhere else for the last 3 months. I'm hoping it wasn't the tax payer who foot the bill for her hotel.
staffordshire while 'Snatcher' died in a bed in the Ritz hotel, I think that says a lot.
Not everyone who is is not well needs a hospital bed. And if she had needed a hospital bed I expect she would have paid privately (as she had done in the past) and not have given the whingers a chance to moan yet again.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.