So how do you feel about Margaret Thatcher's death

[Spinozaad]

I don't really give a rat's arse. The power of politicians in a global world is vastly overrated. Thatcher didn't close the mines. Perhaps she went there and locked the doors to the mines with a chain (I don't know, but perhaps she did), but she did not close the mines herself.

She was an exponent of time and place. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

My Grandad died of a stroke just before Christmas, in hospital, surrounded by pretty much the entire family. "That woman" (as she's being referred to by most of said family above my age!) dies in a hotel room, surrounded by paid aides, staff etc. Says a lot about her, really.

Yes, she's dead, and I'm not one for spewing hate and vitriol about the deceased (cause what's the sodding point?!) but I can think of much, much better uses for the feck-knows-how-many-millions the UK is spending on her funeral.

 

[flarty]

Inflation is high but is is offset somewhat by there economic growth. Venezuela had the best performing stock market last year...

Goodness me, the Venezuelan stock market is barely existent...

"Capital flight from Venezuela intensified as Mr. Chávez pursued more interventionist policies, including capital controls and a fixed official exchange rate that ? if you can get it ? offers dollars at a quarter of the exchange rate that the greenback fetches in the black market. Stock market capitalization of companies listed on the Caracas Stock Exchange has gone from a paltry 7.6% of GDP in 1999 to a minuscule 1.6%.

Rather than pursue policies that might stimulate investment, the government?s response to shrinking productive capacity and high inflation has been price caps. The result? Shortages of food and other basic necessities, periodic electric brown- and blackouts, and far fewer jobs: the labor force participation rate has dropped from 52% to 46% in the Chávez era"

Agree the in-roads into the desperate poverty in Venezuela was initally impressive though! Shame he did it by waging class war on the middle class ("the squalid ones", I believe he called them) and that his use of oil money is so unsustainable.

Saw today there is currently a row over whether the stand in President gets to stay, very close election 50% to 50% nearly, be interesting to see where it goes from here!

There stock market grew by over 200% last year (it may have contracted somewhat since, but i would of expected more growth since Chavez's death), and inflation is 10% (roughly?) lower than it was 1999. As we all agree Chavez has some incredibly anti capitalist policies, making their stock market one of the most unattractive in the world. So showing a growth of over 200% in a single year is nothing short of incredible.

As for the middle class it is unfortunate that they seem to be hardest hit in Venezuela. I don't understand whats happening with the food shortages, The Cuban government has a spectacular food program where citizens get roughly $50 worth of groceries for a little over a $1, I'm not sure how they can afford to subsidize that sort of cost and Venezuela cant.

But as i said there was many short comings of the Chavez government, possibly due to bad management. Its a good comparison to use against Margaret Thatcher as they were polar opposites with some problems that are all not dissimilar (black outs etc). Which has just made me think. In any ropey economic climate it seems the middle class are first to be squeezed. Our current government cut all state benefits to the middle class in the first Budget here in the UK. Now they are cutting benefits to the poor and disabled, whilst awarding a tax cut to the wealthy. Chavez might have squeezed the middle class in his country but at least it was with the intent to help the more vulnerable.

 

[vallorn]

Was she high handed? Yes.
Was she bigoted to gays. Yes.
Did she cause suffering among the UK working class. Yes.

Did her policies and changes to the UK economy work? Yes.

She did alot of unpopular things. But she did stop the UK from flushing down the economic toliet. Stopping or slowing the eventual fall of a nation is never easy nor painless. There will always be someone hurt by it. But the sooner you do it the less people will be hurt. She was able to turn the UK around before it got to the level of Greece and Italy. And what she did worked so well that even the PMs that came after her haven't undone what she did.

Finally someone with some sense and decency in this thread. People need to understand that economic reform is always going to have some sore backs. It's life, it ain't easy. You can't expect things to be easy just because.

Yes but the point is the way she did it. Some of what she did was simply to prove a point, and people will, and should, refuse to have respect for someone who ruined their lives simply to show that she could!

Also the economic reforms weren't necessary, she could of kept England an industrial nation, there is a rather large, and extremely successful one in Europe with very strong unions .... Germany.

Ok can we bring into perspective how the UK unions back then acted?

They had ousted governments by calling national strikes across multiple industries when the people voted a way they didnt like. Even if the party in power was one they ostensibly paid for.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Major strike action by British unions during the 1978?1979 Winter of Discontent are widely acknowledged[by whom?] to have contributed to the downfall of the Labour government of James Callaghan. Callaghan, himself a trade-unionist, had previously appealed for unions to exercise pay restraint, as part of the British Government's policies at the time to try to curb rampant inflation. His attempt to try to limit unions to a 5% pay rise led to widespread official and unofficial strikes across the country during the winter of that year. Official and unofficial strike action by lorry drivers, rail workers, nurses and ambulance drivers precipitated a feeling of crisis in the country. Memorable scenes of picketed hospitals, mounting piles of coffins, and heaps of unburied rubbish accumulating in public parks were embedded deeply in the public psyche.

When Jim Callaghan's government lost a vote of no confidence, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives swept to victory in the subsequent general election and introduced new union laws in part to combat the industrial unrest that had plagued the previous Wilson and Callaghan governments.

In essence. The unions could have played nice but chose to play hardball and got Thatcher instead of Callaghan.

That's all fine but the point is Thatcher didn't simply reduce the power of the unions, she destroyed them, just to show she could. That's why people are angry, closing profitable mines just so the unions had less power isn't good leadership, its wrong.

Not to mention my other gripes are still her pro apartheid stance and buddying up with Augusto Pinochet.

Actually the mines weren't profitable. And were only open due to UK government giving them bundles of money over and over. You say she closed the mines when in reality all she did was stop the flow of government money to them and they closed on their own.

No, that's not what i said, i said she closed the profitable mines, which she did. Yes she closed some that weren't making money, but she also closed those that were making money, not because of economic reasons, but because she was on a vendetta against unions.

Her Labour predecessors closed more mines than she did if you look at the numbers.

 

[Timmey]

Was she high handed? Yes.
Was she bigoted to gays. Yes.
Did she cause suffering among the UK working class. Yes.

Did her policies and changes to the UK economy work? Yes.

She did alot of unpopular things. But she did stop the UK from flushing down the economic toliet. Stopping or slowing the eventual fall of a nation is never easy nor painless. There will always be someone hurt by it. But the sooner you do it the less people will be hurt. She was able to turn the UK around before it got to the level of Greece and Italy. And what she did worked so well that even the PMs that came after her haven't undone what she did.

Finally someone with some sense and decency in this thread. People need to understand that economic reform is always going to have some sore backs. It's life, it ain't easy. You can't expect things to be easy just because.

Yes but the point is the way she did it. Some of what she did was simply to prove a point, and people will, and should, refuse to have respect for someone who ruined their lives simply to show that she could!

Also the economic reforms weren't necessary, she could of kept England an industrial nation, there is a rather large, and extremely successful one in Europe with very strong unions .... Germany.

Ok can we bring into perspective how the UK unions back then acted?

They had ousted governments by calling national strikes across multiple industries when the people voted a way they didnt like. Even if the party in power was one they ostensibly paid for.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Major strike action by British unions during the 1978?1979 Winter of Discontent are widely acknowledged[by whom?] to have contributed to the downfall of the Labour government of James Callaghan. Callaghan, himself a trade-unionist, had previously appealed for unions to exercise pay restraint, as part of the British Government's policies at the time to try to curb rampant inflation. His attempt to try to limit unions to a 5% pay rise led to widespread official and unofficial strikes across the country during the winter of that year. Official and unofficial strike action by lorry drivers, rail workers, nurses and ambulance drivers precipitated a feeling of crisis in the country. Memorable scenes of picketed hospitals, mounting piles of coffins, and heaps of unburied rubbish accumulating in public parks were embedded deeply in the public psyche.

When Jim Callaghan's government lost a vote of no confidence, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives swept to victory in the subsequent general election and introduced new union laws in part to combat the industrial unrest that had plagued the previous Wilson and Callaghan governments.

In essence. The unions could have played nice but chose to play hardball and got Thatcher instead of Callaghan.

That's all fine but the point is Thatcher didn't simply reduce the power of the unions, she destroyed them, just to show she could. That's why people are angry, closing profitable mines just so the unions had less power isn't good leadership, its wrong.

Not to mention my other gripes are still her pro apartheid stance and buddying up with Augusto Pinochet.

Actually the mines weren't profitable. And were only open due to UK government giving them bundles of money over and over. You say she closed the mines when in reality all she did was stop the flow of government money to them and they closed on their own.

No, that's not what i said, i said she closed the profitable mines, which she did. Yes she closed some that weren't making money, but she also closed those that were making money, not because of economic reasons, but because she was on a vendetta against unions.

Her Labour predecessors closed more mines than she did if you look at the numbers.

That is not the point! I am not arguing about labour, i am arguing about Thatcher. Thatcher closed un profitable mines, but also ones that were making money, just to prove a point. She was a racist, homophobic, extremist supporting, horrible women.

 

[vallorn]

Was she high handed? Yes.
Was she bigoted to gays. Yes.
Did she cause suffering among the UK working class. Yes.

Did her policies and changes to the UK economy work? Yes.

She did alot of unpopular things. But she did stop the UK from flushing down the economic toliet. Stopping or slowing the eventual fall of a nation is never easy nor painless. There will always be someone hurt by it. But the sooner you do it the less people will be hurt. She was able to turn the UK around before it got to the level of Greece and Italy. And what she did worked so well that even the PMs that came after her haven't undone what she did.

Finally someone with some sense and decency in this thread. People need to understand that economic reform is always going to have some sore backs. It's life, it ain't easy. You can't expect things to be easy just because.

Yes but the point is the way she did it. Some of what she did was simply to prove a point, and people will, and should, refuse to have respect for someone who ruined their lives simply to show that she could!

Also the economic reforms weren't necessary, she could of kept England an industrial nation, there is a rather large, and extremely successful one in Europe with very strong unions .... Germany.

Ok can we bring into perspective how the UK unions back then acted?

They had ousted governments by calling national strikes across multiple industries when the people voted a way they didnt like. Even if the party in power was one they ostensibly paid for.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Major strike action by British unions during the 1978?1979 Winter of Discontent are widely acknowledged[by whom?] to have contributed to the downfall of the Labour government of James Callaghan. Callaghan, himself a trade-unionist, had previously appealed for unions to exercise pay restraint, as part of the British Government's policies at the time to try to curb rampant inflation. His attempt to try to limit unions to a 5% pay rise led to widespread official and unofficial strikes across the country during the winter of that year. Official and unofficial strike action by lorry drivers, rail workers, nurses and ambulance drivers precipitated a feeling of crisis in the country. Memorable scenes of picketed hospitals, mounting piles of coffins, and heaps of unburied rubbish accumulating in public parks were embedded deeply in the public psyche.

When Jim Callaghan's government lost a vote of no confidence, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives swept to victory in the subsequent general election and introduced new union laws in part to combat the industrial unrest that had plagued the previous Wilson and Callaghan governments.

In essence. The unions could have played nice but chose to play hardball and got Thatcher instead of Callaghan.

That's all fine but the point is Thatcher didn't simply reduce the power of the unions, she destroyed them, just to show she could. That's why people are angry, closing profitable mines just so the unions had less power isn't good leadership, its wrong.

Not to mention my other gripes are still her pro apartheid stance and buddying up with Augusto Pinochet.

Actually the mines weren't profitable. And were only open due to UK government giving them bundles of money over and over. You say she closed the mines when in reality all she did was stop the flow of government money to them and they closed on their own.

No, that's not what i said, i said she closed the profitable mines, which she did. Yes she closed some that weren't making money, but she also closed those that were making money, not because of economic reasons, but because she was on a vendetta against unions.

Her Labour predecessors closed more mines than she did if you look at the numbers.

That is not the point! I am not arguing about labour, i am arguing about Thatcher. Thatcher closed un profitable mines, but also ones that were making money, just to prove a point. She was a racist, homophobic, extremist supporting, horrible women.

No I was just squashing the mythology of "Thatcher closed all the mines". when she really, really didnt.

Being bisexual Im not going to argue about the homophobia. the laws passed on that sorta stick by themselves.

Extremist supporting... your talking about Pinochet right? Ehhhh... Besides him being a vile dictator he did implement reforms that led to Chile being one of the fastest growing world economies in the 90s. On the other hand the things he did to his own people mean I cannot personally support him. Im not sure why Thatcher did.

Racist... Ok well this one deserves a thorough analysis.

From her wikipedia article:

Although saying that she was in favour of "peaceful negotiations" to end apartheid, Thatcher stood against the sanctions imposed on South Africa by the Commonwealth and the EC. She attempted to preserve trade with South Africa while persuading the regime there to abandon apartheid. This included "[c]asting herself as President Botha's candid friend", and inviting him to visit the UK in June 1984, in spite of the "inevitable demonstrations" against his regime. Thatcher, on the other hand, dismissed the African National Congress (ANC) in October 1987 as "a typical terrorist organisation".

First lets remember that sanctions do a lot of hard to a country's people. we can see it in the countries under massive economic sanctions today. Principled opposition to sanctions themselves if not the cause they are trying to accomplish is in my eyes a worthwhile idea.
At the same time the labeling of the ANC as a terrorist organization. Well from what I have read they were doing similar things to the IRA in the UK. Should she proclaim the IRA bombers terrorists while holding up the ANC who did the same things as not? That would be intellectual cowardice.
From the ANC's wiki page:

The MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. Acts of terrorism committed by the MK include the Church Street bombing and the Magoo's Bar bombing. In cooperation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.

This isn't a clear cut issue by any means and screaming accusations of racism doesn't help anybody. Its a complex mess of problems and concurrent events that deserves careful analysis rather than rhetoric.

 

[Timmey]

Was she high handed? Yes.
Was she bigoted to gays. Yes.
Did she cause suffering among the UK working class. Yes.

Did her policies and changes to the UK economy work? Yes.

She did alot of unpopular things. But she did stop the UK from flushing down the economic toliet. Stopping or slowing the eventual fall of a nation is never easy nor painless. There will always be someone hurt by it. But the sooner you do it the less people will be hurt. She was able to turn the UK around before it got to the level of Greece and Italy. And what she did worked so well that even the PMs that came after her haven't undone what she did.

Finally someone with some sense and decency in this thread. People need to understand that economic reform is always going to have some sore backs. It's life, it ain't easy. You can't expect things to be easy just because.

Yes but the point is the way she did it. Some of what she did was simply to prove a point, and people will, and should, refuse to have respect for someone who ruined their lives simply to show that she could!

Also the economic reforms weren't necessary, she could of kept England an industrial nation, there is a rather large, and extremely successful one in Europe with very strong unions .... Germany.

Ok can we bring into perspective how the UK unions back then acted?

They had ousted governments by calling national strikes across multiple industries when the people voted a way they didnt like. Even if the party in power was one they ostensibly paid for.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Major strike action by British unions during the 1978?1979 Winter of Discontent are widely acknowledged[by whom?] to have contributed to the downfall of the Labour government of James Callaghan. Callaghan, himself a trade-unionist, had previously appealed for unions to exercise pay restraint, as part of the British Government's policies at the time to try to curb rampant inflation. His attempt to try to limit unions to a 5% pay rise led to widespread official and unofficial strikes across the country during the winter of that year. Official and unofficial strike action by lorry drivers, rail workers, nurses and ambulance drivers precipitated a feeling of crisis in the country. Memorable scenes of picketed hospitals, mounting piles of coffins, and heaps of unburied rubbish accumulating in public parks were embedded deeply in the public psyche.

When Jim Callaghan's government lost a vote of no confidence, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives swept to victory in the subsequent general election and introduced new union laws in part to combat the industrial unrest that had plagued the previous Wilson and Callaghan governments.

In essence. The unions could have played nice but chose to play hardball and got Thatcher instead of Callaghan.

That's all fine but the point is Thatcher didn't simply reduce the power of the unions, she destroyed them, just to show she could. That's why people are angry, closing profitable mines just so the unions had less power isn't good leadership, its wrong.

Not to mention my other gripes are still her pro apartheid stance and buddying up with Augusto Pinochet.

Actually the mines weren't profitable. And were only open due to UK government giving them bundles of money over and over. You say she closed the mines when in reality all she did was stop the flow of government money to them and they closed on their own.

No, that's not what i said, i said she closed the profitable mines, which she did. Yes she closed some that weren't making money, but she also closed those that were making money, not because of economic reasons, but because she was on a vendetta against unions.

Her Labour predecessors closed more mines than she did if you look at the numbers.

That is not the point! I am not arguing about labour, i am arguing about Thatcher. Thatcher closed un profitable mines, but also ones that were making money, just to prove a point. She was a racist, homophobic, extremist supporting, horrible women.

No I was just squashing the mythology of "Thatcher closed all the mines". when she really, really didnt.

Being bisexual Im not going to argue about the homophobia. the laws passed on that sorta stick by themselves.

Extremist supporting... your talking about Pinochet right? Ehhhh... Besides him being a vile dictator he did implement reforms that led to Chile being one of the fastest growing world economies in the 90s. On the other hand the things he did to his own people mean I cannot personally support him. Im not sure why Thatcher did.

Racist... Ok well this one deserves a thorough analysis.

From her wikipedia article:

Although saying that she was in favour of "peaceful negotiations" to end apartheid, Thatcher stood against the sanctions imposed on South Africa by the Commonwealth and the EC. She attempted to preserve trade with South Africa while persuading the regime there to abandon apartheid. This included "[c]asting herself as President Botha's candid friend", and inviting him to visit the UK in June 1984, in spite of the "inevitable demonstrations" against his regime. Thatcher, on the other hand, dismissed the African National Congress (ANC) in October 1987 as "a typical terrorist organisation".

First lets remember that sanctions do a lot of hard to a country's people. we can see it in the countries under massive economic sanctions today. Principled opposition to sanctions themselves if not the cause they are trying to accomplish is in my eyes a worthwhile idea.
At the same time the labeling of the ANC as a terrorist organization. Well from what I have read they were doing similar things to the IRA in the UK. Should she proclaim the IRA bombers terrorists while holding up the ANC who did the same things as not? That would be intellectual cowardice.
From the ANC's wiki page:

The MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. Acts of terrorism committed by the MK include the Church Street bombing and the Magoo's Bar bombing. In cooperation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.

This isn't a clear cut issue by any means and screaming accusations of racism doesn't help anybody. Its a complex mess of problems and concurrent events that deserves careful analysis rather than rhetoric.

I'm sorry but you cant excuse her position on the ANC. Their are always extremist elements in every movement, the ANC is no different. How do you expect them to react after years of repression? Mandela is an example of a moderate within the movement, yet she tars him with the same brush. Her record is abismal, especially with her meetings and support of Buthelezi. What do you want us to do? sing her praise for prolonging a horrible and oppressive organization? I'm not sure how you can support her actions on this, especially when you are ready to agree on the horrible homophobic laws she passed.

 

[vallorn]

Moderate you say? well here is the ANC's wiki page just before the part I quoted:

There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence in order to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal.

and no I'm not trying to excuse her position. I'm attempting to analyze it thoroughly and determine my position based on the context of the times rather than "She called Mandela a terrorist she must be racist"

Its a little something called objectivity and reading up on all the facts before deciding a position on the matter. Something a lot of the frothing at the mouth death partygoers seem to neglect.

Oh and if you were one I wont apologize. I get called names for sensibly considered decisions enough as it is. and I stand by my decisions not because of ideology but because I take a long time to think and consider before deciding things are worth standing behind.

 

[Timmey]

Moderate you say? well here is the ANC's wiki page just before the part I quoted:

There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence in order to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal.

and no I'm not trying to excuse her position. I'm attempting to analyze it thoroughly and determine my position based on the context of the times rather than "She called Mandela a terrorist she must be racist"

Its a little something called objectivity and reading up on all the facts before deciding a position on the matter. Something a lot of the frothing at the mouth death partygoers seem to neglect.

Oh and if you were one I wont apologize. I get called names for sensibly considered decisions enough as it is. and I stand by my decisions not because of ideology but because I take a long time to think and consider before deciding things are worth standing behind.

You cannot argue 'the time' as an excuse for the actions of her, and her party, towards Mandela. Calls for him to be shot, and the suggestion that those thinking Mandela would every run the country were living in 'cloud cuckoo land', show exactly the Tory parties stance at the time, and the stance of their leader.

 

[vallorn]

Was she high handed? Yes.
Was she bigoted to gays. Yes.
Did she cause suffering among the UK working class. Yes.

Did her policies and changes to the UK economy work? Yes.

She did alot of unpopular things. But she did stop the UK from flushing down the economic toliet. Stopping or slowing the eventual fall of a nation is never easy nor painless. There will always be someone hurt by it. But the sooner you do it the less people will be hurt. She was able to turn the UK around before it got to the level of Greece and Italy. And what she did worked so well that even the PMs that came after her haven't undone what she did.

Finally someone with some sense and decency in this thread. People need to understand that economic reform is always going to have some sore backs. It's life, it ain't easy. You can't expect things to be easy just because.

Yes but the point is the way she did it. Some of what she did was simply to prove a point, and people will, and should, refuse to have respect for someone who ruined their lives simply to show that she could!

Also the economic reforms weren't necessary, she could of kept England an industrial nation, there is a rather large, and extremely successful one in Europe with very strong unions .... Germany.

Ok can we bring into perspective how the UK unions back then acted?

They had ousted governments by calling national strikes across multiple industries when the people voted a way they didnt like. Even if the party in power was one they ostensibly paid for.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom

Major strike action by British unions during the 1978?1979 Winter of Discontent are widely acknowledged[by whom?] to have contributed to the downfall of the Labour government of James Callaghan. Callaghan, himself a trade-unionist, had previously appealed for unions to exercise pay restraint, as part of the British Government's policies at the time to try to curb rampant inflation. His attempt to try to limit unions to a 5% pay rise led to widespread official and unofficial strikes across the country during the winter of that year. Official and unofficial strike action by lorry drivers, rail workers, nurses and ambulance drivers precipitated a feeling of crisis in the country. Memorable scenes of picketed hospitals, mounting piles of coffins, and heaps of unburied rubbish accumulating in public parks were embedded deeply in the public psyche.

When Jim Callaghan's government lost a vote of no confidence, Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives swept to victory in the subsequent general election and introduced new union laws in part to combat the industrial unrest that had plagued the previous Wilson and Callaghan governments.

In essence. The unions could have played nice but chose to play hardball and got Thatcher instead of Callaghan.

That's all fine but the point is Thatcher didn't simply reduce the power of the unions, she destroyed them, just to show she could. That's why people are angry, closing profitable mines just so the unions had less power isn't good leadership, its wrong.

Not to mention my other gripes are still her pro apartheid stance and buddying up with Augusto Pinochet.

Actually the mines weren't profitable. And were only open due to UK government giving them bundles of money over and over. You say she closed the mines when in reality all she did was stop the flow of government money to them and they closed on their own.

No, that's not what i said, i said she closed the profitable mines, which she did. Yes she closed some that weren't making money, but she also closed those that were making money, not because of economic reasons, but because she was on a vendetta against unions.

Her Labour predecessors closed more mines than she did if you look at the numbers.

That is not the point! I am not arguing about labour, i am arguing about Thatcher. Thatcher closed un profitable mines, but also ones that were making money, just to prove a point. She was a racist, homophobic, extremist supporting, horrible women.

No I was just squashing the mythology of "Thatcher closed all the mines". when she really, really didnt.

Being bisexual Im not going to argue about the homophobia. the laws passed on that sorta stick by themselves.

Extremist supporting... your talking about Pinochet right? Ehhhh... Besides him being a vile dictator he did implement reforms that led to Chile being one of the fastest growing world economies in the 90s. On the other hand the things he did to his own people mean I cannot personally support him. Im not sure why Thatcher did.

Racist... Ok well this one deserves a thorough analysis.

From her wikipedia article:

Although saying that she was in favour of "peaceful negotiations" to end apartheid, Thatcher stood against the sanctions imposed on South Africa by the Commonwealth and the EC. She attempted to preserve trade with South Africa while persuading the regime there to abandon apartheid. This included "[c]asting herself as President Botha's candid friend", and inviting him to visit the UK in June 1984, in spite of the "inevitable demonstrations" against his regime. Thatcher, on the other hand, dismissed the African National Congress (ANC) in October 1987 as "a typical terrorist organisation".

First lets remember that sanctions do a lot of hard to a country's people. we can see it in the countries under massive economic sanctions today. Principled opposition to sanctions themselves if not the cause they are trying to accomplish is in my eyes a worthwhile idea.
At the same time the labeling of the ANC as a terrorist organization. Well from what I have read they were doing similar things to the IRA in the UK. Should she proclaim the IRA bombers terrorists while holding up the ANC who did the same things as not? That would be intellectual cowardice.
From the ANC's wiki page:

The MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. Acts of terrorism committed by the MK include the Church Street bombing and the Magoo's Bar bombing. In cooperation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.

This isn't a clear cut issue by any means and screaming accusations of racism doesn't help anybody. Its a complex mess of problems and concurrent events that deserves careful analysis rather than rhetoric.

I'm sorry but you cant excuse her position on the ANC. Their are always extremist elements in every movement, the ANC is no different. How do you expect them to react after years of repression? Mandela is an example of a moderate within the movement, yet she tars him with the same brush. Her record is abismal, especially with her meetings and support of Buthelezi. What do you want us to do? sing her praise for prolonging a horrible and oppressive organization? I'm not sure how you can support her actions on this, especially when you are ready to agree on the horrible homophobic laws she passed.

Well for one I don't allow personal grievances to color my utilitarian analysis of her actions. Yes she passed some homophobic laws. No I don't hold that against her. Unlike some of the rage filled people who would jeer and boo at a dead woman's coffin I actually think intellectually about her life and actions.

Oh and what is your opinion on Ken Livingston if dealing with dictators is reprehensible? In a lot of cases there's something called diplomacy and statesmanship.

 

[vallorn]

Moderate you say? well here is the ANC's wiki page just before the part I quoted:

There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence in order to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal.

and no I'm not trying to excuse her position. I'm attempting to analyze it thoroughly and determine my position based on the context of the times rather than "She called Mandela a terrorist she must be racist"

Its a little something called objectivity and reading up on all the facts before deciding a position on the matter. Something a lot of the frothing at the mouth death partygoers seem to neglect.

Oh and if you were one I wont apologize. I get called names for sensibly considered decisions enough as it is. and I stand by my decisions not because of ideology but because I take a long time to think and consider before deciding things are worth standing behind.

You cannot argue 'the time' as an excuse for the actions of her, and her party, towards Mandela. Calls for him to be shot, and the suggestion that those thinking Mandela would every run the country were living in 'cloud cuckoo land', show exactly the Tory parties stance at the time, and the stance of their leader.

You cannot argue 'the time' as an excuse for the actions of her,

the Tory parties stance at the time

There you go again saying I am excusing her actions. Please don't put words in my mouth after I specifically said otherwise.

 

[Timmey]

Moderate you say? well here is the ANC's wiki page just before the part I quoted:

There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence in order to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of Apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such as Nelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal.

and no I'm not trying to excuse her position. I'm attempting to analyze it thoroughly and determine my position based on the context of the times rather than "She called Mandela a terrorist she must be racist"

Its a little something called objectivity and reading up on all the facts before deciding a position on the matter. Something a lot of the frothing at the mouth death partygoers seem to neglect.

Oh and if you were one I wont apologize. I get called names for sensibly considered decisions enough as it is. and I stand by my decisions not because of ideology but because I take a long time to think and consider before deciding things are worth standing behind.

You cannot argue 'the time' as an excuse for the actions of her, and her party, towards Mandela. Calls for him to be shot, and the suggestion that those thinking Mandela would every run the country were living in 'cloud cuckoo land', show exactly the Tory parties stance at the time, and the stance of their leader.

You cannot argue 'the time' as an excuse for the actions of her,

the Tory parties stance at the time

There you go again saying I am excusing her actions. Please don't put words in my mouth after I specifically said otherwise.

I'm sorry so what is your argument then?

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

I'm not the guy who barks on people for saying offensive things, but some of the comments that I'm seeing from you people are absolutely disgusting.

 

[flarty]

Inflation is high but is is offset somewhat by there economic growth. Venezuela had the best performing stock market last year...

Goodness me, the Venezuelan stock market is barely existent...

"Capital flight from Venezuela intensified as Mr. Chávez pursued more interventionist policies, including capital controls and a fixed official exchange rate that ? if you can get it ? offers dollars at a quarter of the exchange rate that the greenback fetches in the black market. Stock market capitalization of companies listed on the Caracas Stock Exchange has gone from a paltry 7.6% of GDP in 1999 to a minuscule 1.6%.

Rather than pursue policies that might stimulate investment, the government?s response to shrinking productive capacity and high inflation has been price caps. The result? Shortages of food and other basic necessities, periodic electric brown- and blackouts, and far fewer jobs: the labor force participation rate has dropped from 52% to 46% in the Chávez era"

Agree the in-roads into the desperate poverty in Venezuela was initally impressive though! Shame he did it by waging class war on the middle class ("the squalid ones", I believe he called them) and that his use of oil money is so unsustainable.

Saw today there is currently a row over whether the stand in President gets to stay, very close election 50% to 50% nearly, be interesting to see where it goes from here!

There stock market grew by over 200% last year (it may have contracted somewhat since, but i would of expected more growth since Chavez's death), and inflation is 10% (roughly?) lower than it was 1999. As we all agree Chavez has some incredibly anti capitalist policies, making their stock market one of the most unattractive in the world. So showing a growth of over 200% in a single year is nothing short of incredible.

As for the middle class it is unfortunate that they seem to be hardest hit in Venezuela. I don't understand whats happening with the food shortages, The Cuban government has a spectacular food program where citizens get roughly $50 worth of groceries for a little over a $1, I'm not sure how they can afford to subsidize that sort of cost and Venezuela cant.

But as i said there was many short comings of the Chavez government, possibly due to bad management. Its a good comparison to use against Margaret Thatcher as they were polar opposites with some problems that are all not dissimilar (black outs etc). Which has just made me think. In any ropey economic climate it seems the middle class are first to be squeezed. Our current government cut all state benefits to the middle class in the first Budget here in the UK. Now they are cutting benefits to the poor and disabled, whilst awarding a tax cut to the wealthy. Chavez might have squeezed the middle class in his country but at least it was with the intent to help the more vulnerable.

Popped in off the back of the other thread - thought I'd replied!

Inflation today is 25%, in 1998 it was... 25%, not 10% lower: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi I do believe they managed to get it down to 17% at one point, which no doubt you'll claim as a roaring success?

I thought you might go for the 200% (now 300%) increase. Only an extreme Socialist could claim tripling a tiny amount as as a wild success because only Socialism can depress growth to such an extent. First, you have to remember the 2012 rally was driven by 2 things - a wildly unsustainable 41% increase in public spending (on top of its already ruinous levels) to buy Chavez a second term and the belief that Chavez would step down due to his need for cancer treatment (i.e. someone sane might come in). The public spending supported bond purchases with people creaming huge profits and basically ignoring his State theft policies and taking a chance for the cash. At a fundamental level, the growth of the stockmarket is being driven not by external investment but by growth in GDP through massive local investment. That is how you end up with a bizarre situation where the market capitalization (i.e. the public perception of the value of the stock) dwindles while the overall value of the market increases. It is also worth noting the paltry 5% increase in the FTSE over the same period was worth far more than the 300% growth in Venezula. The food programme in Cuba is based on investment in a proper, modern farming sector - if Chavez had done that, fine, great - but he didn't, he waged war on "the squalid ones".

Yes, obviously, completely destroying an entire class' standard of living and demonising them to boot to finance your continued control of power, while hapazardly squandering its wealth is fine if you claim to be doing it for the "vulnerable" (a meaningless word if ever there was one). I certainly don't think you can call driving the oppostion into hiding, closing radio stations and locking up judges as being "possibly due to bad management" - call a spade, a spade - the man was dicatorial and oppressive, he was waging class war.

The comparsion to Thatcher is erroneous, the blackouts during the 70s were due to the miliant attempt to bully the nation by the thankfully defunct, corrupt Union power barons who thought they could blackmail the nation into allowing them to work 3 days a week. The blackouts here have been caused by the theft of foreign owned assest without retaining the expertise required to run them.

Really you are defending the indefensible. The only difference between Venezula and the total catastrophe of every other Socialist state is time and oil. If that had been harnessed and properly invested then they could have controlled, sensible growth and have moved to a balanced, happier economy, instead a single man has completely destroyed that chance in the pursuit of power and his ego (loved the 4 hour TV show he awarded himself), he has admitedly produced (a sub-standard, unsustainble) health system at the cost completely divided a nation (not looking good the 50.8% "win" and refusal to recount).

I didnt read it, because you sir are winning, and that's whats important here. Jesus how shameful to necro a thread, just because of what was said in another one.

 

[flarty]

I didnt read it, because you sir are winning, and that's whats important here. Jesus how shameful to necro a thread, just because of what was said in another one.

What an odd definition of shameful you have. I just replied where it was on topic. In fact, you put up the link to this thread. You really don't like people calling you out on the "facts" you make up do you? Just keep running and claiming everything is a "conspiracy". Pointed out the page in that document yet? Somehow I doubt it, always something to accuse the other people of eh?

Why don't you go have a look instead of blowing hot air. I would discuss and debate with you, but your just rude, ignorant and to intent on winning the debate that your not open to anyone else opinion.

 

[flarty]

I didnt read it, because you sir are winning, and that's whats important here. Jesus how shameful to necro a thread, just because of what was said in another one.

What an odd definition of shameful you have. I just replied where it was on topic. In fact, you put up the link to this thread. You really don't like people calling you out on the "facts" you make up do you? Just keep running and claiming everything is a "conspiracy". Pointed out the page in that document yet? Somehow I doubt it, always something to accuse the other people of eh?

Why don't you go have a look instead of blowing hot air. I would discuss and debate with you, but your just rude, ignorant and to intent on winning the debate that your not open to anyone else opinion.

The irony is palpable. I even provided you links (that I'd read and everything!). Admit it, you clicked on the first one, saw the inflation figures, realised you'd be rumbled and resorted to your usual abuse as a deflection technique! Oh well carry on - it's all a right wing media construct anyway!

LOL! My usual abuse? Please show me another instance of such "abuse". Apologies if I've hurt your feelings.