http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28
That doesn't sound like fairly quickly to me... It sounds like we had to wait for the Tories to leave first.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Margaret Thatcher has died
- Thread starter Trick_GSF
- Start date
- Status
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28
That doesn't sound like fairly quickly to me... It sounds like we had to wait for the Tories to leave first.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Sure, and, of course, any one person's experience is only going to represent one facet of the situation. I'm not saying we should have unquestioning reverence for someone's account solely because they were there. But I just wanted to make the distinction that, instead of someone poring over dusty history books (and perhaps falling prey to errors of historiography), someone who was there at least has a measure of authenticity to their opinion by virtue of their own experience.
frankie_baby
Member
sorry but you are actually clueless, it came in in 1988 and wasnt reppealed til 2003 (the house of lords held it up for several years)
Arsenal2022
Member
Didn't Cameron campaign against its repeal as well?
Of all the things that Thatcher did, Section 28 was one of the most sinister, there was no justification for it beyond base homophobia.
I overwhelmingly disagree with probably around 95% of what Thatcher did but some of it was necessary.
The unions had too much power, and she needed to reduce their influence, but not crush them.
She ruined the economy of the North of England, instead focusing on the financial markets in the South East, something that went horribly wrong in 08.
But she was a brave woman, who stood up for what she believed in, in the face of appaling institutional, and direct, sexism. Something that I think she will one day be remembered for.
I still believe, above all else, she wanted what was best for the country, but that she was woefully wrong in her approach.
Rest in peace.
The most important UK politician in the last 50 years.
----
The unions had too much power, and she needed to reduce their influence, but not crush them.
She ruined the economy of the North of England, instead focusing on the financial markets in the South East, something that went horribly wrong in 08.
But she was a brave woman, who stood up for what she believed in, in the face of appaling institutional, and direct, sexism. Something that I think she will one day be remembered for.
I still believe, above all else, she wanted what was best for the country, but that she was woefully wrong in her approach.
Rest in peace.
The most important UK politician in the last 50 years.
----
I dislike Major(actually feel sorry for him since whoever followed Thatcher was bound to fail), but one good thing he tried to do pre 1997 (for his own interests though) was put forward a law to stop foreign media ownership like the US has.
He contacted Blair to discuss if this would have any chance of passing and was politely told to bugger off since Blair now had Murdochs muscle behind him.
Edit not really sure why I quoted you for that - sorry.
The eighties were a bad time for this full stop, there was no where near the acceptance there is now, but even now it's not where it needs to be... Back then these actions would have been supported by the majority I'm afraid to say.
Thankfully we are a lot more educated as a society now but unfortunately, in order to get here we had to get it badly wrong first.
frankie_baby
Member
did he now? need to look into that, if so theres a couple of gay conservatives on my facebook (almost the only people who've said anything respectful about her) i may have to point some stuff out to
I think sometimes people may forget that yes, at the time the UK & US supported regimes that had diabolical human rights records, there was always a reason.
The vast majority of times, it was to stop the communist movements that was sweeping like wildfire across the globe (they certainly wasn't saints) .
The UK & US were concentrated on the Cold War. They didn't want another Cuban missle crisis on their hands. You know the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
It was a shit time and everyone had to dance with the devil at some point
That's not fairly quick in UK politics?
Clueless I must be then... The wheels of Whitehall must be turning in a different time dimension to me?
captainnapalm
Member
CHEEZMO;53155839 said:
Yes, Thatcher and Reagan set about freeing up the free market even further, and no one ever came along and corrected that. There are still ridiculous levels of abuse and excess and very little in the way of accountability.
That she did this at the same time she took massively punitive measures against the poor and working class - well, people are right, she was certainly ballsy.
Psychotext
Member
Good old Ian Duncan Smith voted against its repeal too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_David_Cameron#Gay_rights
No, it's not... and you know it's not.
frankie_baby
Member
any law on foreign media ownership would have been handicapped by the fact it could only apply to outside EU countries, so instead of murdoch we could have had berlesconi (perhaps sligtly preferable) though to be honest overall media ownership is little different now to how it was in the 90s
That wouldn't fit well with his 'tough love' persona now.
frankie_baby
Member
15 minutes is far too long for such a disgusting fucking biggoted law and as has been pointed out several members of the current tory top brass voted against its repeal, i am biting my proverbial tongue so hard right now
I would settle for anyone but Murdoch.
They are still debating whether you should be allowed to marry if you are gay.
Stuffs taking a while to figure out whilst getting to the correct outcome. In the grand scheme of things the repeal was quick. Labour didnt exactly make it top priority.
To be honest, he has got a point. Years at a time goes by before old acts are repelled
For instance, did you know that contrary to beliefs, slavery wasn't illegal in the UK till about a decade ago.
It was the trading & movements of slaves that was only illegal before
Red Blaster
Member
p neat to know that supporting mass-murdering fascists and ethnic cleansing is okay as long as it's pro neoliberalism
Wait, you're telling me I could've had Cheezmo as a legal slave in the UK?
Damn it.
I'm kidding, settle down.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
Just ask the DWP if they'll let me be an "apprentice" in your harem and try get it on the work programme.
frankie_baby
Member
sorry but you sound more clueless with every post on the subject, labour had been fighting against oposition in the tory house of lords firstly on reducing the gay age of consent to 16 and secondly on section 28
PjotrStroganov
Member
And one wonders why the West was so half hearted at supporting the arab spring.
Like im sure that when the communist movement spread, it entered the fray I suppose with carnivals & party poppers.
It certainly is if you are:
Banging your secretary.
On the train with no ticket.
Speeding on the motorway and your significant other is the one with a clean licence.
Going to Macdonalds and there's only one free parking space.
You need a new bird table.
When it comes to repealing old acts, not so much.
Yep, you will just have to settle for him being your bitch on this forum.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
So 15 years is quick but 6 is long?
Psychotext
Member
You have heard of the House of Lords right? The first attempt was 2000.
I'm guessing that if 15 years is quick then under 3 years counts as instant.
Salvador Allende was elected in case you didn't know, of course the establishment wasn't pleased so Thatcher's fascist friend came along and took power by force.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Ah, I see you got banned. Sorry about that. Interestingly laconic debating style you have. On the offchance you are still reading, I'll have a go at responding anyway...
Not necessarily evil, and neither did it seek to ban discussion of homosexuality (which was after all legal, though the age of consent was 21). I see it as a pragmatic political fix to the education establishment running ahead of popular opinion at the time - it wasn't permanent either, but on the other hand it took Labour 6 years to repeal it in England, which suggests they had to be pretty certain of their electoral chances to get away with it. Not one that is as easy as it sounds.
That's really a two-way thing. Took plenty of people out of dependence on social housing (good, and indeed generous), didn't replenish social housing (bad, but probably as much of that was on the local councils as on central government - housing has always been a tricky issue (see Volume I Crossman's Diaries for squillions of examples)).
There's no evidence that Mrs T supported apartheid. There's a world of difference between supporting it (which she didn't) and not believing that economic sanctions by the UK were the right tactical means to use at the time (which she did). They are not the same thing.
That was a half mistake. The bit she got right was dismantling the old (and horrendously wrong and discriminatory) domestic rating system, the bit she got wrong was to attempt to place the burden on individuals rather than on property. But I think you are overstating your case here, remember that we haven't got a poll tax now. It was repealed quite quickly by a Conservative government - in contrast to that, how much of Thatchers reforms did Labour undo? Section 28 and that's it. They didn't reinstate free milk, renationalise anything, reinstitute pay restraints, negotiate away the Falklands etc etc. there's a reason for that, which is that they were things that needed to be done.
Practical politics and hindsight sometimes conflict. Actually I think her biggest foreign policy mistake was Germany (and her biggest success Russia).
Hmmm.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
An awful person and politician, unless you happen to be a conservative.
The comparison to Reagan is pretty apt.
No tears shed, my condolences to her family.
The comparison to Reagan is pretty apt.
No tears shed, my condolences to her family.
radioheadrule83
Banned
People are quick to jump to extremes on both sides. I'll share some extended thoughts that I've already shared (partially) elsewhere today:
I don't believe she was evil, or even that she wished any harm on the people of Britain. I like to think it is something of an anomaly if someone is able to possess both political appeal and any kind of ill-intent towards others. Leaders like Thatcher believe in what they do, it serves a purpose for them, and they pursue their beliefs with conviction. Phisheep might see a great deal of good that came of her tenure, and he might even have experienced it first hand, but I don't think he should accept his own experiences as universal. Our rolling news channels have already begun to eulogise her, but to me, this is cowardice over scrutiny; a deference to the tradition of respecting the dead rather than dwelling too much on the polarised reality. Regardless of whatever good she did, I think its worth remembering Britain's record of shame during her tenure and how her government did not affect all of us for the better, nor all of us equally.
Someone posted this link earlier in the thread and I think it is probably the best image yet for helping to illustrate the far-reaching and long-lasting divisiveness of her government. The result of the 1987 election: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/mapr1987.html -- indeed, on the subject of Thatcher, we are as two nations instead of one.
I was born in the years immediately following, so I never experienced it first hand but I have been told about having to endure power cuts and shit piling up in streets (their words not mine), so of course - I do understand that some people 'like' that she broke the power of the Unions. Some are glad that she prevented them from being used as a political weapon. That's fine. While I do think that both sides made miscalculations - I don't believe that an all-out war on workers' collectives was conducive to a harmonious society. There was no compassion for people made redundant overnight. And why should there have been? This was a party that was odious enough to suggest to Thatcher, following the 1981 Toxteth riots, that she let Liverpool fall in to "managed decline" as some sort of punishment. Her government was brash and over-authoritative. Brash and over-authoritative sus-laws helped cause the riots in the first place.
She brought about great change to the British economy, moving us away from industrial production to a service-led economy, but I would suggest that is not necessarily a good thing. Not entirely. There are some obvious benefits that we see all around us today, but Reaganomics-style deregulation and supply-side economics helped lead us by the hand to the economic recessions of yesteryear and today. The savings and loans industry was the culprit in the early '90s, and the more recent recession began with sub-prime mortgage lending. I have a few things to suggest to you all there: firstly, when those recessions came along we didn't have anything like industrial production or manufacturing to fall back on. Secondly, her accompanying policies generated wealth but distributed it selectively. Lastly, Britain is still so addicted to Thatcherism and 'by-the-bootstraps' thinking that blame and punishment continues to fall upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it. People are still living under the illusion that we are a meritocracy.
There is a love of money in this country, a self-interested pursuit of it that crystallised under the reign of Thatcher. People seek retention of it at the expense of others. I am thinking particularly of people who are now hoarding housing, with rich landlords free to extort tenants because of a market she helped create through Right to Buy. There can be no doubt it was a popular move amongst the people who were made wealthy by it, and those who suddenly found themselves able to own their own home, but what is the impact today? I remember reading that the son of former-housing-minister Ian Gow owned at least 40 ex-council houses. They did not replace anything that they sold off, and with demand increasing as populations do - we have been left with something that resembles an exploitative, protectionist racket. It is a game that only the wealthy and fortunate can play. The current crop of conservatives attack Brown for not "repairing the roof while the sun was shining", but their forbears literally sold out roofs from above peoples' heads. Their successors are now telling poor people at what ages their children should be sharing bedrooms. So much for small government!
Despite real causes of hardship in this country being grounded in the mismanagement of resources, and the mistakes of political and financial elites -- all I hear about in the media (and parroted by those who consume it) are complaints about benefits 'scroungers', immigrants and other forms of scapegoat. Only on the subject of bankers bonuses do we return to the crux of our problems: reckless greed.
I find it lamentable that people have been hoodwinked in to consuming political messages that are against their own interests, implicitly accepting what they are told by the government and certain high-circulation newspapers. The same thing happened in 1989 following the Hillsborough football disaster. Police and The Sun newspaper facilitated a disgraceful cover-up by placing blame upon victims and their families. Thatcher could have shared in the horror of what happened and allowed a proper inquiry, she could have shown a real interest in the truth, but instead her government were complicit through sheer inaction, and simply allowed the maligning nonsense to take hold in the public consciousness. Only now, 24 years later are we seeing any kind of atonement for that.
As a Liverpudlian that has moved around the country, witnessed regional inequality, and witnessed poverty - I find myself, more than ever - wanting a more representative government. I want a compassionate rather than dispassionate government. I want people to have the opportunity to achieve great things and do well in life. I want them to be supported when they face genuine hardship. Instead, we have absolutely no parties that are truly liberal, we have gerrymandered regional borders, an unelected house of lords that everybody at the last election 'promised' to reform, financial institutions that were largely insulated from their own mistakes, a government massaging the unemployment figures with part-time workers, record numbers of youth unemployed, sky-high tuition fees, an NHS increasingly exposed to private interests, one of the worst rich-poor divides in the Western world and a culture eager to blame the poor before it addresses the billions hoarded and evaded in tax by the top percentile. It's not her legacy alone, but she shares a piece of it in my mind.
She was a milk snatcher. She dismantled livelihoods dispassionately. She sank the Belgrano under dubious circumstances. She presided over race riots in Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and London. The scenes of ruthless clashes during the miners strikes and the poll tax riots will continue to live long in the memory. She dubbed the ANC 'terrorists' during Apartheid. She helped this country protect Augusto Pinochet from prosecution for his crimes. She befriended other international miscreants. Was she an evil monster? Probably not. But she did plenty of things to this country and people living in it that can be justifiably disagreed with. I am not at all proud of what we are today.
I don't believe she was evil, or even that she wished any harm on the people of Britain. I like to think it is something of an anomaly if someone is able to possess both political appeal and any kind of ill-intent towards others. Leaders like Thatcher believe in what they do, it serves a purpose for them, and they pursue their beliefs with conviction. Phisheep might see a great deal of good that came of her tenure, and he might even have experienced it first hand, but I don't think he should accept his own experiences as universal. Our rolling news channels have already begun to eulogise her, but to me, this is cowardice over scrutiny; a deference to the tradition of respecting the dead rather than dwelling too much on the polarised reality. Regardless of whatever good she did, I think its worth remembering Britain's record of shame during her tenure and how her government did not affect all of us for the better, nor all of us equally.
Someone posted this link earlier in the thread and I think it is probably the best image yet for helping to illustrate the far-reaching and long-lasting divisiveness of her government. The result of the 1987 election: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/mapr1987.html -- indeed, on the subject of Thatcher, we are as two nations instead of one.
I was born in the years immediately following, so I never experienced it first hand but I have been told about having to endure power cuts and shit piling up in streets (their words not mine), so of course - I do understand that some people 'like' that she broke the power of the Unions. Some are glad that she prevented them from being used as a political weapon. That's fine. While I do think that both sides made miscalculations - I don't believe that an all-out war on workers' collectives was conducive to a harmonious society. There was no compassion for people made redundant overnight. And why should there have been? This was a party that was odious enough to suggest to Thatcher, following the 1981 Toxteth riots, that she let Liverpool fall in to "managed decline" as some sort of punishment. Her government was brash and over-authoritative. Brash and over-authoritative sus-laws helped cause the riots in the first place.
She brought about great change to the British economy, moving us away from industrial production to a service-led economy, but I would suggest that is not necessarily a good thing. Not entirely. There are some obvious benefits that we see all around us today, but Reaganomics-style deregulation and supply-side economics helped lead us by the hand to the economic recessions of yesteryear and today. The savings and loans industry was the culprit in the early '90s, and the more recent recession began with sub-prime mortgage lending. I have a few things to suggest to you all there: firstly, when those recessions came along we didn't have anything like industrial production or manufacturing to fall back on. Secondly, her accompanying policies generated wealth but distributed it selectively. Lastly, Britain is still so addicted to Thatcherism and 'by-the-bootstraps' thinking that blame and punishment continues to fall upon the shoulders of those least able to bear it. People are still living under the illusion that we are a meritocracy.
There is a love of money in this country, a self-interested pursuit of it that crystallised under the reign of Thatcher. People seek retention of it at the expense of others. I am thinking particularly of people who are now hoarding housing, with rich landlords free to extort tenants because of a market she helped create through Right to Buy. There can be no doubt it was a popular move amongst the people who were made wealthy by it, and those who suddenly found themselves able to own their own home, but what is the impact today? I remember reading that the son of former-housing-minister Ian Gow owned at least 40 ex-council houses. They did not replace anything that they sold off, and with demand increasing as populations do - we have been left with something that resembles an exploitative, protectionist racket. It is a game that only the wealthy and fortunate can play. The current crop of conservatives attack Brown for not "repairing the roof while the sun was shining", but their forbears literally sold out roofs from above peoples' heads. Their successors are now telling poor people at what ages their children should be sharing bedrooms. So much for small government!
Despite real causes of hardship in this country being grounded in the mismanagement of resources, and the mistakes of political and financial elites -- all I hear about in the media (and parroted by those who consume it) are complaints about benefits 'scroungers', immigrants and other forms of scapegoat. Only on the subject of bankers bonuses do we return to the crux of our problems: reckless greed.
I find it lamentable that people have been hoodwinked in to consuming political messages that are against their own interests, implicitly accepting what they are told by the government and certain high-circulation newspapers. The same thing happened in 1989 following the Hillsborough football disaster. Police and The Sun newspaper facilitated a disgraceful cover-up by placing blame upon victims and their families. Thatcher could have shared in the horror of what happened and allowed a proper inquiry, she could have shown a real interest in the truth, but instead her government were complicit through sheer inaction, and simply allowed the maligning nonsense to take hold in the public consciousness. Only now, 24 years later are we seeing any kind of atonement for that.
As a Liverpudlian that has moved around the country, witnessed regional inequality, and witnessed poverty - I find myself, more than ever - wanting a more representative government. I want a compassionate rather than dispassionate government. I want people to have the opportunity to achieve great things and do well in life. I want them to be supported when they face genuine hardship. Instead, we have absolutely no parties that are truly liberal, we have gerrymandered regional borders, an unelected house of lords that everybody at the last election 'promised' to reform, financial institutions that were largely insulated from their own mistakes, a government massaging the unemployment figures with part-time workers, record numbers of youth unemployed, sky-high tuition fees, an NHS increasingly exposed to private interests, one of the worst rich-poor divides in the Western world and a culture eager to blame the poor before it addresses the billions hoarded and evaded in tax by the top percentile. It's not her legacy alone, but she shares a piece of it in my mind.
She was a milk snatcher. She dismantled livelihoods dispassionately. She sank the Belgrano under dubious circumstances. She presided over race riots in Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool and London. The scenes of ruthless clashes during the miners strikes and the poll tax riots will continue to live long in the memory. She dubbed the ANC 'terrorists' during Apartheid. She helped this country protect Augusto Pinochet from prosecution for his crimes. She befriended other international miscreants. Was she an evil monster? Probably not. But she did plenty of things to this country and people living in it that can be justifiably disagreed with. I am not at all proud of what we are today.
PJV3
Member
Yep, she also appeals to the short sighted.
Arsenal2022
Member
The repeal of Section 28 had nothing to do with electoral chances, it was scuppered by the Conservative dominated Lords, and it took 3 attempts to pass it by them. After that point, the Commons are allowed to use to the Parliament Act to force the repeal anyway, so the Lords managed to delay it for as long as possible - this had nothing to do with popular opinion on the law.
A pragmatic political fix?? Due to the fear of hysterical conservatives that the left would infect the minds of their children with homosexuality? Section 28 was the ultimate "think of the children" law.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I think you're wrong there DD. Slavery was abolished throughout most of the empire in 1833 (exceptions in Ceylon, East India Company territories and maybe a couple of others). In practice in the UK it was a bit earlier than that even.
What's this stuff about 'a decade ago' eh?
I know that but he wasn't exactly without connections with groups like the MIR. Also, if memory serves me correctly wasn't their 'issues' regarding election?
You need to see my context.
When the act was introduced it would have been widely publicly accepted, especially with all the bullshit regarding aids etc at the time. I'm not saying that the act wasn't unpleasant because it stank the place out.
Within a
decade it's well into the process of getting pulled and that decision was widely publicly accepted.
Do you not think that is quick? Within the space of a decade we are no longer in the dark ages when it comes to public and political perception?
frankie_baby
Member
2003 yes but they'd tried to get it though in 2000, they also tried to get the gay age of consent down to 16 in 1998 but the house of lords held it up so that took til 2001 so if you are trying to imply they werent proactive on gay rights then yes you are clueless
frankie_baby
Member
the point is it should never have been introduced in the first place
It was something to do with a flaw in the original wording if I remember correctly.
The act had to be repealed and a new law was introduced.
I cant remember the exact details though (it could be a bit longer than that, not sure)
Arsenal2022
Member
Do remember that it had been removed in practice at the accession of the Labour government in 1997. The symbolic removal which started in 2000 would naturally take three years, as each bill is generally brought to the Houses once a year, and given the Lords would try to reject it as long as it could (which is 3 times), naturally it would take until 2003.
Angry Fork
Member
Or we could have let countries do what their people wanted, and we do what our people want.
But that would be against the economic interests of the elite. Invading grenada and overthrowing Mosaddegh sure saved American lives...
Zeus Molecules
illegal immigrants are stealing our air
She was really not liked at all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-4FJcnX0i8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-4FJcnX0i8
- Status