• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Margaret Thatcher has died

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think it's a 7&1/2 hour circle-jerk/magick rite to return one of the old ones to it's rightful place that's happening in Westminster today.
 
This is the oddest spell of austerity ever.
They need to update the definition to include extravagant displays of arselicking.
 
PJV3 said:
This is the oddest spell of austerity ever.
They need to update the definition to include extravagant displays of arselicking.
Click to expand...

Respect is earned not demanded. I respect difference of opinion however I will not be told to respect someone just because they have passed away. I feel nothing for the woman, no respect, no joy.
 
digoutyoursoul said:
Respect is earned not demanded. I respect difference of opinion however I will not be told to respect someone just because they have passed away. I feel nothing for the woman, no respect, no joy.
Click to expand...

Churchill only merited an hour of parliamentary rimming, I expect a bit of Brown nosing, but this attempt to canonise her is really distasteful.
 
Tory MP unhappy some Labour MPs aren't attending the session to rim Thatcher.
You can't say anything negative, and now you cant refuse to listen to the sound of arse-munching.
 
If you plan to attend any protests on the funeral day, don't co-ordinate yourself with an account you can be identified with, and avoid joining facebook groups. One of the papers today is reporting that police are scanning social networks already, and that some are already trying to talk them out of making pre-emptive arrests.
 
radioheadrule83 said:
If you plan to attend any protests on the funeral day, don't co-ordinate yourself with an account you can be identified with, and avoid joining facebook groups. One of the papers today is reporting that police are scanning social networks already, and that some are already trying to talk them out of making pre-emptive arrests.
Click to expand...

Now this seems like a fitting tribute!
 
She'll still be dead on Monday. I can't believe we're wasting so much money recalling Parliament, at a time when we're all being asked to tighten our belts.

Recalling Parliament is for times of national crisis, FFS.
 
Everyone that has been coerced into paying bedroom tax should get a bit of Thatcher to put on their Mantelpieces as a reminder of how lucky they were to enjoy her legacy
 
Cumpkin Hubris said:
She'll still be dead on Monday. I can't believe we're wasting so much money recalling Parliament, at a time when we're all being asked to tighten our belts.

Recalling Parliament is for times of national crisis, FFS.
Click to expand...

Maybe Cameron believes she will rise from the dead on the 3rd day.
If anyone suggests Thatcher day (during the session) I will run naked through Kingston town centre.
 
Ding-Ding said:
Thats funny as I have been looking back on some of this thread and I have yet to see you engage in a single debate with anybody in regards to Thatchers legacy. Its like watching a 8 year old express their opinion before sticking their fingers in their ears saying "la la la, im not listening"

So come on then. Debate...

I replied to you before with points that you seem to completely miss. Why dont you debate them points and tell me where I am wrong.
Click to expand...

No, you replied to me with personal attacks and complaints that I didn't address your useful-content-free straw man seriously. Seems like you should be aspiring to the discussion level of an 8 year old - my 3 year old puts together a more coherent argument than that. Your reactions to me have consisted almost entirely of non-sequiturs, personal attacks, and gibberish.

In fact, if the 'who quoted you' list is definitive (which I'm not sure of) your responses to me have consisted entirely of non-sequiturs, personal attacks and gibberish. I've objected to two things you've said; the first was an approach to argument that was so inane you haven't even tried to defend it (do you think that fake dialogs misrepresenting the views of people are genuinely useful, or are you avoiding defending it because you're kind of ashamed of such a weak approach?) and the second (which I didn't even notice was by you) was an attempt to associate a bad approach to things inaccurately with state monopolies when it's something that's also widespread under capitalism.

It's kind of a shame, because you were responding to a point that deserved to be knocked down originally. A society where people don't like to make a fuss and know their place and accept their lot is a wet dream for any political party, more so as they get more authoritarian. That's not a left/right split by any means. But your approach to arguing against it was laughable, probably because you seem to be taking the opposite partisan view. Bad behaviour isn't exclusively the remit of the other party, but the fact that so many people see it as so is exactly why Thatcher is so polarising. She did things that are seen as extremely good by many on the right, and things that are seen as extremely bad by many on the left. Sometimes these were the same things. Sometimes they weren't. People on the right often won't see that a lot of things she did were very bad for a lot of people, and had negative effects later on. People on the left often won't see that a lot of things she did were necessary and in some cases were necessary because of the excesses of the left. Did things swing too far the other way? Some would say so, but that's pretty much inevitable.

You won't see me doing a whole load of arguing about Thatcher's legacy because too much of the debate is bouncing around those partisan positions. Too many people to whom she's a goddess or the devil incarnate. And too few people who can see that while there's some validity to their view of her, the opposite view also has merit, and people don't just hold it because they're wrong in the head.
 
PJV3 said:
I was thinking in terms of having multiple state owned companies competing, rewards for staff for bettering the competition etc, that would create some room for innovative companies.

Like I say, pointless what ifs, they're privatised.
Click to expand...

Didn't see this post PJV3, soz.

Having multiple state owned firms competing wont work, it will still be a Neo Socialist economy .

The main issue is while they maybe competing companies, they are still in the same trade. So one trade union can have control over all utilities. Strikes could be crippling again. Not to mention that the union would fix pay across the board, which would reduce competition.

Another issue is what if there is a recession. Work becomes limited with both companies fighting over the scraps. If one goes bust, does the government prop it up or just let it fail?.

EDIT: Not biting
 
Ding-Ding said:
Having multiple state owned firms competing wont work, it will still be a Neo Socialist economy.
Click to expand...

Not only won't it work, it'll probably be worse than having a single one; it's easier to regulate against excesses of a single company than multiple companies. If you're going down the route of state run companies then it's the responsibility of the government to make sure they're not acting in an anti-consumer way.
 
Ding-Ding said:
Didn't see this post PJV3, soz.

Having multiple state owned firms competing wont work, it will still be a Neo Socialist economy .

The main issue is while they maybe competing companies, they are still in the same trade. So one trade union can have control over all utilities. Strikes could be crippling again. Not to mention that the union would fix pay across the board, which would reduce competition.

Another issue is what if there is a recession. Work becomes limited with both companies fighting over the scraps. If one goes bust, does the government prop it up or just let it fail?.

EDIT: Not biting
Click to expand...

The unions are a separate issue, they're not some left wing outfit, just as many tories were members in those days, and again they needed reform such as Show of hands voting because it was intimidating.


Labour should have pushed their own reforms, worker/union board members and councils, the problem was a two way street of antagonism, history is being whitewashed to a large degree. As you can see from my posts, I'm not living in a la la land where I ignore the flaws of left wing ideas.

I want something better than this system, and it seems you can only make it work by stamping on people and making them less secure and at the mercy of the markets.
It doesn't appeal to me, it goes against my beliefs and values.


So we will never agree by the looks of things.
 
iapetus said:
Not only won't it work, it'll probably be worse than having a single one; it's easier to regulate against excesses of a single company than multiple companies. If you're going down the route of state run companies then it's the responsibility of the government to make sure they're not acting in an anti-consumer way.
Click to expand...

The government would make laws to stop abuse, you could also have independent oversight.
I'm not suggesting a rerun of the 70's, you have to explain why in principle you couldnt have multiple nationalised companies, I'm sure there were separate water boards in that period.
 
PJV3 said:
The government would make laws to stop abuse, you could also have independent oversight.
Click to expand...

You could do that at a lower cost for a single company, surely? The problems don't come from a state monopoly; they come from an unchecked state monopoly.

PJV3 said:
I'm not suggesting a rerun of the 70's, you have to explain why in principle you couldnt have multiple nationalised companies, I'm sure there were separate water boards in that period.
Click to expand...

In principle you could, but you have the overhead of regulation needing to be enforced across multiple companies, both in cost and in manpower. True competition would be limited, and in theory a state company that doesn't have profit as a primary motivation but other measures shouldn't get into some of the anti-consumer states that drove this suggestion in the first place.
 
iapetus said:
You could do that at a lower cost for a single company, surely? The problems don't come from a state monopoly; they come from an unchecked state monopoly.

In principle you could, but you have the overhead of regulation needing to be enforced across multiple companies, both in cost and in manpower. True competition would be limited, and in theory a state company that doesn't have profit as a primary motivation but other measures shouldn't get into some of the anti-consumer states that drove this suggestion in the first place.
Click to expand...

The problems come, I think, from a having a monopoly in the first place regardless of whether it is private or state-run. No amount of regulation can replace consumer choice.
 
iapetus said:
You could do that at a lower cost for a single company, surely? The problems don't come from a state monopoly; they come from an unchecked state monopoly.



In principle you could, but you have the overhead of regulation needing to be enforced across multiple companies, both in cost and in manpower. True competition would be limited, and in theory a state company that doesn't have profit as a primary motivation but other measures shouldn't get into some of the anti-consumer states that drove this suggestion in the first place.
Click to expand...

We have regulation now, profit wouldn't be the priority, speed of service etc could be the benchmarks, maybe I'm too optimistic by nature, I think it could've worked, a more responsive socialism, with elements of competition and rewards used for positive aims.
 
phisheep said:
The problems come, I think, from a having a monopoly in the first place regardless of whether it is private or state-run. No amount of regulation can replace consumer choice.
Click to expand...

I still think that depends on the motivations of the monopoly. In practice, though, we've seen monopoly as a bad thing in practice in both the private and state sectors, so I guess avoiding it makes sense. :P
 
phisheep said:
Opposition benches half empty. Disappointing.
Click to expand...

Maybe but understandable. There is still a large section of Labour MP's, who were part of the Labour party before its reform. Even before they became MP's, you can bet they were a part of a trade union in an industry she dismantled. So the clash of such opposing ideologies was a bridge to far to cross today.

Honestly, I respect them for that because while I despise people who celebrate any persons death, I also despise fake sympathy
 
vcassano1 said:
Now this seems like a fitting tribute!
Click to expand...

The far left socialist headbangers can't resist throwing stuff and spraying graffiti though as they seem to think people will respect them for it. I don't think any legitimate peaceful protest should be stopped, we don't just need the 18 year old trouble causers just out for a tear up who have no idea of what actually happened.
 
iapetus said:
I still think that depends on the motivations of the monopoly. In practice, though, we've seen monopoly as a bad thing in practice in both the private and state sectors, so I guess avoiding it makes sense. :P
Click to expand...

It's not so much the motivations that make the difference, as all the different things that go to make up great service to customers, and that's not something you can build into a regulator because it isn't the same for all people.

It's slightly alarming now to remember that today's common question "who is the best telecomms supplier?" was strictly meaningless in 1979. Now it is a commonplace, and one supplier might be better for installations, another for reliability, another for short-term running costs, another for customer service, and they're all in competition for the same customers and the bad ones lose customers. The big trouble with a monopoly is that it can't lose customers, and if it can't lose customers it has no reason to do anything different or beyond the bare minimum required to satisfy the regulator.
 
kitch9 said:
The far left socialist headbangers can't resist throwing stuff and spraying graffiti though as they seem to think people will respect them for it. I don't think any legitimate peaceful protest should be stopped, we don't just need the 18 year old trouble causers just out for a tear up who have no idea of what actually happened.
Click to expand...

The trouble with protests are that 150000 people could turn up and behave, but 100 people can smash some windows and grab the headlines. Both should be noted, but one is boring even if it's more significant.
 
PJV3 said:
The trouble with protests are that 150000 people could turn up and behave, but 100 people can smash some windows and grab the headlines. Both should be noted, but one is boring even if it's more significant.
Click to expand...

The answer, of course, is for all 150,000 people to start smashing shit. Maybe then people will listen.
 
CHEEZMO™;53389209 said:
The answer, of course, is for all 150,000 people to start smashing shit. Maybe then people will listen.
Click to expand...

Sadly it does logically, but that isn't a healthy route to go down, you attract nutters who couldn't give a fuck.
 
I think this is the only time that I have seen the House of Lords even remotely full, other than for the opening of parliament. The only time these old cretins crawl out of their own filth is when one of their old cronies croaks.
 
Bo-Locks said:
I think this is the only time that I have seen the House of Lords even remotely full, other than for the opening of parliament. The only time these old cretins crawl out of their own filth is when one of their old cronies croaks.
Click to expand...


they like money and the chance to appear on TV, with wall to wall coverage it increases their opportunities.
 
PJV3 said:
they like money and the chance to appear on TV, with wall to wall coverage it increases their opportunities.
Click to expand...

The majority of the Lords are retired. They are not seeking further opportunities. They also have no salary from the Lords, just expenses.

Most important of all is that because of the amount of cross benchers there and that only a few (if any) hold a role within government, they are immune to party whips. Therefore they often vote against party lines & asks questions that both government & opposition fail to do.

I know people dont like it mainly because they are unelected but the thought of an elected chamber thats just an extension to the commons, is more worrying for me
 
Ding-Ding said:
The majority of the Lords are retired. They are not seeking further opportunities. They also have no salary from the Lords, just expenses.

Most important of all is that because of the amount of cross benchers there and that only a few (if any) hold a role within government, they are immune to party whips. Therefore they often vote against party lines & asks questions that both government & opposition fail to do.

I know people dont like it mainly because they are unelected but the thought of an elected chamber thats just an extension to the commons, is more worrying for me
Click to expand...

Can't they claim the £3750, and I meant the opportunity to get on the box.
I Wasn't being wholly serious.
 
PJV3 said:
Can't they claim the £3750, and I meant the opportunity to get on the box.
I Wasn't being wholly serious.
Click to expand...

I am not to sure how much they can claim but that figure sounds like a monthly claim rate. My understanding it was a few hundred a session

Also, you wouldn't deny them a little airtime would you?. Especially as they usually can only be found on BBC parliament:)
 
Ding-Ding said:
I am not to sure how much they can claim but that figure sounds like a monthly claim rate. My understanding it was a few hundred a session

Also, you wouldn't deny them a little airtime would you?. Especially as they usually can only be found on BBC parliament:)
Click to expand...

The £3750 figure is for today's amazing spectacle of windbaggery, not sure if they get it or not.
 
PJV3 said:
The £3750 figure is for today's amazing spectacle of windbaggery, not sure if they get it or not.
Click to expand...

Have you got a link as that does sound a bit of to me.

I would have thought it would have been the same as a normal session, even if it is Thatcher Day (Close your eyes Kingston)
 
Ding-Ding said:
Have you got a link as that does sound a bit of to me.

I would have thought it would have been the same as a normal session, even if it is Thatcher Day (Close your eyes Kingston)
Click to expand...

looked it up

It's upto £3750 for travelling expenses, so I got it wrong. why anybody would come back off holidays early for this I don't know. I don't want anybody in charge of the country who makes decisions like that.
 
PJV3 said:
looked it up

It's upto £3750 for travelling expenses, so I got it wrong. why anybody would come back off holidays early for this I don't know. I don't want anybody in charge of the country who makes decisions like that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it did sound abit funny but I can understand the increase over normal because of some maybe returning from abroad.

I do agree that this tribute could have been held Monday, the only thing that may have been an issue is parliaments schedule for that day.
 
She's like the Reagan of the UK. I think it tells a lot about a person when they say they liked either of those two people or try and justify the terrible things they did during their political runs.

Alan Moore's hatred for Thatcher's right wing politics inspiredV For Vendetta, so that's interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ozzy Osbourne has died
2 3 4
187
3K
jufonuk replied
Lee Tamahori, director of Die Another Day and The Edge, has passed away
15
311
roosnam1980 replied
David Lynch has died aged 78
2 3 4 5
232
15K
ResurrectedContrarian replied
Patricia Routledge (Hyacinth Bucket) just died
14
393
sono replied
Kris Kristofferson Has Died
27
3K
John Marston replied
Top Bottom