AIBU to blame social science courses for some of this hatred of MrsT

[Grinkly]

I did an OU foundation social science course once. A major part was the detrimental effects of redundancy and unemployment on individuals and the community. It was interesting and spelled out how lives can be devastated by this.

The example was a Yorkshire mining town. It was a good course but I wonder if those, unlike me, who weren't around at the time of the miners' strikes have got a skewed view of why things happened.

Billy Elliot touches on the strikes too I think. But no background info is given, as far as I remember.

Am just amazed at the vitriol - especially by those not directly affected. And it was a long time ago. Don't want to start another debate unless someone has a new point to make.

She was supported by a govt that was voted in three times, by us

Under a shitty FTPT system that doesn't properly reflect the wishes of the population, particularly once people start gerrymandering constituency borders to their advantage.

How could anyone, at any point have reversed Right to Buy. By the time a Labour government had got in, it would have been tantamount to both political and economic suicide.

Will Hutton

How could anyone, at any point have reversed Right to Buy. By the time a Labour government had got in, it would have been tantamount to both political and economic suicide

No, but you could demand a realistic price for the properties, you could stop 'family' moving in just before some oldie passes away, thus inheriting, you could put a fixed minimum time before the property is able to be sold on.
Wow, I would have made a great mp.

There was a fixed time. 2 years.
There was also a fixed time for purchase, you had to have been paying rent for a number of years. The safeguards were in place to some extent. What the labour party did do was minimise damage. Reducing the discount and insisting on a five year tenancy. Cameron has since increased the discount, again.

"Most of the Mrs T haters, or indeed the general population, aren't intelligent enough to go on to higher education, ReallyTired?"

OxfordBags during the 80s most the UK population left school at 16 years old. Even in 2013 most people do not go to university. Many adults are functionally illerate and the problem of adult illiteracy was worse in the 1980s than it is now.

Why is it so shocking to say that the majority of people in the UK are not capable of getting a degree of any description? In the 1980s degrees were not given out like smarties. I imagine that the number people who studied social science is a minimal percentage of the population.

The sort of people who buy "Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is Dead" or celebrate someone's death are hardly the most considerate of people. Mrs T doesn't think or care what is said about her and they are only hurting her family. Carol and Mark Thatcher are not to blame for their mother's policies and deserve some respect at this difficult time for them.

The type of peopel who compare Mrs T the nazis clearly have no understanding of history.

Speaking personally, the reason I disliked Margaret Thatcher is that she introduced a new type of discourse into British culture: a discourse where it was suddenly ok to sneer openly at people less fortunate than yourself and admit to the meanest and most selfish of feelings. I am quite old enough to remember that shift, to remember how suddenly the papers were full of mean-spirited digs at anybody who might not be thought able to defend herself. That spirit died down a little after the Tories lost power and is now coming back.

I wouldn't dream of dancing in the street or disrupting her funeral: she did enough to damage good manners and common decency in this country without my needing to add to it.

A prime minister does not have the power to "damage good manners and common decency". IMO.

Shite, I'm Dr. Dawndonna. I repurchased Elvis Costello.

LazarussLozenge what a stupid comment! Coleen Rooney wasn't prime minister, nor was she responsible for plunging millions of people into poverty. Coleen Rooney was working class and she married a working class footballer, MT wasn't working class, she was upper middle class, she married a millionaire and became prime minister. Can you please tell me how the 2 compare?

Upper middle class?

ReallyTired, do not backpedal - at least have the decency to stand by your ignorant snobbery. You said: Most of the Mrs T haters UK population don't have the intelligence to go to university or any other sort of higher education.

Leaving school at 16 or not going onto higher education does not reflect the actual intelligence of those individuals. People used to leave school early back then precisely because there used to be decent jobs for life to go into; jobs swept away wholesale by Thatcherism. You did not state facts about the school leaving age in the past in that post, you used the present tense and asserted that the majority of people are too stupid to be capable of particpating in HE. You suggested that anyone who disliked/dislikes Mrs T must be thick and poorly-educated. In fact - although I CBA to look for links - study after study done on IQ, education and political persuasion, show that the more intelligent and educated a person is, the more likely they are to be left-wing/liberal (in both the UK and US sense of the word). Your own posts prove you wrong.

OP, the vitriol towards all sorts of people nowadays is precisely the sort of attitude and rhetoric that Thatcherism made acceptable and normal. Far from liberalism, which is usually blamed for decreasing manners, etc., the hideous, almost sociopathic self-centredness and inability to see anyone different or less fortunate than yourself as real, equal or worthy of compassion or decency, is what Thatcherism promoted, and what is to blame for that attitude now.

You seem bizarrely determined to blame anyone and anything for Thatcher being so reviled, apart from the woman and her policies herself/themselves. It's exactly the variant of victim-blaming that she would have heartily approved of.

Carol and Mark Thatcher are not to blame for their mother's policies and deserve some respect at this difficult time for them.

No, but Carol and Mark Thatcher could have insisted that she had a private funeral with family and friends in attendance, with a Memorial service later. This would be perfectly in line with normal protocol, would probably have reflected Mrs Thatcher's own wishes and would respect their feelings at a difficult time.

Instead we are being treated to a pseudo-state funeral, paid for out of the public coffers, at a time when swinging cuts are just about to come in.

*Dawndonna Sun 14-Apr-13 10:01:41

Minor points Lazaruss

1. You lost your right to a valid argument with the following twaddle: In our modern utopia we have bright kids sat next to kylite 'alledged ADHD' kids.

2. Tebbit actually pointed out that his father used to get on his bike to look for work.

3. It's the Argentinians, not the Argies.

4. Tam Dalyell and Clive Ponting won the court case against the government regarding the Belgrano.*

ADHD - If you have such a problem with the comment PM me. Or shut up about it. I have not lost any rights by your opinion.

Tebbit - that's what I wrote.

Argies. A bit like 'Brits', which they use about us incidentally. It isn't insulting, it's a shortening. I've worked with them by the way, have you even met one?

court case. There is NOTHING illegal about the sinking, her direction of travel and position are irrelevant. The court case was about Pontings breach of the Official Secrets Act, not the sinking. But don't let the truth get in the way, you've been told before to check your facts.

belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/seven-lies may be interesting to you, most of it is drivel.

I have a major problem with your comment about ADHD. That is why I asked for it to be removed. No I will not pm you. If you have an opinion let's all see it.
I shall discuss nothing else with you.

LaVolcan Sun 14-Apr-13 09:13:32

*@lazaruss - no it was getting at Maggie Thatcher who was quite prepared to preach to others, quite prepared to send young men and women into combat - the Falklands was never a 'war'.

However, despite not having served a day within the forces herself, and yet being of an age to have had ample opportunity to either serve or do war work did neither because she was comfortable ensconced in Oxford, but is being buried with full military honours. I mention the Queen, because she was virtually the same age. I would agree the service she did would have been very cushy compared to an ordinary young woman of the time.

I wasn't alive during the war. My parents were in reserved occupations - steel works is good enough for you? I worked for the MoD.

The Armed Forces haven't been on Ops every year. Harold Wilson is the only PM who had a year without committing any troups to combat. He could have done - ample scope to have got involved in Vietnam.

Falklands-'rightful owners'. Debatable in international law and hence the 'Falklands Question' kept coming round.

'Dont' worry about jobs' you say. What crass insensitivity for those 2.5 million young people out of work. 'Move' you say airily. Where do you expect those young people to live when they do move to where the jobs are?*

So you don't think Maggie should send men to war, but Tony is fine? Remind me again of Tony's military pedigree?

Diana was buried with honours was she not? Remind me of her military pedigree again?

Check your facts. The only year since 1945 that a British soldier hasn't been KILLED on active service was on Wilson watch (1968 btw) but in 1968 British forces were on active service.

Not interested in your parents, it was YOU who made the comment. Bosnia not flick your switch? Good humanitarian role, that lasted more than long enough for you to squeeze a quick tour in.

Vietnam? What about Dhofar and a number of other ops?

Falklands = owned by the inhabitants. That is what the UN says.

crass insensity? Pop down ot the job cenre, there are lots of jobs, just some Brits wont do them.

@Lazarrus: you seem determined to get personal and pick a fight. It's not unreasonable to assume you meant World War II. I wasn't alive then, so no, I can't have had war service. (But then, no-one will be burying me with military honours either.)

I have absolutely no problem with those who have seen service being honoured in such a way.

Could you trouble yourself to find where I said that Tony Blair should send men to war? The only comment you will find is one I made about the Iraq War.

OK I stand corrected the figure of 2.5 million people refers to the total, not just the young. Young people unemployed was at 993,000 i.e. just shy of 1 million.www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05871 Perhaps the people compiling the stats for the government could do with "popping down to the job centre"; since in your book they are clearly either mistaken or lying.

I commend this report to you, which debunks a number of common myths:
www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Truth-And-Lies-Report-smaller.pdf

Not looking for a fight, but the thrust of your position was that you felt Maggie was some sort of coward 'ensconced' in Oxford.

She could have taken active service, but I would say Oxford was just as important. We needed brains to carry us through (in 1943 victory was by no means certain) and beyond the war.

There were plenty of people safely 'ensconced' in Bletchley and other locations.

There is no requirement in the job description for a PM to have served just so that they can dispatch troops. There is no requirement during war for all to join up in the 'crunchy' roles.

You should know all of that safely 'ensconced' working for the MoD.

To shout down somebody for NOT serving when you yourself has had ample opportunity to serve is cheap.

As I have pointed out, the British Forces have had enough action during your life that you could quite easily have joined in order 'get some in'. Just like Queen Elizabeth.

This isn't a military funeral, alas nor is it a state funeral. It appears that even in death Maggie will be draped in division.

However, I foresee a time when she will be seen for who she really was, and what she really did. A leader like her will not be seen again, alas.

My Nan is 87. She is the daughter of a Grocer too.

She lied about her age to join the Air Raid Precautions service - she was cycling between ARP posts to deliver messages DURING heavy air raids in the Manchester Blitz at aged just 15.

Meanwhile MT was safe in Oxford Uni.

I think the number of people who've taken social science courses is negligible.

The number of people who were single parents, or the children of single parents under her government is probably higher.

For the record, as a sweeping generalisation, we tend to be not too keen on her, either...

Sorry I really don't know what you are getting at lazzarus - some sort of raw nerve seems to have been touched. I am not 'shouting' anybody down. I don't see why Mrs Thatcher has to have a ceremonial/military funeral. She didn't lead the country during a gruelling war, as Churchill did, she wasn't in the military herself. If that was how we honoured all previous prime ministers, it wouldn't cause me any problems, but I fail to see why an exception needs to be made for her. You then decided to go off at tangents about my own service record, what I thought about Tony Blair and sending people to war. Most odd.

OK so Princess Di had a military funeral too and she wasn't in the military herself. I suspect the answer here is that the Royal Family would have been only too pleased if she had had a quiet funeral, but the public outpouring of grief made that impossible. So they dusted down the only sort of ceremony they knew for funerals. Usually such a funeral is appropriate because the Royals have either served, or they are Colonel in Chief of some regiment.

It's interesting, LaVolcan but there appears to be no evidence that Thatcher, nor many other safely ensconced students of the period, worked for the MOD.