IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: The politics of Thatcher
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
imo |
hedda wrote:she actually did say but to me it shows an amazing naivety about life and a simplistic but not unusual attitude.
Tories & Labour once had opposing views on government...now they are almost entirely in sync :
Peter Mandelson 2002 : we are all Thatcherites now
David Cameron 2013 : we are all Thatcherites now
But so-called Thatcherism has been an extraordinary failure : we have government funding everything from homelessness to propping up busted banks, massive corporate welfare to "coping with problems" in the ME and interfering with their history.
The problem with politics : it's full of politicians and most have insane ideas and Maggie was one.
Agreed what she said is a bit simplistic. If people are given a grant or a house, that helps them into a stronger position to get a job, they could end up stuck in a catch 22 situation otherwise and that's worse for everyone, you don't want people begging in the street, stealing etc...
The government is really part of society as well as it is voted in and they've had to bail out banks and all sorts. And often the NHS is left to sort out the mess of private doctor's, plastic surgeons etc when they have messed up and the patient has no more money to pay.
And I think there is a hint of meanness about her - no free milk in schools?  |
|
imo |
[quote]honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Yes, me too. Why would they need to lie about saving them and have to be told to cry unless it was more sinister?
If they had failed to save them but it had been unintended for them to die then you'd think at the very least they would have been upset about it. Probably more so as it was them who started the fire that caused it and failed to save them.
In a situation like that some people might go into shock and not be able to actually cry, but you'd think that would also prevent them from thinking about putting on a false display aswell - when I saw them on tv last year I thought they looked like they were putting it on a bit.
Also, I find it very strange that anyone with 1/2 a brain would not be able to predict that if they set a fire in the house with people in it and no rescue plan that they could end up dead. It seems really weird that they never attempted to rescue the kids if they'd known about they fire from early on...  |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
imo wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
imo wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
imo wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I have never once met a homeless person who has "seriously, deliberately and willfully put themselves in that position"
Usually it is just because "stuff" happens. 
Yeah but you know what I mean. Some people have been given council or housing association houses and repeatedly trashed them, or shown consistent disregard for the neighbors so had to be evicted or deliberately avoided paying rent consistently.
I've never met them, and don't know the extent of the damage to the actual house, but, by setting fire to it, could you not say that if the Phillpots had ended up homeless as a result, then they made themselves homeless willfully? 
I dont think so because they didn't intend to destroy the house, and I would be very surprised if Phillpot was not suffering from a mental illness.
Incidentally, I do think they should have been rehoused into something much larger for the sake of the children.
What did they intend to do by setting fire to it then?
If he was housed into something much larger for the sake of the children (in an alternate reality were half of them weren't killed and he wasn't in jail), then that should have been last chance saloon. He should have been told - there you've been given a bigger house because you've chosen to have so many more kids than most, any more and your on your own.
The kids should probably have been taken off them.
Well the official line is that they were trying to frame the other mother and the children were supposed to be rescued quickly. (this doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't explain why they pretended to have tried to save them when in fact they made no effort)
It is incredible that anyone would churn out children when there isn't even a place for them to sleep, but I would rather grit my teeth and re-house them than leave the children piled in like sardines.
I am not sure about the children being taken into care.
It seems that there were never any concerns raised. (I would have thought his previous convictions were enough)
It is barely thirty years since children were regularly removed from gay mothers, so I would hate to see any "lifestyle" choice as being grounds for interference.
He can have any lifestyle choice he wants as long as he pays for it himself and it doesn't involve driving the family into poverty and putting other people's lives at risk.
That it's been reported that they never actually made an attempt to save the kids and the fire was set while the kids were in the house made me think murder... 
Yes, me too. Why would they need to lie about saving them and have to be told to cry unless it was more sinister? |
|
imo |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
imo wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
imo wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I have never once met a homeless person who has "seriously, deliberately and willfully put themselves in that position"
Usually it is just because "stuff" happens.
Yeah but you know what I mean. Some people have been given council or housing association houses and repeatedly trashed them, or shown consistent disregard for the neighbors so had to be evicted or deliberately avoided paying rent consistently.
I've never met them, and don't know the extent of the damage to the actual house, but, by setting fire to it, could you not say that if the Phillpots had ended up homeless as a result, then they made themselves homeless willfully?
I dont think so because they didn't intend to destroy the house, and I would be very surprised if Phillpot was not suffering from a mental illness.
Incidentally, I do think they should have been rehoused into something much larger for the sake of the children.
What did they intend to do by setting fire to it then?
If he was housed into something much larger for the sake of the children (in an alternate reality were half of them weren't killed and he wasn't in jail), then that should have been last chance saloon. He should have been told - there you've been given a bigger house because you've chosen to have so many more kids than most, any more and your on your own.
The kids should probably have been taken off them.
Well the official line is that they were trying to frame the other mother and the children were supposed to be rescued quickly. (this doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't explain why they pretended to have tried to save them when in fact they made no effort)
It is incredible that anyone would churn out children when there isn't even a place for them to sleep, but I would rather grit my teeth and re-house them than leave the children piled in like sardines.
I am not sure about the children being taken into care.
It seems that there were never any concerns raised. (I would have thought his previous convictions were enough)
It is barely thirty years since children were regularly removed from gay mothers, so I would hate to see any "lifestyle" choice as being grounds for interference.
He can have any lifestyle choice he wants as long as he pays for it himself and it doesn't involve driving the family into poverty and putting other people's lives at risk.
That it's been reported that they never actually made an attempt to save the kids and the fire was set while the kids were in the house made me think murder... |
|
hedda |
imo wrote:
I think this is the thing she said that the quote was taken from:
"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless
good to see what she actually did say but to me it shows an amazing naivety about life and a simplistic but not unusual attitude.
Tories & Labour once had opposing views on government...now they are almost entirely in sync :
Peter Mandelson 2002 : we are all Thatcherites now
David Cameron 2013 : we are all Thatcherites now
But so-called Thatcherism has been an extraordinary failure : we have government funding everything from homelessness to propping up busted banks, massive corporate welfare to "coping with problems" in the ME and interfering with their history.
The problem with politics : it's full of politicians and most have insane ideas and Maggie was one. |
|
|
|
|
