Why hate your home so much?

The problem is that the Guardian has contained such enthusiasm for the EU and such eagerness to see Brexit be a complete disaster, that even that line about always being peaceful isn’t necessarily as obvious a clue that he’s being facetious as he'd hoped.

His Twitter feed contains several rivers of salty tears being shed over his daring to suggest that perhaps not everything in post-Brexit Britain is rubbish... (there are suggestions that he is a traitor to the cause and should go and work for the Daily Telegraph or The Spectator). You can almost hear the sobbing and gnashing of teeth...
His Twitter for the article is brill - I think there was one that said, without a hint of irony, 'That is literally me!'.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
My god that women was brilliant. None of the muppets that have occupied number ten since November 1990 have ever come close.

Saint Margaret of Thatcher indeed.
I have a lot to thank Maggie for and I have no doubt she was the right man at the right time for the UK but sainthood is beyond her.
 
I have a lot to thank Maggie for and I have no doubt she was the right man at the right time for the UK but sainthood is beyond her.
Alas one of the issues of polarization that you pick up on earlier is that when it comes to Mrs T there are no grey areas, she was either evil incarnate or the greatest woman who ever lived.

In many ways she was the right woman for the job, at that time, and given the God-awful alternative we can be glad she was elected, but her record looking back is actually a very patchy one indeed and she made some monumental errors.

It also must be said that some of her ideological policies with regard to economics, whilst correct, up to a point, for the time and certainly better than the alternatives offered, did lead to some pretty catastrophic outcomes a decade or two down the road.
 

Clunker

Old-Salt
My god that women was brilliant. None of the muppets that have occupied number ten since November 1990 have ever come close.

Saint Margaret of Thatcher indeed.
I am still waiting for recognition of her foresight to close the coal mines so that hundreds or thousands would not have compromised lungs, in order to survive COVID-19.
 
I am still waiting for recognition of her foresight to close the coal mines so that hundreds or thousands would not have compromised lungs, in order to survive COVID-19.
I think the Labour government closed more mines than Maggie did. They certainly killed off more of our industry. Apparently Industry was 30%of our economy in 1997, but by the time Labour lost power in 2010 it was 13%.
 
For most people in the UK, we depend on a successful state for our economic prosperity & sense of security. That's nothing radical or "patriotic", its just something that runs in the background of our lives.

For people with a stronger attachment to an ideology or religion than the state, a successful state is a barrier to achieving their desired state.

Voting to Remain doesn't make you a traitor. Constantly undermining the state, it's institutions & the people who maintain those institutions in order to make the lives of ordinary people worse to bring around a better chance at changing changing state might not make you a traitor. But it does make you a c*nt of the first water.
 

cowgoesmoo

Old-Salt
I think the Labour government closed more mines than Maggie did. They certainly killed off more of our industry. Apparently Industry was 30%of our economy in 1997, but by the time Labour lost power in 2010 it was 13%.
Mainly because the rest of the economy grew faster than manufacturing, particularly housing and banking. It's a common misconception that industry is declining but we're the 9th largest manufacturer in the world and continuing to grow, mostly in high-skill high-value manufacturing.

 
For most people in the UK, we depend on a successful state for our economic prosperity & sense of security. That's nothing radical or "patriotic", its just something that runs in the background of our lives.

For people with a stronger attachment to an ideology or religion than the state, a successful state is a barrier to achieving their desired state.

Voting to Remain doesn't make you a traitor. Constantly undermining the state, it's institutions & the people who maintain those institutions in order to make the lives of ordinary people worse to bring around a better chance at changing changing state might not make you a traitor. But it does make you a c*nt of the first water.
If you applied the Bible to political philosophy, it makes very clear that you can't serve two masters....

Politicians - have four masters: himself, god, the people/tribe who elected him/her, or the larger nation state. Most of them, simply can't balance themselves between the many voices and so focus on just a few and the bible makes plain you tend to hate the others.

The higher goal/purpose/ideology or isms(Socialism, Fascism, Communism, globalism) are the glitch in the matrix to replace God as one of the four master. This fifth master is to steal a line from LotR is the one ring that can simplify everything, but the costs are always inherently bad for humanity.

The continued existence of the United Kingdom is an impediment to some higher purpose and why brexit was seen through such apocalyptic eyes and showed to what extent the fifth master so dominates the ruling classes.
 

Mr_Baiter

War Hero
Why is it that these threads inevitably become based on some weird logic that only unpatriotic traitorous left wingers could possibly hate their country enough to vote Remain and that only rabidly stupid neo-Nazi lunatics could have voted Leave?

It’s like the UK mirroring the basket case that the USA has become.

The reality seems to be extremely difficult for some folks of either persuasion to accept.
As always I think the vast majority in the country are only narrowly either side of the centre - its just that the more extreme views get more airtime/twitter posts etc and, over time, people gradually shift towards one extreme or the other - the media (of all kinds) polarizes. But when it comes to big decisions, generally, people are fairly evenly split and and victories tend to be by smaller margins - the current "stonking" conservative majority is IMO not because the electorate are particularly right wing but because the left wing had drifted so far off the centre that voters had no real choice. Brexit, Indyref 1, all GEs since 2010 except the last one - all fairly narrow results.
 
Alas one of the issues of polarization that you pick up on earlier is that when it comes to Mrs T there are no grey areas, she was either evil incarnate or the greatest woman who ever lived.

In many ways she was the right woman for the job, at that time, and given the God-awful alternative we can be glad she was elected, but her record looking back is actually a very patchy one indeed and she made some monumental errors.

It also must be said that some of her ideological policies with regard to economics, whilst correct, up to a point, for the time and certainly better than the alternatives offered, did lead to some pretty catastrophic outcomes a decade or two down the road.
I like your stuff usually MB - where do you think she actually went wrong, the errors - was it the actual policy or the way it was implemented?

I ask because something like Poll Tax was/is a very sensible idea - yet it was launched and followed through horrendously, it was hijacked by the usual lefty militants but also used as a political stick with which to beat her with - as much by those on her own side who 'd rather she was put out to pasture. The idea was sound. Well, at least I think so.
 
Why is it that these threads inevitably become based on some weird logic that only unpatriotic traitorous left wingers could possibly hate their country enough to vote Remain and that only rabidly stupid neo-Nazi lunatics could have voted Leave?

It’s like the UK mirroring the basket case that the USA has become.

The reality seems to be extremely difficult for some folks of either persuasion to accept.

This, in spades.

I voted remain and would vote to re-join tomorrow, if given the chance. But to listen to a certain breed of chinless remainer, you'd think that Brexit was the worst thing that any country has done, ever. Some of them genuinely seem to believe that. And their counterparts on the other extreme are just as bad. It's a bit galling to be thought of as a traitor by some obese mong smelling of chip-fat who wouldn't know real service and patriotism if they nibbled his balls.
 
Last edited:
This, in spades.

I voted remain and would vote to re-join tomorrow, if given the chance. But to listen to a certain breed of chinless remainer, you'd think that Brexit was the worst thing that any country has done, ever. Some of them genuinely seem to believe that. And their counterparts on the other extreme are just as bad. It's a bit galling to be thought of as a traitor by some fat mong smelling of chip-fat who wouldn't know real service and patriotism if they nibbled his balls.
Do you play down the UK, do you try to sabotage it doing well just so you can hold the high ground - I don't think you do, and I don't think you're a traitor.

I'd be interested though as to why you'd insta-vote us back in knowing that would also mean we'd have to give up any of the stuff we had in our favour before plus accept the Euro.
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
This, in spades.

I voted remain and would vote to re-join tomorrow, if given the chance. But to listen to a certain breed of chinless remainer, you'd think that Brexit was the worst thing that any country has done, ever. Some of them genuinely seem to believe that. And their counterparts on the other extreme are just as bad. It's a bit galling to be thought of as a traitor by some fat mong smelling of chip-fat who wouldn't know real service and patriotism if they nibbled his balls.
That, in spades.
 

slick

LE
I like your stuff usually MB - where do you think she actually went wrong, the errors - was it the actual policy or the way it was implemented?

I ask because something like Poll Tax was/is a very sensible idea - yet it was launched and followed through horrendously, it was hijacked by the usual lefty militants but also used as a political stick with which to beat her with - as much by those on her own side who 'd rather she was put out to pasture. The idea was sound. Well, at least I think so.
To put it simply it added to some peoples weekly/monthly expenditure. My first place away from home was a small flatlet (there were four in the property). Landlords paid the rates on the property and charged the rent accordingly, this was the normal way of doing things. When the poll tax was introduced I was liable to pay it as a tenant but the landlord didn`t drop the rent down ( a common occurrence) even though they no longer had the old rates to pay.
Another problem was the tax was named so because it took into consideration everyone of voting age. Hence my parents went from paying reasonable rates to paying for them both and my brother (who previously wasn`t liable as he was living at home). Their poll tax bill was about 2.5 times the old rates charge.
When the poll tax system was changed to the community charge it became slightly fairer as only the tenant/owner was liable.
The bills however were still higher than the old rates system. One thing my old dutch complained about was looking forward to retirement without having to pay out a considerable amount (in their mind) to the council each month.
To add to this, under the old rates system it was acceptable for people to cut their payments if they weren`t receiving what they paid for (street lighting, acceptable roads, rubbish collection etc.), under the poll/community tax system it was decided that it was no longer acceptable and bailliffs would be sent in.
 
Do you play down the UK, do you try to sabotage it doing well just so you can hold the high ground - I don't think you do, and I don't think you're a traitor.

I'd be interested though as to why you'd insta-vote us back in knowing that would also mean we'd have to give up any of the stuff we had in our favour before plus accept the Euro.

I really don't want to get into yet another debate, because it has all been said before and it's now a done deal and we all have to make the best of it. But since you ask: because the future belongs the big-blocs, primarily (but not exclusively) in Asia, many of whom have little reason to think fondly of Europe. I don't want Europe, the former "middle kingdom" of the world, to suffer a century of humiliation in the way that China once did and I'd prefer that Britain was Texas or New York within a wider (con)federation, than Liechtenstein or Singapore outside it.

(Also, Europe produces the best pornography in then world and I'd rather that the British government didn't have the power to deprive me of my nightly entertainment on a future whim).
 
I really don't want to get into yet another debate, because it has all been said before and it's now a done deal and we all have to make the best of it. But since you ask: because the future belongs the big-blocs, primarily (but not exclusively) in Asia, many of whom have little reason to think fondly of Europe. I don't want Europe, the former "middle kingdom" of the world, to suffer a century of humiliation in the way that China once did and I'd prefer that Britain was Texas or New York within a wider (con)federation, than Liechtenstein or Singapore outside it.

(Also, Europe produces the best pornography in then world and I'd rather that the British government didn't have the power to deprive me of my nightly entertainment on a future whim).
Thanks for the reply.
 
I like your stuff usually MB - where do you think she actually went wrong, the errors - was it the actual policy or the way it was implemented?

I ask because something like Poll Tax was/is a very sensible idea - yet it was launched and followed through horrendously, it was hijacked by the usual lefty militants but also used as a political stick with which to beat her with - as much by those on her own side who 'd rather she was put out to pasture. The idea was sound. Well, at least I think so.
I think the problem is that we often look at Maggie's policies, which were right for a specific period, and then draw the line from that and set those policies in granite and insist they can never be changed.

Anyone can agree that there was a bloody obvious need to get on top of the colossal haemorrhaging of money from over-manned and inefficient nationalised industries and that the unions needed to be put back in their box in 1979, take that as a given. But to deduce from this that strict monetarism is the only economic policy that should be applied at all times is incorrect, sometimes the government does need to intervene in the market. Deregulation isn't a panacea, often there are very good reasons for government regulations, that don't become obvious until 10 or 20 years down the road when the nasty consequences that were warned about come to fruition.

Added to that is the fact that the strict monetarism that she applied in the very early 80s didn't take into consideration the high levels of sterling caused by North Sea oil. Industrialists warned her that she was about to destroy the UK's manufacturing base if she didn't do something about the high pound, Michael Edwardes at BL (not hitherto regarded as a pinko Commie) told her she would be better off leaving the bloody oil under the ground. It was tough medicine, we all admire her strength of character at pursuing the policy but it was disastrous for British manufacturing. I don't subscribe to the notion that Thatcher hated manufacturing, she was a chemist after all, but her refusal to bend even slightly, wiped out whole swathes of Britain's economy, that we now, on other threads, reminisce misty-eyed about, and those industries weren't all in thrall to Red Robbo.

And what about that oil? What long-term benefits did it bring? Did we build a huge sovereign wealth fund like the Norwegians did to have for a rainy day? Did we heck, we frittered it all away.

To avoid writing a mammoth post I will leave other issues (policing, Northern Ireland, Europe, the Falklands) to later if you wish to discuss it further. My point is, as you were decent enough to ask my opinion, that Maggie was the right woman at the right time, but she governed for a long time and her policies have had a long-term impact, we can't simply say in hindsight that everything she did was right and she never put a foot wrong, she made many howlers and the consequences remain with us to this day.
 
Top