Watching the funeral of Baroness Thatcher yesterday one thing was blindingly obvious; the Left just isn't right. Despite the best efforts of the BBC and Adam Boulton who wondered if anyone at all would turn up, the streets were crowded. And the multitudes who wanted to boo at a funeral were not present in the massive numbers they predicted.
They still sought them out to give airtime to their views though. Thatcher was 'divisive' after all. So we heard she 'destroyed the country' and much else from people who will have gained this insight no doubt, from the Left indoctrinated teachers at their schools and colleges.
Whether you agreed with her politics or not, there is no basis to say she destroyed the country, there simply is no evidence to support it. The previous Labour administration had had a good go mind, but even then it was only partly their policies and mainly the Unions, driven by communist leaders. Yes there was bad management in British Leyland, but that was because it was a nationalised industry as much as anything and the real damage was done by the strikes and the shoddy workmanship.
Do we still build cars in Britain? Yes. And are they rubbish and the factories frequently closed by strikes/ No. Are they state owned? No. Surely even a drama teacher can reach the correct conclusion? She destroyed mining communities by closing the pits, they squeal. But so did Wilson, would they like to comment? No? So just a communist inspired objection not a real one then.
She tried to help regenerate the areas but what did far too many of the miners do? Wallow in self pity and prove their stupidity by requiring someone else to look after them, like they were children. This recourse to childish behaviour of course, the adoption of victim-hood was much praised and encouraged by Scargill, who cared not a jot for one of them. His was a political crusade, the miners merely his weapon.
The miners followed and supported the wrong man, even if it seemed a good idea at the beginning. It happens. Germany did it with the Nazis of course, though they do less whinging that it was someone else's fault that things went badly as a result. They then pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, accepted help where offered and didn't just wail and burn effigies of Churchill and Roosevelt, as if it was actually all their fault.
'Divisive' by the way means 'intending to make people angry with each other' which is not what Thatcher did by any stretch of the imagination, but is very possibly the aim of the BBC and Adam Boulton, who have agendas, of course.
Politics, current affairs and ideas as they drift through my head. UK based personal opinion designed to feed or seed debate.
Slideshow
Showing posts with label funeral. Show all posts
Showing posts with label funeral. Show all posts
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Sky News - The Funeral
Just watching Sky News coverage of the Thatcher funeral. They have Left wing journalist Adam Boulton (married to Blair's former gatekeeper) who is still quick to get in the 'divisive' comment. I find this deliberate use of an abusive remark quite repellent. You may feel that, as Margaret Thatcher offered opportunity and a future to ordinary people and allowed companies to thrive and take on more staff, she would be feared by the Left. To counter her real success they had to create an alternative reality and thus there would be two sides to the Thatcher years.
This is disagreement, (not even clear who is responsible for the divide either), but only if Mrs Thatcher did the things the Left say and did them on purpose to cause harm, could she be described as 'divisive'. It requires her to have deliberately set out to create a divide.
Now, the Unions would say she did and in some ways they would be correct. As the avowed aim of the Unions was the overthrow of government (as opposed to helping their members), then the government was very likely to take a different view. So the divide would be the same as a criminal would claim of the actions of the police, or a child screaming for sweets.
It is at the very least the politics of a spoilt adolescent rather than anything serious and yet, groups of very shallow people accept indoctrination and feel that a dead person deserves no respect. These people no doubt would be horrified if their own mean, malicious lives were in any way derided, particularly in death.
This is disagreement, (not even clear who is responsible for the divide either), but only if Mrs Thatcher did the things the Left say and did them on purpose to cause harm, could she be described as 'divisive'. It requires her to have deliberately set out to create a divide.
Now, the Unions would say she did and in some ways they would be correct. As the avowed aim of the Unions was the overthrow of government (as opposed to helping their members), then the government was very likely to take a different view. So the divide would be the same as a criminal would claim of the actions of the police, or a child screaming for sweets.
It is at the very least the politics of a spoilt adolescent rather than anything serious and yet, groups of very shallow people accept indoctrination and feel that a dead person deserves no respect. These people no doubt would be horrified if their own mean, malicious lives were in any way derided, particularly in death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)