General Chat

Whilst loving history, I dislike politics. I realise that to many, that is an illogical statement but, that is how I am.


I am more interested in the 'personal' side of this discussion - as to where people are 'coming from', than I am in what is being discussed. That's just me.


There seem to be a lot of 'biases' flying around and that has caused me to question as to why we all have our own particular 'slant' on events.


Using dear old Google, I came upon the following information which I, personally, found interesting to this thread.


CONFIRMATION BIAS - We love to agree with people who agree with us. It's why we only visit websites that express our political opinions, and why we mostly hang around people who hold similar views and tastes. We tend to be put off by individuals, groups, and news sources that make us feel uncomfortable or insecure about our views — the often unconscious act of referencing only those perspectives that fuel our pre-existing views, while at the same time ignoring or dismissing opinions — no matter how valid — that threaten our world view.


IN-GROUP BIAS - while helping us to forge tighter bonds with people in our in-group, performs the exact opposite function for those on the outside — it makes us suspicious, fearful, and even disdainful of others. Ultimately, the in-group bias causes us to overestimate the abilities and value of our immediate group at the expense of people we don't really know.


STATUS QUO BIAS - We humans tend to be apprehensive of change, which often leads us to make choices that guarantee that things remain the same, or change as little as possible. Needless to say, this has ramifications in everything from politics to economics. We like to stick to our routines, political parties, and our favorite meals at restaurants. Part of the perniciousness of this bias is the unwarranted assumption that another choice will be inferior or make things worse. The status-quo bias can be summed with the saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" — an adage that fuels our conservative tendencies.


Interesting!

True, MT did set out to break the unions But lets not forget that at some point she would have to do something, The unions at some point were always going to challenge any administration as had been the case for over a decade before,

All MT did was prepare for that battle, The 5 P's

If she had not then she would have just followed in the footsteps of previous leaders and to weak to change anything the country would still be run by the unions today,
I suppose we could save money by not having general elections after all some think the unions can run the country

The changes that devastated communities could have been handled different and the pace of the changes slowed down to allow people time to adjust, she wanted to close 20 pits that where not financially viable and Scargill would not allow any to close having called a strike Scargill himself forced her hand so has to take some responsibility for the pace of change from that point onwards.

Roy

Cripes Cyns!

I am enjoying reading this thread, but you can't have a debate about 'Thatcher' without talking politics

Mr Pie..........I agree

Then there are those that can think alone and dont need the views or ideals of others,

But also isnt that how all clubs or socities are formed even down in politics,,,,a common ground is found but not always agreeing on the same level in all things.

No argument from me about the role Scargill played, awful man.

However, in the end he was right in what he said. He insisted that despite initial denials her ultimate aim was to close nearly all the pits and to break the strongest union - in the hopes that others would hesitate to stand up to her.

How he set about the "fight" was wrong but how Thatcher set about it was also wrong.

She tried the same bulldozer tactics with the Poll Tax but that was her undoing.

Cynthia, given the vast range of opinions of many things on GR I can't recognise it in those statements.

I also can't understand why people say they aren't interested in politics, that's like saying you aren't interested in life or the lives of others. Politics dicates the circumstances in which we live.

Off out daffodil hunting now - so not ignoring anyone.

Mrs T did give in to the miners in 1981,with a firm promise to the 23 pits which she wanted to close down,but it was unions she wanted out,,,,,,which I think most agree on.?

the deal was, to reduce imports from 8 million tonnes to 5 and half million tonnes over the coming year and £300million was sunk into the industry by 1985 strikes were on the cards again for higher pay and a reduced working week,

what miners wasnt prepared to do was move to an area that was being productive and limit the shut down of some pits,which possibly have been a better move,,little and often,,,,,,,but then none of us were a miner living the life of a miner,,,,as its often quoted on here,,,,,,,

walk a mile etc...

in the end cheaper imports won the day.


But some coal is still being mined in uk.

We have government who are elected but when people/unions interfere the outcome will not be the same but some criticise and only ever blame the Government.

When your baking a cake if you add another ingredient you get a different outcome

Roy

Errr......Mr Pie, Im going to be pedantic, so unlike me!

This government was not elected ;-)

Mrs Gins, :-P

Roy

:-D

What a shame Mrs Thatcher did not pay an unannounced visit to a miner's house in the Rhondda, Scotland and South Yorkshire and ask them what they thought of NUM and pit closures when drawing up policy with Mr McGregor. And took note of how individual miners suggested the country should go forward in harmony. (St Francis of Assisi)

Unions only prospered because miners and steelworkers were no longer treated as individuals with individual views. Productivity was analysed per shift. No one was told they were doing a good job individually.

Devolution in Scotland and Wales happened because Mrs T achieved what was almost impossible in 1980 - she sowed the seeds for the break-up of the historical union of Scotland, Wales and England. Exactly what the Queen and all the first few rows at her funeral do not want.

But it was the 1980's that convinced a lot of people in Scotland and Wales (a majority) that Westminster would never give them a fair share of the UK cake. Devolution is independence-light. Full independence is the only logical conclusion imo. That is her legacy.

John,
Is she to blame for the great fire of London as well? I hardly think she started devolution off,as well as all the other things people are pinning on her.

Happy days

I'm not debating Mrs Thatcher Gins........I'm simply considering all of us.......as people.


I would never, ever have considered making a career out of politics or joined one particular party, or even always voted for one party. None of them have all the answers but I will look to see which policies etc I agree with before I place my vote.....if I remember of course!


Funnily enough, I am at a meeting this afternoon with Andy Burnham re the Autism Strategy. I've met him many times and he's a very nice guy, very supportive and has beautiful eyelashes!! ;-)

Margaret Thatcher's real legacy (along with that of the Labour governments of the 70s) is the 'middle of the road' politics we now 'enjoy'. The socialists were deemed unelectable, as eventually were the Conservatives under Mrs T's laissez-faire capitalism. Left-wing, big state and bolshy, right-wing, totally free market and uncaring, both were seen as unworkable. So now we have all the parties fighting over the middle ground and tweaking a tax break here, a benefit there. Probably why so many are turned off and bored by the whole thing :-D.

Devastated communities are nothing new, whether by disease, war, natural disaster, persecution or industrial change.

Here, here Sheila

During the last (but one?) election, there was a thread on here with a link to a site where you could plot what your gut reaction political beliefs were. It also showed the different styles of governments there were - facist, despot, right wing, left wing etc etc.

Both Conservative and Labour ( can't remember about Lib/Dem) were close together in the top right quadruant

DET that would be interesting to see

Here you go, Errol-

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010

The test itself is here -

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

I'm somewhere between Nelson Mandel and the Dalai Lama.

Lefty Libertarian - no surprise there.

Thanks Guin.....my best buddy!


My result


Left Libertarian

LOL!

That's us then.

I wonder if anyone else will take the test.

i dont need to
i'm slightly left of lenin :-D