Timmy elsewhere

At the ASI.

Not so much what did Thatherism ever do for us but what did it do for everyone else?

30 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. Why is manufacturing more sensitive to recessions than services? I’d have thought the other way around. Less money in the pockets means things like fewer haircuts, let the house get a bit more tatty before getting the decorators in, slumming it in economy (if at all) rather than splashing out on business, and fewer meals out. But still need things that can be dropped on feet.

  2. On the other hand, put off getting a new car and television; get the old ones repaired instead.

  3. Surreptitious Evil

    John Pilger, living proof that Arnald is not actually the black swan of the human bias spectrum.

  4. Surreptitious Evil

    Who needs reality, eh?

    Coming from you?

    Refusing to take in boat people is identical to support for Pol Pot?

    Thatcher is guilty for the Vietnam bombing campaign?

  5. Mrs T’s government did indeed support Pol Pot in exile (they didnt support the Khmer Rouge when they were in power). They were supporting the anti-Vietnamese alliance – which included Prince Sihanoulk as well. One of those Realpolitik things. It was a different time, when the Communist threat was seen as the greater of two evils.

    Her contribution to the revival of Britain and the neoliberal revolution make her the most important British political figure of the second half of the 20th century and overwhelmingly a figure for the common weal, it is unfortunate that the left cannot accept this.

  6. Why would we have wanted Vietnamese boat people to travel over 8,000 miles to the UK?

    Their boats didn’t look that seaworthy to me.

  7. So it turns out everybody’s mental except Arnald. Sounds like the plot twist from an M Night Shyamalan film.

  8. Arnald has reappeared flinging his faeces around like the baboon he aspires to be:

    To quote:

    “(it is) quite wrong that immigrants should be given council housing whereas white citizens were not”.

    Jesus, the PM standing up for her people… how evil…

    Whereas you lefty working class heroes, in reality enthusiastically screw over the poor for your twisted ideology.

    Fool….

  9. You’re on fine wag form, Stevo.

    I was just countering weevil’s refutation of facts and Jimmy 5-0’s asylum comment.

    By all means, keep up loving whatever SMFS says, or Ian B’s cast iron certainty about anything.

    Then make a funny comment about it! It’s hilarious!

  10. Johnny, have you read the rest of her papers when they were published? Or are you using the first few lines of the article to prove how clever you are.

    What faeces? I made a comment and was insulted. You need to get a grip, boy.

    And seriously, when have immigrants been given anything ahead of English claimants?

    You are a ridiculous parody.

  11. Folks, regarding Arnald: can’t we all just ignore him?
    On a subject relating to this and previously touched on by Tim: I have been viewing the websites of my favourite Marxist charities (I’m sorry, but these charities get my goat). The “if” campaign is noting in glowing terms that in some parts of the World 500,000 farms are feeding 2 billion people. This apparently is a “good” thing. Except, to my simple mind, that means at least 2 billion people are subjected to economic conditions involving at least 25% of the population, say about 40% of the workforce, being required to farm to feed the population. That doesn’t sound good to me. That sounds like subsistence, i.e. unremitting, unmechanised, back-breaking toil, with no prospect of bettering one’s existence. Call it peasantry; call it misery. I don’t want that, so God bless the movement of Capital and God bless you Maggie, RIP.

  12. @ #19 Ironman
    Do you want to check your decimal point? 500,000 farms feeding 2 billion would be a “good thing” – unless they are Soviet-style collective farms employing hundreds or thousands apiece.

  13. Thanks. 500 million. Does that make sense? My point is I’m rather glad I’m living on Maggie’s farm, finding the time to exchange pleasantries with you and not working every day in my field until I drop dead at 45.

  14. Arnald (various)

    I am curious – you reject as ludicrous contentions that a variety of Labour Party figures were indebted to the Soviet Union either directly or indirectly for their political prominence yet come out with alleged ‘proof’ of Thatcher’s complicity in the Killing Fields which is arguably as, if not more tendentious and expect people here to swallow it hook, line and sinker or take it on faith that what you’re saying is true. Your assumption appears to be very similar to Murphy’s – something along the lines that Leftists are intrinsically incapable of lying or dissimulating whilst the right do nothing else but. It makes an actual debate rather a futile exercise, in all honesty.

  15. So Much for Subtlety

    ken – “Mrs T’s government did indeed support Pol Pot in exile (they didnt support the Khmer Rouge when they were in power).”

    No they did not. The British position was to support the King of Cambodia. Who chose to be in alliance with the Khmer Rouge. The UK and the US did not arm, train or fund the KR.

    Arnald is just being an ar$e again.

    The fact is the West fought to keep Pol Pot out of power. The Left betrayed the peoples of Indo-China by lobbying hard for Pol Pot et al to come to power. Which they did. The Left was then split between those who continued to support Pol Pot and those who supported the Vietnamese (reflecting a divide between those who supported the USSR and those that liked Mao). Arnald has not one word of criticism for those Westerners – including some British academics – who regurgitated Pol Pot’s lying propaganda, such as Noam Chomsky. He has not a word of criticism for those that regretted the fall of Pol Pot. He simply exploits the tragedy of Cambodia for a false and cheap political shot.

  16. Van

    No I have never disputed material links between whomever and the communists in power in whatever part of the world.

    But eulogising the Hero and endorsing her motives, whilst spitting on any social activist that may or may not have had been within spitting distance of any disagreeable foreign leader, is just infantile.

    SMFFFS, are you re-writing history again?Nobody takes anything you say seriously. Thatcher knew, and endorsed terrorism within SE Asia, she had to, that’s why the SAS were there, teaching people how to be terrorists.

    After decisive military victories and lawful claims to territory.

    I’m not saying territorial capture by murder is correct, but, but, but. You do.

    Terrorist.

  17. SMFS.

    I just read your first statement again.

    Jesus upon my bed! You really are stupid.

    I’m not sure where you learnt your shit, but it smells similar to Madrassas brainwashing.

  18. You will note, Vanpy, that I didn’t say Thatcher was complicit with the aftermath of supporting one bad guy against the pet demon of the time.

    The same way as the US supported the Ba’Ath party in Iraq, the idiots in S America. The UK involvement in any of the proxy cold war manoueverings in Africa and esewhere.

    It happened. To write that out of the history books because Thatcher has finally died is intellectually fascist.

    God knows, on this blog, all and sundry who don’t fit in with SMFFFHS’s vision, even Worstall’s bumbling wankery, get, at some stage, compared to Pol fucking Pot.

    Well, Thatcher did support Pol Pot.

    Fucking passim for references.

  19. So Much for Subtlety

    Arnald – “I have never disputed material links between whomever and the communists in power in whatever part of the world.”

    Nor do you ever mention them or ever criticise those who took money from the Soviet Union. Your outrage is one sided and hence clearly opportunistic. Otherwise you might have something to say about Zygmunt Bauman – and all your friends who idolise him. But you do not.

    “are you re-writing history again?Nobody takes anything you say seriously. Thatcher knew, and endorsed terrorism within SE Asia, she had to, that

  20. So Much for Subtlety

    Arnald – “I have never disputed material links between whomever and the communists in power in whatever part of the world.”

    Nor do you ever mention them or ever criticise those who took money from the Soviet Union. Your outrage is one sided and hence clearly opportunistic. Otherwise you might have something to say about Zygmunt Bauman – and all your friends who idolise him. But you do not.

    “are you re-writing history again?Nobody takes anything you say seriously. Thatcher knew, and endorsed terrorism within SE Asia, she had to, that-s why the SAS were there, teaching people how to be terrorists.”

    I do not need to re-write history. John Pilger stupidly alleged that the SAS was training the Khmer Rouge. He was sued in a Court of Law and lost. You want to go down that path? By all means feel free to do so. But you would be re-writing history, not me.

    25 Arnald – “You really are stupid.”

    Perhaps. But I am also right. Deal with it.

    26 Arnald – “The same way as the US supported the Ba-Ath party in Iraq”

    The US did not support the Ba-ath party in Iraq.

    “It happened. To write that out of the history books because Thatcher has finally died is intellectually fascist.”

    It did not happen. You read some wanker on the internet and you played with yourself with pleasure over the thought ever since. But it did not happen. Sorry to spoil your wet dream.

    “Well, Thatcher did support Pol Pot.”

    Quote her.

    “Fucking passim for references.”

    Which is to say you have no evidence.

  21. Arnald

    Actually you’re right – I’m 90% certain Pilger (one of the only sane people on that blog) is correct – following the Vietnam war anyone in the vicinity opposed to the North Vietnamese got surreptitious or even open support from the CIA and probably the UK (in much smaller quantities, but Yes I agree)

    The rest of your post I’m afraid goes into such depth of vitriol against this blog I lose the thread but if you are happy to make a point in reasoned language then I’m game for a proper debate – we have (albeit not always) had some reasoned conversations and I’m intrigued by the train of thought you have so by all means ignore the abuse and repost – I promise there will be no personal insults or other jibes…..

  22. Actually , all of Maggie’s sins should be laid at the feet of her soi disant sixth policy advisor, Viscount Monckton, as his panegyric on the late leaderene lays claim to most of her achievements.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *