?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
prester_scott
Jun. 20th, 2016 02:15 am (UTC)
I admit I'm viewing it from a distance, but I'm impressed at how thorough the Daily Mail's coverage is when they do a serious story, yet people always trash them.

Meanwhile the Guardian, to me, seems no different from the New York Times, i.e. a bunch of liars with an agenda.
philmophlegm
Jun. 20th, 2016 08:24 am (UTC)
I think most people's view on the Mail is coloured by the website's home page which has lots of clickbait celebrity stories (often about American celebrities who are largely unknown over here) - the physical paper version is pretty light on celebrity stuff. But yes, I think they do the serious stuff well most* of the time.

And I'm completely with you on The Guardian. I resist the temptation to fill up Phligm Phlagm posts with lots of links to ridiculous and misguided articles in The Guardian, because it would get boring. There was an article this week by perhaps the paper's most notorious columnist that really plumbed the depths of taste. I'd go so far as to call it sick. I haven't included it in Phligm Phlagm.



Here's my Cut Out and Keep Guide to British Newspapers, which you might find enlightening. http://philmophlegm.livejournal.com/235261.html





* They're particularly good on economics. However, they're as bad as most of the newspapers when it comes to reporting tax and accounting stories.
prester_scott
Jun. 23rd, 2016 10:23 am (UTC)
I have a mostly unrelated question for you, but you seem like the perfect person to give me a reasonable answer:

Why the hate for Maggie Thatcher? Is it justified? What is your opinion of her political life and work?

You live there, if I'm not mistaken you're old enough to have lived through her administration, you know economics, and I doubt you hate her just because she wasn't a leftist.
philmophlegm
Jun. 25th, 2016 11:07 pm (UTC)
It's a question I find difficult to answer. To me, it's not justified and she should go down in history as one of the country's greatest and most effective prime ministers. The UK she took over in 1979 was one where power was divided betwen the State and trade union leaders that ranged from left to far-left to actively in the pay of the KGB***. It was a country where the top rate of income tax was 83%. It was a country where financial institutions were massively constrained in their ability to create wealth. It was a country where the State controlled not just important aspects of people's lives, but trivial ones as well*. The UK was the "sick man of Europe".

By the time she stepped down in 1990, all of the above had changed for the better.

When she died, I remember pointing out on Facebook that people often complained that there were "not enough women in politics" or "not enough working class people" or "not enough scientists**" or "not enough idealists". She was all of those things.

So, basically, you're asking the wrong person.



* One example - You had to apply to get a telephone. It would potentially take several weeks before thy installed it and you had a choice of precisely two models.
* Second example - A very significant percentage of the population lived in houses owned by the State. If you lived in one of these houses, you had very little control over external appearance of the house, and sometimes over interior decoration. I can remember my grandmother applying to get her kitchen improved. Men came round and painted all the cupboards battleship grey.

** Weird fact: Believe it or not, she contributed to the development of soft ice-cream (although it's wrong to say, as some do, that she "invented" it).

*** A 1977 opinion poll found that 54% thought of people surveyed thought that the "most powerful man in the country" was union leader Jack Jones. Jones was exposed as being in the pay of the KGB until 1984 by the defector Oleg Gordievsky.
prester_scott
Jun. 25th, 2016 11:34 pm (UTC)
So the answer to "why the hate" is "communist propaganda"?

I can totally believe that. It has been the same here with respect to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, though it hasn't taken as well.
philmophlegm
Jun. 26th, 2016 03:52 pm (UTC)
I'd go for "socialist myopia" over out and out "communist propaganda".
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )