Maggie Thatcher Is Dead.

[theblether]

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding

because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have

not a single political argument left."

-- Margaret Thatcher.

Cracking quote.....and one that's relevant on this website

On my right hand are the supporters of Maggie Thatcher and on the left the detractors which goes to prove that you cant please all the people all the time, some could never pleased at all no matter what you did, some got on their bikes and found a new future, some just sat and cried, the state will take care of them, nothing much has changed there then from what I saw in the old colliey villages, some got on with life and changed with the changes. Change is not easy but you cant stop it, it happens.

The end line is this to those who thought Maggie was great ( overall, she did not get everything right) will not have their view changed. For those who took the opposite view that she was dreadful for the country, well you are not going to change that view either are you, no matter what is said, so we might as accept it. The funeral is next week, please show some respect, raise your glass and say good bye whatever your reason for doing so.

As someone who lived in the Dearne valley,the centre of the largest coal field in the UK,during the coal strike, I find it very strange to read comments from people from affluent parts of the country,who attack MT for her opposition to the power of the unions.The fact is Arthur Scargill Ordered the miners out on strike without allowing them to vote on the issue,those who did not wish to strike were threatened and intimidated,and by that I mean a Bloody good hiding and refusing to allow their children access to food donations.

So what happened to those miners who received large redundancy payments from the British tax payers?. Some started up small businesses,many of which were successful and the owners became responsible members of their communities, others spent their redundancy on purchasing foreign made cars and going on expensive foreign holidays,in other words,exporting jobs. Many of course just pissed it up, in the pub/miners clubs,and then spent the rest of their lives on benefits,content to complain how life had treated them so harshly.

As I've previously posted,MT made a big mistake in not implementing policies to encourage alternative industries, but at least she did get rid of the cause of the British illness.

The intimidation tactics were horrific.......I mentioned earlier witnessing a boxing match at a Union meeting when the communist contingent demanded we support the miners strike. We steel workers were quite frankly bemused as the miners hadn't backed us in 1980.

Anyway I was actually involved in a boxing match ( brawl? ) in 1987 when our social club was visited by a miners club contingent from Fife......oh they came down full of p*ss and vinegar and gave us a good telling off about not backing them up. This they said in the company of men who had seen their kids starve in 1980 when the strike pay was a mere £10.00 per week. Men were tearfully telling their wives that they would need to go and tell the social that they had separated so that the social would give them a few quid to feed their families.

Some wives did it, most didn't, one aunt of mine said she would rather take the rope than tell anyone that she had left her man. I know there are working men reading this and recognizing this.

But no!!.....the miners had to go and on and on and on, they outwore their welcome as a visiting delegation, then stepped over into being downright offensive, then bang, they got done in.

So like it or lump it all you ex-miners out there......when you were called upon to stand beside us you disappeared, the Triple Alliance was worthless, and you know what, even 30 years later, the truth hurts.

Did you pay some price for that? Defeating the steel unions gave Thatcher the encouragement to tackle the miners, and you were always in her sights after the 3 Day Week fiasco.

Reap what you sow, reap what you sow.

[klubex99]

It seems that many here either have short memories or were too young (or not even born) to remember what the UK was like before Thatcher.

Unions always on strike; usually for no reason other than the ego of their 'leaders'; Scargill's strike being a prime example.

Strikes which their members didn't want, but had to go along with from fear of the bully boy pickets and other intimidation.

Strikes which destroyed industries in which Britain used to be world leaders; car making, ship building etc. as customers took their custom to countries where they knew their orders would be filled on time and within budget.

It was the unions which destroyed the UK's industries; if governments prior to Thatcher's had had her balls and stood up to the power hungry union leaders who cared little for their members but a lot about their own power and egos, then this country might still have a manufacturing base to be proud of.

Fantastic post.

You hit the nail right on the head.

The unions destroyed our industry, 3 men to do 1 mans job, try to change it and they all walk off the job... So Thatcher did what i would have done.. destroy the unions.

She brought in poll tax, most people hated her for it. Then it got changed to council tax... then the same people started moaning that it was unfair to charge the same for a house with 1 man living in it, as a house with 5 people living in it, and they started whining that it should a based on the number of people.... erm... that's poll tax isn't it?

She allowed anyone to buy their own council house and started a great property boom.

She built Britain back up from the absolute shit it was in from the labour and union days.. Then labour gets in to power in the most prosperous British economy for decades and blew every penny on wasteful pet projects.

RIP Maggie, you will be missed and remembered with fondness by the educated people of Britain at least.

[theblether]

Maggie R I P

Just would like to say that this is one American that thought you were quite the lady and an excellent PM

RIP

Shows how much yanks know, she was an evil old hag, a friend of pinochet, murderer of the belgrano and destroyer of British society who's fiscal policies have led the UK to where it is today.

I'm not quite sure if I'm reading this right.

She did indeed befriend that devil Augusto Pinochet, but he wasn't anything to do with the Belgrano, that was General Leopaldo Galtieri

To be honest with you, I'm happy she sank the Belgrano......that was an enemy warship sent out expressly to supply troops with the sole purpose of killing British soldiers. All this crap about where it was, what direction it was going in at the time is just that, crap.

The Argentinians had no compunction in firing Exocets at our boys, with the devastating consequences that followed. The Belgrano was an enemy warship under the flag ( note not white flag ) of a combatant Navy. Bring it down, bring it down.

Only in Britain would we get a contingent of bleeding hearts still whining about it 30 years later.

Pathetic. Thatcher was right.

[7by7]

MAJIC;

You keep harping on about Thatcher's share of the vote (or to be precise, the Conservative's share of the vote) but are forgetting, assuming you ever knew, that the multi party nature of British politics means that since the war no party has ever received more than 50% of the votes cast.

Even in their landslide victory in 1945, Labour only managed 47.88%. Indeed, the Conservatives beat that in both 1955 and 1959 with 49.74% and 49.36% respectively.

(Source)

My point which obvious eluded you,was that a mandate from the Majority of the people should be over 50%.My point was Mrs Thatcher was not as popular a Prime Minister as some would lead us to believe.

Here are the figures from Wiki,which bares that out!

1979.....43.9%

1983.....42.4%

1987.....42.2%

That is not exactly the will of the people.

Very few parties ever get over 50%, America has 2 parties, straight fight, in the UK there are 3 and the odd bods. So it rare for the majority of the public +50% to be recorded and local elections are far worse.

Indeed, Nong.

Majic, the figures you quote can also be foiund on the link in my earlier post.

I repeat, and I'll say it loud so that this time maybe it gets through to you:

the multi party nature of British politics means that since the war no party has ever received more than 50% of the votes cast.

[fasteddie]

Maggie R I P

Just would like to say that this is one American that thought you were quite the lady and an excellent PM

RIP

Shows how much yanks know, she was an evil old hag, a friend of pinochet, murderer of the belgrano and destroyer of British society who's fiscal policies have led the UK to where it is today.

I'm not quite sure if I'm reading this right.

She did indeed befriend that devil Augusto Pinochet, but he wasn't anything to do with the Belgrano, that was General Leopaldo Galtieri

You are not reading it right, there is a comma after pinochet.

[7by7]

Theblether is right; the Belgrano was an enemy warship at a time of war; a legitimate target.

Do those who think it was wrong to sink her also think it was wrong to sink the Tirpitz when she was holed up in a Norwegian fjord?

Ridiculous!

[smokie36]

Theblether is right; the Belgrano was an enemy warship at a time of war; a legitimate target.

Do those who think it was wrong to sink her also think it was wrong to sink the Tirpitz when she was holed up in a Norwegian fjord?

Ridiculous!

Of course that is right. Strange that it is mentioned though....surely only the decision to go to war is relevant to the discussion?

[SteeleJoe]

Theblether is right; the Belgrano was an enemy warship at a time of war; a legitimate target.

Do those who think it was wrong to sink her also think it was wrong to sink the Tirpitz when she was holed up in a Norwegian fjord?

Ridiculous!

2 countries at war. A naval vessel is a legitimate target in war. One country has a chance to sink the other country's naval vessel and does so. Sailors on the sunken vessel die.

War.

[7by7]

Theblether is right; the Belgrano was an enemy warship at a time of war; a legitimate target.

Do those who think it was wrong to sink her also think it was wrong to sink the Tirpitz when she was holed up in a Norwegian fjord?

Ridiculous!

Of course that is right. Strange that it is mentioned though....surely only the decision to go to war is relevant to the discussion?

One would have thought so; but there are posts in this topic calling Thatcher a murderer because the Belgrano was sunk during the war!

A war started by Argentina when they invaded the Falklands.

[smokie36]

Theblether is right; the Belgrano was an enemy warship at a time of war; a legitimate target.

Do those who think it was wrong to sink her also think it was wrong to sink the Tirpitz when she was holed up in a Norwegian fjord?

Ridiculous!

Of course that is right. Strange that it is mentioned though....surely only the decision to go to war is relevant to the discussion?

One would have thought so; but there are posts in this topic calling Thatcher a murderer because the Belgrano was sunk during the war!

A war started by Argentina when they invaded the Falklands.

No disagreement from me on that one. Fair opportunity was given for the Argentinians to withdraw and they refused.

The Prime Minister of the day did the correct thing even though the loss of life was inevitable. Other PM's since have taken similar tough decisions.

[Morakot]

Margaret Thatcher's death: international newspaper front pages – in pictures

A roundup of how the world's press marked the passing of Britain's former prime minister

• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 April 2013 00.15 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gallery/2013/apr/10/margaret-thatcher-international-newspaper-front-pages

Edited April 10, 2013 by Morakot

[theblether]

Correct steelejoe, one of my best pals in life was a navy diver, his unit was tasked with trying to recover survivors from the Sir Galahad. To my not certain knowledge the divers are limited to 30 minute stints for several reasons.

In reality, there were no survivors beyond those who got off the ship immediately, it became a body recovery mission. My pal and his unit stayed in the water between 4 to 5 hours, he said, and says to this day, there was no one alive that could have ordered them out when there was a chance of finding a singular survivor, and every time he brought a body out his motivation was the boys mother, to give something to bury, some type of closure.

The divers had to eventually be hauled out, beyond exhaustion, my pal and his colleagues spent at least 4 days in high dependency units on the hospital ship ( I forget the name ).

His brother recently died, tragically, and young. I was at the funeral and my pals final act before the coffin closed was to place his Falklands Medals on his brothers chest. It was the dearest thing to him given to the dearest person to him to look after forever.

There are too many people that comment glibly about the Falklands War, they need to think about the reality as faced by people such as my pal.

[citizen33]

Many older poeple will judge Margaret Thatcher's time through the prism of their own experiences. I spent the Thatcher years in Wales and Scotland, and saw at first hand what her policies meant for ordinary people. It was a time of retrenchment and insecurity in my own area of employment. The seventies had been a difficult decade, not least because of the sharp increase in oil prices, and Britain did need to change. Yet the way this was done brought enormous social costs. For those in the Southeast of England though, the pain was relatively short lived and the gains tangible - hence her popularity there. The enduring impact came in areas like privatisation, deregulation, monetarist economics, and the toleration of increasing social inequality on the theory that this would bring faster economic growth. Your verdict on the Thatcher government is likely to depend on whether you believe these brought the claimed benefits. Personally I wish we had chosen a different path.

Edited April 10, 2013 by citizen33

[theblether]

Theblether is right; the Belgrano was an enemy warship at a time of war; a legitimate target.

Do those who think it was wrong to sink her also think it was wrong to sink the Tirpitz when she was holed up in a Norwegian fjord?

Ridiculous!

Of course that is right. Strange that it is mentioned though....surely only the decision to go to war is relevant to the discussion?

One would have thought so; but there are posts in this topic calling Thatcher a murderer because the Belgrano was sunk during the war!

A war started by Argentina when they invaded the Falklands.

No disagreement from me on that one. Fair opportunity was given for the Argentinians to withdraw and they refused.

The Prime Minister of the day did the correct thing even though the loss of life was inevitable. Other PM's since have taken similar tough decisions.

The decision to go to war was unavoidable.......people died when an enemy force from a Dictatorship entered foreign soil, a British Dependency.

What kind of country would we have been to have allowed that to stand? What kind of message would that have sent throughout the world, not only about the standing of Britain, more importantly to other crackpot dictators with their eyes fixed on the country next door.

No choice, no choice.

[theblether]

@citizen33, I recognize everything you are saying. I'm a Scot and boy did we suffer in my local area. Every single member of my family eventually lost their jobs as a result of Thatchers policies in regards to the steel industry.

Blind hatred should not follow on from that though, in many of her decisions she literally had no choice. However I have stated already it was the period 87-90 where she lost the plot with the Poll Tax, turning on the credit tap via Nigel Lawson, and folding behind the scenes on Europe. One election too far.

Anyway now I'm repeating myself I'll retire from the thread.

[Thakkar]

In Britain, the conga line of people that is forming to dance on her grave can be seen from space. The Brits haven't been this happy since they won the world cup in 1966.

T

[khunken]

My personal obit would be: if the Pearly Gates do exist my sympathies are with St Peter.

Ken Loach has an even better idea about her funeral: It should be privatised - 'It's what she would have wanted' he said.

'Put it out to tender & accept the cheapest bid'.

[Morakot]

Anyway now I'm repeating myself I'll retire from the thread.

Blether you're such a gentleman!

[robhufton]

More photos of street vermin like this here

Thatcher 'Death Parties' indeed.

The same work shy morons that turn up at any protest/riot yet again showing their true community caring credentials by trashing a Barnardos shop...

[MAJIC]

MAJIC;

You keep harping on about Thatcher's share of the vote (or to be precise, the Conservative's share of the vote) but are forgetting, assuming you ever knew, that the multi party nature of British politics means that since the war no party has ever received more than 50% of the votes cast.

Even in their landslide victory in 1945, Labour only managed 47.88%. Indeed, the Conservatives beat that in both 1955 and 1959 with 49.74% and 49.36% respectively.

(Source)

My point which obvious eluded you,was that a mandate from the Majority of the people should be over 50%.My point was Mrs Thatcher was not as popular a Prime Minister as some would lead us to believe.

Here are the figures from Wiki,which bares that out!

1979.....43.9%

1983.....42.4%

1987.....42.2%

That is not exactly the will of the people.

Very few parties ever get over 50%, America has 2 parties, straight fight, in the UK there are 3 and the odd bods. So it rare for the majority of the public +50% to be recorded and local elections are far worse.

Indeed, Nong.

Majic, the figures you quote can also be foiund on the link in my earlier post.

I repeat, and I'll say it loud so that this time maybe it gets through to you:

the multi party nature of British politics means that since the war no party has ever received more than 50% of the votes cast.

Whether any party has ever recieved more than 50% of the vote is beside the point.Using her third term in 1987 as an example,which she won with 42.2%,so whether anyone likes it or not,that makes 57.8% of the UK Population who did not vote for her!

[7by7]

That is true of every government since the war.

So, using your argument, no government has been popular because every government has had more people not voting for them than did vote for them.

As said, it is the nature of British politics and if it is your only 'proof' that her governments and the lady herself were as unpopular as you seem to be saying then you really are scraping the barrel of desperation!

[Thakkar]

My personal obit would be: if the Pearly Gates do exist my sympathies are with St Peter.

Ken Loach has an even better idea about her funeral: It should be privatised - 'It's what she would have wanted' he said.

'Put it out to tender & accept the cheapest bid'.

Can you imagine her in heaven? She'd be all over that community organizer and defender of the downtrodden, Jesus, for being a pussy. And she'd be haranguing God: 'More smiting, dammit!'

But seriously, she died a drooling, incontinent Alzheimer's death. She now joins her buddy Reagan in fiery, torturous hell, for eternity. I'm getting all teary-eyed just thinking about it.

T

[Kan Win]

My Dear PM Margaret Thatcher may you Rest in Peace

Win in Kan

[smokie36]

My personal obit would be: if the Pearly Gates do exist my sympathies are with St Peter.

Ken Loach has an even better idea about her funeral: It should be privatised - 'It's what she would have wanted' he said.

'Put it out to tender & accept the cheapest bid'.

Can you imagine her in heaven? She'd be all over that community organizer and defender of the downtrodden, Jesus, for being a pussy. And she'd be haranguing God: 'More smiting, dammit!'

But seriously, she died a drooling, incontinent Alzheimer's death. She now joins her buddy Reagan in fiery, torturous hell, for eternity. I'm getting all teary-eyed just thinking about it.

T

*Deleted post edited out*

I'll be all over the papers.

"183 gunned down at Thai Vis...."

No wait....don't reveal the plans yet....

Edited April 10, 2013 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[citizen33]

Those who venerate Margaret Thatcher most usually point to her role in rescuing the UK from the economic woes of the 1970s. But how bad was the economy in that decade? Many Western countries experienced the oil price shocks and periods of recession, but was Britain in a significantly worse position? I collected together a few links to articles with charts and commentary from the web. Probably what you make of the figures will depend on your prejudices, but at the very least they suggest a more mixed and nuanced picture of the 1970s than many posters are suggesting.

http://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/were-the-1970s-really-that-bad/

http://econ.economicshelp.org/2010/02/economy-of-1970s.html

http://econ.economicshelp.org/2009/08/how-bad-was-1970s-economy.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97082412/The-Economy-of-Britain-in-1970s

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

(last one shows some 1970s/1980s comparisons)

I graduated in 1971 and for me these were good times. But after 1979 came the pain...

Edited April 10, 2013 by citizen33

[chiang mai]

Surely the picture is badly scewed when people/posters who have accomplished so little and contributed nothing to the country are allowed to dance on the grave and celebrate the death of someone who has accomplished and contributed so much, it comes across as something marginally more than sick to me.

[bkkmick]

Ding dong the witch is gone!

[khunken]

Surely the picture is badly scewed when people/posters who have accomplished so little and contributed nothing to the country are allowed to dance on the grave and celebrate the death of someone who has accomplished and contributed so much, it comes across as something marginally more than sick to me.

Well if you opened your mind a bit, those celebrating have a completely different viewpoint & feel she destroyed much more that she created.

You are perfectly to mourn her death in whatever way you see fit. Others, will celebrate.

Me? I can't stand her for many reasons but I won't be celebrating or dancing. I will, however be exchanging jokes with friends.

[7by7]

As said before; all the pictures in the papers and on TV show that those 'celebrating' are far too young to have even been born during her Premiership!

The pictures also show that these 'parties' have been organised by the SWP, with the sole purpose of causing trouble.

As a poster said earlier, if these people are so caring, why did they smash into a Barnado's charity shop?

Even her implacable enemies feel that these 'parties' are in poor taste. Martin McGuinness opposes Baroness Thatcher parties

[7by7]

Listening to one of these 'partygoers' being interviewed on the BBC; he feels that it's OK to celebrate her death because she invaded Iraq!

Morons.