Maggie Thatcher Is Dead.

[baboon]

I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

They are not exactly superlative today.

[chiang mai]

I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

They are not exactly superlative today.

Indeed, that feeling of malaise and dull damp greyness still exists in many of the old state owned businesses, BA and BT are two prime examples of companies that whilst privatised, parts of the workforce have never really shaken off the state owned mindset, it's still cradle to grave employment as far as many are concerned.

[nong38]

Here good old Gorgeous George Galloway - scourge of lackeys, timeservers and lickspittles as well as a one man party on his own a he can't seem to get on with anybody else - has the last word on the subject for me - probably the best parliamentray speakers of his generation. Time to move on and tramp the dust down. For those who are not aware of this man you can read a good summary of the myriad of controversies that swirl around him - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Galloway and for those who wish to libel him be aware he's never lost a case yet !

Without doubt a great speaker and a great advocate, however his suggestion that Margaret Thatcher should burn in hell is grotesque and highly insensitive.

She would probably get all the furnaces closed down as they were uneconomic.

[nong38]

Rolls Royce (the aero and marine division) was privatised in 1987. If BT were still government owned and had a telecoms monopoly you'd be waiting three months for a line to be installed and you'd have a choice of 2 or 3 phones. You'd also be paying £2 or £3 a minute for calls to Thailand. I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

I still have my BT shares as a momento of her showing me how to own shares, now I have many others as well, a time of opportunity. Look after youself or expect the state too? Take charge of your life or let the state do so? If you want the state to run your life there places for you to experience abroad right now, North Korea is a prime example. I am happy with the choices I made and I dont sit around crying and whingeing about what might have been, I moved from the north to the east then the south to find a better life for my family.

[nong38]

Is there any link between Margeret Thatcher, her economic policies and the current poor exchange rate between the GBP and the Thai BHAT?

Discuss.I am for a few days holiday so have your answers on my desk for when I get back!

[pitrevie]

She was at least a leader who cared about Britain ,she did not roll over to the E.U but fought for us against them and against the unions who were hell bent on destroying our great country(i remember the 3 day week ,working with no electricity and having to get around the mounds of rubbish in the street ,because the public sector were striking as usuall) she was not like Blair and co who were just in it for the money and so his wife could make a fortune out of the uman rights laws.(he also gave up our rebate that Maggie won from the E.U .we wont see her like again ,she may not have been perfect ,but at least she loved our country ,she didn't just use it,R.I.P

So many morons forget the great things she did and are only asking "whats in it for me" which was the foremost attitude with the trade unions running wild.

Excuse Me! Your grasp on reality is somewhat skewed!

The whole point of trade unions is "what's in it for US"

The whole point of Thatcherism is "what's in it for ME".

You would think given what the banks have done to the UK economy and not only the UK economy, that trade unions running wild would be the least of your memories or problems. 1985 the year of financial deregulation when banks, building societies, mutuals were allowed to covert into being gambling casinos.

[chiang mai]

She was at least a leader who cared about Britain ,she did not roll over to the E.U but fought for us against them and against the unions who were hell bent on destroying our great country(i remember the 3 day week ,working with no electricity and having to get around the mounds of rubbish in the street ,because the public sector were striking as usuall) she was not like Blair and co who were just in it for the money and so his wife could make a fortune out of the uman rights laws.(he also gave up our rebate that Maggie won from the E.U .we wont see her like again ,she may not have been perfect ,but at least she loved our country ,she didn't just use it,R.I.P

So many morons forget the great things she did and are only asking "whats in it for me" which was the foremost attitude with the trade unions running wild.

Excuse Me! Your grasp on reality is somewhat skewed!

The whole point of trade unions is "what's in it for US"

The whole point of Thatcherism is "what's in it for ME".

You would think given what the banks have done to the UK economy and not only the UK economy, that trade unions running wild would be the least of your memories or problems. 1985 the year of financial deregulation when banks, building societies, mutuals were allowed to covert into being gambling casinos.

Yada, yada, yada, if we wait long enough I feel certain we'll hear that global warming and the road works on the A34 are all because of Margaret Thatcher, already this morning the high cost of domestic gas and electric utility bills is because of her, yawn!

[chiang mai]

Is there any link between Margeret Thatcher, her economic policies and the current poor exchange rate between the GBP and the Thai BHAT?

Discuss.I am for a few days holiday so have your answers on my desk for when I get back!

Absolutely, the currently poor Pound/Baht exchange rate is definitely because of the Thatcher government, there can be no other possible reason (in the minds of a few nutters).

[pitrevie]

Rolls Royce (the aero and marine division) was privatised in 1987. If BT were still government owned and had a telecoms monopoly you'd be waiting three months for a line to be installed and you'd have a choice of 2 or 3 phones. You'd also be paying £2 or £3 a minute for calls to Thailand. I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

I still have my BT shares as a momento of her showing me how to own shares, now I have many others as well, a time of opportunity. Look after youself or expect the state too? Take charge of your life or let the state do so? If you want the state to run your life there places for you to experience abroad right now, North Korea is a prime example. I am happy with the choices I made and I dont sit around crying and whingeing about what might have been, I moved from the north to the east then the south to find a better life for my family.

Yes the biggest con of the century, you were conned into buying what you already owned and the proceeds were used to cut taxes for those already well off. Not only that but the architect of the BT sell off Norman on your bike Tebbit then went on to become a BT director.

[chiang mai]

Rolls Royce (the aero and marine division) was privatised in 1987. If BT were still government owned and had a telecoms monopoly you'd be waiting three months for a line to be installed and you'd have a choice of 2 or 3 phones. You'd also be paying £2 or £3 a minute for calls to Thailand. I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

I still have my BT shares as a momento of her showing me how to own shares, now I have many others as well, a time of opportunity. Look after youself or expect the state too? Take charge of your life or let the state do so? If you want the state to run your life there places for you to experience abroad right now, North Korea is a prime example. I am happy with the choices I made and I dont sit around crying and whingeing about what might have been, I moved from the north to the east then the south to find a better life for my family.

Yes the biggest con of the century, you were conned into buying what you already owned and the proceeds were used to cut taxes for those already well off. Not only that but the architect of the BT sell off Norman on your bike Tebbit then went on to become a BT director.

You already owned BT in the sence that at one stage it was a nationalised industry thus it was tecnically owned by all the people, however that "ownership" never allowed you to sell your stake, reap any fianancial benefit (if anything the opposite was true) nor control in any way how the business was run, it was only after it was privatised that you gained those things!

[thenervoussurgeon]

For those that have neither the time or inclination to watch the marvellous George Galloway speech in parliament - here are his key points.

In tetchy exchanges, Mr Galloway complained that tributes to Lady Thatcher had "gone on too long" and argued that the Commons had sat during the Second World War.

"I am sorry but this is not a national funeral. You can only have a national funeral where there is a national consensus about the person being buried," the Bradford West MP said.

"That consensus does not exist in relation to Margaret Thatcher and no matter how oft people from the frontbenches fawn upon her, pour honeyed-words upon her, even outside of this House of course, tell lies about her and her record, that won't change."

He said the events marking Lady Thatcher's death amounted to "canonisation" and were "too expensive, too elaborate, too regal".

"Don't get me wrong, I will not be celebrating at the funeral tomorrow. I believe it is wrong to celebrate at someone's funeral. But I will not agree to suspend our democracy so that some of the friends of the deceased have to make a choice between attending prime minister's question time or going to the funeral," he said.

You just have to see how many people lined the streets to honour her ,wonder how many will be at the "marvelous " gallaway's funeral ,not a lot.

[thenervoussurgeon]

Rolls Royce (the aero and marine division) was privatised in 1987. If BT were still government owned and had a telecoms monopoly you'd be waiting three months for a line to be installed and you'd have a choice of 2 or 3 phones. You'd also be paying £2 or £3 a minute for calls to Thailand. I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

The privatised UK utility services - gas and electricity - charge over £1000 for an average household now.

They also dodge tax eg Npower has paid no tax in 3 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/18/npower-faces-anger-tax-petition

We also have Maggie to thank for that...

On the other hand ,we could be sitting in the dark for hours on end with no heat ,while the workers were on strike yet again.

Edited April 19, 2013 by thenervoussurgeon

[exeter]

Now I know that the Telegraph is a respected newspaper/right wing Tory rag but there is an article today from a former miner who recollects the events of 1984/85 its in the bits about MT some of you historians "who know/ we were there ( even though I am only 12 )" perhaps should read, there are no big words. There is also mention of the way that certain individual's circumventing ballots and making poor decisions on behalf of his members, dare you read this, would you believe it, warning adult content.

[exeter]

Rolls Royce (the aero and marine division) was privatised in 1987. If BT were still government owned and had a telecoms monopoly you'd be waiting three months for a line to be installed and you'd have a choice of 2 or 3 phones. You'd also be paying £2 or £3 a minute for calls to Thailand. I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

I still have my BT shares as a momento of her showing me how to own shares, now I have many others as well, a time of opportunity. Look after youself or expect the state too? Take charge of your life or let the state do so? If you want the state to run your life there places for you to experience abroad right now, North Korea is a prime example. I am happy with the choices I made and I dont sit around crying and whingeing about what might have been, I moved from the north to the east then the south to find a better life for my family.

Yes the biggest con of the century, you were conned into buying what you already owned and the proceeds were used to cut taxes for those already well off. Not only that but the architect of the BT sell off Norman on your bike Tebbit then went on to become a BT director.

From BA union leader to BT director, getting on in life then!

[exeter]

She was at least a leader who cared about Britain ,she did not roll over to the E.U but fought for us against them and against the unions who were hell bent on destroying our great country(i remember the 3 day week ,working with no electricity and having to get around the mounds of rubbish in the street ,because the public sector were striking as usuall) she was not like Blair and co who were just in it for the money and so his wife could make a fortune out of the uman rights laws.(he also gave up our rebate that Maggie won from the E.U .we wont see her like again ,she may not have been perfect ,but at least she loved our country ,she didn't just use it,R.I.P

So many morons forget the great things she did and are only asking "whats in it for me" which was the foremost attitude with the trade unions running wild.

Excuse Me! Your grasp on reality is somewhat skewed!

The whole point of trade unions is "what's in it for US"

The whole point of Thatcherism is "what's in it for ME".

You would think given what the banks have done to the UK economy and not only the UK economy, that trade unions running wild would be the least of your memories or problems. 1985 the year of financial deregulation when banks, building societies, mutuals were allowed to covert into being gambling casinos.

I made a killing on a couple of the de mutualizations, making the most of whats on offer, I guess you did not, bit like the quick and the dead then? I think it was much later than 1985 when the de mutualizations started.

[exeter]

Is there any link between Margeret Thatcher, her economic policies and the current poor exchange rate between the GBP and the Thai BHAT?

Discuss.I am for a few days holiday so have your answers on my desk for when I get back!

Absolutely, the currently poor Pound/Baht exchange rate is definitely because of the Thatcher government, there can be no other possible reason (in the minds of a few nutters).

I think nutters is a bit strong, they are alternative historians who study myths and legends and are prone to mixing facts with fiction, great entertainment but contribute little to debate or indeed the country apart from humour and venom.

Edited April 19, 2013 by exeter

[awayego]

Is there any link between Margeret Thatcher, her economic policies and the current poor exchange rate between the GBP and the Thai BHAT?

Discuss.I am for a few days holiday so have your answers on my desk for when I get back!

Absolutely, the currently poor Pound/Baht exchange rate is definitely because of the Thatcher government, there can be no other possible reason (in the minds of a few nutters).

I think nutters is a bit strong, they are alternative historians who study myths and legends and are prone to mixing facts with fiction, great entertainment but contribute little to debate or indeed the country apart from humour and venom.

Obviously you, and others like you, did all right Jack. You were

fortunate to be in a position to take advantage of Thatcher’s largesse but very

many were not. I did alright too in my working life but that was in spite of

Thatcher’s policies and not because of them. But then I’m either an “alternative

historian” or a “nutter” to spare a thought for those very many who were less

fortunate.

To label any who did not or could not benefit as “idle”, “feckless”, etc

etc as has been said by some in this thread (not accusing you in particular!) is itself perpetuating a myth

and contributes nothing to the debate. It is, rather, indicative of the smugness,

self-satisfaction and lack of compassion in those that extol the ‘virtues’ of Thatcherism.

To ascribe the benefits that you enjoyed to the population as a whole,

that is the real fiction.

[Ystradyfodwg]

If Thatcher made Britain so 'great' then why do neither her children Mark or Carol live here?

[7by7]

The behavior of those lining the streets, many of whom had traveled from all parts of the country to be there, showed that 99%+ were there to mourn and show their respects, even if they did not share the Baroness' politics.

Less than 1% turned their backs or made other protests.

That must really stick in the craw of certain posters here!

[7by7]

If Thatcher made Britain so 'great' then why do neither her children Mark or Carol live here?

For similar reasons to those of most members here, I imagine.

Carol and her Swiss partner divide their time between homes Klosters and London (according to Wikipedia).

Mark? I met him last year when I was working in London near the Kings Road, he was walking from his house to his local pub and we chatted briefly about what I was doing.

So, despite what it says in his Wikipedia entry, he also has a home in London..

Edited April 19, 2013 by 7by7

[Ystradyfodwg]

If Thatcher made Britain so 'great' then why do neither her children Mark or Carol live here?

For similar reasons to those of most members here, I imagine.

Carol and her Swiss partner divide their time between homes Klosters and London (according to Wikipedia).

Mark? I met him last year when I was working in London near the Kings Road, he was walking from his house to his local pub and we chatted briefly about what I was doing.

So, despite what it says in his Wikipedia entry, he also has a home in London..

It certainly helps with your mother being Prime Minister.Mark Thatcher today is worth £60 Million+ leaving school in 1971 with just 3 O Levels?

[onionluke]

If Thatcher made Britain so 'great' then why do neither her children Mark or Carol live here?

For similar reasons to those of most members here, I imagine.

Carol and her Swiss partner divide their time between homes Klosters and London (according to Wikipedia).

Mark? I met him last year when I was working in London near the Kings Road, he was walking from his house to his local pub and we chatted briefly about what I was doing.

So, despite what it says in his Wikipedia entry, he also has a home in London..

I read an article stating that the the Thatchers had evaded paying inheritance tax , cleverly not actualy owning their rather expensive properties in the UK but renting them from an offshore company in the murky Caribean . Mark is not a man I would trust , not a word .

[7by7]

If Thatcher made Britain so 'great' then why do neither her children Mark or Carol live here?

For similar reasons to those of most members here, I imagine.

Carol and her Swiss partner divide their time between homes Klosters and London (according to Wikipedia).

Mark? I met him last year when I was working in London near the Kings Road, he was walking from his house to his local pub and we chatted briefly about what I was doing.

So, despite what it says in his Wikipedia entry, he also has a home in London..

It certainly helps with your mother being Prime Minister.Mark Thatcher today is worth £60 Million+ leaving school in 1971 with just 3 O Levels?

Your point being?

That parents may have used their position and influence to help their children?

Would you not do the same?

I should say that I have always believed it wrong that Thatcher gave her husband a hereditary peerage instead of the more usual life one simply so her son would inherit it from him.

Then again, as I have repeatedly stated, I can see both sides of the lady; good and bad.

Unlike those who are blinded by ignorance and/or hatred.

They took action to avoid (not evade) inheritance tax?

If true, how many others have done the same; including the trendy lefties in the entertainment and media worlds who were and are so quick to criticise her?

A substantial number, I suspect.

Having met and spoken to him, albeit briefly, I would opine that Mark is not the sharpest tool in the box; unlike his highly intelligent twin sister.

Edited April 19, 2013 by 7by7

[wigantojapan]

Thatcher insrtucted the SAS to train up Pol Pots Army.

.A policy she denied

.John Major lated admitted that YES the SAS had been training POL POTS ARMY

Is this the good or bad side of Thatcher?

Was John Major telling fibs?

[7by7]

^^^^^^

............as I have repeatedly stated, I can see both sides of the lady; good and bad.

Unlike those who are blinded by ignorance and/or hatred.

QED

[chiang mai]

Thatcher insrtucted the SAS to train up Pol Pots Army.

.A policy she denied

.John Major lated admitted that YES the SAS had been training POL POTS ARMY

Is this the good or bad side of Thatcher?

Was John Major telling fibs?

Seems very probable that the SAS did start to train elements of Pol Pots army, throughout history we, along with many other western governements, have a track record of working with new governments in a range of country's, only to find out later that said government was not what we expected it to be and that after the fact, with the beneifit of hindsight we wished we hadn't been associated. So, your point is?.

[sustento]

Rolls Royce (the aero and marine division) was privatised in 1987. If BT were still government owned and had a telecoms monopoly you'd be waiting three months for a line to be installed and you'd have a choice of 2 or 3 phones. You'd also be paying £2 or £3 a minute for calls to Thailand. I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

The privatised UK utility services - gas and electricity - charge over £1000 for an average household now.

They also dodge tax eg Npower has paid no tax in 3 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/18/npower-faces-anger-tax-petition

We also have Maggie to thank for that...

We have the price of gas and oil to thank for that. Even the Blessed Margaret can't affect energy prices 23 years after she left office.

[sustento]

I don't know if you ever flew with BA while they were still government owned. They weren't much fun.

They are not exactly superlative today.

I can assure you that they are MUCH better than they were.

[Exsexyman]

If Thatcher made Britain so 'great' then why do neither her children Mark or Carol live here?

For similar reasons to those of most members here, I imagine.

Carol and her Swiss partner divide their time between homes Klosters and London (according to Wikipedia).

Mark? I met him last year when I was working in London near the Kings Road, he was walking from his house to his local pub and we chatted briefly about what I was doing.

So, despite what it says in his Wikipedia entry, he also has a home in London..

It certainly helps with your mother being Prime Minister.Mark Thatcher today is worth £60 Million+ leaving school in 1971 with just 3 O Levels?

Well it certainly helped him, that's for sure! Back in 1985 he received an estimated 12 million quid in an illegal kickback from an arms deal with the Saudis which his mother was negotiating as Prime Minister. Presumably 7by7 doesn't see much wrong with this, any parent would do the same! Even Denis Thatcher was appalled! He is a thoroughly nasty piece of work, barred from Switzerland, South Africa, Monaco and The US, where his children live. He would be arrested if he went there. If there was any justice he should have been arrested when he set foot back in the UK. His mother used her position as Prime Minister to enrich him, get him out of jail over the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea where he left his mates banged up in hell hole African jails, and cover up many of his other illegal activities. And the wretch wasn't even grateful, rarely visited her in her twilight years, even left her alone for Christmas with just her carer for company. Someone who was paid to be there!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n22/rw-johnson/her-boy

[7by7]

He has always denied receiving any 'kick back' from the Saudis.

Even those who say he did admit that it was offered by the Saudis without his mother's knowledge, certainly without her approval.

(Note that the piece you are linking to is obviously written by someone who is more interested in criticising his mother than actually reviewing a book!)

Mark Thatcher is a <deleted>; I've never denied it.

He traded on his mother's name and connections to his own ends; I've never denied it.

Does that make his mother bad just because she loved her son? Maybe she did pull a few strings and call in a few favours; name me one politician who would not, indeed has not, done the same for their children.

What about the MP's, from all sides, who used to employ their wives/husbands/children as researchers at the taxpayers expense?