Maggie Thatcher Is Dead.

[Potosi]

Who's this Galloway guy? I've been accused twice to repeat what Galloway said, and not being British, I have no idea who he is. I think we folks on the left just come to similar conclusions on our own because we have brains, while you remote-controlled automatons don't.

[chiang mai]

Your evidence that she covered up for him is?

Considering she had to answer some embarrassing questions in the commons about him; she didn't do it very well!

But, as pointed out to you by chiang mai, most of his dubious activities occurred after his mother left office!

Perhaps it is you who needs to check the facts.

Did you read the link? This is not some journalist's opinion, these are official papers released under the freedom of information act. "The undelivered speech focuses on the conduct of her son, Mark, during the Oman affair, a controversy concerning his secret financial links which dogged her premiership in the mid 80s". " In the unpublished draft she admits she should not have allowed Mark to follow her around the world profiting from a British prime ministers relationships with foreign rulers. She also admits she knew that, during her official sales trip to Oman in 1981, her son was in the pay of the construction firm Cementation". " She also admitted that the Thatcher family deliberately kept Marks financial interests secret". I suggest you read it again without your rose tinted specs on! I do agree with you when you wonder why Labour didn't run with this at the time,( believe me, i hold no brief for them), shameful in my opinion, but no less than i expect. All as bad as each other is the expression that springs to mind!

As for chiangmai's claim that when she left office she was nearly destitute, well, all i can say is his arguments are becoming increasingly desperate if he expects people to believe this Hans Christian Andersen nonsense. Next he will be telling us that she had to stay home to scrub the kitchen floor while her sisters went to the ball! Her late husband died a very wealthy man, she had a mansion in Chelsea, an inflation proofed pension as ex prime minister, an office allowance of nearly the same amount, a car and police driver etc etc. She stayed on the backbenches for two years after the ones now wringing their hands stabbed her in the back. She retired from the House in 1992, and was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a, 'Geopolitical consultant', for $250,000 per year. Very ethical! She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered, and she delivered quite a few. Hardly most peoples idea of "Destitute".

You used the words "nearly destitute", not me, I simply refered to her having money problems and being unable to live a lifestyle comensurate with being the longest serving PM of that century, as always in this thread with the negative arguments about her history, the facts are distorted and embelished for the convenience of own false counter arguments! The fact is that she was quite poor when she left office, it was onlty subsequnetly that she made money, you conveniently link her wealth to her time as PM and that is incorrect.

An extract from wiki below: this entry records that she returned to the Commons as an PM after she was overthrown and later tried unsucessfully to establish a foundation becuase of financial problems - she later was hired by Phillip Morris and her financial health improved substantially as a result! The period to which I refer (without any theatric comments) is the time shortly after leaving office!!!

"Thatcher returned to the backbenches as MP for Finchley for two years after leaving the premiership.^[194]

She retired from the House at the 1992 election, aged 66, saying that

leaving the Commons would allow her more freedom to speak her mind.^[195]

Post-Commons

After leaving the House of Commons, Thatcher became the first former Prime Minister to set up a foundation; it closed down in 2005 because of

financial difficulties.^[196] She wrote two volumes of memoirs, The Downing Street Years (1993) and The Path to Power (1995). In 1991, she and her husband Dennis moved to a house in Chester Square, a residential garden square in central London's Belgravia district.^[197]

In July 1992, Thatcher was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a "geopolitical consultant" for $250,000 per year and an annual contribution of $250,000 to her foundation.^[198] She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered.^[199]"

Edited April 19, 2013 by chiang mai

[wigantojapan]

isnt it funny that the pro thatcher supporters are scrambling to wiki to back their argument,but dont use similar when their is an argument against.

Leopards and spots.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

Who's this Galloway guy? I've been accused twice to repeat what Galloway said, and not being British, I have no idea who he is. I think we folks on the left just come to similar conclusions on our own because we have brains, while you remote-controlled automatons don't.

I am not offended at being referred to as a remote-controlled automaton. In a spirit of reciprocal goodwill I invite you to agree,that a characteristic of having a highly developed brain would include the tendency to carry out research before commenting!

[Bikkii]

Having been around during the Thatcher yrs and suffered under her regime 8yrs out of work I can't say that I am sorry to read that she has passed away and I dont doubt that a lot of other people in my age bracket 50+ will feel the same way . !

I'm from that age group, and felt the miners nearly put me out of work at the age of 16. Also not forgetting, she was the PM who paid off the massive war debt our allies incurred upon us.

RIP

What do you mean war debt YOUR allies incurred upon you???? If it wasn't for some of your allies who for some god-forsaken reason followed you into every fight you had post 1850, you would have fallen to the sword. I pray you direct this comment towards the US, and not Australia?? Per capita, we lost more fighting your war on your soil (Europe) than any other country. Please clarify your argument?

[MAJIC]

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?

As apologists, and those never short of a ready made excuse go (you almost brought a tear to my eye),I take my hat off to you, you are without doubt second to none on TV in this department! so no need for you to dilute the truth into a much more palable truth to suit your argument.

In Thailand they are much more forthright and just call it good old fashioned Corruption! at least there is some semblance of truth in that admission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thatcher

[MAJIC]

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!

I'm sure you will continue with your efforts to whitewash her,.

No one is trying to whitewash her, but some are trying to blame her for everything, which is wrong..... end of.

On balance,she hated the working classes,her own people,and it showed! in the way she treated them,small wonder they responded in kind,and around half the country hated her,and her divisive policies in return.

Yuppies,"Loadsa money" Paper Shuffling,Bankers,Investment Sales Greenhorns,Accountants,and the paperwork producing industry,and those that worked in cosy little warm offices,and never seeing the realy tough world out there,of adverse conditions,like in the North Sea,long hours to pay the bills,12 hours a day,30bmins for dinner break,pressure to produce,more and more,the womb of the office type environment was all she knew,and had no idea of real skills and valuable,products, that took a long apprenticeship to learn,to produce,and become highly skillful at,so it was without conscience that it was all too easy to close them down,(because she knew they had real power) because to her making a living was all about getting some naive idiot to buy Insurance Policies,Mortgages,Shares,(Like BT who have been ripping off the consumer for years) Pension Schemes and her get rich quick legacy,on the off chance they might make some money in xxx years,and all of it with a straight face,sold as your dream, world cruise,private yacht,retirement to the sun etc,etc,when you retire,and no mention of your arthritus,heart problems,or other serious illness, since the Banking crisis which has Bankrupted the Uk,we can now see the true depth of the lies that were prevalent throughout the Thatcher years,which has now hit the deck Big Time,Thanks to the greedy Banking system,and financial Institutions of which she had a hand in sowing the virgin seeds,of destruction.

Edited April 19, 2013 by MAJIC

[chiang mai]

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!

I'm sure you will continue with your efforts to whitewash her,.

No one is trying to whitewash her, but some are trying to blame her for everything, which is wrong..... end of.

On balance,she hated the working classes,her own people,and it showed! in the way she treated them,small wonder they responded in kind,and around half the country hated her,and her divisive policies in return.

Yuppies,"Loadsa money" Paper Shuffling,Bankers,Investment Sales Greenhorns,Accountants,and the paperwork producing industry,and those that worked in cosy little warm offices,and never seeing the realy tough world out there,of adverse conditions,like in the North Sea,long hours to pay the bills,12 hours a day,30bmins for dinner break,pressure to produce,more and more,the womb of the office type environment was all she knew,and had no idea of real skills and valuable,products, that took a long apprenticeship to learn,to produce,and become highly skillful at,so it was without conscience that it was all too easy to close them down,(because she knew they had real power) because to her making a living was all about getting some naive idiot to buy Insurance Policies,Mortgages,Shares,(Like BT who have been ripping off the consumer for years) Pension Schemes and her get rich quick legacy,on the off chance they might make some money in xxx years,and all of it with a straight face,sold as your dream, world cruise,private yacht,retirement to the sun etc,etc,when you retire,and no mention of your arthritus,heart problems,or other serious illness, since the Banking crisis which has Bankrupted the Uk,we can now see the true depth of the lies that were prevalent throughout the Thatcher years,which has now hit the deck Big Time,Thanks to the greedy Banking system,and financial Institutions of which she had a hand in sowing the virgin seeds,of destruction.

The real world you say, your first rather lengthy sentance smacks mightily of envy, you seem to think that anyone involved in financial services or related fields never had a real job (despite the fact that for many years it represented the dominant part of UK GDP). Or maybe it's sadness at missed opportunities or an inability to change to more modern and lucrative work, either way it's touching and sad, even if it is misplaced. Goodness only knows what you must think of people involved in I.T., clearly they are not real men/women because they haven't suffered the way you or your father and grandfather did, tell me, will you make your son suffer in a similar manner?

[MAJIC]

Chiang mai Post No 878

No! there is no envy on my part,I would never have desired to have a career in "financial services or related fields" so no sadness whatsoever of missed opportunities.And as for missed opportunities or inabilities to change to more modern and more lucrative work,again you are............... way off the mark.

Having worked in the North Sea for many years on highly Technical work,and Petrochemical work elsewhere,and also having many qualifications in IT (amongst others) your complete stab in the dark is quite amusing!

And the most amusing part is the fact my Son is a Computer HNC Anylyst,for a well known company,who earns Megabucks per day,so my Son is more than happy to be suffering,wouldn't you say?

Edited April 20, 2013 by MAJIC

[nontabury]

Having been around during the Thatcher yrs and suffered under her regime 8yrs out of work I can't say that I am sorry to read that she has passed away and I dont doubt that a lot of other people in my age bracket 50+ will feel the same way . !

I'm from that age group, and felt the miners nearly put me out of work at the age of 16. Also not forgetting, she was the PM who paid off the massive war debt our allies incurred upon us.

RIP

What do you mean war debt YOUR allies incurred upon you???? If it wasn't for some of your allies who for some god-forsaken reason followed you into every fight you had post 1850, you would have fallen to the sword. I pray you direct this comment towards the US, and not Australia?? Per capita, we lost more fighting your war on your soil (Europe) than any other country. Please clarify your argument?

I'm sure he was not meaning Australia,the British for sure hold Australians in high esteem,nor more so than on the field of battle,after all they are from British stock.

[chiang mai]

Chiang mai Post No 878

No! there is no envy on my part,I would never have desired to have a career in "financial services or related fields" so no sadness whatsoever of missed opportunities.And as for missed opportunities or inabilities to change to more modern and more lucrative work,again you are............... way off the mark.

Having worked in the North Sea for many years on highly Technical work,and Petrochemical work elsewhere,and also having many qualifications in IT (amongst others) your complete stab in the dark is quite amusing!

And the most amusing part is the fact my Son is a Computer HNC Anylyst,for a well known company,who earns Megabucks per day,so my Son is more than happy to be suffering,wouldn't you say?

Secretly I'm very pleased to hear that, but of course, these things are always worth a WAG.

[Exsexyman]

Your evidence that she covered up for him is?

Considering she had to answer some embarrassing questions in the commons about him; she didn't do it very well!

But, as pointed out to you by chiang mai, most of his dubious activities occurred after his mother left office!

Perhaps it is you who needs to check the facts.

Did you read the link? This is not some journalist's opinion, these are official papers released under the freedom of information act. "The undelivered speech focuses on the conduct of her son, Mark, during the Oman affair, a controversy concerning his secret financial links which dogged her premiership in the mid 80s". " In the unpublished draft she admits she should not have allowed Mark to follow her around the world profiting from a British prime ministers relationships with foreign rulers. She also admits she knew that, during her official sales trip to Oman in 1981, her son was in the pay of the construction firm Cementation". " She also admitted that the Thatcher family deliberately kept Marks financial interests secret". I suggest you read it again without your rose tinted specs on! I do agree with you when you wonder why Labour didn't run with this at the time,( believe me, i hold no brief for them), shameful in my opinion, but no less than i expect. All as bad as each other is the expression that springs to mind!

As for chiangmai's claim that when she left office she was nearly destitute, well, all i can say is his arguments are becoming increasingly desperate if he expects people to believe this Hans Christian Andersen nonsense. Next he will be telling us that she had to stay home to scrub the kitchen floor while her sisters went to the ball! Her late husband died a very wealthy man, she had a mansion in Chelsea, an inflation proofed pension as ex prime minister, an office allowance of nearly the same amount, a car and police driver etc etc. She stayed on the backbenches for two years after the ones now wringing their hands stabbed her in the back. She retired from the House in 1992, and was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a, 'Geopolitical consultant', for $250,000 per year. Very ethical! She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered, and she delivered quite a few. Hardly most peoples idea of "Destitute".

You used the words "nearly destitute", not me, I simply refered to her having money problems and being unable to live a lifestyle comensurate with being the longest serving PM of that century, as always in this thread with the negative arguments about her history, the facts are distorted and embelished for the convenience of own false counter arguments! The fact is that she was quite poor when she left office, it was onlty subsequnetly that she made money, you conveniently link her wealth to her time as PM and that is incorrect.

An extract from wiki below: this entry records that she returned to the Commons as an PM after she was overthrown and later tried unsucessfully to establish a foundation becuase of financial problems - she later was hired by Phillip Morris and her financial health improved substantially as a result! The period to which I refer (without any theatric comments) is the time shortly after leaving office!!!

"Thatcher returned to the backbenches as MP for Finchley for two years after leaving the premiership.^[194]

She retired from the House at the 1992 election, aged 66, saying that

leaving the Commons would allow her more freedom to speak her mind.^[195]

Post-Commons

After leaving the House of Commons, Thatcher became the first former Prime Minister to set up a foundation; it closed down in 2005 because of

financial difficulties.^[196] She wrote two volumes of memoirs, The Downing Street Years (1993) and The Path to Power (1995). In 1991, she and her husband Dennis moved to a house in Chester Square, a residential garden square in central London's Belgravia district.^[197]

In July 1992, Thatcher was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a "geopolitical consultant" for $250,000 per year and an annual contribution of $250,000 to her foundation.^[198] She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered.^[199]"

Oh dear chiangmai, as i said before your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate. Now you are resorting to misrepresenting me by accusing me of misquoting you. You claim never to have made the ridiculous comment that she was "nearly destitute", implying that i was making it up, ie, lying. I suggest you re visit your post # 841. Quote, "Also i think it's very important to note that when Margaret left office she was nearly destitute". I await your apology, but i won't be holding my breath. As for the rest of your post, you are just repeating the points i was making, which clearly shows that she was far from "nearly destitute".

[chiang mai]

Did you read the link? This is not some journalist's opinion, these are official papers released under the freedom of information act. "The undelivered speech focuses on the conduct of her son, Mark, during the Oman affair, a controversy concerning his secret financial links which dogged her premiership in the mid 80s". " In the unpublished draft she admits she should not have allowed Mark to follow her around the world profiting from a British prime ministers relationships with foreign rulers. She also admits she knew that, during her official sales trip to Oman in 1981, her son was in the pay of the construction firm Cementation". " She also admitted that the Thatcher family deliberately kept Marks financial interests secret". I suggest you read it again without your rose tinted specs on! I do agree with you when you wonder why Labour didn't run with this at the time,( believe me, i hold no brief for them), shameful in my opinion, but no less than i expect. All as bad as each other is the expression that springs to mind!

Your evidence that she covered up for him is?

Considering she had to answer some embarrassing questions in the commons about him; she didn't do it very well!

But, as pointed out to you by chiang mai, most of his dubious activities occurred after his mother left office!

Perhaps it is you who needs to check the facts.

As for chiangmai's claim that when she left office she was nearly destitute, well, all i can say is his arguments are becoming increasingly desperate if he expects people to believe this Hans Christian Andersen nonsense. Next he will be telling us that she had to stay home to scrub the kitchen floor while her sisters went to the ball! Her late husband died a very wealthy man, she had a mansion in Chelsea, an inflation proofed pension as ex prime minister, an office allowance of nearly the same amount, a car and police driver etc etc. She stayed on the backbenches for two years after the ones now wringing their hands stabbed her in the back. She retired from the House in 1992, and was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a, 'Geopolitical consultant', for $250,000 per year. Very ethical! She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered, and she delivered quite a few. Hardly most peoples idea of "Destitute".

You used the words "nearly destitute", not me, I simply refered to her having money problems and being unable to live a lifestyle comensurate with being the longest serving PM of that century, as always in this thread with the negative arguments about her history, the facts are distorted and embelished for the convenience of own false counter arguments! The fact is that she was quite poor when she left office, it was onlty subsequnetly that she made money, you conveniently link her wealth to her time as PM and that is incorrect.

An extract from wiki below: this entry records that she returned to the Commons as an PM after she was overthrown and later tried unsucessfully to establish a foundation becuase of financial problems - she later was hired by Phillip Morris and her financial health improved substantially as a result! The period to which I refer (without any theatric comments) is the time shortly after leaving office!!!

"Thatcher returned to the backbenches as MP for Finchley for two years after leaving the premiership.^[194]

She retired from the House at the 1992 election, aged 66, saying that

leaving the Commons would allow her more freedom to speak her mind.^[195]

Post-Commons

After leaving the House of Commons, Thatcher became the first former Prime Minister to set up a foundation; it closed down in 2005 because of

financial difficulties.^[196] She wrote two volumes of memoirs, The Downing Street Years (1993) and The Path to Power (1995). In 1991, she and her husband Dennis moved to a house in Chester Square, a residential garden square in central London's Belgravia district.^[197]

In July 1992, Thatcher was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a "geopolitical consultant" for $250,000 per year and an annual contribution of $250,000 to her foundation.^[198] She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered.^[199]"

Oh dear chiangmai, as i said before your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate. Now you are resorting to misrepresenting me by accusing me of misquoting you. You claim never to have made the ridiculous comment that she was "nearly destitute", implying that i was making it up, ie, lying. I suggest you re visit your post # 841. Quote, "Also i think it's very important to note that when Margaret left office she was nearly destitute". I await your apology, but i won't be holding my breath. As for the rest of your post, you are just repeating the points i was making, which clearly shows that she was far from "nearly destitute".

My sincere apologies, destitute was my word, obviously too early in the morning for me! But let us not let any of that word play interfere with the fact that she was very short of money when she left office and it was only subsequently that she began to earn substantial sums. So your claims about her having a wealthy husband and a mansion in London came much later than her period in office and occured after her Trust failed for financial reasons and hitherto unknown friends/businesses rallied to her support, points you conveniently ommitted!

[Mosha]

Having been around during the Thatcher yrs and suffered under her regime 8yrs out of work I can't say that I am sorry to read that she has passed away and I dont doubt that a lot of other people in my age bracket 50+ will feel the same way . !

I'm from that age group, and felt the miners nearly put me out of work at the age of 16. Also not forgetting, she was the PM who paid off the massive war debt our allies incurred upon us.

RIP

What do you mean war debt YOUR allies incurred upon you???? If it wasn't for some of your allies who for some god-forsaken reason followed you into every fight you had post 1850, you would have fallen to the sword. I pray you direct this comment towards the US, and not Australia?? Per capita, we lost more fighting your war on your soil (Europe) than any other country. Please clarify your argument?

I'm sure he was not meaning Australia,the British for sure hold Australians in high esteem,nor more so than on the field of battle,after all they are from British stock.

I certainly did mean those that missed the kick off.

[Exsexyman]

Did you read the link? This is not some journalist's opinion, these are official papers released under the freedom of information act. "The undelivered speech focuses on the conduct of her son, Mark, during the Oman affair, a controversy concerning his secret financial links which dogged her premiership in the mid 80s". " In the unpublished draft she admits she should not have allowed Mark to follow her around the world profiting from a British prime ministers relationships with foreign rulers. She also admits she knew that, during her official sales trip to Oman in 1981, her son was in the pay of the construction firm Cementation". " She also admitted that the Thatcher family deliberately kept Marks financial interests secret". I suggest you read it again without your rose tinted specs on! I do agree with you when you wonder why Labour didn't run with this at the time,( believe me, i hold no brief for them), shameful in my opinion, but no less than i expect. All as bad as each other is the expression that springs to mind!

Your evidence that she covered up for him is?

Considering she had to answer some embarrassing questions in the commons about him; she didn't do it very well!

But, as pointed out to you by chiang mai, most of his dubious activities occurred after his mother left office!

Perhaps it is you who needs to check the facts.

As for chiangmai's claim that when she left office she was nearly destitute, well, all i can say is his arguments are becoming increasingly desperate if he expects people to believe this Hans Christian Andersen nonsense. Next he will be telling us that she had to stay home to scrub the kitchen floor while her sisters went to the ball! Her late husband died a very wealthy man, she had a mansion in Chelsea, an inflation proofed pension as ex prime minister, an office allowance of nearly the same amount, a car and police driver etc etc. She stayed on the backbenches for two years after the ones now wringing their hands stabbed her in the back. She retired from the House in 1992, and was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a, 'Geopolitical consultant', for $250,000 per year. Very ethical! She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered, and she delivered quite a few. Hardly most peoples idea of "Destitute".

You used the words "nearly destitute", not me, I simply refered to her having money problems and being unable to live a lifestyle comensurate with being the longest serving PM of that century, as always in this thread with the negative arguments about her history, the facts are distorted and embelished for the convenience of own false counter arguments! The fact is that she was quite poor when she left office, it was onlty subsequnetly that she made money, you conveniently link her wealth to her time as PM and that is incorrect.

An extract from wiki below: this entry records that she returned to the Commons as an PM after she was overthrown and later tried unsucessfully to establish a foundation becuase of financial problems - she later was hired by Phillip Morris and her financial health improved substantially as a result! The period to which I refer (without any theatric comments) is the time shortly after leaving office!!!

"Thatcher returned to the backbenches as MP for Finchley for two years after leaving the premiership.^[194]

She retired from the House at the 1992 election, aged 66, saying that

leaving the Commons would allow her more freedom to speak her mind.^[195]

Post-Commons

After leaving the House of Commons, Thatcher became the first former Prime Minister to set up a foundation; it closed down in 2005 because of

financial difficulties.^[196] She wrote two volumes of memoirs, The Downing Street Years (1993) and The Path to Power (1995). In 1991, she and her husband Dennis moved to a house in Chester Square, a residential garden square in central London's Belgravia district.^[197]

In July 1992, Thatcher was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a "geopolitical consultant" for $250,000 per year and an annual contribution of $250,000 to her foundation.^[198] She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered.^[199]"

Oh dear chiangmai, as i said before your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate. Now you are resorting to misrepresenting me by accusing me of misquoting you. You claim never to have made the ridiculous comment that she was "nearly destitute", implying that i was making it up, ie, lying. I suggest you re visit your post # 841. Quote, "Also i think it's very important to note that when Margaret left office she was nearly destitute". I await your apology, but i won't be holding my breath. As for the rest of your post, you are just repeating the points i was making, which clearly shows that she was far from "nearly destitute".

My sincere apologies, destitute was my word, obviously too early in the morning for me! But let us not let any of that word play interfere with the fact that she was very short of money when she left office and it was only subsequently that she began to earn substantial sums. So your claims about her having a wealthy husband and a mansion in London came much later than her period in office and occured after her Trust failed for financial reasons and hitherto unknown friends/businesses rallied to her support, points you conveniently ommitted!

Many thanks, to be honest i sometimes have those kind of mornings myself. Nothing to do with the beer intake the night before of course, heaven forbid! I don't quite understand your point about her husband. He was a very wealthy man when she married him, and was even more wealthy by the time she left office. So she was certainly not short of money at any time, surely.

[chiang mai]

You used the words "nearly destitute", not me, I simply refered to her having money problems and being unable to live a lifestyle comensurate with being the longest serving PM of that century, as always in this thread with the negative arguments about her history, the facts are distorted and embelished for the convenience of own false counter arguments! The fact is that she was quite poor when she left office, it was onlty subsequnetly that she made money, you conveniently link her wealth to her time as PM and that is incorrect.

Did you read the link? This is not some journalist's opinion, these are official papers released under the freedom of information act. "The undelivered speech focuses on the conduct of her son, Mark, during the Oman affair, a controversy concerning his secret financial links which dogged her premiership in the mid 80s". " In the unpublished draft she admits she should not have allowed Mark to follow her around the world profiting from a British prime ministers relationships with foreign rulers. She also admits she knew that, during her official sales trip to Oman in 1981, her son was in the pay of the construction firm Cementation". " She also admitted that the Thatcher family deliberately kept Marks financial interests secret". I suggest you read it again without your rose tinted specs on! I do agree with you when you wonder why Labour didn't run with this at the time,( believe me, i hold no brief for them), shameful in my opinion, but no less than i expect. All as bad as each other is the expression that springs to mind!

Your evidence that she covered up for him is?

Considering she had to answer some embarrassing questions in the commons about him; she didn't do it very well!

But, as pointed out to you by chiang mai, most of his dubious activities occurred after his mother left office!

Perhaps it is you who needs to check the facts.

As for chiangmai's claim that when she left office she was nearly destitute, well, all i can say is his arguments are becoming increasingly desperate if he expects people to believe this Hans Christian Andersen nonsense. Next he will be telling us that she had to stay home to scrub the kitchen floor while her sisters went to the ball! Her late husband died a very wealthy man, she had a mansion in Chelsea, an inflation proofed pension as ex prime minister, an office allowance of nearly the same amount, a car and police driver etc etc. She stayed on the backbenches for two years after the ones now wringing their hands stabbed her in the back. She retired from the House in 1992, and was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a, 'Geopolitical consultant', for $250,000 per year. Very ethical! She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered, and she delivered quite a few. Hardly most peoples idea of "Destitute".

An extract from wiki below: this entry records that she returned to the Commons as an PM after she was overthrown and later tried unsucessfully to establish a foundation becuase of financial problems - she later was hired by Phillip Morris and her financial health improved substantially as a result! The period to which I refer (without any theatric comments) is the time shortly after leaving office!!!

"Thatcher returned to the backbenches as MP for Finchley for two years after leaving the premiership.^[194]

She retired from the House at the 1992 election, aged 66, saying that

leaving the Commons would allow her more freedom to speak her mind.^[195]

Post-Commons

After leaving the House of Commons, Thatcher became the first former Prime Minister to set up a foundation; it closed down in 2005 because of

financial difficulties.^[196] She wrote two volumes of memoirs, The Downing Street Years (1993) and The Path to Power (1995). In 1991, she and her husband Dennis moved to a house in Chester Square, a residential garden square in central London's Belgravia district.^[197]

In July 1992, Thatcher was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a "geopolitical consultant" for $250,000 per year and an annual contribution of $250,000 to her foundation.^[198] She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered.^[199]"

Oh dear chiangmai, as i said before your arguments are becoming increasingly desperate. Now you are resorting to misrepresenting me by accusing me of misquoting you. You claim never to have made the ridiculous comment that she was "nearly destitute", implying that i was making it up, ie, lying. I suggest you re visit your post # 841. Quote, "Also i think it's very important to note that when Margaret left office she was nearly destitute". I await your apology, but i won't be holding my breath. As for the rest of your post, you are just repeating the points i was making, which clearly shows that she was far from "nearly destitute".

My sincere apologies, destitute was my word, obviously too early in the morning for me! But let us not let any of that word play interfere with the fact that she was very short of money when she left office and it was only subsequently that she began to earn substantial sums. So your claims about her having a wealthy husband and a mansion in London came much later than her period in office and occured after her Trust failed for financial reasons and hitherto unknown friends/businesses rallied to her support, points you conveniently ommitted!

Many thanks, to be honest i sometimes have those kind of mornings myself. Nothing to do with the beer intake the night before of course, heaven forbid! I don't quite understand your point about her husband. He was a very wealthy man when she married him, and was even more wealthy by the time she left office. So she was certainly not short of money at any time, surely.

It seems you are right about Denis being wealthy in his own right, I hadn';t realised that was the case but all the details are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Thatcher.

I can only fall back on my statement at the outset where I recalled there being concern about Margarets finances after leaving office, the Wiki piece about her Trust failing through lack of finance seemed to support that case, musch more than those things I am at a loss to explain.

[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?

As apologists, and those never short of a ready made excuse go (you almost brought a tear to my eye),I take my hat off to you, you are without doubt second to none on TV in this department! so no need for you to dilute the truth into a much more palable truth to suit your argument.

In Thailand they are much more forthright and just call it good old fashioned Corruption! at least there is some semblance of truth in that admission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thatcher

Maybe you should have read that Wikipedia article before posting the link!

Had you done so you would see that of all the major scandals he was, or is alleged to have been, involved in, only two occurred during his mother's term in office.

The Cementation affair. Which has been discussed at length previously. But for your benefit I will repeat that it was not just his mother who covered it up, the Labour opposition knew about it and followed suit!

The Al-Yamamah arms deal. In which he has strenuously denied any wrongdoing. You will doubtless say that he would, I prefer the rule of law over the rule of the mob and will wait until hard evidence is produced before passing judgment.

All the other scandals, misdeeds or whatever you care to label them he was, or is alleged to have been, involved in occurred long after his mother had left office.

Those are the facts; taken from the link you provided!

Have you actually read all my posts? Had you done so you would have seen that I am most definitely not an apologist for Mark Thatcher; having met the man, albeit briefly, I firmly believe that his public image, that of a rather dim, self centred <deleted>, is correct.

But that does not make him a stick with which to beat his mother!

His twin sister is, by all accounts, a far more intelligent person who has, as far as I can tell, never been involved in controversy or scandal and, apart from a couple of books and a TV series or two, not traded on her family name nor her mother's reputation.

Strange how you are very quiet about her; but then her life doesn't suit your agenda.

[7by7]

Chiang mai Post No 878

No! there is no envy on my part,I would never have desired to have a career in "financial services or related fields" so no sadness whatsoever of missed opportunities.And as for missed opportunities or inabilities to change to more modern and more lucrative work,again you are............... way off the mark.

Having worked in the North Sea for many years on highly Technical work,and Petrochemical work elsewhere,and also having many qualifications in IT (amongst others) your complete stab in the dark is quite amusing!

And the most amusing part is the fact my Son is a Computer HNC Anylyst,for a well known company,who earns Megabucks per day,so my Son is more than happy to be suffering,wouldn't you say?

The revolution in the commercial and industrial sectors of the UK brought about under Thatcher led to the opportunities for you, maybe, and your son, certainly, to enter the professions you have.

If the restrictive practices and endless strikes the UK suffered under the union barons had not been swept away, those opportunities would have gone elsewhere and maybe you, certainly your son would not be enjoying the high earning positions you now hold.

[citizen33]

It is interesting how both sides find what they want to find in almost all the topics discussed in the thread (Sir Mark excepted). I was interested in the idea that Maggie saved the UK billions through winning the EU rebate, which is certainly part of the conventional narrative, and did a bit of reading on this subject. It is interesting that fellow Conservatives and even Eurosceptics convey a more mixed picture. Ian Gilmour's account (Dancing with Dogma) of the first temporary deal that later hardened into the 66% rebate, has Peter Carington and Gilmour returning triumphant from the negotiations only to be carpeted by an indigent Thatcher who had completely misunderstood the issues. "The prime minister was like a firework whose fuse had been already lit; we could almost hear the sizzling." My biased impression is that Mrs T was suspicious and combative, but not always very astute in her dealings with the European leaders. Even Booker and North in their book 'The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union' (an anti-Europe account) portray her as often being out manoeuvred and taking a worse deal than would have been possible.

Edited April 20, 2013 by citizen33

[7by7]

Maybe, but it was still a better deal than we would have got without her.

[MAJIC]

Chiang mai Post No 878

No! there is no envy on my part,I would never have desired to have a career in "financial services or related fields" so no sadness whatsoever of missed opportunities.And as for missed opportunities or inabilities to change to more modern and more lucrative work,again you are............... way off the mark.

Having worked in the North Sea for many years on highly Technical work,and Petrochemical work elsewhere,and also having many qualifications in IT (amongst others) your complete stab in the dark is quite amusing!

And the most amusing part is the fact my Son is a Computer HNC Anylyst,for a well known company,who earns Megabucks per day,so my Son is more than happy to be suffering,wouldn't you say?

The revolution in the commercial and industrial sectors of the UK brought about under Thatcher led to the opportunities for you, maybe, and your son, certainly, to enter the professions you have.

If the restrictive practices and endless strikes the UK suffered under the union barons had not been swept away, those opportunities would have gone elsewhere and maybe you, certainly your son would not be enjoying the high earning positions you now hold.

Achievments in spite of her,and not because of her.

[chiang mai]

I have enjoyed this debate and I've even learned from it, but now it's time for me to call it quits because I don't think we can sensibly go much further in trying to sway, influence or convince, the lines of demarkation are irrevocably etched into the ground, never to be erased it seems.

[7by7]

Chiang mai Post No 878

No! there is no envy on my part,I would never have desired to have a career in "financial services or related fields" so no sadness whatsoever of missed opportunities.And as for missed opportunities or inabilities to change to more modern and more lucrative work,again you are............... way off the mark.

Having worked in the North Sea for many years on highly Technical work,and Petrochemical work elsewhere,and also having many qualifications in IT (amongst others) your complete stab in the dark is quite amusing!

And the most amusing part is the fact my Son is a Computer HNC Anylyst,for a well known company,who earns Megabucks per day,so my Son is more than happy to be suffering,wouldn't you say?

The revolution in the commercial and industrial sectors of the UK brought about under Thatcher led to the opportunities for you, maybe, and your son, certainly, to enter the professions you have.

If the restrictive practices and endless strikes the UK suffered under the union barons had not been swept away, those opportunities would have gone elsewhere and maybe you, certainly your son would not be enjoying the high earning positions you now hold.

Achievments in spite of her,and not because of her.

I'm sure that you genuinely believe that.

Just as some people genuinely believe the world was created on the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC.

[awayego]

(7by7)

Oh P L E A S E ! That comment is just so lame. Just shows how bankrupt your arguments have become! Absolutely pathetic!

Sorry, couldn't help myself! I wasn't going to post here again, but REALLY!

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

(7by7)

Oh P L E A S E ! That comment is just so lame. Just shows how bankrupt your arguments have become! Absolutely pathetic!

Sorry, couldn't help myself! I wasn't going to post here again, but REALLY!

Are we to understand that you are against sarcasm and exaggeration in principle?

[7by7]

(7by7)

Oh P L E A S E ! That comment is just so lame. Just shows how bankrupt your arguments have become! Absolutely pathetic!

Sorry, couldn't help myself! I wasn't going to post here again, but REALLY!

You may consider my arguments bankrupt, but at least I have arguments!

As have some of those on the other side of the fence; including Majic.

Unfortunately many of the 'Maggie haters' have done the same as you; simply poured out their bile with no argument to support their stance and repeated untrue propaganda about her (her being pro apartheid being one of the most common examples of this).

[MAJIC]

One thing this thread, and the long winded Parlimentary Eulogy has proven beyond doubt,that even in death the great divide in which she split the Country is still there,and will be for many years to come,there were those that loved her,and those that hated her and every thing she stood for. Nothing will change,very few will change sides,and change their mind,that was the nature of the woman who split a Nation,a sad note to die on. David Cameron and Conservative Party,are at a complete Political low,and decided the Thatcher Factor might be some use to his Party,to be seen to lavish praise on her in death.(How hypocritical considering,it was his Party that kicked her out) The message was:we will not change anything to suit the people,just like Thatcher.

My forecast is: he has made a dreadful error of judgment,and him and his Party will pay the price at the next General Election.Most probably a Lib Lab Coalition Government.

[transam]

Chiang mai Post No 878

No! there is no envy on my part,I would never have desired to have a career in "financial services or related fields" so no sadness whatsoever of missed opportunities.And as for missed opportunities or inabilities to change to more modern and more lucrative work,again you are............... way off the mark.

Having worked in the North Sea for many years on highly Technical work,and Petrochemical work elsewhere,and also having many qualifications in IT (amongst others) your complete stab in the dark is quite amusing!

And the most amusing part is the fact my Son is a Computer HNC Anylyst,for a well known company,who earns Megabucks per day,so my Son is more than happy to be suffering,wouldn't you say?

The revolution in the commercial and industrial sectors of the UK brought about under Thatcher led to the opportunities for you, maybe, and your son, certainly, to enter the professions you have.

If the restrictive practices and endless strikes the UK suffered under the union barons had not been swept away, those opportunities would have gone elsewhere and maybe you, certainly your son would not be enjoying the high earning positions you now hold.

So why are the Chinese now manufacturing virtually all UK stuff and now they are reaping the benefits . ?...............

[Ulysses G.]

Because Tony Blair and his ilk dropped the ball.

[pitrevie]

I have enjoyed this debate and I've even learned from it, but now it's time for me to call it quits because I don't think we can sensibly go much further in trying to sway, influence or convince, the lines of demarkation are irrevocably etched into the ground, never to be erased it seems.

Yes and above all you have shown you have a sense of humour stating that when Thatcher left office she was almost destitute. Had I known that at the time I would have organized a collection in the mining area my family hail from. One good thing is that thanks to her reforms she would have known which department to apply to for financial help. She resigned in 1990 and by 1991 she was ensconced in Chester Square part of Belgravia, no doubt in one of those cardboard boxes that were such a feature of that time.