Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warren Hill

Maggie: What would be an apt tribute?

Recommended Posts

I was not/am not an admirer of Mrs T. Whilst a student I collected for the miners on the streets of Brighton (I don''t think there was a Sussex student who didn''t at that time). Her divisive stance was anathema to me. I don''t think any elected politician should be mourned at a football match. However, I think it is distasteful to ''celebrate'' her death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]I was very pro Thatcher, ''cause the country was a complete mess when she took over! At least she dared to take decisions which were better in the longer run!!! No one can deny that she dragged the UK out of a mess! I''ve got a miner''s son in my family and it was tough on them, but o deary me if it had stayed like it was in 1978! Just look at the morons who were actually protesting yesterday...you just can''t get a job if you heven''t been to school can you? The miner''s son was taught to work for his degree and he succeeded! The ones shouting in Glasgow have falen just as low as their fathers ...[/quote]

 

So if it wasn''t for Thatcher the country would have stayed where it was in 1978!

 

That''s 35 years ago. And during that time there has been massive change. Probably an unprecedented amount of change for the timespan. Thatcher waged war on our own people. There were casualties as if it was a real war. People died. Prejudices still live on to this day. Read the thread - all miners are tarred as Arthur Scargill. All travelling football fans are tarred as hooligans. Some people feel so strongly that they protested at her death. You''d be better asking yourself why rather than tarring them all withg the moron brush. You''re certainly a Thatcherite Flecky.

 

Bogbrush - She wouldn''t have trucked with you. She liked people who had enough gumption to stand up to her. Not the little toady hangers on.

 

 

[/quote]

Thatcher never ''waged war on her own people''. She was defending the rest of the country against the anarchy and blackmail of the unions which had previously caused the demise of Edward Heath''s government. Remember the 3 day week ? The miners should be blaming Arthur Scargill who was responsible for making totally unrealistic wage demands year on year (I remember 27% demanded one year!!) thus increasing production costs, not Thatcher. Their jobs became unaffordable as coal became far cheaper to source from abroad. The mines were not the only industry to suffer from the unions unrelistic demands. They also destroyed the car industry, amongst others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user=" Badger"]Ricardo - thanks for the link to the stats - some very interesting material there! Manna from heaven for a data nurd like me![/quote]

Ever heard the phrase ''lies, damn lies and statistics'' ? [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]I was very pro Thatcher, ''cause the country was a complete mess when she took over! At least she dared to take decisions which were better in the longer run!!! No one can deny that she dragged the UK out of a mess! I''ve got a miner''s son in my family and it was tough on them, but o deary me if it had stayed like it was in 1978! Just look at the morons who were actually protesting yesterday...you just can''t get a job if you heven''t been to school can you? The miner''s son was taught to work for his degree and he succeeded! The ones shouting in Glasgow have falen just as low as their fathers ...[/quote]

 

So if it wasn''t for Thatcher the country would have stayed where it was in 1978!

 

That''s 35 years ago. And during that time there has been massive change. Probably an unprecedented amount of change for the timespan. Thatcher waged war on our own people. There were casualties as if it was a real war. People died. Prejudices still live on to this day. Read the thread - all miners are tarred as Arthur Scargill. All travelling football fans are tarred as hooligans. Some people feel so strongly that they protested at her death. You''d be better asking yourself why rather than tarring them all withg the moron brush. You''re certainly a Thatcherite Flecky.

 

Bogbrush - She wouldn''t have trucked with you. She liked people who had enough gumption to stand up to her. Not the little toady hangers on.

 

 

[/quote]

Thatcher never ''waged war on her own people''. She was defending the rest of the country against the anarchy and blackmail of the unions which had previously caused the demise of Edward Heath''s government. Remember the 3 day week ? The miners should be blaming Arthur Scargill who was responsible for making totally unrealistic wage demands year on year (I remember 27% demanded one year!!) thus increasing production costs, not Thatcher. Their jobs became unaffordable as coal became far cheaper to source from abroad. The mines were not the only industry to suffer from the unions unrelistic demands. They also destroyed the car industry, amongst others.

[/quote]

 

She did. And she was as narrowminded as you. Everyone of us is an individual. You can''t just take a group of people congregated together for a law-abiding purpose and tar them all with the hooligan brush. You cannot take a group of people doing an honest job for an honest wage and tar them all with the scargill brush. You cannot take a group of people protesting and tar them all with the moron brush. Thatcher did and I''m sad to see that many on here haven''t learnt the lesson.

 

Hillsborough and all the innocent deaths are the result of doing that. As far as I''m aware nobody who deserved to be tarred with the hooligan brush died.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="paul moy"]

The hypocrisy of the left as usual shines through.

Yes, Thatcher introduced many ''unpopular'' policies, but if they were so bad why didn''t Blair or Brown''s governments reverse them. The selling of council houses was a very unpopular policy apparently according to the lefties but was continued throughout the Labour reign.  That says it all really. Sheer hypocrisy. They continued the policy which is popular, but condemn Thatcher to this day.

Union laws introduced on secondary picketing, secret ballots etc. Why were they not reversed by the whingeing lefties ? 

Thatcher had the courage of her convictions to lead and do unpopular things to improve the majority of lives that no other politician since has had the courage to do. She deserves her place in history and a ceremonial funeral. The greatest politician since Churchill IMO.   

RIP Maggie

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

You are rather confused about this. The Left knew perfectly well the policy was popular, with a small section of society. With those who could afford to buy their council houses, or hoped they might one day be able to. It was a vote-catcher. The Left''s objection (which was proved correct) was that it was a divisive bit of social engineering that would have unwelcome consequences.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]I was very pro Thatcher, ''cause the country was a complete mess when she took over! At least she dared to take decisions which were better in the longer run!!! No one can deny that she dragged the UK out of a mess! I''ve got a miner''s son in my family and it was tough on them, but o deary me if it had stayed like it was in 1978! Just look at the morons who were actually protesting yesterday...you just can''t get a job if you heven''t been to school can you? The miner''s son was taught to work for his degree and he succeeded! The ones shouting in Glasgow have falen just as low as their fathers ...[/quote]

 

So if it wasn''t for Thatcher the country would have stayed where it was in 1978!

 

That''s 35 years ago. And during that time there has been massive change. Probably an unprecedented amount of change for the timespan. Thatcher waged war on our own people. There were casualties as if it was a real war. People died. Prejudices still live on to this day. Read the thread - all miners are tarred as Arthur Scargill. All travelling football fans are tarred as hooligans. Some people feel so strongly that they protested at her death. You''d be better asking yourself why rather than tarring them all withg the moron brush. You''re certainly a Thatcherite Flecky.

 

Bogbrush - She wouldn''t have trucked with you. She liked people who had enough gumption to stand up to her. Not the little toady hangers on.

 

 

[/quote]

Thatcher never ''waged war on her own people''. She was defending the rest of the country against the anarchy and blackmail of the unions which had previously caused the demise of Edward Heath''s government. Remember the 3 day week ? The miners should be blaming Arthur Scargill who was responsible for making totally unrealistic wage demands year on year (I remember 27% demanded one year!!) thus increasing production costs, not Thatcher. Their jobs became unaffordable as coal became far cheaper to source from abroad. The mines were not the only industry to suffer from the unions unrelistic demands. They also destroyed the car industry, amongst others.

[/quote]

 

She did. And she was as narrowminded as you. Everyone of us is an individual. You can''t just take a group of people congregated together for a law-abiding purpose and tar them all with the hooligan brush. You cannot take a group of people doing an honest job for an honest wage and tar them all with the scargill brush. You cannot take a group of people protesting and tar them all with the moron brush. Thatcher did and I''m sad to see that many on here haven''t learnt the lesson.

 

Hillsborough and all the innocent deaths are the result of doing that. As far as I''m aware nobody who deserved to be tarred with the hooligan brush died.

[/quote]

So the unions were not ''waging war'' on society with constant strikes and unrealistic wage demands?  My view is that they were and that they still do as their upcoming politically-motivated general strikes will confirm. I am a football fan and never considered that Thatcher''s laws accused me of being a hooligan. Sometimes we all have to suffer restrictive laws to control the worst elements of society. You are the one being narrow-minded and bigoted IMO Nutty by not trying to see the wider picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

The hypocrisy of the left as usual shines through.

Yes, Thatcher introduced many ''unpopular'' policies, but if they were so bad why didn''t Blair or Brown''s governments reverse them. The selling of council houses was a very unpopular policy apparently according to the lefties but was continued throughout the Labour reign.  That says it all really. Sheer hypocrisy. They continued the policy which is popular, but condemn Thatcher to this day.

Union laws introduced on secondary picketing, secret ballots etc. Why were they not reversed by the whingeing lefties ? 

Thatcher had the courage of her convictions to lead and do unpopular things to improve the majority of lives that no other politician since has had the courage to do. She deserves her place in history and a ceremonial funeral. The greatest politician since Churchill IMO.   

RIP Maggie

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

You are rather confused about this. The Left knew perfectly well the policy was popular, with a small section of society. With those who could afford to buy their council houses, or hoped they might one day be able to. It was a vote-catcher. The Left''s objection (which was proved correct) was that it was a divisive bit of social engineering that would have unwelcome consequences.

 

[/quote]

... but as I said the hypocrisy of the shines through as they continued the policy and did nothing to reverse it. Personally, I can''t see how it was or is devisive as it allowed poorer elements in society to achieve the aspiration of home ownership and continues to do so. The aim was also to give people a stake in their locality and pride in ownership with knock-on effects of increasing aspiration further, thus improving areas and reducing crime by breaking up sink estates and ghettos. Unfortunately, the left''s open-door policies on immigration have served to ruin much of this laudable aim.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]I was very pro Thatcher, ''cause the country was a complete mess when she took over! At least she dared to take decisions which were better in the longer run!!! No one can deny that she dragged the UK out of a mess! I''ve got a miner''s son in my family and it was tough on them, but o deary me if it had stayed like it was in 1978! Just look at the morons who were actually protesting yesterday...you just can''t get a job if you heven''t been to school can you? The miner''s son was taught to work for his degree and he succeeded! The ones shouting in Glasgow have falen just as low as their fathers ...[/quote]

 

So if it wasn''t for Thatcher the country would have stayed where it was in 1978!

 

That''s 35 years ago. And during that time there has been massive change. Probably an unprecedented amount of change for the timespan. Thatcher waged war on our own people. There were casualties as if it was a real war. People died. Prejudices still live on to this day. Read the thread - all miners are tarred as Arthur Scargill. All travelling football fans are tarred as hooligans. Some people feel so strongly that they protested at her death. You''d be better asking yourself why rather than tarring them all withg the moron brush. You''re certainly a Thatcherite Flecky.

 

Bogbrush - She wouldn''t have trucked with you. She liked people who had enough gumption to stand up to her. Not the little toady hangers on.

 

 

[/quote]

Thatcher never ''waged war on her own people''. She was defending the rest of the country against the anarchy and blackmail of the unions which had previously caused the demise of Edward Heath''s government. Remember the 3 day week ? The miners should be blaming Arthur Scargill who was responsible for making totally unrealistic wage demands year on year (I remember 27% demanded one year!!) thus increasing production costs, not Thatcher. Their jobs became unaffordable as coal became far cheaper to source from abroad. The mines were not the only industry to suffer from the unions unrelistic demands. They also destroyed the car industry, amongst others.

[/quote]

 

She did. And she was as narrowminded as you. Everyone of us is an individual. You can''t just take a group of people congregated together for a law-abiding purpose and tar them all with the hooligan brush. You cannot take a group of people doing an honest job for an honest wage and tar them all with the scargill brush. You cannot take a group of people protesting and tar them all with the moron brush. Thatcher did and I''m sad to see that many on here haven''t learnt the lesson.

 

Hillsborough and all the innocent deaths are the result of doing that. As far as I''m aware nobody who deserved to be tarred with the hooligan brush died.

[/quote]

So the unions were not ''waging war'' on society with constant strikes and unrealistic wage demands?  My view is that they were and that they still do as their upcoming politically-motivated general strikes will confirm. I am a football fan and never considered that Thatcher''s laws accused me of being a hooligan. Sometimes we all have to suffer restrictive laws to control the worst elements of society. You are the one being narrow-minded and bigoted IMO Nutty by not trying to see the wider picture.

[/quote]

 

The wider picture is that putting up the fences and more importantly treating all fans as hooligans was the reason 96 innocent people died. According to you their deaths count for nothing in the bigger picture and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.

 

It''s quite interesting to see which posters are throwing out the insults on here rather than addressing the issues. Already today I''m an empty headed fool and a bigot. Bigotry is a form of hatred caused by prejudice. I would suggest that description lies far closer to your door than mine. But by slinging that back at you I guess I''m lowering myself to your level. But I''m always happy to play in the other posters playground!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ches right hand man "]The minority prospered while the majority suffered. 
[/quote]

When there are constant strikes in major industries such as the power industry and rail industry, the majority suffer. In the seventies the unions made sure that their members had fantastic employment terms, but these were at the expense and inconvenience of the rest of society. Thatcher was the only Prime Minister to say no more and to have to courage to take them on and win.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="paul moy"]

The hypocrisy of the left as usual shines through.

Yes, Thatcher introduced many ''unpopular'' policies, but if they were so bad why didn''t Blair or Brown''s governments reverse them. The selling of council houses was a very unpopular policy apparently according to the lefties but was continued throughout the Labour reign.  That says it all really. Sheer hypocrisy. They continued the policy which is popular, but condemn Thatcher to this day.

Union laws introduced on secondary picketing, secret ballots etc. Why were they not reversed by the whingeing lefties ? 

Thatcher had the courage of her convictions to lead and do unpopular things to improve the majority of lives that no other politician since has had the courage to do. She deserves her place in history and a ceremonial funeral. The greatest politician since Churchill IMO.   

RIP Maggie

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

You are rather confused about this. The Left knew perfectly well the policy was popular, with a small section of society. With those who could afford to buy their council houses, or hoped they might one day be able to. It was a vote-catcher. The Left''s objection (which was proved correct) was that it was a divisive bit of social engineering that would have unwelcome consequences.

 

[/quote]

... but as I said the hypocrisy of the shines through as they continued the policy and did nothing to reverse it. Personally, I can''t see how it was or is devisive as it allowed poorer elements in society to achieve the aspiration of home ownership and continues to do so. The aim was also to give people a stake in their locality and pride in ownership with knock-on effects of increasing aspiration further, thus improving areas and reducing crime by breaking up sink estates and ghettos. Unfortunately, the left''s open-door policies on immigration have served to ruin much of this laudable aim.   

[/quote]

 

You have a point about the hypocrisy. What Thatcher - and the Left - knew was that it was a vote-catcher. Which is why it hasn''t been reversed. But that still doesn''t make it a good policy. It was typical Thatcher. The PR was that it was open to anyone to take advantage. In fact it was open to anyone in the same way the Ritz is open to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutty, she certainly did wage war on sections of the population. This was because certain sections of the population were trying to run the country (& sometimes ruin the country) despite having not been elected & not giving a twopenny cuss about anyone else.

Now I''m quite sure that the vast majority of miners were only concerned about keeping their jobs & earning as much money as possible. Unfortunately, however, they threw out Joe Gormley & allowed Scargill in, someone who had ambitions way beyond looking after the interests of his membership. Also unfortunately the long term future of a lot of pits was uneconomic, & was having to be subsidised. This was always going to have to stop.

It has been said elsewhere that Thatcher saw Scargill as a version of Galtieri, which meant it would never end well. The miners overestimated their own power & underestimated her resolve.

I''m not really making a moral judgement on this. In an ideal world the miners would have acted more rationally, with greater long-term interest, but also Thatcher should have had an exit strategy; you cannot just throw hundreds of people out of work in a small community & expect them to quietly rot.

Actually this is a problem engendered a long time ago, about 200 years ago, with the rise of monolithic industries & a resulting insular mindset.

We, as a nation, as a species, need to do a lot more thinking about the future.

As far as football is concerned, with the violence on the terraces (& beyond) it was no wonder that she had an abhorrence of the game. It''s really something clubs should have taken responsibility for & fixed long before politicians became involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS I don''t think our manager would be very happy at the idea of having a minutes silence at CR. the new incumbent at Sunderland, however may take a different view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]I was very pro Thatcher, ''cause the country was a complete mess when she took over! At least she dared to take decisions which were better in the longer run!!! No one can deny that she dragged the UK out of a mess! I''ve got a miner''s son in my family and it was tough on them, but o deary me if it had stayed like it was in 1978! Just look at the morons who were actually protesting yesterday...you just can''t get a job if you heven''t been to school can you? The miner''s son was taught to work for his degree and he succeeded! The ones shouting in Glasgow have falen just as low as their fathers ...[/quote]

 

So if it wasn''t for Thatcher the country would have stayed where it was in 1978!

 

That''s 35 years ago. And during that time there has been massive change. Probably an unprecedented amount of change for the timespan. Thatcher waged war on our own people. There were casualties as if it was a real war. People died. Prejudices still live on to this day. Read the thread - all miners are tarred as Arthur Scargill. All travelling football fans are tarred as hooligans. Some people feel so strongly that they protested at her death. You''d be better asking yourself why rather than tarring them all withg the moron brush. You''re certainly a Thatcherite Flecky.

 

Bogbrush - She wouldn''t have trucked with you. She liked people who had enough gumption to stand up to her. Not the little toady hangers on.

 

 

[/quote]

Thatcher never ''waged war on her own people''. She was defending the rest of the country against the anarchy and blackmail of the unions which had previously caused the demise of Edward Heath''s government. Remember the 3 day week ? The miners should be blaming Arthur Scargill who was responsible for making totally unrealistic wage demands year on year (I remember 27% demanded one year!!) thus increasing production costs, not Thatcher. Their jobs became unaffordable as coal became far cheaper to source from abroad. The mines were not the only industry to suffer from the unions unrelistic demands. They also destroyed the car industry, amongst others.

[/quote]

 

She did. And she was as narrowminded as you. Everyone of us is an individual. You can''t just take a group of people congregated together for a law-abiding purpose and tar them all with the hooligan brush. You cannot take a group of people doing an honest job for an honest wage and tar them all with the scargill brush. You cannot take a group of people protesting and tar them all with the moron brush. Thatcher did and I''m sad to see that many on here haven''t learnt the lesson.

 

Hillsborough and all the innocent deaths are the result of doing that. As far as I''m aware nobody who deserved to be tarred with the hooligan brush died.

[/quote]

So the unions were not ''waging war'' on society with constant strikes and unrealistic wage demands?  My view is that they were and that they still do as their upcoming politically-motivated general strikes will confirm. I am a football fan and never considered that Thatcher''s laws accused me of being a hooligan. Sometimes we all have to suffer restrictive laws to control the worst elements of society. You are the one being narrow-minded and bigoted IMO Nutty by not trying to see the wider picture.

[/quote]

 

The wider picture is that putting up the fences and more importantly treating all fans as hooligans was the reason 96 innocent people died. According to you their deaths count for nothing in the bigger picture and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.

 

It''s quite interesting to see which posters are throwing out the insults on here rather than addressing the issues. Already today I''m an empty headed fool and a bigot. Bigotry is a form of hatred caused by prejudice. I would suggest that description lies far closer to your door than mine. But by slinging that back at you I guess I''m lowering myself to your level. But I''m always happy to play in the other posters playground!

[/quote]

Bigotry = narrow-mindedness

Blaming Thatcher for every ill in society while ignoring any good she did and any bad others such as Blair, Brown, Scargill and the unions did, is clear bigotry IMO.  If you disagree, fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely understand why different people and different sections of society have differing views on Thatcher and I don''t think that a minutes silence or applause is appropriate in this context. Those who wish to pay respect can do so when her funeral takes place and those who don''t can go about their daily business as normal.

What i do find offensive, however, are these leftie rent a mob imbeciles (many of whom appear to be in their 20''s and have no idea what Thatcher really did or did not do) having parties celebrating the death of an old woman and, even more so the odious attempt of the left to try and airbrush out 13 years of subsequent labour government and blame Margaret Thatcher for all of the current woes of the country.

My own view on Thatcher is that with the benefit of hindsight she got some things right and some things wrong (or pehaps more accurately went about them in a heavy handed manner that could have been avoided) but on balance I feel she deserves respect for what she did for this country at a time when it was in a real mess. Any period of transition oevr which she presided will have highs and lows but the fact is that when she departed from government the country was in a vastly better place than when she came to power and was able to prosper hugely in the years that followed.

Its all very well to bang on about the decimation of the manufacturing industry but leaving aside the fact that the figures don;t necessarily bear that out you only have to look at the world we live in today (and what happens in just about any inductrialised society) to see that the decline of that industry in the uk was inevitable to a degree as the Uk and the world becomes more technologically advanced and where developing and emerging nations can provide cheap labour and products thus undercutting their UK counterparts. Someone above mentioned look how many people were employed by Boulton and Paul etc in Norwich but at the same time as the numbers employed in those sectors decreased there was presumably a huge growth in the numbers employed by Norwich Union or in the financial or professional sectors. Yes I understand some people suffered and why they resent Thatcher but at the same time a lot of people were able to prosper, buy their own homes and provide future security for their families. This shift is presumably also reflected in the % of GPD figures referred to above. The Unions will have known this was coming hence their determinaton to rest as much control of the country as possible at the time.

In terms of the coal industry that was obviously one of her most high profile battles and in my view could have been handled differently were she not so determined to strike a blow to the unions but with or without Thatcher the truth is there would probably be very few coal mines operating in the UK today. The decade in which the most coal mines were shut down in this country was the 60''s under a labour government (300 mines and over 400,000 jobs). France now has no coal mines operating at all because they could not compete cost wise with imports from Australia and E Europe. They now have to pay 320,000 ex miners 80% of their salary for the rest of their lives for not working, a situation which is leading to social problems of a different nature. Whether or not thats a better situation for France as a nation is open to debate but it doesn;t strike me as a great one from either an economic or social perspective.

Love her or hate her she was a strong leader, the likes of which we''ve not seen since and probably won;t again now we live in an age where politicians are so obsessed with getting re-elected that they won;t make unpopular decisions even if they believe they are for the greater good of the country. For that and for sticking to her convictions she deserves some respect. Labour had 13 years to change things if they thought that Thatcherism had left us in such a mess. They didn''t. They just made things worse though further deregulation, borrowing, expanding the public sector, signing away powers to Europe and allowing mass immigration. if the likes of Livingstone or Kinnock therefore want to blame anyone for the current woes of this country I would suggest they start with Blair and Brown rather than Thatcher.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
City 1st wrote; So can you or Dr Crafty (or whatever other name is being used) point us to evidence of that claim, which is so you don''t get confused -

"Why did Nelson Mandela praise her for her role in bringing about the downfall of apartheid?"

No I can''t point you to direct evidence as I didn''t think 20+ years ago when he said it that i would need to make a copy of the reference in order to satisfy you 20+ years later. That doesn''t mean it was not said. I remember it because I thought at the time it was a surprising thing to say.

Of course you are not going to believe me because you don''t want it to be true. Well that''s your problem not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]I was very pro Thatcher, ''cause the country was a complete mess when she took over! At least she dared to take decisions which were better in the longer run!!! No one can deny that she dragged the UK out of a mess! I''ve got a miner''s son in my family and it was tough on them, but o deary me if it had stayed like it was in 1978! Just look at the morons who were actually protesting yesterday...you just can''t get a job if you heven''t been to school can you? The miner''s son was taught to work for his degree and he succeeded! The ones shouting in Glasgow have falen just as low as their fathers ...[/quote]

 

So if it wasn''t for Thatcher the country would have stayed where it was in 1978!

 

That''s 35 years ago. And during that time there has been massive change. Probably an unprecedented amount of change for the timespan. Thatcher waged war on our own people. There were casualties as if it was a real war. People died. Prejudices still live on to this day. Read the thread - all miners are tarred as Arthur Scargill. All travelling football fans are tarred as hooligans. Some people feel so strongly that they protested at her death. You''d be better asking yourself why rather than tarring them all withg the moron brush. You''re certainly a Thatcherite Flecky.

 

Bogbrush - She wouldn''t have trucked with you. She liked people who had enough gumption to stand up to her. Not the little toady hangers on.

 

 

[/quote]

Thatcher never ''waged war on her own people''. She was defending the rest of the country against the anarchy and blackmail of the unions which had previously caused the demise of Edward Heath''s government. Remember the 3 day week ? The miners should be blaming Arthur Scargill who was responsible for making totally unrealistic wage demands year on year (I remember 27% demanded one year!!) thus increasing production costs, not Thatcher. Their jobs became unaffordable as coal became far cheaper to source from abroad. The mines were not the only industry to suffer from the unions unrelistic demands. They also destroyed the car industry, amongst others.

[/quote]

 

She did. And she was as narrowminded as you. Everyone of us is an individual. You can''t just take a group of people congregated together for a law-abiding purpose and tar them all with the hooligan brush. You cannot take a group of people doing an honest job for an honest wage and tar them all with the scargill brush. You cannot take a group of people protesting and tar them all with the moron brush. Thatcher did and I''m sad to see that many on here haven''t learnt the lesson.

 

Hillsborough and all the innocent deaths are the result of doing that. As far as I''m aware nobody who deserved to be tarred with the hooligan brush died.

[/quote]

So the unions were not ''waging war'' on society with constant strikes and unrealistic wage demands?  My view is that they were and that they still do as their upcoming politically-motivated general strikes will confirm. I am a football fan and never considered that Thatcher''s laws accused me of being a hooligan. Sometimes we all have to suffer restrictive laws to control the worst elements of society. You are the one being narrow-minded and bigoted IMO Nutty by not trying to see the wider picture.

[/quote]

 

The wider picture is that putting up the fences and more importantly treating all fans as hooligans was the reason 96 innocent people died. According to you their deaths count for nothing in the bigger picture and anyone who thinks otherwise is a bigot.

 

It''s quite interesting to see which posters are throwing out the insults on here rather than addressing the issues. Already today I''m an empty headed fool and a bigot. Bigotry is a form of hatred caused by prejudice. I would suggest that description lies far closer to your door than mine. But by slinging that back at you I guess I''m lowering myself to your level. But I''m always happy to play in the other posters playground!

[/quote]

Bigotry = narrow-mindedness

Blaming Thatcher for every ill in society while ignoring any good she did and any bad others such as Blair, Brown, Scargill and the unions did, is clear bigotry IMO.  If you disagree, fine.

 

[/quote]

 

I think you and Thatcher are / were the bigots. The 96 who died were good honest football fans. Most of them had arrived early to take a decent spot on the terrace to watch the game. The reason they died was because they were treated like hooligans. They had to suffer the measures pout into place to wage war on the hooligans. And most importatntly the people whose job it was too ensure they were safe did the opposite because they believed that they were all hooligans. I bet you did too. I bet you think all football fans who travel away get pissed and riot. It was that belief that killed them. Not the fences or the other Liverpool fans. It was the belief that they were worthless hooligans. How many of the 96 had alcohol in their bodies? How many of the 96 had a record for football violence? Who do you blame for their deaths? Or doesn''t it matter in the bigger picture?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty Nigel wrote: You assume that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent must have been on the side of Scargill. Thatcher believes that everybody who attends football matches is a hooligan and should be treated like an animals. the present tories have now stooped so low as to tar all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush.

Where have I said that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent to be on the side of Scargill? Once again you are making false assumptions to denigrate a point of view that was never expressed in the first place.

As for the Tories tarring all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush it is yet more rubbish from you. Where is the evidence for this purile claim. Osborne was asked whether Philpott through his manipulation of his wife and lover accessing £60000+ per year in benefits (equivalent to a taxable income in excess of £100000 pa) meant the welfare system was at fault. Osborne replied that whilst Philpott alone was responsible for his actions it was not unreasonable to have a debate as to whether a system that allowed manipulation like this was in need of review.

I''d suggest most rationale people would agree with that. Introducing a cap on benefits equivalent to the annual income of working people will hopefully prevent the Philpotts of this world being able to abuse the system. This is totally different to your absurd suggestion that this means all benefit claimants are being labelled as Philpotts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]City 1st wrote; So can you or Dr Crafty (or whatever other name is being used) point us to evidence of that claim, which is so you don''t get confused - "Why did Nelson Mandela praise her for her role in bringing about the downfall of apartheid?" No I can''t point you to direct evidence as I didn''t think 20+ years ago when he said it that i would need to make a copy of the reference in order to satisfy you 20+ years later. That doesn''t mean it was not said. I remember it because I thought at the time it was a surprising thing to say. Of course you are not going to believe me because you don''t want it to be true. Well that''s your problem not mine.[/quote]

In mid 80s Thatcher and Ronald Reagan called for an end to apartheid and the release of Mandela or sanctions were to be imposed under the Comprehensive Apartheid Act which was passed in the US in 1986 . This was the catalyst for the end of apartheid and presumably why Mandela praised her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"]Nutty, she certainly did wage war on sections of the population. This was because certain sections of the population were trying to run the country (& sometimes ruin the country) despite having not been elected & not giving a twopenny cuss about anyone else. Now I''m quite sure that the vast majority of miners were only concerned about keeping their jobs & earning as much money as possible. Unfortunately, however, they threw out Joe Gormley & allowed Scargill in, someone who had ambitions way beyond looking after the interests of his membership. Also unfortunately the long term future of a lot of pits was uneconomic, & was having to be subsidised. This was always going to have to stop. It has been said elsewhere that Thatcher saw Scargill as a version of Galtieri, which meant it would never end well. The miners overestimated their own power & underestimated her resolve. I''m not really making a moral judgement on this. In an ideal world the miners would have acted more rationally, with greater long-term interest, but also Thatcher should have had an exit strategy; you cannot just throw hundreds of people out of work in a small community & expect them to quietly rot. Actually this is a problem engendered a long time ago, about 200 years ago, with the rise of monolithic industries & a resulting insular mindset. We, as a nation, as a species, need to do a lot more thinking about the future. As far as football is concerned, with the violence on the terraces (& beyond) it was no wonder that she had an abhorrence of the game. It''s really something clubs should have taken responsibility for & fixed long before politicians became involved.[/quote]

 

And that''s life Ron. That''s evolution. Throughout history certain sections of the population have tried to force change. Sometimes they have been right and succeeded, sometimes they have been wrong and succeeded, sometimes they have been right and failed and sometimes they have been wrong and failed.

 

I try to keep this football related for the sake of this board. We were very close to what happened at Hillsborough. We were at the other semifinal on the same day. It''s maybe natural to feel we had an escape even though it probably wouldn''t have happened to us. But we can all tell stories of how we suffered through the hooligans and the measures taken to combat the hooligans. We also know that the hooligans, even in the worst times, were a minority of football supporters. The reason all football supporters, including the 96 innocents at Hillsborough, suffered was because Thatcher waged war on them all and not the hooligans. Some of us don''t believe hurting innocent people an acceptable collateral for change.

 

I don''t believe it was the job of the clubs or even the FA to sort this out. It was society''s hooligans that caused the problems. Not the football club''s supporters. It''s that very misconception that prevented it being sorted sooner. In fact it could be argued that those who caused the real problems weeren''t football supporters at all.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, yes I have heard of the quotation - Benjamin Disraeli. There is a less well known quotation from Disraeli which puts this into context. He was explaining to a young politician who was just starting out on how to deal with challenging questions "on the hustings." He explained in detail as to what the young man should do and then finished with

"... if all else fails, abuse your opponent and deny the facts!"

This pretty much accounts for the tactics of all political parties!

I have to use and interpret statistics a lot for my work and it really frustrates me that people don''t understand the statistics and how they are formed - journalists are often the worst! In doing so, they let politicians of the hook. Refusal to engage with statistics is what allows politicians to get away with it!

A political point on both political "sides" to illustrate from the information Ricardo linked to.

1. Much to my surprise, apart from the horror period 1979 to 1982, there is no real evidence to suggest that it was Mrs T that destroyed manufacturing industry. In fact, it declines more sharply in the 9 years before her becoming PM than it does in the 30 years afterwards when Thatcherite economics were being deployed by successive prime ministers.*

2. Prior to the financial crisis, the Labour governments post 1997 spent less than both the Thatcher and the major governments.*

* Both measured as a proportion of GDP as is the way.

In other words, on the basis of this evidence, the "left" is wrong to say that Thatcher destroyed manufacturing and the coalition government is wrong to suggest that the previous labour government went on a spending spree.

Sorry - just proved what a data nurd I am again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Perhaps my input on this thread is not welcome as I have lived most of my years outside of the UK. Further, I was not resident during Margaret Thatcher''s leadership period, so I won''t speak to what that was like for the British people. However, I find myself very sympathetic to Ricardo''s views for a number of reasons.

 

I was born a just a little earlier than Ricardo in a welfare environment in Norwich. I left school at 15 years old and my first jobs were in the the factories of the shoe manufacturing industry that had a base in Norwich at that point. After three years of that I was in the printing industry for a while, all labouring jobs. I was a hard worker who just wanted to do the best I could as well as look for an opportunity to improve my station in life, and get away from the welfare background I grew up with. All the factories I worked in were unionized. I could not begin to count how many times over those years that I was told by people older and senior to me to slow down in my work habits. It became apparent to me that the key was to discourage initiative rather than promote it. It was clear, even to me as a young relatively naive person, that many of these industries would have difficulty surviving in an increasingly competitive world as the stranglehold of unionization that may have been a good thing in earlier years had now become counter to the interest of British jobs and competitiveness.

 

I made the decision to emigrate to Canada ( Ontario ). When I arrived in my new chosen country although it was difficult acclimatising for the first year, the whole experience was like a breath of fresh air. The shackles were removed, the harder you wanted to work the more that was thrown at you. I was able to progress and become successful in business. I have no doubt that had I stayed in the UK I would not have flourished in the way that I did.

 

I will say this about Margaret Thatcher. To those who were a generation before me living on this side of the water she was greatly admired. They saw her as a leader who would stand up for her principles and not, like so many leaders before and since, as the type that would hold a finger up to test which way the wind was blowing before making a decision.

 

Finally, regardless of your politics in life, I still believe that is is right for people to have enough SELF RESPECT and dignity when someone ( anyone ) who has just died to not express some of the horrible things I have seen on this thread.

 

   

[/quote]

 

Yankee, your view and those of others abroad is common among those who looked on from a distance, rather than experiencing life at that time on the ground, and I think it is particularly an American view. Indeed she always seemed more like an American politician than a British one. She exemplified the dream that anyone could make it from a log cabin (Grantham in this case standing in for the lowly residence) to the White House. The idea is a seductive fraud, of course. That someone could do it doesn''t mean everyone can do it.And she championed in British politics the idea of splitting people up into winners and losers, particularly economic winners and losers, which is quintesentially American. Her policy on selling off council houses, for example. Giving people the freedom to buy their own home! Sounds great. Probably went down a storm with the leaders writers of the Wall Street Journal. But it was only freedom for those who could afford it. The result was that there were fewer council houses available and those left were the grottier ones in the grottier areas, because the better one had been sold off.So this vote-catching "freedom" was socially and economically divisive, and there were other policies in this vein, such as the idea of a share-owning democracy, which sounded egalitarian but only worked if you had the money. Her attack on some of the powers of the trade unions, which you touch on, was probably justified (althugh funnily enough this lawyer never did anything about the closed shop in the legal profession) but went so far that the ordinary worker lost any protection from the power of the over-mighty employer.

 

Whether she quite meant "There is no such thing as society" literally is a question, but in a broader sense that was her attitude. Ideology was part of it, but in a deeper sense she never seemed to understand that because she had through her cleverness and drive risen from reasonably humble surroundings (it was hardly a dirt-poor log cabin) to eminence that not everyone could do that. Not everyone can stand on their own two feet. Some people do need help. As she discovered when her idiot son got lost in the desert in some car rally. Suddenly she was all for help from other people. Pleas for the world to help find the chump. Of course she didn''t learn the lesson of this little episode.Her spurious and very partial idea of freedom exacerbated rather than eliminated the divisions in society and took away help from those who increasingly needed it. A truly great politician is a unifier who cares for all. She was a divider who looked after her own.As to your last point, I think this has been a pretty well-mannered debate. Moreover in this case the end result of your view would be that only nice things would be said about someone who seemed to glory in being, as explained above, a hugely divisive figure. That would be farcical.

[/quote]

 

Purple, I''m not quite sure what you were reading regarding my post but, given your response, it had little to do with what I wrote. I made it quite clear that I was not offering my views on Margaret Thatcher because I did not reside in the UK during her tenure. My main input was what I experienced in a unionized environment causing me to attempt to make my way in the new world. I did comment on  the view that I have heard from others on this side of the water with respect to Margaret Thatcher. However, with respect to your comment on well-mannered debate there, I''m afraid, I fail to see how you arrive at your conclusions. There are clearly several ill-chosen comments ( I''m being kind ) in this thread, from accusations of the lady ordering a murder, comparing her to Hitler, to the suggestion that she be chopped up and fed to the dogs. Do you honestly consider that well-mannered debate? Finally, you conclude by saying the end result of my view is that I would have only only nice things said about Margaret Thatcher. I neither said, nor implied, any such thing. I clearly indicated that some of the horrible things that clearly have been stated in this thread are innapropriate when someone ( anyone ) has just died. 

 

 

[/quote]

 

I was taking it as a starting point, Yankee, and moving on - especially my point about how more American than British she was as a politician. A Tea Party Republican before the fact! And I did see this from today''s Guardian (Boo!!! Hiss!!!):

All can agree that Margaret Thatcher changed the heart of British politics more than any politician since Clement Attlee. She all but erased his political legacy to stamp her own image on the nation, so Britain before and after Thatcher were two different countries. Where once we stood within a recognisable postwar social democratic European tradition, after Thatcher the country had rowed halfway across the Atlantic, psychologically imbued with US neoliberal individualism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]Nutty Nigel wrote: You assume that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent must have been on the side of Scargill. Thatcher believes that everybody who attends football matches is a hooligan and should be treated like an animals. the present tories have now stooped so low as to tar all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush. Where have I said that everybody who finds Thatcher abhorrent to be on the side of Scargill? Once again you are making false assumptions to denigrate a point of view that was never expressed in the first place. As for the Tories tarring all benefit claimants with families with the Philpott brush it is yet more rubbish from you. Where is the evidence for this purile claim. Osborne was asked whether Philpott through his manipulation of his wife and lover accessing £60000+ per year in benefits (equivalent to a taxable income in excess of £100000 pa) meant the welfare system was at fault. Osborne replied that whilst Philpott alone was responsible for his actions it was not unreasonable to have a debate as to whether a system that allowed manipulation like this was in need of review. I''d suggest most rationale people would agree with that. Introducing a cap on benefits equivalent to the annual income of working people will hopefully prevent the Philpotts of this world being able to abuse the system. This is totally different to your absurd suggestion that this means all benefit claimants are being labelled as Philpotts.[/quote]

A simple change such as restricting child benefit to the first one or two kids or abolishing it all together would stop the likes of Philpott breeding 17 kids to exploit a crazy welfare system.  I''m sure Thatcher would have done something like this by now whereas we have the useless Coalition doing nothing in order to avoid the lefty flak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user=" Badger"]Paul, yes I have heard of the quotation - Benjamin Disraeli. There is a less well known quotation from Disraeli which puts this into context. He was explaining to a young politician who was just starting out on how to deal with challenging questions "on the hustings." He explained in detail as to what the young man should do and then finished with "... if all else fails, abuse your opponent and deny the facts!" This pretty much accounts for the tactics of all political parties! I have to use and interpret statistics a lot for my work and it really frustrates me that people don''t understand the statistics and how they are formed - journalists are often the worst! In doing so, they let politicians of the hook. Refusal to engage with statistics is what allows politicians to get away with it! A political point on both political "sides" to illustrate from the information Ricardo linked to. 1. Much to my surprise, apart from the horror period 1979 to 1982, there is no real evidence to suggest that it was Mrs T that destroyed manufacturing industry. In fact, it declines more sharply in the 9 years before her becoming PM than it does in the 30 years afterwards when Thatcherite economics were being deployed by successive prime ministers.* 2. Prior to the financial crisis, the Labour governments post 1997 spent less than both the Thatcher and the major governments.* * Both measured as a proportion of GDP as is the way. In other words, on the basis of this evidence, the "left" is wrong to say that Thatcher destroyed manufacturing and the coalition government is wrong to suggest that the previous labour government went on a spending spree. Sorry - just proved what a data nurd I am again![/quote]

Isn''t the Left normally wrong with their assertions.  A recent one was that the Polish immigrants are no longer an issue as most have gone home. Then we find out via the 2011 census that Polish is now the second most spoken language in the UK. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purple Canary wrote, "I was taking it as a starting point, Yankee, and moving on - "

 

That''s all very well Purple but it''s not like you to claim that I ( or anyone ) expressed views that I clearly did not. Further, as I have always had a high regard for the judgment you have shared on this forum, it would have been good to have you clarify whether, indeed, some of the unsavoury comments I highlighted as posted on this thread when a person has just died you would regard as well-mannered debate. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier by asking the question ( as I am repeating here ) in case you had missed them previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badger the great thing about raw data is that why you cannot manipulate it, you can interpret it differently, and draw different conclusions.

While it is true the Labour Government spent less before the financial crisis, the simple fact remains that in 1997 the budget had been brought down to neutral deficit and in 2009 it had reached 156 billion a year!

While from 1998 to 2001 the Government also did a good job of reducing our net debt (because as you point out we weren''t overspending, we actually had surplus), post this period it was steadily increasing before the financial crisis sent it rocketing as we tried to spend our way out of recession. It was approx 350 billion in 2003, 450 in 2007 and then over 900 billion by the change in governments. (Labour inherited a net debt of approx 380 billion.)

The current government inherited a debt of over 900 billion and a national yearly deficit of 120 billion pounds (which had peaked at 156 billion in 2009, 12.5% of GDP).

I fail to see how the previous government didn''t go on a spending spree? They certainly weren''t saving and they have left us, to be fair like most large western countries, hugely in the sh*t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, the point that I was trying to make was that ALL sides are wrong with some of their assertions and get away with it because people uncritically accept what they are told and don''t look at the available evidence.

Properly constituted statistics are the main resource that we have to keep a check on politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Purple Canary wrote, "I was taking it as a starting point, Yankee, and moving on - "

 

That''s all very well Purple but it''s not like you to claim that I ( or anyone ) expressed views that I clearly did not. Further, as I have always had a high regard for the judgment you have shared on this forum, it would have been good to have you clarify whether, indeed, some of the unsavoury comments I highlighted as posted on this thread when a person has just died you would regard as well-mannered debate. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt earlier by asking the question ( as I am repeating here ) in case you had missed them previously.

[/quote]

 

Yankee, I don''t think I did that at all. The only it of your post I commented on was the start and the finish...Perhaps my input on this thread is not welcome as I have lived most of my years outside of the UK. Further, I was not resident during Margaret Thatcher''s leadership period, so I won''t speak to what that was like for the British people. However, I find myself very sympathetic to Ricardo''s views for a number of reasons.I will say this about Margaret Thatcher. To those who were a generation before me living on this side of the water she was greatly admired. They saw her as a leader who would stand up for her principles....by saying:Yankee, your view and those of others abroad is common among those who looked on from a distance, rather than experiencing life at that time on the ground, and I think it is particularly an American view.And I would defend that assertion. You were offering your views on Thatcher by saying you were sympathetic to ricardo''s arguments, which is fair enough, but IS expressing a view, and you backed it up by quoting admiringly those very positive American views of her. Apart from that I didn''t talk at all about the bulk of your post, concerning your comparitive experience of working life in the UK and North America..  but, as I said, went off on a tangent.As to your point about the debate, I confess I had missed the one about being fed to the dogs, but I had noticed the murder accusation. As someone keen on the idea that words have meaning I should have said it had been a generally well-mannered debate rather than a pretty well-mannered one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutty, for once your user name is very apt. I appriciate you are trying to keep the thread football related but seriously, of all the things that Lady T can be critisiesd for, and there are many even her supporters agree, to condone the disrespect being shown in her death by saying she was responcible for the death of 96 Liverpool fans is as absurd as blaming G Bush for the 3000+ people who died in the twin towers. Before you even get close to laying the blame on Thatcher you have to look at the Liverpool fans at Hysel, the person who designed the Hillsbourgh Stadium, the 1000''s of scousers who tried to get through a 6 ft gap at the same time, the police constable in charge on the day who opened the gates, the match officials who reacted with tortoise like reactions, the emergency services, the FA whom had been warned years earlier when similar events occured, merseyside constabluary and most likely a dozen other ministers and MP''s before to get to the PM.

 

Thatcher gets blamed for many things that would of happened anyway, just as Blair gets blamed for the Iraq war even though America would of gone ahead without us anyway. Having said that I agree with the posters who have said that she was the right person at the right time, where she to some to power today her ham-fisted approach would be a disaster, in the 1970''s it was very much needed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...