The Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, Dies following a stroke

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

For all the youngsters who don't understand why us oldies are glad to see the back of "Baroness" Thatcher. She was responsible for the following :

Used Scotland as a petri dish for the "Poll Tax" which later became the Council Tax.

Sold off (Privatised) the following British Industries: British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, British Rail.

She also personally dismantled one of the main industries this country had at the time, Coal Mining.

Removed milk from primary school children as she deemed it too expensive even though she was advised by medical experts that this would be detrimental to children's health at an early age.

Carried out a personal vendetta against the various public service unions whose main purpose was to ensure that workers were given their basic human rights, it's because of her style of politics that a lot of health professionals are now forced to work up to 60 hours per week putting people's lives in danger.

Carried out a personal vendetta against the miners who were asking for fair, safe working conditions, going as far as to send in riot police to break up a peaceful march.

Her offspring, Mark Thatcher was found guilty of trying to initiate a military coup in Equitorial Guinea and has subsequently been banned from entering a number of countries because of this. The apple does not fall far from the tree as far as that family's morals are concerned.

David Cameron has, many times, said she is an inspiration to him, which I find incredible but just goes to show how the Tories think. Being an MP means you are supposed to represent the interests of the people who live in your constituency, not make as much money as you can for you and your rich cronies by selling off anything you want.

Cameron and his allies are now surreptitiously trying to sell off the National Health Service, many of the members of his cabinet have a vested interest in Private Health Services with most of them having links to Private Health Companies. If we let him, Cameron will carry out the legacy of Thatcher's approach to governance and will sell off one of the only British institutions we have left.

In short, good bloody riddance.

Also, I'm 44 so I lived through the decimation she caused in this country.

[Dick Montage]

^ eh I disagree. I doubt anyone thought that when Gaddafi, Bin Laden or Hitler (yes I godwinned the thread :p) died.

I disagree. I dare say each of the people mentioned had their supporters. But When Bin Laden was killed I actually didn't celebrate - he shouldn't have been killed - he could have been kept as an asset, a source of information. Less so with Gaddafi. As for Hussein, I have a very unpopular view of him, not support but understand him. However, publicly hanging him was barbaric. Either way, I wouldn't celebrate any of their deaths!

Also, I'm 44 so I lived through the decimation she caused in this country.

With a very obvious bias...

Meh, I'm out of here. To those who are celebrating the passing of an elderly woman from a stroke that caused heart failure - I pity you and your rotten souls. When your grandparents, parents, siblings and so on pass away, I hope you remember how joyous you felt celebrating Thatchers death and that someone can take such pleasure in your grief. Big Internet hardmen!!!

[+Warwagon MVC]

celebrating someone's death is a foul thing to do.

Now I'm not comparing her to Hitler but when he died, where people wrong to celebrate it?

Well I wanted to ask the question about Hitler, but that's hard to do without immediately having people think i'm are calling her Hitler, which is why I made the disclaimer.

[Noir Angel]

I'm not exactly a rich elite; I'm being squeezed pretty tightly with all the cuts currently. But I also know that the Tories have the only viable policies to get this country out of the financial chasm that Labour threw us in to.

Viable? Things are getting worse, because they're denting the spending power of the people that need it the most. Shifting the burden onto the poor isn't a viable policy, it's a way of ensuring the the rich keep getting rich at the cost of everyone else. Our growth is continuing to get worse so evidently what they're doing is not working.

How easily you forget that Labour also squeezed... But let's imagine for 5 seconds that the treasury has an infinite sum of money to fund all the things that people want... That was a nice fantasy!

Back to reality, a lot of middle class people felt it too, such as my family. The upper classes (also felt it but had the buffers to protect themselves).

Labour didn't rob the poor to pay the rich. I'm aware that the treasury don't have an infinite supply of money, but taking what we do have and using it to increase the wealth of those that don't need it is disgusting.

[saltysaltybk]

She was an outstanding Leader who had the vision and foresight to lead the UK to a service led economy. If we'd have given in to the loony left where would be we now? We'd have stockpiles of coal which cost X times more to produce than the east.

[Noir Angel]

http://www.guardian....hatcher-meeting

Apparently she didn't want to get rid of apartheid either.

http://www.neowin.ne...#entry595560064

Ahh but Chavez was a pro poor socialist. Most on the right treat socialists as being sub human

:laugh:

[Noir Angel]

And if I haven't heard enough, she's a fan of Pinochet as well

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/304516.stm

[DrCheese]

Sold off (Privatised) the following British Industries: British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, British Rail.

The state has no business owning these in the first place. Without the profit motive these companies could run as unefficiently as they wanted, regardless of the cost to the tax payer. Monopolies have no incentive to improve their business or have competitive prices (Because they have no competition)

I'll give you British Rail simply because the state is paying more to subside the rail system than we did when we owned it wholesale. Rail privatisation in itself is not a bad idea.

Carried out a personal vendetta against the various public service unions whose main purpose was to ensure that workers were given their basic human rights, it's because of her style of politics that a lot of health professionals are now forced to work up to 60 hours per week putting people's lives in danger.

The unions in the 70s didn't just protect their workers basic human rights, They practically ran this country. If they disagreed with the elected government of the day they could (and did) bring the country to it's knees. Utter madness. The amount of power they had was simply insane & needed curbing one way or another.

Strike ballots (if you even had a ballot, some strikes were just called by the union leaders. The miners strike being an example) were held in the open so those with the loudest voice simply forced their views on everyone else. If you disagreed and didn't want to strike you could be dismissed if you worked in a closed shop (You must be a member of the union or you get fired)

Just nuts.

[Noir Angel]

Given that vulnerable people are being ripped off by the massive increases in energy bills I hardly buy the argument that they're being ran more efficiently, they have just been given more leeway to rip people off.

[saltysaltybk]

Well we'd have a better rich poor divide instead of the chasm we currently see between the haves and the have nots. I don't really care about mining.

And what is the incentive to better oneself if we live in a socialist state?- because that's what you allude to. The current divide is due to the labour mentality providing endless handouts with borrowed money- and now that cash cow has been slaughtered they feel the pain. Tough luck I'm afraid.

[F_C]

What a disgusting thing to post. Whether you agree with her politics or not - celebrating someone's death is a foul thing to do.

I agree with you 100%. However if you are interested, the vitriol from a large percentage of the UK (especially the North) makes The Republican's opinion of Barack Obama seem entirely positive and like they are best friends.

I can think of no other politician (in the UK/US) whose hatred is not just on a personal level, but is a generational thing handed down to children amongst entire communities, to the degree they will never vote for her party ever again.

[DrCheese]

Given that vulnerable people are being ripped off by the massive increases in energy bills I hardly buy the argument that they're being ran more efficiently, they have just been given more leeway to rip people off.

Not really. If you don't like your current provider, you just move to another.

The market sets prices that the people will bare. If you don't like the prices of any of them you have the power to set up your own company and compete with them.

You didn't have this right before, or if you did you had no hope of competing with the state provided system that was funded (often at a loss) to the taxpayer.

You may be right about vulnerable people, but this problem existed before. The state will help out with things like Winter fuel allowance and such, but there are limits to what the state can afford. It's not the job of the state to babysit every member of this country.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

The Labour party aren't Liberals.

Aren't they striving for the liberty and the prosperity of the workers?

Liberal/Labour/Socialist/Democratic/Sociodemocratic etc. - they are all the leftists, all in opposition to the right, the conservatives.

[Brian M. Veteran]

Thread Cleaned

It's a hot topic, but keep to the rules. From this point on, anything outside of the rules, including attacking other members, will receive warnings.

[+Mirumir Subscriber¹]

Nancy Reagan vs Margaret Thatcher

Who do you think was more attractive when in their 20's?

I think it's a very, very close call!

[FloatingFatMan]

Viable? Things are getting worse, because they're denting the spending power of the people that need it the most. Shifting the burden onto the poor isn't a viable policy, it's a way of ensuring the the rich keep getting rich at the cost of everyone else. Our growth is continuing to get worse so evidently what they're doing is not working.

And you think Labour's solution, of borrowing more and more, is the right way out of paying our debts (that they accrued in the first place). Seriously? You really think MORE debt is the answer?

Labour didn't rob the poor to pay the rich. I'm aware that the treasury don't have an infinite supply of money, but taking what we do have and using it to increase the wealth of those that don't need it is disgusting.

Labour robbed EVERYONE, rich AND poor. Then left a note for the Tories saying "There's no money left".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8688470.stm

Yeah, responsible. :rolleyes:

[Gaffney]

Not to say she didn't do good things but there are far to many things she did for me to consider her a role model of any sort.

She was likely involved in hiding the true cause of the Hillsborough disaster.

Treated Scotland like a wasteland.

Called Nelson Mandela a terrorist.

Inflated the troubles in Northern Ireland.

Helped destroy the coal mining industry.

Privatization (not all of them turned bad, British Rail was a disaster. Prices for consumers have only risen).

[DrCheese]

British Rail was a disaster.

That was done after she left office ;) http://en.wikipedia....of_British_Rail

the previous Transport Secretary and arch-Thatcherite Cecil Parkinson had advocated some form of privately or semi-privately operated rail network, this was deemed 'a privatisation too far' by Thatcher herself

[theyarecomingforyou]

Aren't they striving for the liberty and the prosperity of the workers?

Liberal/Labour/Socialist/Democratic/Sociodemocratic etc. - they are all the leftists, all in opposition to the right, the conservatives.

Nope. Ever since the 90s with Tony Blair's 'New Labour' it's been a centrist party - in fact policies like PFI were remarkably right-wing, privatising assets and creating huge debts for the education and health sectors while hugely benefiting private corporations. It distanced itself from unions, taking large donations from wealthy individuals. It bears little relation to the Labour party of old that pushed for the 83% tax rate for high earners back in the 70s.

It's shocking that in an era where bankers, executives and shareholders are the least trusted they've ever been and where capitalism is starting to lose its appeal that there is no true left-leaning party to give people a real alternative.

Not to say she didn't do good things but there are far to many things she did for me to consider her a role model of any sort.

She was likely involved in hiding the true cause of the Hillsborough disaster.

Treated Scotland like a wasteland.

Called Nelson Mandela a terrorist.

Inflated the troubles in Northern Ireland.

Helped destroy the coal mining industry.

Privatization (not all of them turned bad, British Rail was a disaster. Prices for consumers have only risen).

1) Baseless accusation

2) A bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

3) Just because he did a lot of good doesn't mean the crimes he committed should be overlooked. His wife publicly endorsed necklacing (burning people alive using tyres and petrol) and he was implicated in numerous violent crimes. It's easy to look at him now as a statesman but that wasn't true contextually.

4) By opening negotiations with the IRA after it attempted to assassinate her? The IRA deserved no respect but still she dealt with it.

5) The coal mining industry was unsustainable and while the disruption was severe it was inevitable.

6) Pretty much every government has engaged in privatisation. New Labour pledged to keep the rail sector public but reneged on its promise, though admittedly most of the privatisation was already in place. The PFI was a large scale privatisation pushed by Labour. That's not to excuse it though, and even a lot of those who supported Thatcher opposed such large scale privatisations.

[Gaffney]

That was done after she left office ;) http://en.wikipedia....of_British_Rail

Wrong, British Rail was broken up over several years during Thatchers role:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5pUFSdMr0NcJ:www.railwaybritain.co.uk/privatisation.html+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

1) Baseless accusation

2) A bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

3) Just because he did a lot of good doesn't mean the crimes he committed should be overlooked. His wife publicly endorsed necklacing (burning people alive using tyres and petrol) and he was implicated in numerous violent crimes. It's easy to look at him now as a statesman but that wasn't true contextually.

4) By opening negotiations with the IRA after it attempted to assassinate her? The IRA deserved no respect but still she dealt with it.

5) The coal mining industry was unsustainable and while the disruption was severe it was inevitable.

6) Pretty much every government has engaged in privatisation. New Labour pledged to keep the rail sector public but reneged on its promise, though admittedly most of the privatisation was already in place. The PFI was a large scale privatisation pushed by Labour. That's not to excuse it though, and even a lot of those who supported Thatcher opposed such large scale privatisations.

1. Not entirely.

2. No.

3. Not talking about that, talking about Thatcher labeling Mandela as a Terrorist and supporting the Racist Government.

4. Lesson number one, 1981 Irish hunger strike, her dealings before and after that inflamed the troubles greatly. When the Anglo-Irish Agreement came around there was so much support behind it, it would be stupid to reject it. It didn't actually help much either, the Good Friday Agreement was the major stepping stone.

5. No it wasn't, even if it was it was dealt with terribly.

6. Not to that scale within such a short time frame.

[jakem1]

Well apparently it's against the rules to point out when members are being hypocrites so, instead, here's something topical for those of you who think that Thatcher is now beyond criticism:

News of Margaret Thatcher's death this morning instantly and predictably gave rise to righteous sermons on the evils of speaking ill of her. British Labour MP Tom Watson decreed: "I hope that people on the left of politics respect a family in grief today." Following in the footsteps of Santa Claus, Steve Hynd quickly compiled a list of all the naughty boys and girls "on the left" who dared to express criticisms of the dearly departed Prime Minister, warning that he "will continue to add to this list throughout the day". Former Tory MP Louise Mensch, with no apparent sense of irony, invoked precepts of propriety to announce: "Pygmies of the left so predictably embarrassing yourselves, know this: not a one of your leaders will ever be globally mourned like her."

This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and

I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.

But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.

Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted ? and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown."

To demand that all of that be ignored in the face of one-sided requiems to her nobility and greatness is a bit bullying and tyrannical, not to mention warped. As David Wearing put it this morning in satirizing these speak-no-ill-of-the-deceased moralists: "People praising Thatcher's legacy should show some respect for her victims. Tasteless." Tellingly, few people have trouble understanding the need for balanced commentary when the political leaders disliked by the west pass away. Here, for instance, was what the Guardian reported upon the death last month of Hugo Chavez:

To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance."

Nobody, at least that I know of, objected to that observation on the ground that it was disrespectful to the ability of the Chavez family to mourn in peace. Any such objections would have been invalid. It was perfectly justified to note that, particularly as the Guardian also explained that "to the millions who revered him ? a third of the country, according to some polls ? a messiah has fallen, and their grief will be visceral." Chavez was indeed a divisive and controversial figure, and it would have been reckless to conceal that fact out of some misplaced deference to the grief of his family and supporters. He was a political and historical figure and the need to accurately portray his legacy and prevent misleading hagiography easily outweighed precepts of death etiquette that prevail when a private person dies.

Exactly the same is true of Thatcher. There's something distinctively creepy - in a Roman sort of way - about this mandated ritual that our political leaders must be heralded and consecrated as saints upon death. This is accomplished by this baseless moral precept that it is gauche or worse to balance the gushing praise for them upon death with valid criticisms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette

[WelshBluebird]

All I am going to say here is that there are very good reasons why people are happy today.

You may not be comfortable with people being happy she is dead (I am not entirely convinced I am comfortable with it, even though I am one of the ones who is happy), but she didn't give a crap about certain groups of people (and actively tried to make their lives a living hell), so why on earth should those people give her any kind of respect or anything at all?

[Detection]

This shows how much she was hated

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

[ManMountain]

250 folk "celebrate" her passing in George Square, Glasgow.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22072150

[PGHammer]

Well she may not have been perfect (no politician ever is) and she may have done a lot of things that ****ed people off, but one thing is certain:

As a woman, she still had more balls than most of the men in our current administration here in the U.S.A.

That tends to be true with a lot of women in politics GLOBALLY - examples are Indira Gandhi (India), Golda Meir (Israel), Benazhir Bhutto (Pakistan), or even Hillary Rodham Clinton (United States) and Condoleeza Rice (United States). And while Democrats (US) bermoaned Condi Rice, if there had not BEEN Condi Rice, COULD there have been a Hillary Clinton? (Let's be honest - Madeleine Albright did NOT exactly set a high bar for women as Secretaries of State, let alone Secretaries of State in general.)