Margaret Thatcher was she really that bad?

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

I would disagree.
She was a product of her upbringing, her own perceived class she was either trying to reach or thought she saw herself in already.
She was possibly a product of her own mind too!

Her father owned a green grocer didn't he? Hardly lord of the manner stuff.

She appealed to a wide range if people. My father came from a left wing background and was a shop steward for a while, but became completely disillusioned with the unions because all he could see was an organisation that would quite happily bleed a company to death as long as their demands were met. Anyone who has experienced demarcation of work will understand this.

ejmaztec

summerskin wrote: »

Almost true. John Smith was a leader that we could/would have voted for and he would have been a great Prime Minister of the UK. His untimely death in 1994 was a sad day for British politics, and it also had the unfortunate side-effect of giving Tony Blair the platform to go for the leadership of the Labour Party and turn it into "Tory-lite".

I think it's 100% true, John Smith was unelectable due to his untimely death, whereas Foot and Kinnock were only dead from the neck up.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The labour comparison is relevant, because the attacks on Thatcher usually come from that direction.

I hate these threads, because I find myself almost defending a woman I despised, but she was a product of her time as much as anything.

A lot of what she did had to be done, and she did play a big part in bringing the likes of Honda, Toyota and Nissan to the UK.

the miners strike will be her biggest legacy though and unfortunately that seemed to become a personal battle between her and Scargill, a man who imho was every bit as bad as she was.

In reality, the choice is rarely just between the rock and the hard place. Other countries had the same problem with the mining industry and managed to deal with it in a far less destructive fashion.

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Her father owned a green grocer didn't he? Hardly lord of the manner stuff.

She appealed to a wide range if people. My father came from a left wing background and was a shop steward for a while, but became completely disillusioned with the unions because all he could see was an organisation that would quite happily bleed a company to death as long as their demands were met. Anyone who has experienced demarcation of work will understand this.

Its well known what her original background was and what her father did.
There is NO argument about that.

As she progressed into adulthood however she adopted 'a way' or 'class' however that was different either from her original background and/or adopted a higher one that she thought would suit her more so, one also adopted maybe too in her ambition to get where she wanted to get.
She took that new class and with it, ran the country as she saw fit, applying her ideas of shaping that class upon the rest of the country at times it seems!

A few headshrinks maybe in years to come (if not already) will have fun on analysis's of her mentally state as she progressed from child into adulthood, into head of power.

The unions indeed at the time (like Ireland today at times), had a stranglehold over various industries.
Instead of (I'm using an analogy here) using a nutcracker to crack a nut, she decided to use a cannonball instead and totally (in my view) went too far, by bad extreme method and price, to see that the unions were broke instead of just being called to order, reined in and tamed.

Nodin wrote: »

...Other countries had the same problem with the mining industry and managed to deal with it in a far less destructive fashion.

Exactly - better said.

Lollers

She was a shop keepers daughter. And I think she grew to hate that in herself.

Biggins

Lollers wrote: »

She was a shop keepers daughter. And I think she grew to hate that in herself.

Aye, I suspect she had some personal issues.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

In reality, the choice is rarely just between the rock and the hard place. Other countries had the same problem with the mining industry and managed to deal with it in a far less destructive fashion.

A lot of the destruction that occurred was as a result of a strong union with an ego maniac leader. Remember the blackouts were still fresh in a lot of peoples memories.

I wouldn't defend her methods, but as I said, she did what needed to ne done. No one is rushing to reopen coalfields are they.

efb

We are not amused.

dan1895

Saw plans for the old bag's grave there recently. The dance floor is surprisingly small though.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A lot of the destruction that occurred was as a result of a strong union with an ego maniac leader. .......

So her decision to have the mines closed over the short term was his fault?

blackwhite

Biggins wrote: »

...And as for the Falklands war, unlike many modern countries that found themselves in similar 'brink of war' situations (and a lot after, even today), she held feck all peace talks too in trying to settle the matter communicably,

She just went in literally 'all guns blazing' .........

Some of us here actually lived through those era's quite well and remember them too in the finest of details.

For someone who remembers the era "in the finest of details" you seem to have a very tinted recollection of the Falklands conflict.
Argentina, not Britain, were the ones to go in with "all guns blazing" - they invaded South Georgia and followed up by invading the Falklands.
Prior to the invasion, the Argentine military junta took a negotiating position of "give us the islands or we will invade"
As for blaming Thatcher for not holding enough peace talks? Argentina invaded, and fired the first shots, not Britain.
When a violent and repressive military dictatorship invades your sovereign territory, do you really think that asking them nicely is going to get them to leave?

Thatcher was for the most part a despicable woman, but you're really letting your hatred of the woman show that you cannot be taken seriously on the point. Posting blatant mistruths only damages the credibility of anything else you post

biko

Tá gráin agam ar Thatcher fós

K-9

These days they riot and steal iPods and LCD TV's, a much more consumerist rioter these days. Thatcher was the start of that process and Blair continued it nicely, to be fair, not much left to strike over now.

ejmaztec

dan1895 wrote: »

Saw plans for the old bag's grave there recently. The dance floor is surprisingly small though.

She's decided to be buried at sea.

bogmonster

Just about sums it up......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmomV-ax-s

Biggins

blackwhite wrote: »

For someone who remembers the era "in the finest of details" you seem to have a very tinted recollection of the Falklands conflict.
Argentina, not Britain, were the ones to go in with "all guns blazing" - they invaded South Georgia and followed up by invading the Falklands.
Prior to the invasion, the Argentine military junta took a negotiating position of "give us the islands or we will invade"
As for blaming Thatcher for not holding enough peace talks? Argentina invaded, and fired the first shots, not Britain.
When a violent and repressive military dictatorship invades your sovereign territory, do you really think that asking them nicely is going to get them to leave?

Thatcher was for the most part a despicable woman, but you're really letting your hatred of the woman show that you cannot be taken seriously on the point. Posting blatant mistruths only damages the credibility of anything else you post

Argentina did indeed make the first move. A fool would be the first to say diffrent.
However when Kuwait was invaded by Sadam (JUST a single example), when other various countries in the last 100 years trespassed either by force or passive movement, into another's territorial zone - all efforts by international communities - even today - are and then were, to try holding talks first, to at least try and seek a more peaceful resolve before just reacting in a way that in less than mature way that others had done before her and since.
Her way was to just go in as I said "guns blazing" and not even try to hold/seek any serious peaceful resolutions first.
After all, it would have been the sensible thing to do - did she do it or at least try? No.
...And that stands against her further.

I'm NOT forgetting who instigated that mess in the Falklands or giving the culprits resolvability.
They paid for their actions and rightly so.
Thatcher with her then third/fourth(?) best world power in the world, should however have risen above the level of those she was (rightly) opposing and done the better thing/way at first, at least... but again, she didn't.

For the record, when Argentina did invade, there was very little shooting - if any at all?

Fratton Fred

When Argentina did invade there was no one to shoot against, except a handle of marines on a training exercise.

However, when the task force arrived, there were several thousand heavily armed Argentinians, in well dug in positions behind thousands of land mines.

There was never going to be a peaceful resolution.

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When Argentina did invade there was no one to shoot against, except a handle of marines on a training exercise.

However, when the task force arrived, there were several thousand heavily armed Argentinians, in well dug in positions behind thousands of land mines.

There was never going to be a peaceful resolution.

Well we will never know now, will we?
Magg's was entitled without question to react - but rather than being a better person and we know England can be when it wants and suits them, they have intervened or reacted previously and afterwards in many a conflict, primarily by peaceful talks alone first, seeking by any and all peaceful methods possible, to avoid conflict where possible.
She herself, didn't even give that opportunity a chance.
She treated the situation as she treated the unions and generally the public, hard and with the bullheadedness of a wrecking ball in a china shop, coming out swinging by first reaction.
Some things while emotionally right and one might feel like doing, are just still in mature terms still wrong.

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

Well we will never know now, will we?
Magg's was entitled without question to react - but rather than being a better person and we know England can be when it wants and suits them, they have intervened or reacted previously and afterwards in many a conflict, primarily by peaceful talks alone first, seeking by any and all peaceful methods possible, to avoid conflict where possible.
She herself, didn't even give that opportunity a chance.

the only chance of place was Argentina getting the f uck off the islands. They had already declined to do that.

I should add that the general feeling in the UK was that it would never come to blows and that the Argies would indeed clear off as soon as they realised Maggie meant business. As the task force got closer though, it became more obvious a war was going to happen.

Once it arrived, the task force wasn't going to bob around the south atlantic, it had to either set about its task or come home.

john reilly

Richard Hillman wrote: »

She was a terrorists and she tried blackmailing unions. The finest leader of my time. I'd kill Thatcher.

join the queue

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the only chance of place was Argentina getting the f uck off the islands. They had already declined to do that.

Well lets be honest, they were not going to do a quick u-turn at the first wiff of "Oi' you get outa here!" after building up their stocks, men, hardware, made invasion plans, etc.

john reilly

surely its only o.k for the u.k to invade other countries and not vice versa

Fratton Fred

john reilly wrote: »

surely its only o.k for the u.k to invade other countries and not vice versa

Ooh good, a comedian.

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

Well lets be honest, they were not going to do a quick u-turn at the first wiff of "Oi' you get outa here!" after building up their stocks, men, hardware, made invasion plans, etc.

surely the British weren't going to come home after sending a ducking great big task force 8000 miles.

mark_jmc

Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

surely the British weren't going to come home after sending a ducking great big task force 8000 miles.

That kind of thing tends to hang around and plague ye for years afterwards....

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

surely the British weren't going to come home after sending a ducking great big task force 8000 miles.

Well if they had, if any country had in a similar situation or in any war, millions alone would have been saved with the non-use of weapons - besides the saving of any further possible lives.
But as there was no even attempted serious talks, that didn't happen either.

Fratton Fred

Biggins wrote: »

Well if they had, if any country had in a similar situation or in any war, millions alone would have been saved with the non-use of weapons - besides the saving of any further possible lives.
But as there was no even attempted serious talks, that didn't happen either.

I agree, sitting around cross legged and smoking a fat one would have resolved the issue, but I'm not sure the Junta that had already made thousands "disappear" were really into that.

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I agree, sitting around cross legged and smoking a fat one would have resolved the issue, but I'm not sure the Junta that had already made thousands "disappear" were really into that.

True, said with justification - but we will never know.

bedrock#1

awec wrote: »

Absolute crap.

So you're denying that the ability of people to organise and unionise brought about these changes? Did they just fall from the sky ? Was the labour movement just a figment of the imagination ?