Petition to privatise Thatcher's funeral

ejmaztec · 21-12-2011 06:33PM

Batsy wrote: »

That happens to almost every victor in a British General Election. It is very rare that a party which wins a British General Election gets over 50% of the vote. So the fact that less than half of voters voted for Thatcher is irrelevant. When Blair won by a landslide in 1997 he got 43.2% of the votes.

You were trying to tell us that no-one hated her or she wouldn't have been elected three times. I know very well how the UK election system works, because I was born there and voted in it(never for Thatcher).

With the less than 50% of the vote, there were plenty left over hating her guts.

Fratton Fred · 21-12-2011 06:35PM

Nodin wrote: »

Since 1979.

Nothing to do with her policies of course. Everyone was for section 28, cosying up to pinochet, reagan etc.

There was plenty of dodgy legislation put through, but at the same time there was a militant left wing (remember Derek Hatton?) Who were doing equally stupid but directly opposite stunts.

Was cosying up to Reagan such a bad thing? According to an earlier poster he "forced" her to sign the Anglo Irish agreement which, whilst not perfect, was the forerunner to the GFA. This was also the height of the cold war.

As for Pinochet, well I think she had started to lose her marbles by then, which have now totally disappeared.

Nodin · 21-12-2011 06:36PM

Batsy wrote: »

That happens to almost every victor in a British General Election. It is very rare that a party which wins a British General Election gets over 50% of the vote. So the fact that less than half of voters voted for Thatcher is irrelevant. When Blair won by a landslide in 1997 he got 43.2% of the votes.

Its entirely relevant if somebody is claiming to have a popular majority mandate. Blair couldn't claim to be supported by a popular majority either.

Fratton Fred · 21-12-2011 06:38PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Of course Maggie can also be thanked for the UK's dependance on its financial services industry because she made it possible for international corporate asset-strippers to remove huge chunks of the UK's manufacturing industries.

Whilst also managing to persuade Toyota, Honda and Nissan to build factories in the UK rather than elsewhere in europe and turned Wales (yes, Wales) into the second largest producer of televisions in the world after Japan.

later12 · 21-12-2011 06:38PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But, ultimately, she let Bobby Sands die and as he is thought of as the Republican Baby Jesus, she has to be hated.

This is a stupid and a simplistic dismissal of Thatcher's opponents.

Lots of people, myself included, find such dismissals ludicrous, and would disagree that the IRA were in any way logically or ethically correct in their campaign.

You must recongnize that people have differences of opinion to what yours may be as regards Thatcher.

Personally, I dislike her record on human rights and I disagree with her economic philosophy; on neither of those issues has she ever been vindicated.

It is foolish and incorrect of you to dismiss criticisms of Thatcher on the basis that all of her critics must probably, effectively, be Shinners.

Fratton Fred · 21-12-2011 06:44PM

later10 wrote: »

This is a stupid and a simplistic dismissal of Thatcher's opponents.

Lots of people, myself included, find such dismissals ludicrous, and would disagree that the IRA were in any way logically or ethically correct in their campaign.

You must recongnize that people have differences of opinion to what yours may be as regards Thatcher.

Personally, I dislike her record on human rights and I disagree with her economic philosophy; on neither of those issues has she ever been vindicated.

It is foolish and incorrect of you to dismiss criticisms of Thatcher on the basis that all of her critics must probably, effectively, be Shinners.

I'm not writing people off as being shinners as much as writing people off for not actually knowing why they should hate her.

I accept that a lot of people will be able to logically argue why she was so bad but the majority won't, because they have no idea of what it is she did, other than let Bobby Sands die.

Look at the Falklands accusations, what did she do wrong there? An Argentinian dictatorship invaded a country under the protection of Britain and despite a UN resolution, refused to leave, so Thatcher arranged for military action to remove them, but hey Viv Las Malvinas bud.

Batsy · 21-12-2011 06:44PM

sensibleken wrote: »

the falklands

A very popular war, helping Thatcher to the biggest win in a General Election since the end of WWII. Why you perceive that to have been unpopular I have no idea.

unemployment doubled

The main job of any Conservative Government is to help fix the economy after it was broken under Labour rule. Not only was in the case when the Tories came to power in 2010 but it was also the case when they came to power in 1979. The year before, under Labour PM James Callaghan, saw the Winter of Discontent, during which there were many strikes due to Labour's policies. Binmen went on strike, leaving rubbish to pile up in the streets. Even gravediggers went on strike, leaving bodies to go unburied. This is why the Tories won in a landslide. The people wanted them to sort out the economic mess that Labour had created. And sort it out they did. In 1997 Britain had one of the healthiest and strongest economies in the world thanks to the Tories, leaving Labour to come along to ruin it. Now the Tories are back and having to clean up Labour's mess again.

northern ireland

The troubles there started way before Thatcher came along.

rich/poor divide increases

Under Blair the inequality gap was at its widest since 1978 - the last time Labour were in power before Blair.

dilallio · 21-12-2011 06:44PM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I just dont understand, with all the tyrant politicians we have, including our own, why she is singled out as a hate figure. I think it's because she's a woman and it makes people's masculinity uncomfortable to be honest, this is probably the root cause.

A woman!

Are you sure ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8C8BrLq-dA

Nodin · 21-12-2011 06:45PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There was plenty of dodgy legislation put through, but at the same time there was a militant left wing (remember Derek Hatton?) Who were doing equally stupid but directly opposite stunts. .

....but weren't in power, so it's really no big deal.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was cosying up to Reagan such a bad thing? .

That depends on where you stand on a man who sponsored some of the worst regimes in the area, and branded the ANC terrorists.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As for Pinochet, well I think she had started to lose her marbles by then, which have now totally disappeared.

In 1980 she lost her marbles?

ejmaztec · 21-12-2011 06:45PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Whilst also managing to persuade Toyota, Honda and Nissan to build factories in the UK rather than elsewhere in europe and turned Wales (yes, Wales) into the second largest producer of televisions in the world after Japan.

A lot of people didn't appreciate foreign industries moving into the country, not to mention the grants that went with them. Wasn't there a huge downturn in the Welsh TV manufacturing boom?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 21-12-2011 06:47PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Apart from one bloke in Bolton.:(

Yeah, there's always a ****ing rebel. My money's on Bertie Ahearne.

Batsy · 21-12-2011 06:47PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

You were trying to tell us that no-one hated her

No, I didn't. I was saying that not everybody hated her, as someone had said. If everybody hated her she wouldn't have won three general elections. She was incredibly popular after the Falklands War. She was loved, not hated.

Nodin · 21-12-2011 06:51PM

Batsy wrote: »

.............. She was loved, not hated.

....by some.

Zebra3 · 21-12-2011 06:53PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Was cosying up to Reagan such a bad thing?

Given he was sponsoring genocide in Nicaragua at the time, yes.

lawhec · 21-12-2011 06:57PM

Batsy wrote: »

Thatcher was not the Prime Minister of England. She was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

The highest she ever got in an election was 43.9%, in the 1979 General Election which brought her to power.

However, the 1983 General Election saw her get 42.4% of the vote, well ahead of second-placed Labour, led by Michael Foot, which got just 27.6% of the vote. This gave Thatcher an absolute landslide of a victory and the biggest win of any British political party in a General Election since Labour in 1945.

Although this was an easy victory for Thatcher. The British people had a choice between Margaret Thatcher, whose decision to take military action against the Argies the previous year led to the Falkland Islanders being liberated, or Labour's Michael Foot, the idiot who thought it was wise to attend the 1981 Remembrance Sunday commemorations wearing a donkey jacket. The British people went very much for the former.

Another major factor in the 1983 UK General Election was also the SDP/Liberal alliance which got over 25% of the vote, but could only translate it into 6 SDP and 17 Liberal seats; with approx 2% less of the share of the vote compared to Labour they ended up with 186 seats less than them. In many constituencies the non-Tory vote was split between Labour and the Alliance, allowing a Conservative candidate to be elected otherwise. At this time, Labour were perhaps at their most leftist since winning the 1945 General Election, and were it not for significant support in a number of their heartlands, would have suffered very heavy losses if the Alliance vote was better concentrated rather than spread across the country.

ejmaztec · 21-12-2011 07:05PM

Batsy wrote: »

No, I didn't. I was saying that not everybody hated her, as someone had said. If everybody hated her she wouldn't have won three general elections. She was incredibly popular after the Falklands War. She was loved, not hated.

She was probably loved by the Sun readers picture-lookers and a few yuppies, and pretty much hated by everyone else.

She was elected for the same reason that FG was elected here, and that was because there was no other choice.

later12 · 21-12-2011 07:08PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Look at the Falklands accusations, what did she do wrong there?...Thatcher arranged for military action to remove them, but hey Viv Las Malvinas bud.

I wasn't personally talking about the Falklands, although as it happens a UN resolution being ignored is not always a good reason to go to war.

Let me begin by asking you whether the deaths of almost 300 British men was worth it, and what you think Margaret Thatcher's decision to go to war in a country where its citizens were not even allowed full British citizenship, achieved for the United Kingdom?

lawhec · 21-12-2011 07:20PM

Batsy wrote: »

The main job of any Conservative Government is to help fix the economy after it was broken under Labour rule. Not only was in the case when the Tories came to power in 2010 but it was also the case when they came to power in 1979. The year before, under Labour PM James Callaghan, saw the Winter of Discontent, during which there were many strikes due to Labour's policies. Binmen went on strike, leaving rubbish to pile up in the streets. Even gravediggers went on strike, leaving bodies to go unburied. This is why the Tories won in a landslide. The people wanted them to sort out the economic mess that Labour had created. And sort it out they did. In 1997 Britain had one of the healthiest and strongest economies in the world thanks to the Tories, leaving Labour to come along to ruin it. Now the Tories are back and having to clean up Labour's mess again.

There seems to be a myth that the Conservatives "clean up" Labour economic mess, but that doesn't really explain the see-sawing between the two parties gaining power throughout the 50's to the 70's. The ERM fiasco in the early 90's itself harmed the reputation of the Tories as being a safe pair of hands when it came to the economy.

Also neither myself or anyone I know is convinced that had the Conservatives won the 2005 General Election under Michael Howard that they would have either done anything much different to what the Labour government did in that term, or changed regulations to help prevent the what eventually happened. Both parties are/were too much in awe of the financial industry to stop things running amok.

Thatcher took on the major vested interests of autocratic trade union leaderships and won, the only problem is that she left a legacy of another group of vested interests in their place residing in the City of London. I don't 'hate' Thatcher, but there is plenty of stuff to look at concerning her time in power that showed up the various faults she had. By the late 80's she became too drunk with power, felt she could remain PM even if she stood down as party leader, and was invincible. The Poll Tax riots were the final straw and a sign that she lost it.

bnt · 21-12-2011 07:21PM

The OP's post only makes sense if you assume Thatcher would have a State funeral, but that's not a certainty. Her immediate predecessor, James Callaghan, died in 2005, and hardly anyone outside his family and Whitehall noticed. He had a private funeral, which wasn't political - he was a Labour PM and Labour was in power in 2005.

Just as possible: Mrs. Thatcher might simply say no to a State funeral; would anyone want to argue with the Iron Lady, even post-mortem?

Killer Pigeon · 21-12-2011 07:26PM

I don't understand why people hate Thatcher so much. She was a confident leader, a defender of her nation's sovereignty and a bastion of liberal economics. If only we had a leader like her here in this day and age.

Killer Pigeon · 21-12-2011 07:28PM

It says I have to a British citizen to sign it ... stupid Irish rebels :mad:

InTheTrees · 21-12-2011 07:29PM

later10 wrote: »

Let me begin by asking you whether the deaths of almost 300 British men was worth it, and what you think Margaret Thatcher's decision to go to war in a country where its citizens were not even allowed full British citizenship, achieved for the United Kingdom?

Thats easy, perhaps you dont remember:

Oil

By retaining the Falklands (and south Georgia islands), the UK is a nation with a "legitimate" stake in Antarctica.

And no ones even sure how much oil there may be hidden down there.

If the UK had lost control of those islands it _could_ have forfeit its right to be a player in the region.

ejmaztec · 21-12-2011 07:29PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I don't understand why people hate Thatcher so much. She was a confident leader, a defender of her nation's sovereignty and a bastion of liberal economics. If only we hate a leader like her here in this day and age.

We generally do.

Sunnyisland · 21-12-2011 07:30PM

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

It says I have to a British citizen to sign it ... stupid Irish rebels :mad:

ItsAWindUp · 21-12-2011 07:30PM

Thread needs more Morrissey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsq3H_6XuFA

KeithAFC · 21-12-2011 07:30PM

Will be a sad day when she passes. Will have a minutes silence for her and the flag at half mast.

ItsAWindUp · 21-12-2011 07:31PM

KeithAFC wrote: »

Will be a sad day when she passes. Will have a minutes silence for her and the flag at half mast.

Really? A few people have other ideas to mark the occasion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4BCUWopQQ4

21-12-2011 07:33PM

Seanchai wrote: »

And Blair, lest we forget, in the GFA did something positive for Ireland with regard to Ireland's British problem. This doesn't negate his record as a liar, a murderer and a stooge of Bush.

For Ireland, Thatcher, on the other hand, did nothing positive - she had to be forced into signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, primarily by her "friend" Ronald Reagan and her senior civil servants.

I know, but compared to Thatcher he was good.

21-12-2011 07:36PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most of the people here who hate her weren't even born when she was in power, its just trendy to hate Thatcher.

But, ultimately, she let Bobby Sands die and as he is thought of as the Republican Baby Jesus, she has to be hated.

She did much worse than letting one person, MP or no MP die. It does not matter when you were born it is easy to see she was not a good person.

later12 · 21-12-2011 07:38PM

bnt wrote: »

Just as possible: Mrs. Thatcher might simply say no to a State funeral; would anyone want to argue with the Iron Lady, even post-mortem?

Eh yes, Thatcher's 'defiance' is grossly overstated.

Secondly, she has reportedly been part of the planning process for her own state funeral, so it appears she certainly does want it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2072716/Margaret-Thatcher-approves-plans-funeral-St-Pauls-Cathedral.html

Petition to privatise Thatcher's funeral

Comments