Petition to privatise Thatcher's funeral

The line of people waiting to dance and piss on her grave will exceed the number of mourners when the miserable old bat finally and happily kicks the bucket. May even fly over myself and vacate my bowls on her grave for what her policies did to my family over there.

On the subject of the Falklands War, if you believe some of the conspiracy talk that goes on, the Thatcher Government tried to engineer a situation where the islands were to be prime for an invasion by an Argentine Junta desperate to distract from domestic economic problems. There were plans the year before to scale down British naval defences in the South Atlantic which would have left the Falklands pretty much defenceless. Therefore Argentina takes the Falklands, the UK fights back, hopefully winning, and Thatcher gets the "wartime leader" rub-off among a population many of whom still remembered WWII and a few old enough to still remember when Britain had the world's biggest empire. This went with Thatcher's beliefs of a Victorian moral code that strongly emphasised British patriotism that aligned itself with the working classes (then still a significant section of the population). Before April 1982, the Conservatives were unpopular and were an election took place beforehand, she would have likely lost. Not to Labour, but to the SDP/Liberal Alliance whom at the time were riding high in the polls.

Personally I don't have a strong opinion on the Falklands issue; I can see the claims from both the UK and Argentina having some legitimacy and round table disputes are better than seeing lives being lost.

Funnily enough the Falklands War more or less led to the USA abandoning the Monroe Doctrine, and whatever was left was burned away in the Iran-Contra affair.

Without Thatcher, there'd be no British state left to pay for a funeral for their ex-prime-ministers.

That argument is along the lines of that if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. Had the Conservatives lost the 83 election, there is nothing to say that a different government having different plans be it only small changes or a vastly different turn would not have led to the economy of Britain making a similar recovery. Were the SDP/Liberals to have been ultimately successful even as a minority bloc they would have been to the left of the Conservatives but unlike Labour would have no bidding to do to the trade unions. Had Labour won, even allowing for the "longest suicide note in history" they probably would have sold off some state assets or be open to some privatisation; monetarist policy in the UK was not introduced by Thatcher but by the last Labour Chancellor beforehand, Denis Healey. She simply accelerated it and it wasn't an immediate success. Other European countries which at the time also had economic problems e.g. France which seen governments in their countries take different and successful approaches. Australia under Hawke was able to bring in similar measures while still keeping the unions attached to the party happy.

Someone I know who is very cynical about the cycle of British politics said to me that concerning modern political history in the country, "Labour damage the country's economy, Conservatives damage the country's social fabric".

AeoNGriM wrote: »

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

I don't think it is, I think the idea of a stern strong woman in power frightens men and seems to start all this chest beating and rabbling that goes on when she's mentioned.

You're talking complete sh!te out of that arse you call a face. Shut the fcuk up.

Not angry eh?

This and other posts of yours would demonstrate otherwise...

I hate the bitch but yep, she wouldn't get half as much abuse if she were a man.

Dudess wrote: »

I need some attention. How to get it... Hmmm... I love Margaret Thatcher!

Yes yes, anyone who disagrees with you is just looking for attention. Well spotted.

It would be hard to get staff in for the day of the funeral, everyone will be so upset.

Galtieri took the Union Jack
And Maggie over lunch one day
took a cruiser with all hands
Apparently to make him give it back.

Dudess wrote: »

I hate the bitch but yep, she wouldn't get half as much abuse if she were a man.

Oh really?

How do you know this?

Apart from being nothing more than conjecture, that suggestion would still only be valid if the British public are equally as intolerant of a stupid woman as they are of a stupid man.

And I'm not sure that is the case.

It is quite possible, that a society would not have accepted the sort of increases in poverty - most particularly child poverty - in Britain had it arisen from the policies of a most singleminded, Oxford educated, Conservative male.

Similarly, Thatcher's government was particularly hard on mothers, and it is possible that the fact that she was a woman mitigated criticisms of sexism or insensitivity to mothers, since she herself was not just a woman, but a mother.

It is also possible that British society would have been far more critical of the war in the Falklands had it been perpetrated by a bellicose, old fashioned Conservative man determined to preserve "the land of hope and glory".

In many ways, it is possible to argue that once she was in office, Thatcher's gender actually insulated her, and won her an automatic level of respect or admiration that would not have existed for a male in her position.

The suggestion that Thatcher would not get half as much abuse were she a man is a groundless one, because she has no male equivalent in modern times.

But it is also groundless because it is impossible to say whether Thatcher would have gotten away with half as much were she a man.

1986 Never forget. No surrender etc.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

1986 Never forget. No surrender etc.

oh yes, the hand of god.

I was particularly embarrassed by the mass protests, the march to the FA headquarters and, most of all, the embarrassing way the FA pleaded with FIFA to allow England to continue in the world cup despite losing. I believe they even suggested to FIFA that they make the semi finals a five team affair.:eek:

cringeworthy