Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

true wrote: »

I have never been to South America but do realise that those banging on about civil rights there are the same people who advocate the civil rights of the ten hunger strikers, and who would give a very one sided explanation of the troubles in N.I. to a south American audience, which would be very far from the truth. If you are a player on the world stage sometimes you make wrong decisions, or decisions which seemed to be for the greater good at the time. Mrs T was know as a very hard worker ( 4 hours sleep a night - she was still working at 2 or 3 am when the PIRA tried to bomb her in Brighton ). If she had not the distraction of the PIRA trying to kill her and her employees, I am sure she could have diverted time and resources elsewhere.
As JF Kennedy said, ask not what your country can do for you, but what u can do for your country. Mrs T was of the same mindset.

Fascinating, with JFK using text speak too.

FTA69 wrote: »

Like supporting murdering tyrants. Sure tis grand like we're only human. You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs/disappearing a few thousand people etc.

And yet many of those pontificating about Thatcher were quite happy to get in to bed with the bastion of civil liberty that was Colonel Gaddaffi.

FTA69 wrote: »

I think Stalin was a great man. He took on the Kulaks in Russia who were holding back modernisation of the country and while it wasn't pleasant, and he may have been a bit overzealous, the Kulak class needed to be faced down. While it was a hard period for everyone, it was clear that it worked. Russia went from being backward and agricultural to a nuclear power. He provided jobs, electricity and medical care to millions of Russians who never had that before. He was also fearless and cut through the bullsh*t, we could do with a politician like him today. He took Russia back on to the international stage again and the unfortunate reality is that when you're a major player you sometimes make mistakes. That's the cold hard reality of international relations folks.

He also took on Hitler and won the Second World War because he refused to acquiesce to Nazi demands. It was the Red Army that broke the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad and rolled back the German invasion. It was the biggest turning point of the war and it is fair to say it was the Soviets who did the most to defeat Hitler. Fair play to them. He was also a tireless grafter with his light in the Kremlin being the last to be switched off.

That's why he remains one of Russia's most popular leaders ever.

Trolling really doesn't suit you.

FTA69 wrote: »

And what relevance has that regarding the issue Thatcher sold arms to Suharto and supported Pinochet? Are you unable to judge that for what it is without whataboutery?

Oh no, I was appalled by her closeness to Pinochet, it was one of those nasty cold war relationships that most country's had.

I just like to point out hypocrisy when I see it.

FTA69 wrote: »

Consider it an example of how language can be manipulated to suit a person's agenda despite many uncomfortable realities staring them in the face.

"Champion of Liberty" supports brutal regime gets dressed up as "she made a few mistakes and hard decisions on the international stage."

Dining with the same dictator years after the Cold War and his actions are well known is phrased as "she had to make a few unsavoury allies in the struggle against Soviet domination."

It's weasal words and it's crap. The reason people are doing it is because her support for Suharto etc shatters the notion she stood for justice and freedom because she clearly didn't.

What harm sure, only a few thousand Chileans. Sure aren't they always killing each other out that direction?

I wouldn't disagree. She was a woman of her time, but her time in power went on too long. She should have gone earlier, because her last term and that of john Majors will only be remembered as being the death knell of a greedy corrupt power drunk government.

And I blame Neil Kinnock for that.

FTA69 wrote: »

I haven't read the last few pages of this thread but will make a few points on some of the more spurious statements of praise about Thatcher.

1) The Right to Buy

This is constantly held up as a positive aspect of her legacy but a cursory look at the housing situation in Britain will tell you it was a disaster for working class people today. Up to a third of the houses which were sold are now being rented out, far from creating a situation of home-ownership all it did was create a new class of landlords. The son of the housing minister at the time, Ian Gow, himself owns ninety former council properties in London alone which are rented out for premium rents. Many of these council properties are owned by rental firms who are registered in places like the Caymans etc and as such pay little or no tax. Meanwhile there are five million people on the housing waiting list and rents are through the roof.

Thatcher's housing scheme transfered a valuable public asset in the form of housing into private hands which has now been concentrated in the hands of the rich. The fact that key Tories have benefited financially is even more nauseating.

2) "Trailblazer for women"

This has to be the most ridiculous reason for praising Thatcher, more often than not made by people who seem to think woman = good without actually having a clue what she stood for. While she may have attained the position of Prime Minister she most certainly pulled the ladder up after her so to speak. She was economically liberal but when it came to social matters she was still an old school conservative Tory. Thatcher cut child benefit, she made absolutely no investment into childcare and those women who managed to pursue a career, she criticised for raising a "creche generation". She promoted ZERO women to cabinet and did nothing to address the issue of wider female representation in politics. She described feminism as "a poison."

Worked wonders for women indeed.

3) "Defender of Democracy"

When the democratic government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a right wing coup led by Augusto Pinochet, Thatcher was one of his main international backers. So many people were seized by Pinochet's forces in the aftermath they had to contain them to a stadium where activists, politicians, journalists and musicians were systematically tortured and executed. We've had some eejits try and justify her standpoint as real-politik in the face of the Cold War, but that doesn't explain how she'd invite him for afternoon tea in London up until a few years ago.

Her support for the Chilean dictatorship is arguably one of the bigger issues of her toxic legacy, and one that her supporters have yet to address bar a few platitudes along the lines of "errah sure she made a few mistakes like."

1. Nobody will ever argue the right to buy was an unqualified success. Neither was it an unmitigating failure. She allowed council tenants the right to buy. Under all available data, 1 million TENANTS bought their own homes. That's 1 million existing families who bought their own homes under the scheme and 1 million families (much like my own growing up) who would never have had a chance to do such a thing.

That's a positive thing. The fact some rich people got richer as a by-product of the scheme is nothing new. It happens everywhere, even this country. The rich, the developers, the builders, they will always seize opportunities to snaffle up lots of property.

2. Maggie fulfilled a Queen Bee role. She got to the top and did very little to promote other women to positions of power. That's a clear personal negative to her character.

However, in being a woman itself and in reaching the dizzy heights of Prime Minister, she empowered a whole generation of women to show them it COULD be achieved. Previously to this, the idea a woman could be PM of the country was a fairy story. She showed with enough skill and determination people of any gender could reach the top of the tree.

So, again, the act itself of reaching PM is a huge positive in a male dominated era. The Tory party had (i believe) 13 female MPs in 1979. By 2010 they had 50+. It was 13 out of 344 in 1979 and now it's something like 50 out of 270. It's progress.

3. Finally, your attempts to overplay her role in supporting Pinochet are admirable. I highlighted in bold your quote about Thatcher being one of Pinochets main supporters in the overthrow of Allende.

Pinochet overthrew Allende in 1973. At the time Margaret Thatcher was Education Secretary in the Conservative Party. Moreover, she was on thin ice with Heath ready to sack her over the Milk Snatching fallout.

You're trying to tell me from the position of Education Secretary she was one of Pinochets main supporters in overthrowing Allende? LOL.

Here's the reality: from 1971 the CIA was financing and supporting Pinochet, providing him with weapons, intelligence and material support. This was very much intergral to the overthrow of Allende. From 1973-1980 the CIA continued to support Pinochet, to the extent that many of the Generals were informants.

Maggies role in the Pinochet story really has no relevance. It's a distasteful support for the man based almost solely on the help Pinochet offered the UK in the Falklands War.

If anyone should be ashamed of their actions it's the USA and even they refused to apologise for it (President Obama was asked to apologise and he refused saying "we need to learn from the past").