Hidalgo wrote: » While goods were imported to both Irl and the UK form South Africa, she went a bit further than Irish Taoiseach's by labeling Mandela a terrorist.
Happyman42 wrote: » Depending on where you live of course. She 'improved' things by making the rich richer and the poor poorer. That is why she is still reviled to this very day, and it is that revulsion which illuminates her failure. Her death should have been that of a benign retiree whose influence had long faded but her influence and effect has not faded...hence the hatred and objection to the pathetic attempts to elevate her to the status of a 'good leader'. You cannot witness what is happening as a result of her death and come to that conclusion with any shred of credibility.
wonderfullife wrote: » But....Mandela was, for part of his life, a terrorist. He co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) and masterminded the attacks on Dec 16th, 1961 where 57 bombings took place in one day. When Margaret Thatcher referred to him as a 'terrorist', it would be no different from anyone in 1997 (or even today) referring to Martin McGuinness as a terrorist. You can renounce violence and become a politician, no problem, but the past doesn't always disappear in everyones mind. For some, McGuinness will always be a terrorist. That's just life.
AEDIC wrote: » She described the ANC as 'a typical terrorist organisation' up to the point it dropped it campaign of violence. From that point on she openly and on many occasions pressed for the release of Mandela from incarceration and used it as a condition in many of the dealings with the SA govt at the time. On his release in 1990 Mandela himself said 'We regard the attitude of the British Government on the question of sanctions as of primary importance ... My release from prison was the direct result of the people inside and outside South Africa. It was also the result of the immense pressure exerted on the South African Government by the international community, in particular from the people of the UK.' Taking events out of context and forgetting other events of the time dont make for a convincing history lesson.
Hidalgo wrote: » After he had given up all hope that peaceful resistance would bring an end to the apartheid system of government in SA. His aim was sabotage not death (pretty naive when you deal in bombs, people will die). Its understandable why he chose such a path. Of course, the founding fathers of America would also be terrorists.
wonderfullife wrote: » On the contrary, it is very very credible to reach the conclusion the UK is a far better place in 2013 than 1979. In fact, any other conclusion is a nonsense. The wealth imbalance and rich-poor divide has grown exponentially in most western capitalist democracies. In 1979, the UK was an unmanageable country, the poor were still poor, there were far less rich due to the taxation measures. Anyone with money was getting out. Today the basic standard of living across the board is good compared to 1979, the rich have got richer, yes, the poor have got richer, comparatively. The fact of the matter is the gap between rich and poor has widened. If you look at the cold hard figures, you're far better off being poor in 2013 UK than you were in 1979. As for the geographic divide, the north-south wedge has deepened and widened, no doubt. I've family in both regions, in Hull and Bradford and in London and Oxford. But even Hull in 2013 is in a much better state than it was when i first visited in the early-80s as a child.
wonderfullife wrote: » 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. It wasn't the case of one or two being snaffled up; up to a third of them are now in the hands of landlords with more to eventually follow. You have five million on the waiting list for houses while the government pays exorbitant rents to landlords in the form of housing subsidy for homes that used to be state owned. The fact that many of these are wealthy Tories themselves is the worst kind of opportunism. Much of the housing crisis today could have been alleviated if she hadn't sold off public assets which were later scavenged by the rich to the detriment of the ordinary worker today. 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. This happened all over Europe. It happened in Britain itself largely because of Labour initiatives on women only shortlists. In short, it happened in spite of Thatcher, not because of her. If anything she set the role of women in general back due to the fact her polices made it extremely difficult to pursue a career outside the home. 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"). Eh, you don't need to tell me about the malign role of the US either. I'm fully aware of that fact as well thanks. Thatcher was one of Pinochet's most prominent allies, fact. She also supported Reagan's global initiatives which included attempting to topple people's governments in Central America as well as funding death squads. I think her only problem with his invasion of Grenada was that he didn't ask her first.
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.
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.
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").
Happyman42 wrote: » Almost all of Europe and the west has seen exactly the same improvements in living standards. You are gilding her lily like all the other revisionists. Thatcher caused division and social strife and has rightfully imo never been forgotten for it.
wonderfullife wrote: » By 1979 when she came to power, there was a consensus that the UK had become "ungovernable". You had epidemic striking, riots, even people working by candlelight because there was no power. Inflation running in the double digits, taxation incredible, basically no private sector to speak of. It's hard to underestimate what an absolute shambles the country was in. If you look at the country today, not everything is peachy (it's never peachy in any time) but it's chalk and cheese from 1979. It's easy to trot out the anti-liverpool, anti-working class rhetoric now but of the time the country was gone to the dogs. Almost literally. Rubbish bags piling up in the streets because bin-men were on strike. Dead bodies laying around mortuarys as they couldn't be buried. People not getting to work due to epidemic rail strikes. People can easily disagree with many of her policies, or even the manner in which she implemented them, but without a politician like her the country would be in bits. It needed someone to do something drastic and she did it. Drastic change will never be popular. For all its existing failings, the UK of today is in a pretty decent place. In 1979 it was literally on its knees.
FTA69 wrote: » wonderfullife wrote: » It wasn't the case of one or two being snaffled up; up to a third of them are now in the hands of landlords with more to eventually follow. You have five million on the waiting list for houses while the government pays exorbitant rents to landlords in the form of housing subsidy for homes that used to be state owned. The fact that many of these are wealthy Tories themselves is the worst kind of opportunism. Much of the housing crisis today could have been alleviated if she hadn't sold off public assets which were later scavenged by the rich to the detriment of the ordinary worker today. This happened all over Europe. It happened in Britain itself largely because of Labour initiatives on women only shortlists. In short, it happened in spite of Thatcher, not because of her. If anything she set the role of women in general back due to the fact her polices made it extremely difficult to pursue a career outside the home.Eh, you don't need to tell me about the malign role of the US either. I'm fully aware of that fact as well thanks. Thatcher was one of Pinochet's most prominent allies, fact. She also supported Reagan's global initiatives which included attempting to topple people's governments in Central America as well as funding death squads. I think her only problem with his invasion of Grenada was that he didn't ask her first. You're clearly not fully aware of the facts as your previous post suggested Thatcher was a key supporter of Pinochets overthrow of Allende, which is clearly a false statement. She was a lowly education minister at the time and had no dealings with Pinochet until the 1980s. Almost a full decade after the CIA got involved.
wonderfullife wrote: » It wasn't the case of one or two being snaffled up; up to a third of them are now in the hands of landlords with more to eventually follow. You have five million on the waiting list for houses while the government pays exorbitant rents to landlords in the form of housing subsidy for homes that used to be state owned. The fact that many of these are wealthy Tories themselves is the worst kind of opportunism. Much of the housing crisis today could have been alleviated if she hadn't sold off public assets which were later scavenged by the rich to the detriment of the ordinary worker today. This happened all over Europe. It happened in Britain itself largely because of Labour initiatives on women only shortlists. In short, it happened in spite of Thatcher, not because of her. If anything she set the role of women in general back due to the fact her polices made it extremely difficult to pursue a career outside the home.Eh, you don't need to tell me about the malign role of the US either. I'm fully aware of that fact as well thanks. Thatcher was one of Pinochet's most prominent allies, fact. She also supported Reagan's global initiatives which included attempting to topple people's governments in Central America as well as funding death squads. I think her only problem with his invasion of Grenada was that he didn't ask her first.
jam_mac_jam wrote: » very true on the problems in 1979, however economies are cyclical and I doubt that the UK would have remained in the state it was in 1979 today whoever got in. The world had economic problems not just Britian. The world had an economic boom in the 80's which would have happened was she there or not. Keynesism was falling out of favour because of high inflation all over the world. The unions did hold too much power at the time, however I think some of her economic policies were ideologically based rather then economics. Otherwise why was military spending so high when she agreed with cutting public spending. I don't agree with her methods, they were too quick and there was too much de regulation, the recent problems with the banks illustrate this. I would not be of the subsidise every industry to keep it alive or keep all welfare high but I think she went too far too quickly with little regard for human cost.
wonderfullife wrote: » But....Mandela was, for part of his life, a terrorist. He co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) and masterminded the attacks on Dec 16th, 1961 where 57 bombings took place in one day.
wotzgoingon wrote: » I'm glad she is dead. I could never stand her voice. Went right through me like a dagger through the back.
wonderfullife wrote: » Look, i'm not a fan boy of Maggie by any means.
wonderfullife wrote: » She had dementia and hadn't spoken in public in donkeys years..... but whatever keeps you happy!
donfers wrote: » lol your million posts seeking to justify her policies and put a nice revisionist spin on her legacy say otherwise
jank wrote: » I knew her death would have a bit of a reaction but I am very taken aback by the vile that many ill informed people have about her. Apparently every single issue in Britain today she is at fault for...:rolleyes: Street parties celebrating a death of a democratically elected PM? I think it says a lot about these people and more about their politics. She is accused of lacking humanity, well where is their humanity? She was had an iron will and she was right more often than not. Made mistakes of course but I will leave you with three facts. She had the foresight to see that a single common currency in Europe would be a disaster.Top tax rate in 1979, 83% !! :eek: Top tax rate in 1990, 40% Lastly, Labour had to re-invent itself as 'new' Labour embracing the free and open market to win power under Tony Blair in 1997 and they even went further with policies she initiated in the 80's.
extra gravy wrote: » I don't think Gerry Adams is in any position to call her or anyone else "shameful" considering his own actions in the past.
Martin McGuinness calls for halt to Thatcher celebrations Martin McGuinness has called on people not to celebrate the death of Baroness Thatcher. Street parties were held in republican parts of Londonderry and West Belfast following the former prime minister's death. Mr McGuinness, Sinn Fein's Deputy First Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly, tweeted: "Resist celebrating the death of Margaret Thatcher. She was not a peacemaker but it is a mistake to allow her death to poison our minds."
wonderfullife wrote: » i don't know how to count the posts but i've only posted on these threads around 50 times. Defending a person against unfair criticism isn't the same as being a fan.
grenache wrote: » crushing the unions who at the time controlled the country to its economic detriment. The unions were single handedly responsible for Britain's economic crisis of the mid 1970s. I mean jesus the IMF had to come in to rescue the country.
grenache wrote: » Production was at an all time low, there were strikes every second week and power outages were common. Thatcher changed all this. Yes she probably went too far but she obviously thought the unions and Scargill had to be defeated for the betterment of the country as a whole.
grenache wrote: » I also feel she was 100% correct to defend the Falklands from Argentine aggression. The island's inhabitants have continually voted to remain a British Overseas Territory, they were never even Argentina's to begin with. It was a wholly illegal invasion and Britain was more than within its rights to fight it.
freddiek wrote: » the fawning Anglophile lackeys are very busy on this thread. I'm with Galloway on this one.http://redmolucca.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/tramp-the-dirt-down/
Zebra3 wrote: » So why didn't she call Saddam a terrorist while he was gassing innocent civilians by the thousand instead of being his mate?
end of the road wrote: » no she wasn't, argentina were right to invade and should have removed the people from there by force, the people only vote to remain british because britain continues to defend them for nothing in return, the taking over of the falklands by argentina was right and just, and britain had no right to waste money and lives for these 2 little islands.
Happyman42 wrote: » How is the criticism unfair? It is not us out on the streets of Britain burning her effigy.They are not burning effigies of Callaghan, Heath or any other former leader. Almost every country in Europe was in one sort of a crisis or other in the 80's all of them came through it and built better off societies, Thatcher failed because she didn't manage to do it without also causing the hate and revulsion and social division. She was not a 'good leader' and can never be called that for those reasons.
