Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Grandpa Hassan · 14-04-2013 08:02PM

I suspect that Maggie would not have minded the hatred, the death parties and the ding-dong song one little bit. This is a direct quote from her:

I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding, because I think, well, if they attack one personally it means they have not a single political argument left

md23040 · 14-04-2013 08:05PM

Nodin wrote: »

Ye'd be hard pushed to find one thats been in so many though.

Can you give me a top ten, just interested to know.

We'll say Chile is a given.

Nodin · 14-04-2013 08:12PM

md23040 wrote: »

Can you give me a top ten, just interested to know.

We'll say Chile is a given.

Section 28 the North, the mines, Apartheid, cheerleader for Ronnie, poll tax supporting the khmer rouge ....off the top of me head.

Zebra3 · 14-04-2013 08:36PM

Nodin wrote: »

Section 28 the North, the mines, Apartheid, cheerleader for Ronnie, poll tax supporting the khmer rouge ....off the top of me head.

Supporting Saddam gassing civilians, cosying upto the Saudi dictators so her son could make millions in kickbacks from arms deals, supporting loyalist terrorists, clamping down on human rights in Britain....

md23040 · 14-04-2013 09:08PM

Nodin wrote: »

Section 28 the North, the mines, Apartheid, cheerleader for Ronnie, poll tax supporting the khmer rouge ....off the top of me head.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Supporting Saddam gassing civilians, cosying upto the Saudi dictators so her son could make millions in kickbacks from arms deals, supporting loyalist terrorists, clamping down on human rights in Britain....

Just trying to understand the basis for the hatred. So is it fair to say most people have gripes to do with foreign policy rather than economic issues/decisions taken?

Sorry to pick and choose but re poll tax - was this not replaced with local council taxes that were not repelled by any future administrations? What was the difference?

Re the mines -should they have been continually heavily subsidised considering AFAIK in 1984 British coal made a pre-tax loss of £480million even with the government subsidies of £220 million (not indexed to today’s moneys).

Coal was losing more and more money on a yearly basis (same as Steel and Shipbuilders), and Scargill policy was no mine should be closed until the last tonne was extracted. How should it have been handled? Just interested in your POV. Should they have remained open?

Also do you think the UK was more of a meritocracy pre 1979 or post 1991 i.e were the working classes more liberated throughout the entire UK or not?

Also are there any UK Prime Ministers or governments from the present bunch going back in any time without much of an umblemished record in international matters or foreign policy?

Thanks...

Zebra3 · 14-04-2013 09:13PM

md23040 wrote: »

Just trying to understand the basis for the hatred.

Well maybe read again what you quoted above, or are those policies ok with you?

true · 14-04-2013 09:13PM

md23040 wrote: »

In the history of Prime Ministers, Presidents etc that have been in power for near ten years, has there ever been one not embroiled in some sort of distasteful controversy?

Mrs T. was proved correct in her fights against the likes of the PIRA ( who killed her friends and colleagues ), against Gadaffi and his regime, against the invading military junta of Argentina, responsible for more "disappeared than even the PIRA), against her adversaries in the cold war ( Gorbachev looked up to her and admired her in the end )....and against the looney leftie trade unions ( its noteworthy that Labour when in power done nothing for the miners etc ). So what real, substantial controversy can you possibly hurl against one of the greatest world leaders of the 20th century?

charlemont · 14-04-2013 09:18PM

There must have been a frenzy below in Hell when the news broke of her death..

Playboy · 14-04-2013 09:40PM

Imo a lot of people on here with leftist leanings hate her for no other reason than through second hand myths perpetuated by extremist socialists whom she destroyed. Fair enough us Irish can have our issues with her over the north but to be banging on about coal mining is a little bit ridiculous. On the UK question time the other night a lot of the stuff being spouted in the left wing media was debunked. She didn't deregulate the city for one. She broke the power of unions who wouldn't negotiate, who brought down legitimate governments and who wouldn't work towards a consensual solution to the issues. If you speak to people who lived in Britain at the time will tell you of rubbish being piled high on the streets, 3 day working weeks, no power, dead bodies not being buried. Truly horrendous stuff and in an environment where inflation was rampant eating up everyone's savings. Britain couldn't afford to keep subsidising unprofitable industries in a newly global market. Yes she did close industries too quickly but hindsight is a great thing and it's easy to criticise the person who makes the hard decisions.

Britain became a meritocracy because of Thatcher and I'm glad I live in a country where that is the status quo. All political parties today including Labour believe in a society based on a version of Thatcher's ideals (free market)... the days of socialism are long gone and no one wants them back.

In relation to her geopolitics well she was no saint but she put Britain's interests first like most leaders do. It was a different time and era and the world under the veil of the cold war was a very different place. Most people on here won't have any idea what it was like, even I in my thirties have a recollection of the fear of war at the time and that was as a child in the 80's. She wasn't perfect but Britain is a better place for her imo.

People in the old industrial north will be bitter, change is never easy on the people who suffer but Thatcher isn't to blame for the world changing. People use the example of Germany and think somehow Britain would have turned out like Germany if the transition was managed better but that is neither here nor there. More likely we would be closer to France where the economy is about to implode and who are struggling under the weight of heavily unionised (and subsidised) industries whose only concern is their own interests and not for the wider economy.

People are not entitled to a certain standard of living anymore just because they live in the West. The world has changed and its survival of the fittest. Europe is going through its greatest ever challenge at the moment and only the countries who embrace the challenge of changing will survive. Britain is better placed than most because of Thatcher imo.

Rascasse · 14-04-2013 09:47PM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Supporting Saddam gassing civilians

You're being disingenuous. UK helped Iraq at the time of the Iran-Iraq war at the request of the Yanks. The target for any help was Iran not Kurds. It was typical 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' stuff for Reagan with predicatble results.

Zebra3 wrote: »

cosying upto the Saudi dictators so her son could make millions in kickbacks from arms deals,

The Saudi arms deal was, and is, incredibly important to the UK and many EU countries. I don't think it's that big a deal if a salesman get a few million commission from a deal worth tens of billions.

Zebra3 wrote: »

supporting loyalist terrorists,

As far as I'm aware no inquiry has found any evidence of a government conspiracy of collusion. Instead, it was a case of local state forces colluding with loyalists.

Zebra3 wrote: »

clamping down on human rights in Britain....

Again this is debatable. Whilst a backbencher she voted to legalise abortion and decriminalise homosexuality. In government she enacted PACE after lessons learned from Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6.

If you mean Section 28, it wasn't anything to do with her (it was introduced by backbenchers), but she did give it parliamentary time. How much of an affect it had on the human rights of the LGBT I don't know. It certainly didn't criminalise anything.

Hootanany · 14-04-2013 09:49PM

Her Grandmother was from Kenmere Co Kerry that was kept quite or I could be wrong

Dyr · 14-04-2013 10:26PM

Playboy wrote: »

Imo a lot of people on here with leftist leanings hate her for no other reason than through second hand myths perpetuated by extremist socialists whom she destroyed.

How old were you when thatcher got the boot? Ten? And you're ****ing on about revisionism? :rolleyes:

end of the road · 14-04-2013 11:07PM

true wrote: »

Yes the British pm would be justified in having tea with our TD for Louth, who is widely believed to have been the leader of the PIRA in Belfast and the abduction of Jean McColville , and ironically her disappearance in Co. Louth.

no evidence to support that at all, just made up lies to blacken his name

Happyman42 · 14-04-2013 11:08PM

true wrote: »

Its nothing to do with the Americans. The Falkland islanders had a referendum there and all but three people voted to stay with the UK. The UK and US have a special bond and special relationshiip in worldwide affairs going back generations so do not let the cuurent administration in the White house fool you - they have other, bigger problems to worry about, as has the average American.

I used to think you where naive, now I know you are just plain old stupid.
Without America, Britain has the world influence of Ireland or Belgium.
America need South America onside and that will only become more pressing. Come another push from Argentina and the British will do what they are told and what they have considered doing on many occaisions, (including the last time)...sell out the Falklanders, who are just pawns in battle of control of the route to resources.

end of the road · 14-04-2013 11:13PM

true wrote: »

The Falkland islanders had a referendum there and all but three people voted to stay with the UK.

of course they did, they get free defense thanks to the british tax payer who should actually be the ones to decide whether the falklanders should remain british or not, the falklanders should be told to get lost, they have leached enough off britain who in turn has enough social wellfare dependants without the falklands leaches as well.

true wrote: »

The UK and US have a special bond and special relationshiip in worldwide affairs going back generations

america would turn on britain if they needed to

mr.correct · 14-04-2013 11:18PM

she was a horrible old Cun# and she detested the Irish people even denouncing her great great grandmother who was from cork she said she had British blood running through her when asked to comment about her grandmother completely refused to answer the question I could talk on this subject all night and it Will all boil down to the fact she was a horrible old Cun#

Playboy · 14-04-2013 11:27PM

Bambi wrote: »

How old were you when thatcher got the boot? Ten? And you're ****ing on about revisionism? :rolleyes:

lol nice contribution... that the limit of your involvement in the debate? Or do you just like to trot out one liners because your knowledge of most issues is extremely limited?

I'm not the one with an agenda here trying to paint a picture of a tyrant when in fact she was a democratically elected leader who won three terms of office. Most of the allegations against Thatcher simply don't stand up to scrutiny. People get a bee in their bonnet about certain issues because it plays into their own political agenda whether that is republicans or socialists or both. All of a sudden the internet is full of experts who lap up whatever BS the rags dream up. As I said have a look at the most recent UK Question Time and you will see most of these myths get debunked by politicians who were there. The lefts issue with Thatcher looks ridiculously petty and it still does. People still hankering after a socialist state in the West... mostly layabouts who cant be arsed to make something of themselves so decide to moan about other peoples success.

Happyman42 · 14-04-2013 11:32PM

Playboy wrote: »

mostly layabouts who cant be arsed to make something of themselves so decide to moan about other peoples success.

People with an 'agenda', you say???

Ken Clarke and the rest on the Question Time panel 'debunking' you say? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

end of the road · 14-04-2013 11:44PM

LordSutch wrote: »

she played hard ball with the Provo's

and lost

LordSutch wrote: »

because that's all they understood, (they killed her friend Airey Neave, Lord Mountbatten, and they nearly killed her in Brighton), so I can totally understand her hard ball attitude to the IRA

yeah, revenge for her friend, mind you she gave the Provo's, their second recruiting tool and they kept bombing

she put thousands out of jobs and didn't bother to find replacements or to come up with schemes to help retrain and re-educate those confined to the scrap heap when the industries went, most if not all those workers were the type that left school at 15 and went straight to work, and as for privatisation, well all that was privatised was sold to foreign companies, owned in some cases by the state companies of other countries (the railways being a prime example) these companies i can bet send most of their proffits over seas

A Dub in Glasgo · 14-04-2013 11:44PM

Playboy wrote: »

lol nice contribution... that the limit of your involvement in the debate? Or do you just like to trot out one liners because your knowledge of most issues is extremely limited?

I'm not the one with an agenda here trying to paint a picture of a tyrant when in fact she was a democratically elected leader who won three terms of office. Most of the allegations against Thatcher simply don't stand up to scrutiny. People get a bee in their bonnet about certain issues because it plays into their own political agenda whether that is republicans or socialists or both. All of a sudden the internet is full of experts who lap up whatever BS the rags dream up. As I said have a look at the most recent UK Question Time and you will see most of these myths get debunked by politicians who were there. The lefts issue with Thatcher looks ridiculously petty and it still does. People still hankering after a socialist state in the West... mostly layabouts who cant be arsed to make something of themselves so decide to moan about other peoples success.

So deluded, maybe you want to lie on top of the corpse as it is lowered 6 feet under?

end of the road · 14-04-2013 11:54PM

Rascasse wrote: »

As far as I'm aware no inquiry has found any evidence of a government conspiracy of collusion.

well it wouldn't would it, this is one thing the british government would make dam sure never got out

Rascasse wrote: »

it was a case of local state forces colluding with loyalists.

which i can bet you the british government knew about

Dyr · 15-04-2013 12:05AM

Playboy wrote: »

lol nice contribution... that the limit of your involvement in the debate? Or do you just like to trot out one liners because your knowledge of most issues is extremely limited?

I said me bit a few pages back thanks. I think I was having a discussion with people who can remember thatcher when she was in power, not the internet kiddies.

true · 15-04-2013 12:17AM

end of the road wrote: »

mind you she gave the Provo's, their second recruiting tool and they kept bombing

If that was the case why did the Provos hate her so much and try to kill her?

The Provos hated her because deep down they knew she was right, and in the end she was proved right. They killed her friends and colleagues, intimidated others, but they failed to silence her. Politicians in this state took on the IRA at times but never with the same cutting edge as Mrs T.

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 12:24AM

true wrote: »

If that was the case why did the Provos hate her so much and try to kill her?

The Provos hated her because deep down they knew she was right, and in the end she was proved right. They killed her friends and colleagues, intimidated others, but they failed to silence her. Politicians in this state took on the IRA at times but never with the same cutting edge as Mrs T.

'We wiill never negotiate with terrorists'
'We will silence them'
'We will shoot to kill'

Who changed policy again and again and was right, did you say?

true · 15-04-2013 12:29AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

'We wiill never negotiate with terrorists'
'We will silence them'
'We will shoot to kill'

Who changed policy again and was right, did you say?

She did not negotiate with terrorists. She defeated them, or at least the system she was part of defeated them in the end. Democracy won. Gadaffi, Galteri and the Provos did not gain anything through terrorism. All they did is inflict misery on countless numbers of people.

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 12:31AM

true wrote: »

She did not negotiate with terrorists. She defeated them, or at least the system she was part of defeated them in the end. Democracy won. Gadaffi, Galteri and the Provos did not gain anything through terrorism. All they did is inflict misery on countless numbers of people.

I think those who vote for SF would beg to differ and the facts would as well.
Britain is as exposed to more lethal terrorism as it ever was.

Maggie prolonged the conflict when negotiation was inevitable, she can never be forgiven for that. The British negotiated eventually, it was their responsibility from the start to do that.

true · 15-04-2013 12:41AM

Is'nt it great to see that someone stands up to evil in the world.
70 years ago it was Hitler. In Thatchers time it was Gadaffi ( younger posters may not be aware she allowed US planes to use Britain as a base to bomb Libya in the eighties ). She took on The Argentian regime as well as the PIRA....both of these organisations terrorised their opponents, murdered them, and occassionally disappeared them. The Argentinians out at sea out of a helicopter, the PIRA in beaches and bogs in border counties.

And you complain "Britain is as exposed to more lethal terrorism as it ever was"? Easy to know whose side you are on.

true · 15-04-2013 12:46AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Maggie prolonged the conflict when negotiation was inevitable, .

the facts show it was the PIRA who prolonger the conflict in N.I., and who did not stop their armed campaign until long after M. Thatcher left office. She done an agreement in the 80's to try to stop the conflict. The extremist republicans continued bombing and sniping long after that. Think even of Canary Wharf - do you know when that was? It was lon after M.T., left office in 1990.

Happyman42 · 15-04-2013 12:53AM

true wrote: »

the facts show it was the PIRA who prolonger the conflict in N.I., and who did not stop their armed campaign until long after M. Thatcher left office. She done an agreement in the 80's to try to stop the conflict. The extremist republicans continued bombing and sniping long after that. Think even of Canary Wharf - do you know when that was? It was lon after M.T., left office in 1990.

SF and the IRA did a deal as soon as they got what they wanted...only then, no pretending, no going back, only when the British signed the dotted line did they disarm, despite failed attempts by the British to insist that they did.
Maggie was a stubborn nuisance to Ireland, by refusing to do a deal, SHE prolonged the campaign that they eventually gave into and caused more needless deaths.
Canary Wharf happened when John Major wouldn't drop the disarm clause, he did it quietly before the month was out. Those are the facts, stop getting suckered by the British PR machine, they will never convince anybody with an ounce of intelligence that they 'defeated' the IRA.
Ask any of the still belligerent Unionists like Jim McAllister about that one!

true · 15-04-2013 12:58AM

Happyman42 wrote: »

SF and the IRA did a deal as soon as they got what they wanted...

They did not get what they wanted. They wanted a "united Ireland". They wanted "Brits out". I remember that even being daubed on the walls in the eighties. I feel sorry for you, you've been brainwashed.

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments