PDA

View Full Version : Margaret Thatcher will have state funeral



Judge
16-07-2008, 22:56
What the hell is Gordon Brown playing at????



A state funeral for Margaret Thatcher is all wrong - Mirror.co.uk (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/maguire/2008/07/16/a-state-funeral-for-margaret-thatcher-is-all-wrong-89520-20645401/)





By the way, she isn't dead yet...

Judge
16-07-2008, 23:02
It will be good excuse for a street party up North,get out the bunting...:D:D

Malypense
16-07-2008, 23:25
Awww, Judge! You just got me all excited reading the thread title that the venomous old bat had finally died! How could you lift my spirits like that just to have them dashed?

Bels
16-07-2008, 23:43
A great lady , and there's no doubt about it, and greater than Churchill. It's such a shame that we haven't had such great leaders after her, and even now there are none available. This Mirror has proven yet again, they are anti British, and I'm surprised that they haven't yet gone bust yet. This is the paper that tried to put the British Army into shame, with fabricated photos. I have never known such an anti British paper, and would never buy it. But what do you expect, a typical tabloid you might find in the USA. Britain has been invaded by Mars, so The Mirror says !!

Judge
16-07-2008, 23:48
Awww, Judge! You just got me all excited reading the thread title that the venomous old bat had finally died! How could you lift my spirits like that just to have them dashed?


I know, I felt the same when I read about the state funeral..For now keep the champagne on ice..

Judge
16-07-2008, 23:54
A great lady , and there's no doubt about it, and greater than Curchill. It's such a shame that we haven't had such great leaders after her, and even now there are none available. This Mirror has proven yet again, they are anti British, and I'm surprised that they haven't yet gone bust yet. This is the paper that tried to put the British Army into shame, with fabricated photos. I have never known such an ant British paper, and would never buy it. But what do you expect, a typical tabloid you might find in the USA. Britain has been invaded by Mars, so The Mirror says !!

You gonna compare Maggie with Churchill???Churchill fought an evil enemy.The only people Maggie fought were the working class of England..

Transparent Theatre
16-07-2008, 23:57
I have never known such an ant British paper

http://blog.makezine.com/800px-Meat_eater_ant_feeding_on_honey02.jpg

And you misspelt "Churchill".

Judge
17-07-2008, 00:01
Maggie's funeral should pass through northern England and south Wales:D:D:D

Transparent Theatre
17-07-2008, 00:04
What else did you expect from Gordon? All his wars have gone pear-shaped, all the Royals of marriageable age are hitched (and most are already divorced), and he's got to wait four more years until British taxpayers fork-out for the Olympics... so having Mrs Thatcher loaded onto a gun-carriage at Westminster and having the old trout laid to rest to Elgar's "Land Of Rope & Tory" is the only chance he's got of playing the ultra-nationalist card.

I hope the Argentinian Ambassador boycotts the old hag's funeral in protest.

Guess why Britain's got no North Sea Oil left, while Norway's still living nicely off theirs? Because this evil old witch flogged it cheap to prop-up her Reaganomic policies.

pjw
17-07-2008, 00:11
You gonna compare Maggie with Churchill???Churchill fought an evil enemy.The only people Maggie thought were the working class of England..

And the Argies of course Judge. She shall be remembered as one of the most miserable women of all time. And shall never have so many pubs named after her for example 14196
Bels, never forget that if it wasn´t for Churchill, you and I would now be teaching German and Europe would be a totally different place. More respect please Bels :fudd:

Bels
17-07-2008, 00:14
Maggie Thatcher was a great leader, in comparison to the wimps that followed her afterwards. specially that wimp Tony Blair. Our economy and wealth has a lot to do with her policies, and why the abour government could only get in by trying to copy them. They got in because the tory government couldn't find a leader with the same charisma as Maggie, and because our leading newspaper turned two faced and traiter due to to being bought out by an Australian. The Sun has never been the same since, as it used to be very patriotic for Britain.

Judge
17-07-2008, 00:15
What else did you expect from Gordon? All his wars have gone pear-shaped, all the Royals of marriageable age are hitched (and most are already divorced), and he's got to wait four more years until British taxpayers fork-out for the Olympics... so having Mrs Thatcher loaded onto a gun-carriage at Westminster and having the old trout laid to rest to Elgar's "Land Of Rope & Tory" is the only chance he's got of playing the ultra-nationalist card.

I hope the Argentinian Ambassador boycotts the old hag's funeral in protest.

Guess why Britain's got no North Sea Oil left, while Norway's still living nicely off theirs? Because this evil old witch flogged it cheap to prop-up her Reaganomic policies.




And let's not forget,the evil ***** took away our free milk..I'm sure some will remember this...Thatcher Thatcher milk snatcher:ak::ak:

Bels
17-07-2008, 00:18
And the Argies of course Judge. She shall be remembered as one of the most miserable women of all time. And shall never have so many pubs named after her for example 14196
Bels, never forget that if it wasn´t for Churchill, you and I would now be teaching German and Europe would be a totally different place. More respect please Bels :fudd:


It wasn't Churchill. it was Britain, if we didn't have Churchill we would have had someone else. He wasn't that unique. Britain did it as a whole country.

Transparent Theatre
17-07-2008, 00:29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwLzhowjYEA

Judge
17-07-2008, 00:34
Maggie Thatcher was a great leader, in comparison to the wimps that followed her afterwards. specially that wimp Tony Blair. Our economy and wealth has a lot to do with her policies, and why the abour government could only get in by trying to copy them. They got in because the tory government couldn't find a leader with the same charisma as Maggie, and because our leading newspaper turned two faced and traiter due to to being bought out by an Australian. The Sun has never been the same since, as it used to be very patriotic for Britain.


Maggie sold England to the highest bidders...BT, British Steel and British Gas to name a few.Privatisations works for the bosses and the shareholders but not for the poor consumer...Check out the cost of train ticket in England and gas bills.

1985 about 3.5 million unemployed,she sure was a great leader.

Orion
17-07-2008, 00:41
You Brits don't know how lucky you were to have the Iron Lady.

Judge
17-07-2008, 00:45
You Brits don't know how lucky you were to have the Iron Lady.


I knew you would be another who backs Maggie...just knew it...:D:D

pjw
17-07-2008, 00:47
It wasn't Churchill. it was Britain, if we didn't have Churchill we would have had someone else. He wasn't that unique. Britain did it as a whole country.

I know Bels, I´m not questioning the magnificent efforts over this side of the world by the British as well as the Russians, the U.S., Australia, Canada, S. Africa, the Indians, the Poles, the French, all the resistance armies everywhere, everyone, fighting the Nazis and Fascists.

It´s just that Churchill is simply unique and there shall never be an equal man nor an equal situation for all involved. Maggie is inferior in comparison. The queen thinks this too, as does Phillip, Charlie, the boys. Even the corgis don´t like Maggie and can get quite savage on her visits. YouTube- Winston churchill "finest hour"
YouTube- Churchill's World Cup message

Judge
17-07-2008, 00:54
Let's not forget this one..


YouTube- Winston S Churchill: We Shall Fight on the Beaches

pjw
17-07-2008, 00:55
YouTube- aces high

Judge
17-07-2008, 01:05
LOLOL.I was gonna post the same link...Great speach and great song by a British band....:1306::1306::1306:

Here's is a pic of Eddie from Iron Maiden and Maggie..:evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin:http://ironmaiden.webvis.net/images/Albums/Iron-Maiden/Sanctuary.jpg

Orion
17-07-2008, 11:18
Maggie sold England to the highest bidders...BT, British Steel and British Gas to name a few.Privatisations works for the bosses and the shareholders but not for the poor consumer...Check out the cost of train ticket in England and gas bills.

1985 about 3.5 million unemployed,she sure was a great leader.

Yeah, doubling a nation's GDP during a PM's tenure is never a good way to measure economic performance....


United Kingdom 1980 (GDP) 230,800,000,000

United Kingdom 1981 (GDP) 253,154,000,000

United Kingdom 1982 (GDP) 277,198,000,000

United Kingdom 1983 (GDP) 302,973,000,000

United Kingdom 1984 (GDP) 324,633,000,000

United Kingdom 1985 (GDP) 355,269,000,000

United Kingdom 1986 (GDP) 381,782,000,000

United Kingdom 1987 (GDP) 420,211,000,000

United Kingdom 1988 (GDP) 469,035,000,000

United Kingdom 1989 (GDP) 514,921,000,000

United Kingdom 1990 (GDP) 558,160,000,000

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 11:33
A great lady , and there's no doubt about it, and greater than Churchill. It's such a shame that we haven't had such great leaders after her, and even now there are none available. This Mirror has proven yet again, they are anti British, and I'm surprised that they haven't yet gone bust yet. This is the paper that tried to put the British Army into shame, with fabricated photos. I have never known such an anti British paper, and would never buy it. But what do you expect, a typical tabloid you might find in the USA. Britain has been invaded by Mars, so The Mirror says !!

You cannot be serious.

Malypense has it spot on as usual.She was a venomous old bat - she destroyed lives, laid waste to Britain's industrial heart -how anyone can spout the nonsense you have just done is quite beyond belief.

If you had spent just 10 minutes in the South Yorkshire mining villages during the strike, and had your eyes open, and seen the devastation she wreaked, you would change your mind.

Churchill is a very special case and you insult him even including his name in the same sentence as that woman.

Sidney Bliss
17-07-2008, 11:36
An interesting snapshot of the British take on Thatcher's legacy. Presumably by those who actually lived in the UK during her tenure.

BBC News | TALKING POINT | Does Thatcher's legacy remain? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1035256.stm)

Judge
17-07-2008, 11:43
Yeah, doubling a nation's GDP during a PM's tenure is never a good way to measure economic performance....


United Kingdom 1980 (GDP) 230,800,000,000

United Kingdom 1981 (GDP) 253,154,000,000

United Kingdom 1982 (GDP) 277,198,000,000

United Kingdom 1983 (GDP) 302,973,000,000

United Kingdom 1984 (GDP) 324,633,000,000

United Kingdom 1985 (GDP) 355,269,000,000

United Kingdom 1986 (GDP) 381,782,000,000

United Kingdom 1987 (GDP) 420,211,000,000

United Kingdom 1988 (GDP) 469,035,000,000

United Kingdom 1989 (GDP) 514,921,000,000

United Kingdom 1990 (GDP) 558,160,000,000

Whatever Orion....we can go on all day throwing figures around, but one thing that's got no answer to is the fact that Maggie made 1000's of families miserable in the UK ..Sure Maggie made a few rich (down south) but many other parts of the UK really suffered under her.

Judge
17-07-2008, 11:48
An interesting snapshot of the British take on Thatcher's legacy. Presumably by those who actually lived in the UK during her tenure.

BBC News | TALKING POINT | Does Thatcher's legacy remain? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/1035256.stm)

Da, that's the point,the people who actually lived there during Maggies time know the real facts about her..

trebor
17-07-2008, 11:59
You cannot be serious.

Malypense has it spot on as usual.She was a venomous old bat - she destroyed lives, laid waste to Britain's industrial heart -how anyone can spout the nonsense you have just done is quite beyond belief.

If you had spent just 10 minutes in the South Yorkshire mining villages during the strike, and had your eyes open, and seen the devastation she wreaked, you would change your mind.

Churchill is a very special case and you insult him even including his name in the same sentence as that woman.

Give us a break please.
The miners were stupid and greedy. I lived in the UK in the seventies, the breeding ground for the showdown that was to follow later.
The unions demands were constant, excessive and politically motivated.
A lot of them were communists, she handbagged them and rightly so.

Orion
17-07-2008, 12:03
Da, that's the point,the people who actually lived there during Maggies time know the real facts about her..

Those would be the same people that voted her and her party into office for all of those years as well, right?

I am sure you can point to all of the votes of "No Confidence" that she lost during those years.



Whatever Orion....we can go on all day throwing figures around...

Witty retort...but what else can you say when the numbers don't support your perceptions?

Judge
17-07-2008, 12:11
Those would be the same people that voted her and her party into office for all of those years as well, right?

I am sure you can point to all of the votes of "No Confidence" that she lost during those years, right?

Thatcher won by a flawed electoral system,she was never elected by a majority of the British public..

Carbo
17-07-2008, 12:17
Margaret Thatcher, because of the revolutionary nature of her policies and their spectacularly differing effects on different sections of the population will always be divisive.

For what it’s worth, I would say, on balance, that Thatcher’s reforms needed to happen, but they were initiated in a pitiless manner.

Before Thatcher’s ascent to power, Britain was in a malaise. There was too much regulation, not enough entrepreneurship; too much wealth distribution and not enough wealth creation; the trade unions held far too much power; state intervention in the economy was massive, and far too little of what some would call the “means of production” in private hands. It is commonly held – among liberals and doves as well as conservatives and hawks – that these factors and others had at the very least contributed to the economic stagnation of the 1970’s. If nobody had the brass kahunas to get something done about this, Thatcher did, and in the long run, Britain is a better place for it. Disagree? Can anyone really tell me that life in Britain is not better and more prosperous today than it was in 1978?

However, her methods often felt as if they’d been taken from the Gordon Gekko playbook, and some in her administration, including Tebbit and Thatcher herself seemed to be forever spoiling for a fight, going about their business in an evangelical manner that for me harks to the divisive, aggressive Gingrich days of the nineties. Ultimately, this unbreakable belief in their views, and unwillingness to move one jot away from them, as well as the fevour with which they went about their work would be their downfall. However, even for their successes, there were casualties: whole communities destroyed, industries wiped out, estates consigned to ghettos to forever have the sink prefix before their name, and Westminster and Whitehall became a crueler, and more partisan and divisive place.

Do the ends justify the means? I don’t feel qualified to judge, but I do suspect that Thatcher’s appeal among conservatives and Conservatives is, like Reagan’s, to do more with the broad sweep of what people thought needed to be done, where Britain needed to go, and public image than with nuts and bolts policy. Thatcher was the indefatigable Iron Lady who shook Britain by its boots and dragged into the monetarist, competitive late 20th century, where the middle class dream was extended for all; Reagan was the sunny, everyday joe who put the optimism, pride and dynamism back into America. Not necessarily my view.

What I do believe, though, is that giving Thatcher a state funeral lowers the bar.

Churchill, whatever his faults – and he had many – guided Britain through a hellish war – in his own words: our darkest hour. Of course, it was the stoicism of the British people, the bravery of the soldiers, and the tenacity of the generals that actually won the war, but Churchill buttressed and inspired them all. Further, his view of foreign policy in the 30s was proved correct, and, was it not for him, isolationist America may never have been persuaded to join the fray. I don’t prescribe to the theory that Britain was down to the Dad’s Army and on the verge of collapse, but I do believe that if Halifax rather than Churchill had got the gig, Britain would have sued for peace.

I don’t even think Thatcher can be called as great as Clem Atlee, although she perhaps had almost as great and impact on the face of the country. Perhaps we should provide state funerals for all Prime Ministers? The give 'em to presidents in the US, so why not here too?

One final word after this long-winded diatribe: disagreeing with the norm, not liking a political figure who is widely admired, or disagreeing with a political decision, is not anti-British or unpatriotic. And whoever said so is a dangerous fool.

xSnoofovich
17-07-2008, 12:21
Thatcher won by a flawed electoral system,she was never elected by a majority of the British public..

Can you verify this?

trebor
17-07-2008, 12:32
Thatcher won by a flawed electoral system,she was never elected by a majority of the British public..

Not completely true. After the Falklands war she won by a landslide. Even areas in and around Liverpool were blue.
If the electorial system is so flawed and it's the reason the opposition was kept out why haven't the present goverment changed it?

Orion
17-07-2008, 12:33
Thatcher won by a flawed electoral system,she was never elected by a majority of the British public..

I can't top Thatcher's own retort to a comment such as yours...

If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn't swim.
Margaret Thatcher

Abe
17-07-2008, 13:17
I grew up under Maggie, admittedly in the South. My parents were middle class. What I do remember is that she curbed the Unions, broke the reds in Yorkshire and gave us our first economic boom for god knows how long. Sure, we used to see pictures of downtrodden miners and devastated communities on teh 8 o'clock news. For all that, the electorate seemed to like what it was getting.

Truly a great Prime Minister. Right up there with the best of them.

Whether she deserves a state funeral...no thanks. We had plenty of PMs just as great who did not. Someone mentioned Attlee. Pitt, Wellington, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, all were great PMs for one reason or another. With the exception of maybe Wellington, none got a State Funeral and none probably expected one.

To my mind the whole idea sounds like some touchy feely 'feel good" idea dreamt up by some PR consultant.

Now, if only one of the senior Royals were to kick the bucket...say Prince Philip, i'm pretty sure that there would be no need for, or call for, a State bash for Maggie.

trebor
17-07-2008, 13:31
Whether she deserves a state funeral...no thanks. We had plenty of PMs just as great who did not. Someone mentioned Attlee. Pitt, Wellington, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, all were great PMs for one reason or another. With the exception of maybe Wellington, none got a State Funeral and none probably expected one..................

Why is it that when people start reeling off lists of previous great presidents, prime ministers etc. There's no one around who can remember them?

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 14:16
I grew up under Maggie, admittedly in the South. My parents were middle class. What I do remember is that she curbed the Unions, broke the reds in Yorkshire and gave us our first economic boom for god knows how long. Sure, we used to see pictures of downtrodden miners and devastated communities on teh 8 o'clock news. For all that, the electorate seemed to like what it was getting.

Truly a great Prime Minister. Right up there with the best of them.

Whether she deserves a state funeral...no thanks. We had plenty of PMs just as great who did not. Someone mentioned Attlee. Pitt, Wellington, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, all were great PMs for one reason or another. With the exception of maybe Wellington, none got a State Funeral and none probably expected one.

To my mind the whole idea sounds like some touchy feely 'feel good" idea dreamt up by some PR consultant.

Now, if only one of the senior Royals were to kick the bucket...say Prince Philip, i'm pretty sure that there would be no need for, or call for, a State bash for Maggie.

I do hope you are not suggesting that Phil the Greek gets a state funeral?

I grew up in the south, a privileged middle class upbringing, went to one of the best schools in England,life was wonderful, and I voted for The Maggon 1st time round.

But I went to work in the north of england - a different country entirely, working in Kirby, Byker, Moss Side, Sheffield and it coincided with the miner's strike.

Whatever the supposed economic benefits were supposed to be for the country -and I mean England here not Wales or Scotland - they were not worth the utter devastation that was wreaked on those communities. You may smile remembering News at Ten footage-I was in those villages, where not one single shop was open because no one had any money - there was nothing to smile about there.

It opened my eyes and changed my politics, and I think would have done so
to anyone who witnessed it.

And I believe we could have got the same end via different means.

The Maggon destroyed any sense of a United Kingdom,her policies were openly anti Scotch and Welsh and irish - she was basically anti anyone not English - but she succeeded in turning back 1000 years of history and created 2 countries within England, the North and the Beautiful South (irony intended).

Transparent Theatre
17-07-2008, 14:19
Now, if only one of the senior Royals were to kick the bucket...say Prince Philip,

There'd be a national champagne drought, though ;)

Oh, and I bet "his people" would be mourning him in Greece, ROFL!!!

Carbo
17-07-2008, 14:48
There'd be a national champagne drought, though ;)

Oh, and I bet "his people" would be mourning him in Greece, ROFL!!!
Oh come on, Prince Phillip is hilarious.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 14:58
Oh come on, Prince Phillip is hilarious.

As long as you are not footing the bill, yes.

Bels
17-07-2008, 15:03
Why is it that when people start reeling off lists of previous great presidents, prime ministers etc. There's no one around who can remember them?

I'm old enough to remember Maggie, and here are my results :)

:10806:

Transparent Theatre
17-07-2008, 15:11
Oh come on, Prince Phillip is hilarious.

There's a difference between "hilarious" and "laughable".

Personally I find him a shameful and humiliating self-appointed "envoy" for bigotry, racism and chauvinism. Britain doesn't need this ugly-minded duffer, and it galls me to pay for his huntin'-shootin'-fishin' lifestyle.

Although there's always the hope that he'll be fatally wounded in a shotgun accident, I suppose? ;)

Roll on Phil's funeral - a vile and vicious man who won't be missed. Only Britain could fake-up a "Greek monarchy" biography for a turd like him.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 15:16
There's a difference between "hilarious" and "laughable".

Personally I find him a shameful and humiliating self-appointed "envoy" for bigotry, racism and chauvinism. Britain doesn't need this ugly-minded duffer, and it galls me to pay for his huntin'-shootin'-fishin' lifestyle.

Although there's always the hope that he'll be fatally wounded in a shotgun accident, I suppose? ;)

Roll on Phil's funeral - a vile and vicious man who won't be missed. Only Britain could fake-up a "Greek monarchy" biography for a turd like him.
Absolutely.

Pechorin
17-07-2008, 15:39
well, considering how bad off yee ole england was when Thatcher become prime minister, and how much it has prospered in no small part due to her economic and regulatory reforms, I think 3 million pounds is not much to spend.

really, the english werking class really can be a bunch of nasty f**ks sometime. maybe better to give Authur Scargill some state honors, for threatening to destroy the country if his precious deadbeat miners weren't obeyed.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 16:34
well, considering how bad off yee ole england was when Thatcher become prime minister, and how much it has prospered in no small part due to her economic and regulatory reforms, I think 3 million pounds is not much to spend.

really, the english werking class really can be a bunch of nasty f**ks sometime. maybe better to give Authur Scargill some state honors, for threatening to destroy the country if his precious deadbeat miners weren't obeyed.
Your argument is only valid as long as you believe that the reforms could not have been carried out any other way.

I believe there was a much better way available,and she quite deliberately ignored it.

I agree though the english working class are ungrateful b*stards. They really should be thanking The Maggon for relieving them of the tiresome burden of getting up in the morning and going to work, of owning cars and houses, sending their children to university. She did them a favour.

Orion
17-07-2008, 16:56
Your argument is only valid as long as you believe that the reforms could not have been carried out any other way.

I believe there was a much better way available,and she quite deliberately ignored it.

And your statement is nothing more than pure speculation.


Callaghan, Wilson, and the rest had all the chances in the world to fix things and try alternative methods. They ways they chose failed.

The British voters had several opportunities to elect someone else who had devised a plan other than Thatcher's. They failed to do that as well.

Thatcher fixed what others would not or could not.

MELODY
17-07-2008, 17:11
well, considering how bad off yee ole england was when Thatcher become prime minister, and how much it has prospered in no small part due to her economic and regulatory reforms, I think 3 million pounds is not much to spend.

really, the english werking class really can be a bunch of nasty f**ks sometime. maybe better to give Authur Scargill some state honors, for threatening to destroy the country if his precious deadbeat miners weren't obeyed.


BRAVO. and i thought you only knew peanut butter.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 17:18
And your statement is nothing more than pure speculation.


Callaghan, Wilson, and the rest had all the chances in the world to fix things and try alternative methods. They ways they chose failed.

The British voters had several opportunities to elect someone else who had devised a plan other than Thatcher's. They failed to do that as well.

Thatcher fixed what others would not or could not.

I'm sorry but you really are speaking from ignorance here. Wilson,Callaghan and Heath all failed -that much is obvious.

And what Thatcher offered was a change, and a genuine attempt to solve the problems Britain face.

What the British people voted for in 79 was not what they got. She was accused in advance of advocating a policy of mass unemployment - which she vigorously denied and the British electorate voted for her. What subsequently happened was a nightmare- and exactly what she had been accused of. So much so that senior politicians, well respected men who had supported her were sacked and sidelined.

The only government I can think of with such a blatant difference between what they promised to do and what they then did is the current one with its record on sleaze. The British people were lied to, simple as that. And not the normal politicians lies. She then became so unpopular she had to engineer a war to get herself re-elected.

There were alternatives - call it speculation if you like, the facts make you wrong - they were well discussed and argued over.

Sidney Bliss
17-07-2008, 17:28
really, the english werking class really can be a bunch of nasty f**ks sometime. maybe better to give Authur Scargill some state honors, for threatening to destroy the country if his precious deadbeat miners weren't obeyed.


Almost Ames-esque.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 17:34
Almost Ames-esque.
Both Pech and BeachBum are extremely Ames'ish in their style.

Orion
17-07-2008, 17:44
I'm sorry but you really are speaking from ignorance here. Wilson,Callaghan and Heath all failed -that much is obvious.

And Thatcher succeeded.


There were alternatives - call it speculation if you like, the facts make you wrong - they were well discussed and argued over.

speculate

transitive verb
1: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize

You simply have no facts. If you do have these facts in your possession feel free to post them. Until such time as you provide them the other plans will remain nothing more than topics of discussion for glorified debating societies. But, since you have absolutely ZERO evidence to support your theory about whether certain other plans would have worked, your assertion that they would is "pure speculation".

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 17:49
And Thatcher succeeded.



speculate

transitive verb
1: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize

You simply have no facts. If you do have these facts in your possession feel free to post them. Until such time as you provide them the other plans will remain nothing more than topics of discussion for glorified debating societies. But, since you have absolutely ZERO evidence to support your theory about whether certain other plans would have worked, your assertion that they would is "pure speculation".
You have now changed what you were arguing. Previously you argued that the alternatives were speculation. They were not. Now you are arguing that whether they would have worked or not was speculation. A very different point.

My assertion - the one you argued with - was that Thatcher ignored the alternatives. This is what you called speculation.it is not. It is fact.

Orion
17-07-2008, 18:15
You have now changed what you were arguing. Previously you argued that the alternatives were speculation. They were not. Now you are arguing that whether they would have worked or not was speculation. A very different point.

My assertion - the one you argued with - was that Thatcher ignored the alternatives. This is what you called speculation.it is not. It is fact.

Then I wasn't clear. I was contending that to state the likely success or failure of those alternatives was nothing more than speculation. I can't state that they would have failed with any more or less credibility than you can contend they would have succeeded.

Point is, Maggie turned the UK around after succesive Labour governments failed.

Pechorin
17-07-2008, 18:18
well, I am what Mark Ames might be if he were stunningly brilliant (something I am told not infrequently) and the best f*** in the world (something I hear all the time), instead of a douchy loser.

Orion
17-07-2008, 18:25
I believe there was a much better way available,and she quite deliberately ignored it.

Here is the quote that I labeled as "Pure Speculation"

I stand behind that statement as you have no way of determining what might have been a "better way" because you have no supporting evidence. There simply is no way available to you to judge the quality of the result. Therefore, to state that any of the possible alternatives were 'better' than the reforms that were inacted is 'speculation'.

(Yes, in politics every oppostion party has at least one alternative plan to anything the government does so I am not challenging the statement that Thatcher disregarded other plans.)

Orion
17-07-2008, 18:27
... the best f*** in the world (something I hear all the time), instead of a douchy loser.

Are those the comments of your right or left hand?

trebor
17-07-2008, 18:36
.....................I went to work in the north of england - a different country entirely, working in Kirby, Byker, Moss Side, Sheffield and it coincided with the miner's strike.

Whatever the supposed economic benefits were supposed to be for the country -and I mean England here not Wales or Scotland - they were not worth the utter devastation that was wreaked on those communities. You may smile remembering News at Ten footage-I was in those villages, where not one single shop was open because no one had any money - there was nothing to smile about there.

It opened my eyes and changed my politics, and I think would have done so
to anyone who witnessed it.

And I believe we could have got the same end via different means.

The Maggon destroyed any sense of a United Kingdom,her policies were openly anti Scotch and Welsh and irish - she was basically anti anyone not English - but she succeeded in turning back 1000 years of history and created 2 countries within England, the North and the Beautiful South (irony intended).

Let's look at the miners in a little more depth shall we?
The biggest customer of British Coal in the 70's & early 80's was British steel (another monopolist). There were two reasons for this.
One, being the large amounts of coking coal need to produce steel and two, the law which was structured at that time so that British steel could only buy it's coal from British coal. Not a bad thing you might conclude. Why, with all that coal in Britiain should we buy it elsewhere?
I agree. But the miners and their unions knew that they had a monopoly. Not only a monoploly with their biggest single customer, British Steel but also with the British people in fuel for heating their houses. Winter after winter they went on strike demanding more money for less hours. And it didn't stop there.
Knowing they had the power to bring the economy and therefore the government to it'd knees they became ever more political in their demands.

Let's go back.
British coal was becoming more and more expensive to produce. British steel had no other choice than to pass those higher costs on to their customers. The largest of which was British Leyland, the car maker. The largest single component of a car is steel.
British Leyland can only pass the cost of higher steel on to it's customers through higher prices for it's cars. But here's the rub. The British people are not obliged by law to by British cars! They can choose to buy French, Italian, whatever.
Sales of British cars fell, therefore steel production fell, this in turn led to a fall in coal production. But all the time prices were rising due to militant union demands and monopolisation of the markets.
I think most people today understand that markets that are monopolised are unhealthy and the basics of supply and demand on prices.

It wasn't Thatcher who fooled the Brtish people it was the unions. She was brought in to sort it out and did so.
By-the-way, what were those different means? because now most of the world is using the same methods.

Pechorin
17-07-2008, 18:43
well, UK miners were like our farmers: when the times were good they loved the good paychecks, when they were bad they cried, we need everyone else to pay more taxes so the government can give us the money. bunch of deadbeats. When my industry has changed, I've adapted. The miners wanted the UK to remain stuck in 1968 or so, and for everyone else to have to pay for it. screw 'em

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 19:14
well, UK miners were like our farmers: when the times were good they loved the good paychecks, when they were bad they cried, we need everyone else to pay more taxes so the government can give us the money. bunch of deadbeats. When my industry has changed, I've adapted. The miners wanted the UK to remain stuck in 1968 or so, and for everyone else to have to pay for it. screw 'em

You're all heart.

Pechorin
17-07-2008, 19:26
hey, if it was up to me, teachers, farmers, all college professors not teaching math or physics or other sciences, and most government employees would rounded up into re-education camps, with barking dogs and barbed wire.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 19:40
Here is the quote that I labeled as "Pure Speculation"

I stand behind that statement as you have no way of determining what might have been a "better way" because you have no supporting evidence. There simply is no way available to you to judge the quality of the result. Therefore, to state that any of the possible alternatives were 'better' than the reforms that were inacted is 'speculation'.

(Yes, in politics every oppostion party has at least one alternative plan to anything the government does so I am not challenging the statement that Thatcher disregarded other plans.)

Firstly it is not speculation it is opinion. And opinion based on experience. See Germany, Scandinavia as examples.

Secondly the Maggon did not just have opposition from opposing parties but more importantly from inside her own party, from serious credible people widely respected in the world.

She used mass unemployment as a tool - it was unnecessary and brutal. Other countries got to the same end without it.

Bels
17-07-2008, 21:00
Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher
Dec. 18th 1979



Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher

As I speak today, 1979 - and with it the 1970s-- has less than two weeks to run. I myself will have some reason to remember both the year and the decade with affection. But in general few, I suspect, will regret the passing of either.
The last 10 years have not been a happy period for the Western democracies domestically or internationally. Self-questioning is essential to the health of any society. But we have perhaps carried it too far and carried to extremes, of course, it causes paralysis. The time has come when the West - above all Europe and the United States-- must begin to substitute action for introspection.
We face a new decade - I have called it 'the dangerous decade' - in which the challenges to our security and to our way of life may if anything be more acute than in the 1970s. The response of Western nations and their leaders will need to be firm, calm and concerted. Neither weakness nor anger nor despair will serve us. The problems are daunting but there is in my view ample reason for optimism.
Few international problems today lend themselves to simple solutions. One reason is that few such problems can any longer be treated in isolation. Increasingly they interact, one between the other. Thanks to a still-accelerating technological revolution we become daily more aware that the earth and its resources are finite and in most respects shrinking.
The fact of global interdependence - I apologize for the jargon - is nothing new. Four hundred years ago South American gold and silver helped to cause inflation in Europe - an early example of the evils of excess money supply. Two hundred years ago men fought in India and along the Great Lakes here in America in order that, as Macaulay put it, the King of Prussia might rob a neighbour whom he had promised to defend.
But the popular perception of interdependence lagged far behind the fact. When I was in my teens a British Prime Minister could still refer to Czechoslovakia as 'a far-away country' of whose quarrels the British people knew nothing; and an American President could still experience difficulty in persuading his people of the need to concern themselves with a European war.
Today it is painfully obvious that no man - and no nation - is an island. What President Cleveland once described as 'foreign broils' are brought into every home. The price of oil in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, the size of the grain harvest in Kansas and the Ukraine - these are of immediate concern to people all over the world. The Middle East and the middle West have become neighbours and will remain so, uncomfortable though they may on occasion find it. The bell tolls for us all.
This has been tragically underlined in recent weeks. The world has watched with anger and dismay the events of Tehran. We have all felt involved with the fate of the hostages. Nothing can excuse the treatment they have received; for hundreds of years the principle of the immunity of the messenger and the diplomat has been respected. Now this principle, central to the civilized conduct of relations between states, is being systematically flouted.
We in Britain have respected and supported the calmness and resolution with which President Carter has handled an appalling situation. With our partners in Europe we have given full public and private support to his efforts to secure the unconditional release of the hostages. We will continue to support and to help in any way we can. Above all we have admired the forbearance with which the American people have responded to the indignities inflicted upon their fellow citizens. That restraint has undoubtedly been in the best interests of the captives.
The Iranian crisis epitomises the problems which we face in trying to co-exist in a shrinking world where political, economic and social upheavals are endemic. Some would add religious upheavals to that list. But I do not believe we should judge Islam by events in Iran. Least of all should we judge it by the taking of hostages. There is a tide of self-confidence and self-awareness in the Muslim world which preceded the Iranian Revolution, and will outlast its present excesses. The West should recognize this with respect, no, hostility. The Middle East is an area where we have much at stake. It is in our own interests, as well as in the interests of the people of that region, that they build on their own deep religious traditions. We do not wish to see them succumb to the fraudulent appeal of imported Marxism.
Because, to look beyond the Middle East, I am convinced that there is little force left in the original Marxist stimulus to revolution. Its impetus is petering out as the practical failure of the doctrine becomes daily more obvious. It has failed to take root in the advanced democracies. In those countries where it has taken root - countries backward or, by tradition, authoritarian - it has failed to provide sustained economic or social development. What is left is a technique of subversion and a collection of catch-phrases. The former, the technique of subversion, is still dangerous. Like terrorism it is a menace that needs to be fought wherever it occurs - and British Prime Ministers have had reason to speak with some passion about terrorism in recent years. As for the catch-phrases of Marxism, they still have a certain drawing power. But they have none in the countries which are ruled by the principles of Marx. Communist regimes can no longer conceal the gulf that separates their slogans from reality.
The immediate threat from the Soviet Union is military rather than ideological. The threat is not only to our security in Europe and North America but also, both directly and by proxy, in the third world. I have often spoken about the military challenge which the West faces today. I have sometimes been deliberately misunderstood, especially by my enemies who have labelled me the 'Iron Lady.' They are quite right - I am. Let me, therefore, restate a few simple propositions.
The Soviet Union continues to proclaim the ideological, struggle. It asserts that the demise of the Western political system is inevitable. It neglects the fact that few indeed who live in Western democracies show any sign of wanting to exchange their system for that operated by the Russians. In 1919, Lenin said:
"World imperialism cannot live side by side with a victorious Soviet revolution - the one or the other will be victorious in the end."
The Soviet government have not repudiated this threatening prediction. Indeed they broadcast their ambitions wholesale. They should not be surprised if we listen and take note.
Meanwhile they expand their armed forces on land, sea and air. They continually improve the quality of their armaments. They and their allies outnumber us in Europe. Their men, their ships, and their aircraft appear ever more regularly in parts of the world where they have never been seen before. Their Cuban and East German proxies likewise.
We can argue about Soviet motives. But the fact is that the Russians have the weapons and are getting more of them. It is simple prudence for the West to respond. We in Britain intend to do that to the best of our ability and at every level including the strategic. President Carter has shown that he intends to do likewise. And the Alliance last week decided to modernize its long-range theatre nuclear weapons. This in due course will help to balance the new and sophisticated weapons the Russians already have targeted on Europe. The strategic power of the U.S.A. in the Western Alliance remains paramount. But I would underline the contribution of the European members of NATO - a contribution which is never overlooked by the Russians.
Modern weapons are totally destructive and immensely expensive. It is in nobody's interest that they should be piled up indefinitely. It makes good sense for both sides to seek agreements on arms control which preserve the essential security of each. We in Britain have therefore supported the talks on Strategic Arms Limitation and on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions. The British Government hopes that the SALT II agreement can be ratified.
I have been attacked by the Soviet Government for arguing that the West should put itself in a position to negotiate from strength. But in saying this, I have done no more than echo the constant ambition of the Soviet Government itself. I am not talking about negotiations from a position of superiority. What I am seeking is a negotiation in which we and they start from the position of balance, and if both sides can negotiate, genuinely, to maintain that balance at lower levels, I shall be well content. It is in that spirit that I approach the proposals which have recently been made by President Brezhnev and others.
The East/West conflict permeates most global issues. But other equally pressing problems have arisen. These affect above all the world economy and the relationship between the developed Western world and the newly emerging countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia.
No country can today escape economic involvement with the economies of others. In the U.K. external trade has always been of central importance to our economy. In the U.S.A. this has been less so. But recently you have become much more dependent on overseas countries. 10 years ago you imported 5 percent of your oil. Now it is 50 percent. But it is not just oil - this has obvious consequences for your foreign policy. So, rich and poor, communist and non-communist, oil-producers and oil-consumers - our economic welfare is increasingly affected by the operation of the market. Increasingly affected by the growing demand of complex industries for scarce materials and by the pressure on the world's finite resources of fossil fuels.
All of this has coincided with a prolonged period of uneasiness in the world's economy. The immediate prospects are sombre: inflation will be difficult to eradicate; growth has fallen sharply from its earlier levels; there is a constant threat of disorder in the world oil market. News of recent price rises can only have added to the general uncertainty which is one of the most damaging consequences of the present oil situation. The task of economic management, both nationally and internationally, is becoming more and more difficult. The precarious balance of the world economy could at any time be shaken by political upheavals in one or more countries over which the rest of us might have very little influence.
In these circumstances, we all have a direct practical interest in the orderly settlement of political disputes.
These were some considerations which, in addition to the obvious ones, persuaded the new British Government of the need for a decisive effort to secure a settlement in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. As you know, after months of strenuous negotiation, overall agreement was finally reached yesterday on the new Constitution, arrangements for free and fair elections, and a ceasefire. The agreement secured in London showed that even the most intractable problem will yield to the necessary combination of resolve and imagination. Concessions were made by all sides. Many difficult decisions were involved - not least for the British Government, which found itself acquiring a new colony, albeit for a short period. We are grateful for the forceful and timely support we received throughout the negotiations from the United States Government, and from President Carter personally, especially in the final stages.
We have no illusion about the practical problems of implementing this agreement on the ground, against a background of years of bitter conflict. But now is a time for reconciliation, and for restoring normal relations between all the states in the area. The Lancaster House agreement could prove a major step toward peaceful evolution and away from violent revolution in Southern Africa. We are encouraged to persevere with the Five Power initiative to achieve an all-party settlement in Namibia.
In this context I want to say a particular word about South Africa. There is now a real prospect that the conflicts on South Africa's borders, in Rhodesia and Namibia, will shortly be ended. This, combined with welcome initiatives in South African domestic policies, offer a chance to defuse a regional crisis which was potentially of the utmost gravity, and to make progress toward an ending of the isolation of South Africa in world affairs.
We must not regard these problems as insoluble. The West has immense material and moral assets. To those assets must be added the clarity to see where our strengths should be used; the will and confidence to use them with precision; and the stamina to see things through.
Let us never forget that despite the difficulties to which I have referred, the Western democracies remain overwhelmingly strong in economic terms. We are, it is true, more vulnerable than before. Vulnerable because of our reliance on raw materials; vulnerable because of the specialization and complexity of our societies. It is vital therefore, that we keep a steady nerve and that we concert our policies. We already agree on the basic requirements - on the need to defeat inflation; to avoid protectionalism: to use our limited energy resources better. And as we deal with the problems our inherent vitality will reassert itself. There is, after all, no discernible challenge to the role of the Western democracies as the driving force of the world economy.
The political strength and stability of the West is equally striking. Preoccupied by passing political dramas, we often overlook the real sturdiness of our political institutions. They are not seriously challenged from within. They meet the aspirations of ordinary people. They attract the envy of those who do not have them. In the 35 years since the last war, they have shown themselves remarkably resistant to subversive influences.
Our democratic systems have made it possible to organize our relationships with one another on a healthy basis. The North Atlantic Alliance and the European Community are - and remain - free associations of free peoples. Policies are frankly debated. Of course the debates are often lively and occasionally heated. But those debates are a sign of strength just as the regimented agreements of the Communist alliances are a mark of weakness.
The argument now going on in the European Community is a case in point. The Community is used to debate, often difficult and prolonged. We are seeing at present something more serious than many of the disputes which have taken place in the past. But the interests that unite the members of the Community are stronger than those which divide them - particularly when viewed in the light of other international problems. I believe that these common interests will assert themselves. I am confident that an acceptable solution will be found and that the European Community will emerge fortified from the debate. And a strong Europe is the best partner for the United States. It is on the strength of that partnership that the strength of the free world depends.
The last asset I want to mention today is the West's relationship with the countries of the Third World. Neither recent events; nor past injustices; nor the outdated rhetoric of anti-colonialism can disguise the real convergence of interest between the Third World and the West.
It is we in the West who have the experience and contacts the Third World needs. We supply most of the markets for their goods and their raw materials. We supply most of the technology they require. We provide them with private investment as well as Government aid.
We do this not only for our own sake but also because we support the efforts of the countries of the Third World to develop their own economies.
I have only been able to touch on a few current international issues. There are many I have not mentioned. Nor would I wish anyone to think that I underestimate the difficulties, particularly on the domestic economic front, faced by Britain and our Western partners, including the United States. But these difficulties can and will be overcome provided we do not undervalue ourselves nor decry our strength. We shall need self-confidence to tackle the dangerous decade.
It is a time for action, action for the eighties:
The cynics among you will say that none of this is new. Quite right. It isn't. But there are no new magic formulae. We know what we have to do. Our problems will only yield to sustained effort. That is the challenge of political leadership.
Enduring success never comes easily to an individual or to a country. To quote Walt Whitman: "It takes struggles in life to make strength; it takes fight for principles to make fortitude; it takes crisis to give courage and singleness of purpose to reach an objective." Let us go down in history as the generation which not only understood what needed to be done but a generation which had the strength, the self-discipline and the resolve to see it through. That is our generation. That is our task for the '80s.


The Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech
by Margaret Thatcher
The Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher featured is in the form of extracts, passages or lines from the Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher. A speech by Margaret Thatcher can be described as a motivational speech, persuasive speech or inspirational speech. A Quote or citation from the Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher provides an illustration of, or allusion to, the famous events of the day during the era of Margaret Thatcher. Use the Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher with passages and lines taken as direct citations from this famous speech using the language and words used by Margaret Thatcher in their own language and dialect within the content of the speech. This well-known speech by Margaret Thatcher, famed for its powers of verbal and oral communication, makes excellent use of the words and language. Use of native tongue of Margaret Thatcher within the speech makes it powerful and relevant to historic occasions. A persuasive, motivational and inspirational speech by Margaret Thatcher. The celebrated Margaret Thatcher had excellent powers of oration which are highlighted forever in History by the Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher.


The Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher
Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher - Margaret Thatcher - Speeches - Language - Talking - Margaret Thatcher - Verbal communication - Dialogue - Famous - Words - Communication - Discourse - Speaking - Speeches - Margaret Thatcher - Spoken language - Oral communication - Spoken communication - Famous Speeches - Speeches - Language - Talking - Margaret Thatcher - Verbal communication - Dialogue - Famous - Words - Communication - Discourse - Speaking - Speeches - Margaret Thatcher - Spoken language - Oral communication - Spoken communication - Famous Speeches - Margaret Thatcher - Foreign Policy of Great Britain speech by Margaret Thatcher

Famous Speeches Index

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 21:30
A post from Bels with no spelling or grammar mistakes. Nearly fell off my chair.

trebor
17-07-2008, 21:39
.............She used mass unemployment as a tool - it was unnecessary and brutal. Other countries got to the same end without it.

Gypsy, you are absolutely correct.

Firstly, Thatcher did instigate a policy that would knowingly create unemployment and economic decline. That's true. This was necessary.
To help me get my opinion across i will use the example of Churchill in this thread who has been compared to Thatcher.
I believe it was a lot easier for him to win "the war" than it was for Thatcher.
Ask anyone in 1941 at the height of the blitz in London what were the challenges facing Britain and everyone would have said "Nazi Germany" Everyone understood that and rallied 'round the cause.
Thatcher didn't have that luxury. She was fighting a war within. An ideological war, one that was much harder for the average Joe to understand. One that was destroying the country and it's future.
More of this in a minute.

When she came to power the country already had high unemployment, high inflation, militancy in the work place, a massive balance of payments deficit, So bad we had to go cap in hand to the IMF to avoid bankruptcy, like a banana republic.

Now let's look at her policies and their effects.
Let's agree the country was in terminal decline at the time (this cannot be overstated)
Thatcher proposed to attacked the sick economy on several fronts.
Firstly, she tackled the monopolist industries by privatising them and disarmed the unions.
Then she raised interest rates. Raising interest rates tackled inflation through a shrinking economy.
A shrinking economy=recession. Recession results in lower prices for raw materials (in a non monopolistic world)
In a recession companies are faced with falling profits they have a couple of options. They can raise prices or cut costs. Raising prices in a post monopolistic and recessionary world was not an option so they laid off staff. Mass unemployment followed.
So now the average company has lower raw material prices and lower labour costs (the arrogant, lazy British worker who thought he had a job for life with a powerful union was suddenly passive, scared sh*tless and on the dole, willing to do a full days work for a low wage)
Companies now found themselves lighter and leaner, having shed the waste all they needed was the right economic environment to be able to respond.
Thatcher then reduced interest rates, reflating the economy.
Those companies now smaller and leaner responded by re-hiring staff and growing. A market economy was born.

Churchill sent millions of soldiers to their deaths and became a hero. I don't need to explain to you why.
Thatcher sent a whole generation of working people in some industries and areas of Britain to oblivion.
So future generations could prosper.

PS. I didn't google or cut and paste the above. I lived through it and researched it.

Bels
17-07-2008, 21:50
Come on please, you're British, where's your positive, patriotic spirit. Your sort make me ashamed to be British. I hate negative statements coming from Brits. You let us all down.


Gypsy, you are absolutely correct.

Firstly, Thatcher did instigate a policy that would knowingly create unemployment and economic decline. That's true. This was necessary.
To help me get my opinion across i will use the example of Churchill in this thread who has been compared to Thatcher.
I believe it was a lot easier for him to win "the war" than it was for Thatcher.
Ask anyone in 1941 at the height of the blitz in London what were the challenges facing Britain and everyone would have said "Nazi Germany" Everyone understood that and rallied 'round the cause.
Thatcher didn't have that luxury. She was fighting a war within. An ideological war, one that was much harder for the average Joe to understand. One that was destroying the country and it's future.
More of this in a minute.

When she came to power the country already had high unemployment, high inflation, militancy in the work place, a massive balance of payments deficit, So bad we had to go cap in hand to the IMF to avoid bankruptcy, like a banana republic.

Now let's look at her policies and their effects.
Let's agree the country was in terminal decline at the time (this cannot be overstated)
Thatcher proposed to attacked the sick economy on several fronts.
Firstly, she tackled the monopolist industries by privatising them and disarmed the unions.
Then she raised interest rates. Raising interest rates tackled inflation through a shrinking economy.
A shrinking economy=recession. Recession results in lower prices for raw materials (in a non monopolistic world)
In a recession companies are faced with falling profits they have a couple of options. They can raise prices or cut costs. Raising prices in a post monopolistic and recessionary world was not an option so they laid off staff. Mass unemployment followed.
So now the average company has lower raw material prices and lower labour costs (the arrogant, lazy British worker who thought he had a job for life with a powerful union was suddenly passive, scared sh*tless and on the dole, willing to do a full days work for a low wage)
Companies now found themselves lighter and leaner, having shed the waste all they needed was the right economic environment to be able to respond.
Thatcher then reduced interest rates, reflating the economy.
Those companies now smaller and leaner responded by re-hiring staff and growing. A market economy was born.

Churchill sent millions of soldiers to their deaths and became a hero. I don't need to explain to you why.
Thatcher sent a whole generation of working people in some industries and areas of Britain to oblivion.
So future generations could prosper.

PS. I didn't google or cut and paste the above. I lived through it and researched it.

trebor
17-07-2008, 22:03
Come on please, you're British, where's your positive, patriotic spirit. Your sort make me ashamed to be British. I hate negative statements coming from Brits. You let us all down.

Bels. please explain to me what what you see as negative, or unpatriotic about my post.

Bels
17-07-2008, 22:09
Thatcher also raised interest rates later, when she knew we were spending too much, high inflation at the the time. She said it would hurt, and it did, and it hurt my small business a lot, because larger companies were unable to pay me, and I was badly affected. I couldn't even get the money through court, even though I won, as the companies simply ceased trading.

But I forgive her, because although it hurt, it worked on the long term.

The New Labour government was forced to use Thatcherism policies, because they worked. Labour was forced for example to promise low taxes to get in again. Labour had no chance whilst Thatcher was in power.

Judge
17-07-2008, 22:09
I do hope you are not suggesting that Phil the Greek gets a state funeral?

I grew up in the south, a privileged middle class upbringing, went to one of the best schools in England,life was wonderful, and I voted for The Maggon 1st time round.

But I went to work in the north of england - a different country entirely, working in Kirby, Byker, Moss Side, Sheffield and it coincided with the miner's strike.

Whatever the supposed economic benefits were supposed to be for the country -and I mean England here not Wales or Scotland - they were not worth the utter devastation that was wreaked on those communities. You may smile remembering News at Ten footage-I was in those villages, where not one single shop was open because no one had any money - there was nothing to smile about there.

It opened my eyes and changed my politics, and I think would have done so
to anyone who witnessed it.

And I believe we could have got the same end via different means.

The Maggon destroyed any sense of a United Kingdom,her policies were openly anti Scotch and Welsh and irish - she was basically anti anyone not English - but she succeeded in turning back 1000 years of history and created 2 countries within England, the North and the Beautiful South (irony intended).

Good post..that is the difference right there..People who lived through it and who were hurt by her actions know what kinda person Maggie really was..People who just read about her in another country(on the other side of the pond)don't have a clue about the effect she had on the north of England..
My Mum,Dad and brother all lost their jobs because of that evil bitch,.If some think she was a great leader then so be it, but trust me there will be street parties when she drops dead, and I for one will be toasting her death..

Hey trebor, many scousers are getting ready for the big day..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v429/Shankly/scousers_dance_on_thatchers.jpg

Orion
17-07-2008, 22:13
Firstly it is not speculation it is opinion. And opinion based on experience. See Germany, Scandinavia as examples.

This is a rubbish answer. Nothing more than the smoke and mirrors and selective blindness that Jared Diamond uses in his pop history/anthropology.

But, if you really want to tell me that what works in Scandinavia or Germany would have worked in Britain then I will frame this and hang it on my wall so that I can reference it in the future if and when I decide to use the "Well, THIS works in America so it should be what country X does as well"


Secondly the Maggon did not just have opposition from opposing parties but more importantly from inside her own party, from serious credible people widely respected in the worldQUOTE]

Internal factions, rival partyies...opposing plans are opposing plans. I am not really concerned with from whence they came. Thatcher is the one with her hand on the levers of power. Her si the only plan that mattered...and, once again, it worked.



[QUOTE=Gypsy;415808]She used mass unemployment as a tool - it was unnecessary and brutal. Other countries got to the same end without it.


See Trebor's response. It states things that many of certain political stripes do not want to admit...sometimes life is difficult and painful. And sometimes the decision has to be made to endure more pain before a recovery can be realized.

Bels
17-07-2008, 22:13
Bels. please explain to me what what you see as negative, or unpatriotic about my post.


Sorry, I scanned pieces I didn't like, reading it again it's a reasonably perception. But I don't agree with all of it, and Gypsy is never right.

And he wasn't absolutely correct

trebor
17-07-2008, 22:24
Thatcher also raised interest rates later, when she knew we were spending too much, high inflation at the the time. She said it would hurt, and it did, and it hurt my small business a lot, because larger companies were unable to pay me, and I was badly affected. I couldn't even get the money through court, even though I won, as the companies simply ceased trading.

But I forgive her, because although it hurt, it worked on the long term.

The New Labour government was forced to use Thatcherism policies, because they worked. Labour was forced for example to promise low taxes to get in again. Labour had no chance whilst Thatcher was in power.

Bels.
Thatcher was the first leader to use only interest rates to manipulate the economy. She was a real visionary. Something everybody takes for granted today
Actually those policies were devised by her Trade and Industry minister, a guy called Keith Joseph.
But like all great leaders she saw their merit and together they implemented them.
Checkout a book called the Downing Street Years.
Margret Thatchers side of those momentous events.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 22:29
Sorry, I scanned pieces I didn't like, reading it again it's a reasonably perception. But I don't agree with all of it, and Gypsy is never right.

Really? I said that she created mass unemployment? If I am never right then you have to disagree with it. So you either admit that there was mass unemployment, and thereby admit that your comment about me is a lie or you deny it, and as it is a fact you admit to being a liar about that.

Your choice. Are you a liar for the first or the second?

You went to the mining villages of Yorkshire during and after the strike did you? If not how can you say that I am lying about the devastation there? If you did you will have seen the waste there. So again,which is the lie - your claim that I lied or your denial of the facts.

I do not wish anyone dead, but when that evil witch dies I will celebrate - along with millions of Brits and most of europe.

Even thinking about her winds me up I will put some Floyd on and chill for a bit.

Judge
17-07-2008, 22:39
Here's an interesting bit of info..

Back then in 1984 there were 187,000 miners in Britain , now there are fewer than 10,000.
A huge loss of jobs and contracts given to foreign coal industries..:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 22:45
Here's an interesting bit of info..

Back then in 1984 there were 187,000 miners in Britain , now there are fewer than 10,000.
A huge loss of jobs and contracts given to foreign coal industries..:rolleyes::rolleyes:

And a disaster to lose a strategic industry like that.

Judge
17-07-2008, 22:47
Even thinking about her winds me up I will put some Floyd on and chill for a bit.

Good idea...it also winds me up ,I best stop because a mod shouldn't loose control...I strongly recommended The Final Cut from Pink Floyd..
Lyrics from the song Post War Dream..

Tell me true, tell me why, was Jesus crucified
Is it for this that Daddy died?
Was it for you? Was it me?
Did I watch too much T.V.?
Is that a hint of accusation in your eyes?
If it wasn't for the nips
Being so good at building ships
The yards would still be open on the clyde.
And it can't be much fun for them
Beneath the rising sun
With all their kids committing suicide.
What have we done, Maggie what have we done?
What have we done to England?
Should we shout, should we scream
"What happened to the post war dream?"
Oh Maggie, Maggie what have we done?

trebor
17-07-2008, 22:49
...........See Trebor's response. It states things that many of certain political stripes do not want to admit...sometimes life is difficult and painful. And sometimes the decision has to be made to endure more pain before a recovery can be realized.

Correct Orion,

Thatcher and Churchill both had to fight wars. Both equally as serious as far as Britain was concerned.
Simply put, Churchill sent in and sacrificed the troops for a greater cause. Freedom. For which he was rightly hailed a hero.
Thatcher waged a war which meant she had to deprive a generation of civilians to a world of lost oppotunity because the enemy was within. There was no other choice. A far harder war to fight in my estimation and one that takes a lot more courage
She stands head and shoulders over Churchill in my estimation.

Judge
17-07-2008, 22:52
And a disaster to lose a strategic industry like that.

The funny thing is ,England might turn back to coal because gas and oil prices are :hooray:pretty:hooray: high at the moment..

trebor
17-07-2008, 22:58
And a disaster to lose a strategic industry like that.

Absolutely.
But miners were mislead by the unions into thinking they were powerfull and important and should hold the country to ransom. In the process they priced themselves out of the market.

Bels
17-07-2008, 22:58
The current government is doing this now, they are listening to what central bank and what the Chamber of Commerce has stated. They are looking at Britains' recession and inflation problems as being a world problem.

So what are they doing about it, they are talking to the rest of the world, including USA, China, and Japan and looking for answers on how to solve this problem, over demand in buying from Chine, world food shortage, major bank lending problems etc, etc.

By listening they are also taking full advantage of Britains strengths, and they have already made decisions on giving incentives to those who export in Britain. Britain has already become aggressive in exporting with government financial backing, and that includes arms, and food.
They have also made moves to discourage farmers to grow this agricultural fuel, and have alternatively pursuaded farmers to grow the foods that we really need.

So I think they might be going in the right direction, and yes!! That is because they are listening to our experts:)

Even so, I still think that the conservitive party will be back, on the coming results of the next election, because they also listen to our experts, but they can do it better.

Yes it was a great speech coming from the chairman of the Bank of England, also the statements from the Chamber of Commerce, as I do believe they knew what they were talking about. I'll look back and find the links if you want them.

Bels
17-07-2008, 23:07
Coal has been banned from many countries, including its gas. It's not envioronmentally friendly, and was not profitable for Britain. It had to go, and that's what that orange curly haired Scargill didn't understand.

I must admit, he was a great speaker, however he was up against the greatest speaker of the world, in the 20th century. Margaret Thatcher.

trebor
17-07-2008, 23:14
The current government is doing this now, they are listening to what central bank and what the Chamber of Commerce has stated. They are looking at Britains' recession and inflation problems as being a world problem.

So what are they doing about it, they are talking to the rest of the world, including USA, China, and Japan and looking for answers on how to solve this problem, over demand in buying from Chine, world food shortage, major bank lending problems etc, etc.

By listening they are also taking full advantage of Britains strengths, and they have already made decisions on giving incentives to those who export in Britain. Britain has already become aggressive in exporting with government financial backing, and that includes arms, and food.
They have also made moves to discourage farmers to grow this agricultural fuel, and have alternatively pursuaded farmers to grow the foods that we really need.

So I think they might be going in the right direction, and yes!! That is because they are listening to our experts:)

Even so, I still think that the conservitive party will be back, on the coming results of the next election, because they also listen to our experts, but they can do it better.

Yes it was a great speech coming from the chairman of the Bank of England, also the statements from the Chamber of Commerce, as I do believe they knew what they were talking about. I'll look back and find the links if you want them.

If you don't mind me paraphrasing you, i think you are saying that economies today must be totally flexible to survive.
That means a flexible work force. One that is willing and able to re-deploy, re-train and with the ability to multi task.
Does that sound like a 1970's union member?:rolleyes:
Most people in Britain understand we are living in a different world now and are willing to adapt to cicumstances.

Judge
17-07-2008, 23:15
Coal has been banned from many countries, including its gas. It's not envioronmentally friendly, and was not profitable for Britain. It had to go, and that's what that orange curly haired Scargill didn't understand.

I must admit, he was a great speaker, however he was up against the greatest speaker of the world, in the 20th century. Margaret Thatcher.

Countries care about the environment,please Bels, don't make me laugh.
England is turning to coal because oil and gas is becoming too expensive...By the way ,England is gonna open it's first coal plant ,first in 24 years..

trebor
17-07-2008, 23:20
Coal has been banned from many countries, including its gas. It's not envioronmentally friendly, and was not profitable for Britain. It had to go, and that's what that orange curly haired Scargill didn't understand.

I must admit, he was a great speaker, however he was up against the greatest speaker of the world, in the 20th century. Margaret Thatcher.

I think the enviromental argument post dated the miners dispute but your right. Coal was doomed.

Bels
17-07-2008, 23:24
Countries care about the environment,please Bels, don't make me laugh.England is turning to coal because oil and gas is becoming too expensive...By the way ,England is gonna open it's first coal plant ,first in 24 years..

What! UK is going back to coal in the 21st century?!!! I don't believe it! Where's the link. I saw a link recently of Brotain commending the price of higher gas prices! And I was shocked! But it was in the financial section of Timesonline. I don't think they would have dared say it in their common headline news, it was just for those involved in shares, but believe me it was there.

Even so, I can't believe Britain will go back to coal, after condemning other countries for not being envioronmentally friendly, including Russia and USA.

Gypsy
17-07-2008, 23:25
Coal has been banned from many countries, including its gas. It's not envioronmentally friendly, and was not profitable for Britain. It had to go, and that's what that orange curly haired Scargill didn't understand.

I must admit, he was a great speaker, however he was up against the greatest speaker of the world, in the 20th century. Margaret Thatcher.

Apart from your first sentence not being english - but hey! what's new?- your last is just laughable.

To attempt to say that The Maggon was a great speaker is itself a joke, to elevate her above, just a sample here, Nye Bevin, Ernest Bevan, David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela (and this a sample of only english speaking orators) just displays your ignorance.

Bels
17-07-2008, 23:34
Also someone stated that North Sea Oil is not doing so good. Sorry but you are wrong.
North Sea oil has plenty more resources yet to get, and companies are now being given incentives for the oil to be drilled. The North sea has plenty of oil. And not only that, Britain now has the technology to dig deeper, and yet be profitable in digging for this oil, and companies are being provided with grants from our main British oil company (I can't remember the name for the moment, but no it's not BP) Although I'm sure BP and Shell will be involved with the digging amongst other companies.

Judge
17-07-2008, 23:35
What! UK is going back to coal in the 21st century?!!! I don't believe it! Where's the link. I saw a link recently of Brotain commending the price of higher gas prices! And I was shocked! But it was in the financial section of Timesonline. I don't think they would have dared say it in their common headline news, it was just for those involved in shares, but believe me it was there.

Even so, I can't believe Britain will go back to coal, after condemning other countries for not being envioronmentally friendly, including Russia and USA.


With great pleasure Mr Bels..

Why are we going back to coal? | Camilla Cavendish - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3670769.ece?pgnum=3)


''Memos leaked to Greenpeace show that Mr Hutton's servile officials have pretty much let E.ON write the contract for what will be the first coal plant for 24 years.''

Another link here.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Greenpeace protest over coal use (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7230386.stm)

trebor
17-07-2008, 23:35
Apart from your first sentence not being english - but hey! what's new?- your last is just laughable.

To attempt to say that The Maggon was a great speaker is itself a joke, to elevate her above, just a sample here, Nye Bevin, Ernest Bevan, David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Mandela (and this a sample of only english speaking orators) just displays your ignorance.

Nelson Mandela and Ghandi great speakers?
Now while i have great respect for them. Great men but not great speakers.
Please tell me what you know about Nye Bevin, Ernest Bevan and David Lloyd. (without googling of course) I know very little about these guys and would love for an expert like you to enlighten me. :rolleyes:

trebor
17-07-2008, 23:46
With great pleasure Mr Bels..

Why are we going back to coal? | Camilla Cavendish - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article3670769.ece?pgnum=3)


''Memos leaked to Greenpeace show that Mr Hutton's servile officials have pretty much let E.ON write the contract for what will be the first coal plant for 24 years.''

Another link here.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Greenpeace protest over coal use (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7230386.stm)

Wrong again.;)
Ten UK nuclear power stations by 2020 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/10/eanuclear110.xml)

Judge
17-07-2008, 23:51
Wrong again.;)
Ten UK nuclear power stations by 2020 - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/10/eanuclear110.xml)
:nut::nut:
It doesn't say anything about the new coal plant.The coal plant has been approved and will be built...

Green campaigners furious as new coal-fired power station approved - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3129380.ece)

Bels
17-07-2008, 23:54
It doesn't say anything about the new coal plant.

Now that's the sort of thing I have read, although I am a bigger fan of Timesonline and BBC.

Bels
17-07-2008, 23:56
And there's no doubt about it, it cannot be disputed. Maggie Thatcher was the greatest speaker of the 20th century, without any doubt. And she made more money on the demands of her speaking after she was Prime Minister. The Japanse loved her.

Judge
17-07-2008, 23:57
Now that's the sort of thing I have read, although I am a bigger fan of Timesonline and BBC.


Yep, the link doesn't say anything about the coal plant but about nuclear plants and how much it will harm the environment ..
England needs to get its power from somewhere.

Gypsy
18-07-2008, 00:06
Nelson Mandela and Ghandi great speakers?
Now while i have great respect for them. Great men but not great speakers. Well we must agree to differ, I think Ghandi's speaches were excellent, Nehru's better I would admit. Mandela is a quiet orator but a powerful one - remember when he speaks english it is his second tongue, the timbre and rhythm are better in his original language, but his speech at his trial is recognised as one of the greatest pieces of oratory of the 20th century.

Please tell me what you know about Nye Bevin, Ernest Bevan and David Lloyd. (without googling of course) I know very little about these guys and would love for an expert like you to enlighten me. :rolleyes:

Aneurin Bevan is widely recognised as a great orator,I studied him in history, read the speeches and listened to the few that have been recorded. All wonderful -more like hearing someone sing in fact. Ernest Bevin far more direct bluff and down to earth.Lloyd George was alternately a firebrand and a charmer,again read his speeches in history, only heard them recreated by actors sadly.

The Maggon with that awful plummy patronising nanny knows best voice does not come close.

Bels
18-07-2008, 00:14
Yep, the link doesn't say anything about the coal plant but about nuclear plants and how much it will harm the environment ..
England needs to get its power from somewhere.

Yes , that's what I've read. We do appear to be going towards more nuclear energy. Also more people will vouch for electricity rather than gas in the near future.

There is also dome complaints about these wid power plants, destroying our views on our coastline and our countryside. Problem is we need a helluva lot of these miniuture windmills (as I call them) to get a reasonable amount of energy power

Judge
18-07-2008, 00:35
Yes , that's what I've read. We do appear to be going towards more nuclear energy. Also more people will vouch for electricity rather than gas in the near future.

There is also dome complaints about these wid power plants, destroying our views on our coastline and our countryside. Problem is we need a helluva lot of these miniuture windmills (as I call them) to get a reasonable amount of energy power

That's ok, we can get the germans to build the windmills..The germans have loads of windmills,pretty impressive they look,but many people are complaining because the windmills are an eyesore.

Gypsy
18-07-2008, 00:56
And there's no doubt about it, it cannot be disputed. What can't?
Maggie Thatcher was the greatest speaker of the 20th century, without any doubt. Well there is considerable doubt among many academics, writers,members of the public etc etc. This is an opinion you are stating and therefore by definition there is doubt.
And she made more money on the demands of her speaking after she was Prime Minister. Can you translate this into intelligible english? What is it supposed to mean?
The Japanse loved her.Oh well that clinches it then -as long as the japanese like her.

Instead of posting garbage like the above why not post 10 of The Maggon's speeches and compare them to 10 from, Mandela, Martin Luther King, "Pandit" Nehru, Franklin Roosevelt, David Lloyd George, Nye Bevan.

You can't because you've never heard their speeches - so how can you claim that she is the best?She isn't even the best woman, Emmeline Pankhurst was far more powerful, emotional and persuasive.

pjw
18-07-2008, 02:14
She isn't even the best woman, Emmeline Pankhurst was far more powerful, emotional and persuasive.An interesting thread. Maggie should she get a state funeral? My gut says no. Also Britain says no. Wait and see. Emily Pankhurst is someone who changed history. Google google. 14200 What did she demand? What did she achieve? She deserved a state burial more so than our Maggie but nobody knows her except the bookworms amongst us. Hmmmm.....

pjw
18-07-2008, 03:35
I believe it was a lot easier for him to win "the war" than it was for Thatcher.
Ask anyone in 1941 at the height of the blitz in London what were the challenges facing Britain and everyone would have said "Nazi Germany" Everyone understood that and rallied 'round the cause.
Thatcher didn't have that luxury. She was fighting a war within.

Easier for him to win the war against Gerrie? One must never forget the seriousness of the task and sacrifice during WW2 and start saying it was easier for Churchill than for Thatcher. I think this is rather disrespectful and short-sighted of you Trebor and to start comparing the difficulties of 2 leaders in 2 completely different situations is meaningless.

trebor
18-07-2008, 10:13
Easier for him to win the war against Gerrie? One must never forget the seriousness of the task and sacrifice during WW2 and start saying it was easier for Churchill than for Thatcher. I think this is rather disrespectful and short-sighted of you Trebor and to start comparing the difficulties of 2 leaders in 2 completely different situations is meaningless.

If you read all my posts on the subject maybe you will understand what i am trying to say.
Either you get it or you don't.

Orion
18-07-2008, 10:33
Easier for him to win the war against Gerrie? One must never forget the seriousness of the task and sacrifice during WW2 and start saying it was easier for Churchill than for Thatcher. I think this is rather disrespectful and short-sighted of you Trebor and to start comparing the difficulties of 2 leaders in 2 completely different situations is meaningless.

Easier in the sense that you could look at Gerrie and say "That is my enemy and he must be defeated"

How many Englishmen can look at their next door neighbour and say the same thing?

Just look at this thread...several of them still are not able to do that.

Take judge...in order to make is ignorant comment about people from "across the pond" not knowing anything about Thatcher because they didn't live in England he totally ignores trebor's points. He simply doesn't want to see the other point of view...the one that in this case is correct. And that is the point that trebor is making; it takes more political courage to do what Thatcher did than what Churchill did.

(What's particularly funny about judge's comments is that we want history to be assessed from afar by someone who is dispassionate; not take the word of the victorious winner...nor the pathetic gripes of the sore loser.)

The attackers of Thatcher have yet to present an arguement that there was any other way...that the Unions were right...that Thatcher failed. Their entire argument is nothing more than personal grievence. Thatcher's policies put people I know out of a job. And look at what it has turned them into...people who are rooting for Lady Thatcher's death...wanting to dance on her grave...chilling bottles of chapagme already. (That says an awful lot more about those people then it ever will about the object of their derision.) How completely distasteful, vile, and cowardly...but that is another thread entirely.

Orion
18-07-2008, 10:37
An interesting thread. Maggie should she get a state funeral? My gut says no. Also Britain says no. Wait and see. Emily Pankhurst is someone who changed history. Google google. What did she demand? What did she achieve? She deserved a state burial more so than our Maggie but nobody knows her except the bookworms amongst us. Hmmmm.....

Pankhurst was admirable and worthy of honors, but she doesn't surpass Lady Thatcher.

Gypsy
18-07-2008, 12:12
.

The attackers of Thatcher have yet to present an arguement that there was any other way...that the Unions were right...that Thatcher failed. Their entire argument is nothing more than personal grievence.

This is simply not true.I am arguing and I have never said the unions were right, and never denied that the UK was a mess that needed sorting out.

Additionally I have repeatedly shown that it was not that she put people I know out of work, I made it very plain that it was my experience in seeing first hand the outright destruction of communities and families -who lived hundreds of miles away from me - that turned my mind -and my stomach.

So please do not put words in my mouth.

Orion
18-07-2008, 13:25
I made it very plain that it was my experience in seeing first hand the outright destruction of communities and families -who lived hundreds of miles away from me - that turned my mind -and my stomach.

So please do not put words in my mouth.

If they "lived hundreds of miles away" from you then how can you state the following:



But I went to work in the north of england - a different country entirely, working in Kirby, Byker, Moss Side, Sheffield and it coincided with the miner's strike.

Whatever the supposed economic benefits were supposed to be for the country -and I mean England here not Wales or Scotland - they were not worth the utter devastation that was wreaked on those communities. You may smile remembering News at Ten footage-I was in those villages, where not one single shop was open because no one had any money - there was nothing to smile about there.


Did you commute those "hundreds of miles" to those villages everday and live elsewhere?

Without you giving us your home address during those years how could you expect anyone to guess that you didn't live where you claim to have worked?

trebor
18-07-2008, 13:28
This is simply not true.I am arguing and I have never said the unions were right, and never denied that the UK was a mess that needed sorting out.

Additionally I have repeatedly shown that it was not that she put people I know out of work, I made it very plain that it was my experience in seeing first hand the outright destruction of communities and families -who lived hundreds of miles away from me - that turned my mind -and my stomach.

So please do not put words in my mouth.

You've said a number of times that there was "another way" i and i'm sure many others would love to hear it.

Judge
18-07-2008, 13:31
Gypsy.. take a deep breath and put some chilling music on..

Gypsy
18-07-2008, 16:51
Gypsy.. take a deep breath and put some chilling music on..

Thank you, yes.

pullar
18-07-2008, 19:16
When I first read that The Thatcher woman was to receive a state burial, I immediately thought of her famous phrase: Rejoice at the news. Unfortunately my joy was very short-lived, for it turned out that she was still alive, if no longer kicking anyone, and the blurb was the latest piece of hagiography whose function I can only dimly perceive. It is time to tell certain obvious truths about the Thatcher regime, and the reasons for her so-called success.

First of all, to a man the members of her cabinet and others further down the food chain were the products of upper middle class households. The major exceptions were Cecil Parkinson and Norman Fowler. This meant that they had all been brought up to defer to women at all times, be extremely courteous in their dealings with them, and not shout at them however strong the provocation. In other words, any mere male leader of the Tories at that time would have been kicked out after the first catastrophic results of her obsession with supply-side economics had wrought total havoc with the economy, leading to millions being unemployed.

I was unemployed for almost 4 years on the trot under that period which is somehow known as the Thatcher economic miracle. It was not a pleasant experience. But one could always be comforted by hearing such twaddle as: There’s plenty of jobs – the unemployed should be shot.
Now where I lived the unemployment rate was 26%. So the halfwits to whom the above opinion is attributed could respond in one of two ways: either all these idiot members of the working class were deliberately lolling round on the dole because they thought it was fun and they couldn’t abide the thought of having a regular income on which they could live reasonably (and as I explain below, you could most definitely NOT live comfortably on your dole money); or there were endless employers who had work to be done but couldn’t be bothered to advertise their vacancies and so continue batting for Britain on a larger and more remunerative scale.

One of the things Thatcher was known for was her repeated cries that people should take responsibility for their lives, stand on their own feet, (even if they didn’t have any), and stop scrounging off the state. However, the reality was very different. If you were claiming unemployment benefit, you had to sign on once a fortnight (it used to be every week, but with so many people doing it, the frequency was halved). Now, before signing on the dotted line, you would be asked if you’d done any work in the previous two weeks to the value of two pounds on any day except Sunday. If you admitted to the dreadful crime of earning two pounds it would be noted, and a whole day’s benefit would be deducted from your next cheque. Your daily payment would be about seven quid. So for trying to improve your circumstances, and those of your family, if you had one, you would end up being worse off. Of course, if you did have a family then your daily payment would be that much higher, and the deprivation you suffered for trying to keep them clothed, housed and fed would be that much worse. In other words, it was assumed that if you admitted to earning the two quid you’d obviously ‘really’ earned a lot more, and so you were adjudged, without any charge, evidence or trial, to be a criminal. Now I have no doubt that there were people who did fiddle the system, were engaged in crime, and should properly have been arrested and charged. That did happen occasionally, and still does. But the blanket assumption that anyone who was honest enough to admit to two quid was hence in reality a liar was and remains disgusting abuse of power, a kind of latter-day Morton’s Fork. I must say that this rule was not unique to Thatcher – it applied equally before she came to power. But it was uniquely the creature Bossy Roberts, with her fixation on her father, who prated all the time about self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Far too many commentators at the time had not the faintest idea what it was like to be on the dole, or the destructive effects of Thatcheright economic idiocy. This extended to numerous professors of economics who regularly appeared on our TV screens to lecture us about how important it was to keep the economic medicine coming. I remember one loon, more dippy than most, called Professor Minford. On one occasion I saw an advert for a part-time book stacker in the library of the University of Liverpool, where he lectured. After doing a couple of calculations it was plain that if I got the job I would be worse off than I was on the dole. So I wrote to this cretin, and explained the sums to him. He replied saying that I would benefit from ‘being in the market’. Quite how that situation would help my parlous finances he didn’t bother to tell me. So I asked him: Do you really imagine that as I am stacking books on the shelves, Professor Davies might roll up and say: My dear Pullar, I have been most impressed by the industry, attention to detail and sheer joie de vivre with which you place these books upon our shelves. Would you care to join my department as a clerk responsible for classifying my collection of slides of Roman antiquities? I would naturally pay you three times what you presently earn.

Of course, Minford did not reply.

As another poster has already said, Thatcher got re-elected because she won the wholly unnecessary Falklands War. This put her and Britain back on the map, made the whole world realise GB was great again, something to be proud of, hold your head up contd p. 94.

One thing which stuck in my craw as a Christian was her malicious use of the Christian ethic when it suited her. In particular was her simpering remark about the Good Samaritan: The GS would never have been remembered if he only had good intentions. He had money as well.
This is such a rape of Christ’s words that I wanted to throttle the woman and silence those mincing vocal cords for good and all, for it totally and deliberately ignored the point, which was that you should love your neighbour whoever they might be. Fair enough, I do not find it within me to feel any neighbourly love for the Thatcher.

And it is always true that a British government is elected by a minority of the voters who turn out, never mind of the total electorate.

It is true that the unions had to be tamed, because large numbers of them had gone mad with their wage demands. As others have said, the taming did not have to be achieved by destroying entire industries and complete communities of the working class. Thatcher has decimated British industry. Where I live there were dozens of industrial employers where lads could get apprenticeships and learn a very skilled trade, thus contributing to the local and wider communities. That is now all gone. There is little in its place, apart from unskilled jobs which pay badly and teach you nothing except boredom and frustration. That is the true legacy of the Thatcher years. What she created is nothing, and she deserves to be remembered as an ogre whose ‘pained sincerity’ was a mockery of any genuine emotion known to man and woman. She was and remains ignorant, in particular of history. She got thrown out only because her most viciously divisive policy – the poll tax – threatened the loss of so many Tory seats that the men in suits told her she had to go. If these men (and it was all men) had ever given a thought to the consequences of Thatcherism for the country at large, if they had had one iota of moral integrity, they would have told her to go before she embroiled us in the Falklands debacle.

PS As an example of her stupidity, it is recorded that once when she was eulogising her deputy, William Whitelaw, she frothed: Every Prime Minister should have a Willie.

The poor old crone was saying more than she ever realised.

Bels
18-07-2008, 20:25
No , Thatcher didn't get thrown out, and she has never lost an election. She was let down by her own side, with over ambitious traitors such as Michael Heseltine, who was the ring leader. This greedy guy thought he could steal Maggie's position, thankfully he failed and John Major moved in as Prime Minister instead.

trebor
18-07-2008, 21:39
When I first read that The Thatcher woman was to receive a state burial, I immediately thought of her famous phrase: Rejoice at the news. Unfortunately my joy was very short-lived, for it turned out that she was still alive, if no longer kicking anyone, and the blurb was the latest piece of hagiography whose function I can only dimly perceive. It is time to tell certain obvious truths about the Thatcher regime, and the reasons for her so-called success.

First of all, to a man the members of her cabinet and others further down the food chain were the products of upper middle class households. The major exceptions were Cecil Parkinson and Norman Fowler. This meant that they had all been brought up to defer to women at all times, be extremely courteous in their dealings with them, and not shout at them however strong the provocation. In other words, any mere male leader of the Tories at that time would have been kicked out after the first catastrophic results of her obsession with supply-side economics had wrought total havoc with the economy, leading to millions being unemployed.

I was unemployed for almost 4 years on the trot under that period which is somehow known as the Thatcher economic miracle. It was not a pleasant experience. But one could always be comforted by hearing such twaddle as: There’s plenty of jobs – the unemployed should be shot.
Now where I lived the unemployment rate was 26%. So the halfwits to whom the above opinion is attributed could respond in one of two ways: either all these idiot members of the working class were deliberately lolling round on the dole because they thought it was fun and they couldn’t abide the thought of having a regular income on which they could live reasonably (and as I explain below, you could most definitely NOT live comfortably on your dole money); or there were endless employers who had work to be done but couldn’t be bothered to advertise their vacancies and so continue batting for Britain on a larger and more remunerative scale.

One of the things Thatcher was known for was her repeated cries that people should take responsibility for their lives, stand on their own feet, (even if they didn’t have any), and stop scrounging off the state. However, the reality was very different. If you were claiming unemployment benefit, you had to sign on once a fortnight (it used to be every week, but with so many people doing it, the frequency was halved). Now, before signing on the dotted line, you would be asked if you’d done any work in the previous two weeks to the value of two pounds on any day except Sunday. If you admitted to the dreadful crime of earning two pounds it would be noted, and a whole day’s benefit would be deducted from your next cheque. Your daily payment would be about seven quid. So for trying to improve your circumstances, and those of your family, if you had one, you would end up being worse off. Of course, if you did have a family then your daily payment would be that much higher, and the deprivation you suffered for trying to keep them clothed, housed and fed would be that much worse. In other words, it was assumed that if you admitted to earning the two quid you’d obviously ‘really’ earned a lot more, and so you were adjudged, without any charge, evidence or trial, to be a criminal. Now I have no doubt that there were people who did fiddle the system, were engaged in crime, and should properly have been arrested and charged. That did happen occasionally, and still does. But the blanket assumption that anyone who was honest enough to admit to two quid was hence in reality a liar was and remains disgusting abuse of power, a kind of latter-day Morton’s Fork. I must say that this rule was not unique to Thatcher – it applied equally before she came to power. But it was uniquely the creature Bossy Roberts, with her fixation on her father, who prated all the time about self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Far too many commentators at the time had not the faintest idea what it was like to be on the dole, or the destructive effects of Thatcheright economic idiocy. This extended to numerous professors of economics who regularly appeared on our TV screens to lecture us about how important it was to keep the economic medicine coming. I remember one loon, more dippy than most, called Professor Minford. On one occasion I saw an advert for a part-time book stacker in the library of the University of Liverpool, where he lectured. After doing a couple of calculations it was plain that if I got the job I would be worse off than I was on the dole. So I wrote to this cretin, and explained the sums to him. He replied saying that I would benefit from ‘being in the market’. Quite how that situation would help my parlous finances he didn’t bother to tell me. So I asked him: Do you really imagine that as I am stacking books on the shelves, Professor Davies might roll up and say: My dear Pullar, I have been most impressed by the industry, attention to detail and sheer joie de vivre with which you place these books upon our shelves. Would you care to join my department as a clerk responsible for classifying my collection of slides of Roman antiquities? I would naturally pay you three times what you presently earn.

Of course, Minford did not reply.

As another poster has already said, Thatcher got re-elected because she won the wholly unnecessary Falklands War. This put her and Britain back on the map, made the whole world realise GB was great again, something to be proud of, hold your head up contd p. 94.

One thing which stuck in my craw as a Christian was her malicious use of the Christian ethic when it suited her. In particular was her simpering remark about the Good Samaritan: The GS would never have been remembered if he only had good intentions. He had money as well.
This is such a rape of Christ’s words that I wanted to throttle the woman and silence those mincing vocal cords for good and all, for it totally and deliberately ignored the point, which was that you should love your neighbour whoever they might be. Fair enough, I do not find it within me to feel any neighbourly love for the Thatcher.

And it is always true that a British government is elected by a minority of the voters who turn out, never mind of the total electorate.

It is true that the unions had to be tamed, because large numbers of them had gone mad with their wage demands. As others have said, the taming did not have to be achieved by destroying entire industries and complete communities of the working class. Thatcher has decimated British industry. Where I live there were dozens of industrial employers where lads could get apprenticeships and learn a very skilled trade, thus contributing to the local and wider communities. That is now all gone. There is little in its place, apart from unskilled jobs which pay badly and teach you nothing except boredom and frustration. That is the true legacy of the Thatcher years. What she created is nothing, and she deserves to be remembered as an ogre whose ‘pained sincerity’ was a mockery of any genuine emotion known to man and woman. She was and remains ignorant, in particular of history. She got thrown out only because her most viciously divisive policy – the poll tax – threatened the loss of so many Tory seats that the men in suits told her she had to go. If these men (and it was all men) had ever given a thought to the consequences of Thatcherism for the country at large, if they had had one iota of moral integrity, they would have told her to go before she embroiled us in the Falklands debacle.

PS As an example of her stupidity, it is recorded that once when she was eulogising her deputy, William Whitelaw, she frothed: Every Prime Minister should have a Willie.

The poor old crone was saying more than she ever realised.

Sorry pullar but i aint gonna read through that load of bumpf, it's just too long.
To make it relevant you will have to paraphase.
Get to the point in a busy world.

Transparent Theatre
18-07-2008, 22:57
No , Thatcher didn't get thrown out, and she has never lost an election.

She was removed by her own Party.

But keep shouting, imbecile - maybe someone will believe your gutless lies?

Transparent Theatre
18-07-2008, 22:58
Sorry pullar but i aint gonna read through that load of bumpf, it's just too long.
To make it relevant you will have to paraphase.
Get to the point in a busy world.

Don't worry, Trebor, you can Play School instead - more your level.

Bels
18-07-2008, 23:21
She was removed by her own Party.

But keep shouting, imbecile - maybe someone will believe your gutless lies?

So you don't believe that Heseltine had anything to with Margaret Thatcher resigning as Prime minister? That Margaret Thatcher never ever lost an election? And that she was not let down by her most trusted hired ministers?
And due this mess, her most trusted minister had to take over, the chancellor of exchequer John Major.

You are such a narrow minded idiot, you don't accept facts, and you don't accept statistics. You are the expat.ru village idiot.

pullar
18-07-2008, 23:34
Sorry pullar but i aint gonna read through that load of bumpf, it's just too long.
To make it relevant you will have to paraphase.
Get to the point in a busy world.

I have given you no personal invitation to read it. It is a matter for you, as you choose. Relevance in any event is not necessarily the same as brevity, and to deal with the corruption of Thatcher you need more than a couple of lines. If you think it's too long, why on earth quote it all back at me? All you have to do is say Your post is far too long for busy people like me.

And have done with it.

Bels
18-07-2008, 23:36
Heseltine was an extremely popular minester, again with a lot of charisma, a great speaker and looked upon as the the next Prime minister of Great Britain after Maggie Thatcher. But unfortunately he got too impatient, Maggie was getting old, and if he could have only waited for one year he might have made it as Prime minister. But no, he decided with a few of his cronies (also trusted servants of Maggie) to get rid of her. The public saw this, and his reputation was destroyed , and the quiete nice man John Major got in instead.

So you don't believe me? Tough. It's still in my memory as I was an adult at this time, but I bet I can find the archives from newspapers if need be.

Transparent Theatre
19-07-2008, 00:26
Heseltine was an extremely popular minester

I think you meant "Minister". You should try learning English.


It's still in my memory as I was an adult at this time,

What are you now?

Bels
19-07-2008, 00:32
I think you meant "Minister". You should try learning English.



What are you now?

It's so funny and true, but that's exactly the answer I was expecting from our village idiot.

trebor
19-07-2008, 00:39
I have given you no personal invitation to read it. It is a matter for you, as you choose. Relevance in any event is not necessarily the same as brevity, and to deal with the corruption of Thatcher you need more than a couple of lines. If you think it's too long, why on earth quote it all back at me? All you have to do is say Your post is far too long for busy people like me.

And have done with it.

pullar, no disrespect meant but have you seen and read some posts on the Internet these days?
Really, you have to learn to get to the point and paraphrase or you will loose your audience.
Thatcher was kicked out by her own party. Rightly so. She lived by the sword and therefore died by the sword. Such is life.
I am drawn back to Churchill as a comparison for some reason, again i'm not exactly sure why but immediately the second world war was concluded and we had won under his brilliant leadership the British people kicked kicked him out and voted in a Labour government.
Go figure

Bels
19-07-2008, 01:07
pullar, no disrespect meant but have you seen and read some posts on the Internet these days?
Really, you have to learn to get to the point and paraphrase or you will loose your audience.
Thatcher was kicked out by her own party. Rightly so. She lived by the sword and therefore died by the sword. Such is life.
I am drawn back to Churchill as a comparison for some reason, again i'm not exactly sure why but immediately the second world war was concluded and we had won under his brilliant leadership the British people kicked kicked him out and voted in a Labour government.
Go figure


Here we go again, I'm agreeing with you half way as usual, as you appear to have the facts, in comparison to another stupid idiot who doesn't.

Yes she was kicked out of her party by her own people, but not rightly so. She selectively appointed these ministers in full trust that they would be loyal to her. And her most loyal friend Heseltine let her down, for his own personal greedy ambitions. Now I liked this man myself, and thought he would be the next leader, but he moved in too soon, and showed the public what kind of a man he was, who was given tne full trust of his Prime minister and then let her down at her worst time, simply to try and gain his own peronal ambitions

xSnoofovich
19-07-2008, 01:17
I just have to hijack for one post and say-

I am quite shocked that all of the current major players (posters) on expat.ru have had an intelligent conversation - some people for, some people against, all postions heartfelt, and all well meant, without bashing or some how connecting George W. Bush as being the true master-mind and the one to blame for the entire Thatcher era.

Well done !

trebor
19-07-2008, 01:30
Here we go again, I'm agreeing with you half way as usual, as you appear to have the facts, in comparison to another stupid idiot who doesn't.

Yes she was kicked out of her party by her own people, but not rightly so. She selectively appointed these ministers in full trust that they would be loyal to her. And her most loyal friend Heseltine let her down, for his own personal greedy ambitions. Now I liked this man myself, and thought he would be the next leader, but he moved in too soon, and showed the public what kind of a man he was, who was given tne full trust of his Prime minister and then let her down at her worst time, simply to try and gain his own peronal ambitions

Bels, unlike Hollywood and the oscas, politicians get no glory or awards.
Thatcher for me was a real hero. I lived through those times and when i decided to study them further i understood what she did, why she did it and what it meant for the future of Britain.
like Churchill, Thatcher outlived her time. She was thrown out. Her party turned on her, it wasn't pretty. Bit like her treatment of the unions really. In the tradition of all great heroes she died by the very sword she lived by.

pjw
19-07-2008, 01:46
The point remains open as to whether she deserves a state burial. It is a completely open question. It won´t be decided by facts and figures. But it shall be protested if granted.

Bels
19-07-2008, 12:10
I just have to hijack for one post and say-

I am quite shocked that all of the current major players (posters) on expat.ru have had an intelligent conversation - some people for, some people against, all postions heartfelt, and all well meant, without bashing or some how connecting George W. Bush as being the true master-mind and the one to blame for the entire Thatcher era.

Well done !

And please tell me what Bush has got to do with Thatcher, as I thought Reagan was Thatcher's Muppet. And yes Blair was Bush's muppet.

trebor
19-07-2008, 12:25
The point remains open as to whether she deserves a state burial. It is a completely open question. It won´t be decided by facts and figures. But it shall be protested if granted.

Of course she deserves a state funeral. If only because she was Britains longest serving prime minister.

Gypsy
19-07-2008, 12:28
No , Thatcher didn't get thrown out, and she has never lost an election.[?QUOTE] Apart from the Leadership Election, where she was voted out by the people who knew her best. Very selective memory you have Bels. So selective one might be tempted to call it dishonest. [QUOTE] She was let down by her own side, Exactly strangers would vote for her,it was the people who knew her who hated her.
with over ambitious traitors such as Michael Heseltine, who was the ring leader. This greedy guy thought he could steal Maggie's position, thankfully he failed and John Major moved in as Prime Minister instead. Absolutely priceless - the man who has the guts to stand up and be counted is an "ambitious traitor" and the one who lied and said he was at the dentist for the crucial vote and didn't vote for her is your new hero. Priceless.

Malypense
19-07-2008, 12:32
When I first read that The Thatcher woman was to receive a state burial, I immediately thought of her famous phrase: Rejoice at the news. Unfortunately my joy was very short-lived, for it turned out that she was still alive, if no longer kicking anyone, and the blurb was the latest piece of hagiography whose function I can only dimly perceive. It is time to tell certain obvious truths about the Thatcher regime, and the reasons for her so-called success.

First of all, to a man the members of her cabinet and others further down the food chain were the products of upper middle class households. The major exceptions were Cecil Parkinson and Norman Fowler. This meant that they had all been brought up to defer to women at all times, be extremely courteous in their dealings with them, and not shout at them however strong the provocation. In other words, any mere male leader of the Tories at that time would have been kicked out after the first catastrophic results of her obsession with supply-side economics had wrought total havoc with the economy, leading to millions being unemployed.

I was unemployed for almost 4 years on the trot under that period which is somehow known as the Thatcher economic miracle. It was not a pleasant experience. But one could always be comforted by hearing such twaddle as: There’s plenty of jobs – the unemployed should be shot.
Now where I lived the unemployment rate was 26%. So the halfwits to whom the above opinion is attributed could respond in one of two ways: either all these idiot members of the working class were deliberately lolling round on the dole because they thought it was fun and they couldn’t abide the thought of having a regular income on which they could live reasonably (and as I explain below, you could most definitely NOT live comfortably on your dole money); or there were endless employers who had work to be done but couldn’t be bothered to advertise their vacancies and so continue batting for Britain on a larger and more remunerative scale.

One of the things Thatcher was known for was her repeated cries that people should take responsibility for their lives, stand on their own feet, (even if they didn’t have any), and stop scrounging off the state. However, the reality was very different. If you were claiming unemployment benefit, you had to sign on once a fortnight (it used to be every week, but with so many people doing it, the frequency was halved). Now, before signing on the dotted line, you would be asked if you’d done any work in the previous two weeks to the value of two pounds on any day except Sunday. If you admitted to the dreadful crime of earning two pounds it would be noted, and a whole day’s benefit would be deducted from your next cheque. Your daily payment would be about seven quid. So for trying to improve your circumstances, and those of your family, if you had one, you would end up being worse off. Of course, if you did have a family then your daily payment would be that much higher, and the deprivation you suffered for trying to keep them clothed, housed and fed would be that much worse. In other words, it was assumed that if you admitted to earning the two quid you’d obviously ‘really’ earned a lot more, and so you were adjudged, without any charge, evidence or trial, to be a criminal. Now I have no doubt that there were people who did fiddle the system, were engaged in crime, and should properly have been arrested and charged. That did happen occasionally, and still does. But the blanket assumption that anyone who was honest enough to admit to two quid was hence in reality a liar was and remains disgusting abuse of power, a kind of latter-day Morton’s Fork. I must say that this rule was not unique to Thatcher – it applied equally before she came to power. But it was uniquely the creature Bossy Roberts, with her fixation on her father, who prated all the time about self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Far too many commentators at the time had not the faintest idea what it was like to be on the dole, or the destructive effects of Thatcheright economic idiocy. This extended to numerous professors of economics who regularly appeared on our TV screens to lecture us about how important it was to keep the economic medicine coming. I remember one loon, more dippy than most, called Professor Minford. On one occasion I saw an advert for a part-time book stacker in the library of the University of Liverpool, where he lectured. After doing a couple of calculations it was plain that if I got the job I would be worse off than I was on the dole. So I wrote to this cretin, and explained the sums to him. He replied saying that I would benefit from ‘being in the market’. Quite how that situation would help my parlous finances he didn’t bother to tell me. So I asked him: Do you really imagine that as I am stacking books on the shelves, Professor Davies might roll up and say: My dear Pullar, I have been most impressed by the industry, attention to detail and sheer joie de vivre with which you place these books upon our shelves. Would you care to join my department as a clerk responsible for classifying my collection of slides of Roman antiquities? I would naturally pay you three times what you presently earn.

Of course, Minford did not reply.

As another poster has already said, Thatcher got re-elected because she won the wholly unnecessary Falklands War. This put her and Britain back on the map, made the whole world realise GB was great again, something to be proud of, hold your head up contd p. 94.

One thing which stuck in my craw as a Christian was her malicious use of the Christian ethic when it suited her. In particular was her simpering remark about the Good Samaritan: The GS would never have been remembered if he only had good intentions. He had money as well.
This is such a rape of Christ’s words that I wanted to throttle the woman and silence those mincing vocal cords for good and all, for it totally and deliberately ignored the point, which was that you should love your neighbour whoever they might be. Fair enough, I do not find it within me to feel any neighbourly love for the Thatcher.

And it is always true that a British government is elected by a minority of the voters who turn out, never mind of the total electorate.

It is true that the unions had to be tamed, because large numbers of them had gone mad with their wage demands. As others have said, the taming did not have to be achieved by destroying entire industries and complete communities of the working class. Thatcher has decimated British industry. Where I live there were dozens of industrial employers where lads could get apprenticeships and learn a very skilled trade, thus contributing to the local and wider communities. That is now all gone. There is little in its place, apart from unskilled jobs which pay badly and teach you nothing except boredom and frustration. That is the true legacy of the Thatcher years. What she created is nothing, and she deserves to be remembered as an ogre whose ‘pained sincerity’ was a mockery of any genuine emotion known to man and woman. She was and remains ignorant, in particular of history. She got thrown out only because her most viciously divisive policy – the poll tax – threatened the loss of so many Tory seats that the men in suits told her she had to go. If these men (and it was all men) had ever given a thought to the consequences of Thatcherism for the country at large, if they had had one iota of moral integrity, they would have told her to go before she embroiled us in the Falklands debacle.

PS As an example of her stupidity, it is recorded that once when she was eulogising her deputy, William Whitelaw, she frothed: Every Prime Minister should have a Willie.

The poor old crone was saying more than she ever realised.The best post / article / anything I've ever read about Thatcher. I would love to send it around to my family if I have your permission? Superb reading, thank you for taking the time and effort to post it Pullar.

Malypense
19-07-2008, 12:37
Also don't forget the moving of county boundaries just before the election so that socialist areas got swallowed up by bigger tory areas, I was in one of those areas. Blatant, and people idolise her? I seriously don't know how anyone with any compassion or love for his fellow man could say with hand on heart that this woman was anything more than a mad, self-serving and racist "magalomaniac" [sic]

Bels
19-07-2008, 12:43
Of course she deserves a state funeral. If only because she was Britains longest serving prime minister.

Not only that, she will have a state funeral because she was Britains' best leader in the 20th and continueing 21st century.

Gypsy
19-07-2008, 13:10
Not only that, she will have a state funeral because she was Britains' Britain's , ffs !
best leader in the 20th and continueing 21st century. Continuing does not have an "e" in it and The Maggon was never leader of Britain (as you wrongly call it) in the 21st century.

You make these bald statements yet you have not posted a single fact or argument to support them in any of your posts in this thread.

By the time of the leadership election she was widely known to be "carpet-chewingly, eye-swivellingly bonkers", she had lost all touch with reality. And it was Major who knifed her in the back which is why she hates him.

Perhaps your next post will contain some facts to back up your schoolboy crush? And keep practising the correct use of apostrophes - you'll get there.

pjw
19-07-2008, 13:16
Not only that, she will have a state funeral because she was Britains' best leader in the 20th and continueing 21st century.

It sends a very clear signal when planning someone´s funeral before they have died. Margaret´s quite thick-skinned so she may not perceive it. Or maybe she does and feels sad.

trebor
19-07-2008, 14:03
Britain's , ffs ! Continuing does not have an "e" in it and The Maggon was never leader of Britain (as you wrongly call it) in the 21st century.

You make these bald statements yet you have not posted a single fact or argument to support them in any of your posts in this thread.

By the time of the leadership election she was widely known to be "carpet-chewingly, eye-swivellingly bonkers", she had lost all touch with reality. And it was Major who knifed her in the back which is why she hates him.

Perhaps your next post will contain some facts to back up your schoolboy crush? And keep practising the correct use of apostrophes - you'll get there.

Firstly Gypsy, what's with the constant English lessons? Forget it. Who cares about the spelling and grammar. It's the point that counts.
Secondly, your right about her loosing the plot towards the end. That's why her party got rid of her.
It was not Major who knifed her in the back it was many of her colleagues in the cabinet. How do i know? I read her book which has all the details.

Gypsy
19-07-2008, 14:10
Firstly Gypsy, what's with the constant English lessons? Forget it. Who cares about the spelling and grammar. It's the point that counts.
Secondly, your right about her loosing the plot towards the end. That's why her party got rid of her.
It was not Major who knifed her in the back it was many of her colleagues in the cabinet. How do i know? I read her book which has all the details.
It was Major. At the crucial second vote he went absent saying he had an emergency dental appointment and some of his followers absented themselves as well. They were actually holed up in his campaign headquarters planning the next step. I think you will find that Thatch's book was published well before major's role was made public, I think by his tart, edwina.

Constant grammar lessons? No,just correcting Bels' mistakes. He is reaping what he sowed.

trebor
19-07-2008, 14:34
It was Major. At the crucial second vote he went absent saying he had an emergency dental appointment and some of his followers absented themselves as well. They were actually holed up in his campaign headquarters planning the next step. I think you will find that Thatch's book was published well before major's role was made public, I think by his tart, edwina.

Constant grammar lessons? No,just correcting Bels' mistakes. He is reaping what he sowed.

Read the book.The damage was done long before the vote, with all the shenanigans when they decided to stand against her.

Bels
19-07-2008, 15:57
THanks Trebor , but could you do me a favour? Could you please refrain from quoting the Gypsy, as he's been on my ignore settings for quite some time now, as I have no interest whatsoever as to his opinions, and wish he would just mind his own business and buzz off. And the less said about this poster the better it would be. Enough said, he's banned in my eyes.

pjw
20-07-2008, 03:24
Margaret Thatcher said, "Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. We conservatives are returning power to the people. That is the way to one nation, one people." But Thatcher was busy selling Britain by privatising as many state-owned resources as she could, resulting in the sharp increasing of GDP during her terms. Let´s be honest, liking Margaret Thatcher depends on how you view capitalism, if you desire this focus for government or see other priorities.

Gypsy
20-07-2008, 07:57
True PJW.

But I cannot see how selling strategic industries to foreign owners is in any way beneficial. The electricity industry is now in foreign hands, sold at about 30-40% of its value,tens of thousands of workers sacked within the first 5 years - the wage bill ending upon the social security tab - just so that for those who bought cheap in the first place could make windfall profits.

She droned on endlessly about Victorian values,the only one she did practise was hypocrisy. The Victorians were great builders of infrastructure, the sewer systems,libraries,museums,underground etc. The Maggon just kept up her incessant mantra that we couldn't afford it, where was the return?

Joseph Chamberlain never asked where the payback was when he set up Public Libraries, for the victorians it was obvious that an educated workforce benefitted the country, so they did it.

Stil not received a single fact from Bels to support his remarkable claims.

trebor
20-07-2008, 11:06
True PJW.

But I cannot see how selling strategic industries to foreign owners is in any way beneficial. The electricity industry is now in foreign hands, sold at about 30-40% of its value,tens of thousands of workers sacked within the first 5 years - the wage bill ending upon the social security tab - just so that for those who bought cheap in the first place could make windfall profits.

She droned on endlessly about Victorian values,the only one she did practise was hypocrisy. The Victorians were great builders of infrastructure, the sewer systems,libraries,museums,underground etc. The Maggon just kept up her incessant mantra that we couldn't afford it, where was the return?

Joseph Chamberlain never asked where the payback was when he set up Public Libraries, for the victorians it was obvious that an educated workforce benefitted the country, so they did it.

Stil not received a single fact from Bels to support his remarkable claims.

The Victorians sent kids up the chimneys too.

Gypsy
20-07-2008, 11:13
The Victorians sent kids up the chimneys too.

Come on Trebor you have better arguments than that, they did,and they stopped it too, and stopped the slave trade.

It was the period of greatest change and progress in our history and all underpinned by investment on a massive scale by government.

The schools Maggon shut were built by the Victorians, the playing fields she sold were created by the Victorians; the right to strike was enshrined in legislation by - guess who? Victorians.

Anyway we know that your statements are backed up by knowledge and belief, I won't convince you, nor you me; we'd just like to see from Bels that he has at least one FACT to back up his assertions.

pullar
21-07-2008, 01:56
The best post / article / anything I've ever read about Thatcher. I would love to send it around to my family if I have your permission? Superb reading, thank you for taking the time and effort to post it Pullar.

Dear Malypense,

Thank you for your kind comments. I have edited the original text to include some quotations from Sir Ian Gilmour's wonderful book: Dancing with Dogma, and add a few more points about her. Incredibly enough, there are less than 900 references to this book on Google. It should have become a seminal work in the debunking of the Thatcher myth, but somehow it never did. I recommend it to anyone who wants a view of the way she operated by a member of her first cabinet. By all means send either of the texts to whomever you want, excepting Thatcher's lawyers!

Margaret Hilda Thatcher - an Excoriation

When I first read that The Thatcher Woman was to receive a state burial, I immediately thought of her famous phrase: Rejoice at the news. Unfortunately my joy was very short-lived, for it turned out that she was still alive, if no longer kicking anyone, and the blurb was the latest piece of hagiography whose function I can only dimly perceive. It is time to tell certain obvious truths about the Thatcher regime, and the reasons for her so-called success.

She had no particular intellectual abilities, and she compensated for this defect by deluding herself that she was always right. She adhered so unwaveringly to this belief that she rarely tolerated discussion, preferring to go her own way surrounded by people who “were one of us.” She dressed this up as being a “conviction politician,” and she despised consensus, describing it in 1978 as follows:

“I regard [Conservatives who believe in consensus politics] as quislings, as traitors.” [Gilmour p.30]

This almost pathological contempt for different views allies her firmly, albeit unwittingly, with Lenin. It had never occurred to her that one could rationally consider any political situation and become convinced of the importance of consensus. She made this clear in an interview even before taking up office (February 1979 [Gilmour p.3]).

“As Prime Minister, I could not waste time having any internal arguments.”

And so she embarked upon the most destructive economic policy of the last 100 years by inflicting upon the nation applied monetary economics. This was largely an invention of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, and held that economic stability, including low inflation, could only come about by keeping the money supply under tight control. Until the advent of Thatcher, it remained an untested theory wholly lacking in empirical evidence to warrant its implementation in practice. Indeed, as Sir Ian Gilmour points out, [p. 13] there was modest evidence from the economies of Switzerland and West Germany to suggest that the theory was wholly flawed. Nevertheless, Thatcher was undeterred, and she started upon her dogmatic application of monetarism. To ensure that she could get away with it she more-or-less abandoned cabinet government, and decisions were taken by a small cabal of like-minded people. This was a betrayal of the Constitution, but she did not let that small matter stand in her way.

Any party which intends to follow an economic policy knowing that it will result in high levels of unemployment is morally bound to declare that fact in their manifesto and allow the electorate to have their say on it. Thatcher did not do so. Of course, her apologists might argue that she did not fully appreciate what the consequences might be, but that would only be to condemn her even more for indulging in dogma rather than a carefully thought-out policy. For those who have forgotten, the results were massive deflation, enormous rises in the numbers of unemployed, which did not reach their limit until 1986, and, paradoxically, rising inflation. This all led to social unrest on a scale which had not been seen since the 19th century, (save for the General Strike). Brixton, Liverpool, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, Bristol and more than a score of other places were witness to riots which broke out in response to the effects of Thatcher’s so-called policy.

Her other great dogma was the need for government to get out of industry, and so she decided to sell off all the public utilities. This has led to massive increases in the costs which the hapless population has to stump up for gas and water etc., which incidentally shows a fundamental flaw in her reasoning. She condemned local authorities whose rates were high, because it was a drain on people’s incomes and councils were being extravagant in their spending. However, there was never anything wrong with price rises for the former public utilities, because they were now firmly entrenched in the private sector, and private firms have to turn a profit. This dichotomy did not disturb her in the least, and I have never managed to find any Thatcher idolater who could explain how it is that when we pay our electricity bills the funds end up for Spanish Profiteers to do with as they see fit, including paying their directors a salary of more than a million p.a., while when we pay our rates the sums transferred in some extraordinary way remain “our money.” Thatcher’s dogmatic behaviour was aptly satirised by Germaine Greer:

This is the view we shall continue to hold, come hell, high water or better information.

So she ploughed on, and the economy fell into recession. By 1981 the economic disaster so avidly courted by Thatcher led to her being the least popular PM since records began. It was this simple fact, with its attendant risk of annihilation at the polls, which led Thatcher to insist on fighting the Falklands war. She knew perfectly well that she would gain immensely from victory, and that is why she prevaricated endlessly about proposals for a peaceful solution.

I was unemployed for almost 4 years on the trot in that period which is somehow known as the Thatcher economic miracle. It was not a pleasant experience. But one could always be comforted by hearing such twaddle as: There’s plenty of jobs – the unemployed should be shot.
Now where I lived the unemployment rate was 26%. So the halfwits to whom the above opinion is attributed could respond in one of two ways: either all these idiot members of the working class were deliberately lolling round on the dole because they thought it was fun and they couldn’t abide the thought of having a regular income on which they could live reasonably (and as I explain below, you could most definitely NOT live comfortably on your dole money); or there were endless employers who had work to be done but couldn’t be bothered to advertise their vacancies and so continue batting for Britain on a larger and more remunerative scale.

One of the things Thatcher was known for was her repeated cries that people should take responsibility for their lives, stand on their own feet, (even if they didn’t have any), and stop scrounging off the state. However, the reality was very different. If you were claiming unemployment benefit, you had to sign on once a fortnight (it used to be every week, but with so many people doing it, the frequency was halved). Now, before signing on the dotted line, you would be asked if you’d done any work in the previous two weeks to the value of two pounds on any day except Sunday. If you admitted to the dreadful crime of earning two pounds it would be noted, and a whole day’s benefit would be deducted from your next cheque. Your daily payment would be about seven quid. So for trying to improve your circumstances, and those of your family, if you had one, you would end up being worse off. Of course, if you did have a family then your daily payment would be that much higher, and the deprivation you suffered for trying to keep them clothed, housed and fed would be that much worse. In other words, it was assumed that if you admitted to earning the two quid you’d obviously ‘really’ earned a lot more, and so you were adjudged, without any charge, evidence or trial, to be a criminal. Now I have no doubt that there were people who did fiddle the system, were engaged in crime, and should properly have been arrested and charged. That did happen occasionally, and still does. But the blanket assumption that anyone who was honest enough to admit to two quid was hence in reality a liar was and remains disgusting abuse of power, a kind of latter-day Morton’s Fork. I must say that this rule was not unique to Thatcher – it applied equally before she came to power. But it was uniquely the creature Bossy Roberts, with her fixation on her father, who prated all the time about self-reliance and personal responsibility whilst criminalizing those who tried to act in response to her repeated exhortations. The frustration and humiliation of those four years scarred me for life, and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

Far too many commentators at the time had not the faintest idea what it was like to be on the dole, or of the destructive effects of Thatcheright economic idiocy. This extended to numerous professors of economics who regularly appeared on our TV screens to lecture us about how important it was to keep the economic medicine coming. I remember one loon, more distant from reality than most, called Professor Minford. There was an advert for a part-time book stacker in the library of the University of Liverpool, where he lectured. After doing a couple of calculations it was plain that if I got the job I would be worse off than I was on the dole. So I wrote to this cretin, and explained the sums to him. He replied saying that I would benefit from ‘being in the market’. Quite how that situation would help my parlous finances he didn’t bother to tell me. So I asked him: Do you really imagine that as I am stacking books on the shelves, Professor Davies might roll up and say: My dear Pullar, I have been most impressed by the industry, attention to detail and sheer joie de vivre with which you place these books upon our shelves. Would you care to join my department as a clerk responsible for classifying my collection of slides of Roman antiquities? I would naturally pay you three times what you presently earn.

Of course, Minford did not reply. One of his more fatuous statements (and he was not alone in this) was that the unemployed had to price themselves into jobs. In this he demonstrated stupidity beyond comprehension. It is not the fact of being unemployed alone which is debilitating – it is the fact that you do not have enough money to make ends meet, and you are constantly getting into debt. No one feels any better if they are employed on derisory wages and constantly getting into debt.

Thatcher would shamelessly invoke, yet pervert, the Christian ethic to press her case whenever it suited her dubious purposes. On taking office in 1979 she stood before No. 10 and intoned a stanza from the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi:

Where there is discord, may we bring harmony,
Where there is error, may we bring truth,
Where there is doubt, may we bring faith,
Where there is despair, may we bring hope.

How she had the breathtaking effrontery to utter those words defeats me, for she was to start a campaign which divided the country as never before, and exemplified the very antithesis of those words. No Prime Minister of the 20th century had ever set about implementing a policy with such hubristic disregard for the fate of those whom it damaged. As a Christian, I found her regular perversion of Christ’s words offensive in the extreme. The most egregious example was her simpering remark about the Good Samaritan:
The Good Samaritan would never have been remembered if he only had good intentions. He had money as well.
This is such a rape of the purpose of Christ’s words that I wanted to throttle the woman and silence those drivelling vocal cords for good and all, for it totally and deliberately ignored the point. The parable of the Good Samaritan has absolutely nothing whatever to do with money per se. It celebrates the fact that a Samaritan – a member of a people who were sworn enemies of the Jews – gave up his time to help a Jew who had fallen among thieves. He came along after several other worthies who should have rushed to the injured man’s aid had “passed by on the other side.” He didn’t care that the man was a Jew – he helped the victim because he felt for him as a fellow human, and a fellow traveller on what can be a dangerous road. In doing so he put himself at risk. It was the Samaritan alone who acted as a good neighbour. And that was why Christ told the parable, because someone had asked him: “Who is my neighbour?” The intellectual filth of the Thatcher creature knew no bounds. Fair enough, I admit that unfortunately I do not find it within me to feel any neighbourly love for the Thatcher.

It is true that the unions had to be tamed, because large numbers of them had gone mad with their wage demands. As others have said, the taming did not have to be achieved by destroying entire industries and complete communities of the working class. Thatcher has decimated British industry. Where I live there were dozens of industrial employers where lads could get apprenticeships and learn a very skilled trade, thus contributing to the local and wider communities. That is now all gone. There is little in its place, apart from unskilled jobs which pay badly and teach you nothing except boredom and frustration. That is the true legacy of the Thatcher years. What she created is nothing, and she deserves to be remembered as an ogre whose ‘pained sincerity’ was a mockery of any genuine emotion known to man and woman. She was and remains ignorant, in particular of history.

The obvious question arises: how did she keep her position as PM? The answer is easy.
To a man the members of her cabinet and others further down the food chain were the products of upper middle class households. The major exceptions were Cecil Parkinson and Norman Fowler. This meant that they had all been brought up to defer to women at all times, be extremely courteous in their dealings with them, and not shout at them however strong the provocation. Thatcher was keenly aware of this, and exploited it mercilessly.

“Mrs Thatcher, in the words of Anthony King, had ‘long ago observed that well brought-up Englishmen … have no idea what to do with a strong, assertive woman.’” [Gilmour p. 33]. In other words, any mere male leader of the Tories at that time would have been kicked out after the first catastrophic results of the obsession with supply-side economics had wrought total havoc with the economy, leading to millions being unemployed. One poster (a supporter) commented that Thatcher lived by the sword and hence died by the sword. It never ceases to amaze me how people destroy their arguments by careless use of metaphor. No prime minister in a democracy is supposed to put their own populace to the sword – that is the practice of tyrants and madmen. Yet that is precisely what Thatcher did. The most destructive form of her sword-wagging was the poll tax. This was her most viciously divisive policy, against which she was warned by many senior figures. But as always she brooked no argument. In the end the results of this stupid policy threatened the loss of so many Tory seats that the men in suits told her she had to go. If these men (and it was all men) had ever given a thought to the consequences of Thatcherism for the country at large, if they had had one iota of moral integrity, they would have told her to go before she embroiled us in the Falklands debacle. But it was that war that got her re-elected. This put her and Britain back on the map, made the whole world realise GB was great again, something to be proud of, hold your head up contd p. 94.

And yet Thatcher had the unmitigated gall to prate about disloyalty. Many of her supporters on this thread seem to be unaware of the fact that Thatcher was only the second Tory leader ever to be elected. Prior to Ted Heath the Tory leader always ‘emerged’ by a process of soundings among the Tory grandees, who were nearly all in the House of Lords. If Thatcher herself had ever had the least conception of loyalty, which her admirers here invoke in condemnation of those who threw her out, she would never have stood in the leadership election against Ted Heath.

PS As an example of her stupidity, it is recorded that once when she was eulogising her deputy, William Whitelaw, she frothed: Every Prime Minister should have a Willie.

The poor old crone was saying more than she ever realised.

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 08:25
Exceptional.

Thank you.

pullar
21-07-2008, 14:47
Exceptional.

Thank you.

Dear Gypsy,

I assure you it was a pleasure!

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 14:53
Dear Gypsy,

I assure you it was a pleasure!

That I find strange.

Every time I have posted on this thread I am consumed by such a burning hatred of the woman and what she did that I can't get the arguments out properly.

All I see are those South Yorkshire villages, the back to backs in Manchester, Liverpool and Blackburn that used to provide the workers for the local factories: it is no pleasure at all.

pullar
21-07-2008, 15:45
I don't mean it was fun. I have more reason than you to be consumed with hatred for that disgusting woman and what her self-seeking colleagues allowed her to get away with. For many years I have had that essay bursting to be written, and at last it exists on paper in more-or-less coherent form. It is a massive catharsis, both to have written it and read appreciative comments about it. Few people at the time would listen to denigrations of Thatcher, unless they were trade unionists, and most of the press, and the media generally, gave her an easy ride. So it was a pleasure to set it all down, although I would give a lot never to have suffered as I did under her 'strong leadership,' and never to have seen the social destruction she presided over with such total indifference. Britain has still not recovered from the depredations of the Thatcher years, and it is doubtful that it ever will. That makes it all the more extraordinary that Gilmour's book did not attract greater interest when it first came out (1992), and that in spite of the abject failure of monetarism in the UK there were so many economic advisers to the governments of Russia and Eastern Europe who advocated wholesale privatisation and monetarism in the mid 90s.

MickeyTong
21-07-2008, 16:11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSapMfaBBg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaUHB_dD_Dc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33YUALnF3JY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A18K7OM7tWA&feature=related

MickeyTong
21-07-2008, 16:19
YouTube- Spitting Image 1987 Election Special. Tomorrow belongs to me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q52v3LhwhFU&feature=related

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 16:22
Brilliant Mickey thanks.

Still not as cringeingly embarrassing as her appearance on desert Island Discs talking about Two Little Boys. Still can't find that on Youtube -although it is on the HIGNFY Box set.

I think the single most embarrassing thing I have ever seen on TV.

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 16:33
YouTube- HIGNFY S06E01 - Part 1 (Thatcher Special)

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 16:34
YouTube- HIGNFY S06E01 - Part 2 (Thatcher Special)

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 16:35
YouTube- HIGNFY S06E01 - Part 3 (Thatcher Special)

trebor
21-07-2008, 17:01
I don't mean it was fun. I have more reason than you to be consumed with hatred for that disgusting woman and what her self-seeking colleagues allowed her to get away with. For many years I have had that essay bursting to be written, and at last it exists on paper in more-or-less coherent form. It is a massive catharsis, both to have written it and read appreciative comments about it. Few people at the time would listen to denigrations of Thatcher, unless they were trade unionists, and most of the press, and the media generally, gave her an easy ride. So it was a pleasure to set it all down, although I would give a lot never to have suffered as I did under her 'strong leadership,' and never to have seen the social destruction she presided over with such total indifference. Britain has still not recovered from the depredations of the Thatcher years, and it is doubtful that it ever will. That makes it all the more extraordinary that Gilmour's book did not attract greater interest when it first came out (1992), and that in spite of the abject failure of monetarism in the UK there were so many economic advisers to the governments of Russia and Eastern Europe who advocated wholesale privatisation and monetarism in the mid 90s.


Pullar, when you have quite finished patting yourself on the back for your wonderfull social essay.............

Few people at the time would listen to denigrations of Thatcher?
The press gave her an easy ride?
Britain has still not recovered from the depredations of the Thatcher years, and it is doubtful that it ever will.
Did you really make all that up yourself or did you have help? :D



You make it sound like it was walk in the park for her>

Bels
21-07-2008, 19:36
Thanks again Puller, 50/50 in agreement with you as usual. And when the bitching of the Maggie Thatcher and Brit haters are over, I think that Maggie deserves a true balanced picture of her history, and I'm sure you will all agree that this will make a good summary and ending for this forum.

Thee's no doubt about it, when this lady dies she will have a big sendoff, and she will go down in history.

If no one else will do it, I will.

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 19:58
Thanks again Puller, 50/50 in agreement with you as usual. And when the bitching of the Maggie Thatcher and Brit haters are over, I think that Maggie deserves a true balanced picture of her history, and I'm sure you will all agree that this will make a good summary and ending for this forum.

Thee's no doubt about it, when this lady dies she will have a big sendoff, and she will go down in history.

If no one else will do it, I will.

The dishonesty in this post is actually shocking.

You have stated that this woman is undoubtedly the greatest person ofthe 20th century etc etc and not posted a single fact to back up your claims. Pullar has written a brilliant destruction of her,that shows what you have written to be the garbage that we knew it to be, and yet you have the gall to claim 50/50 agreement with him?

It hypocrisy and dishonesty of a quite breathtaking magnitude.

trebor
21-07-2008, 20:22
.............Pullar has written a brilliant destruction of her..............

Hardly, brilliant.
There are many flaws. A few of which i have already pointed out.

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 20:57
I don't mean it was fun. I have more reason than you to be consumed with hatred for that disgusting woman and what her self-seeking colleagues allowed her to get away with. For many years I have had that essay bursting to be written, and at last it exists on paper in more-or-less coherent form. It is a massive catharsis, both to have written it and read appreciative comments about it. Few people at the time would listen to denigrations of Thatcher, unless they were trade unionists, and most of the press, and the media generally, gave her an easy ride. So it was a pleasure to set it all down, although I would give a lot never to have suffered as I did under her 'strong leadership,' and never to have seen the social destruction she presided over with such total indifference. Britain has still not recovered from the depredations of the Thatcher years, and it is doubtful that it ever will. That makes it all the more extraordinary that Gilmour's book did not attract greater interest when it first came out (1992), and that in spite of the abject failure of monetarism in the UK there were so many economic advisers to the governments of Russia and Eastern Europe who advocated wholesale privatisation and monetarism in the mid 90s.

Bels;this is what you NOW say you agree 50% with. And this is the abridged version-read Pullar's full post and your claim is even more extraordinary.

Can you actually read? Because it would explain a lot if you couldn't.

However your posts before have said this:


A great lady , and there's no doubt about it, and greater than Churchill

'm old enough to remember Maggie, and here are my results

10 10 10


I must admit, he was a great speaker, however he was up against the greatest speaker of the world, in the 20th century. Margaret Thatcher.

And there's no doubt about it, it cannot be disputed. Maggie Thatcher was the greatest speaker of the 20th century, without any doubt.

Not only that, she will have a state funeral because she was Britains' best leader in the 20th and continueing 21st century.


You have continually refused to offer up a single fact to support the bilge above so i am not surprised at your continued name calling and insult.

But to try and claim that the two sets of quotes above mean any sort of agreement is a level of dishonesty that is shocking even for you.

Transparent Theatre
21-07-2008, 20:58
Hardly, brilliant.
There are many flaws. A few of which i have already pointed out.

What, you mean that it being too long for your limited attention-span is classed as a "flaw"???

And I see the resident neocon lapdog is rec-ing all your posts, which he hasn't read either!

Bels
21-07-2008, 22:50
The Iron ladies unbiased history will be here soon. A true picture. I often wonder if some people here want to give a negative picture of both Britain and Russia. Well yes there are some negatives that the majority of us have a desire to resolve, and that's the difference.And also there are some individuals who want to bring us all down, and who who have no desire tobe proud of our countries. That's the way it is, but I want to remain positive with both countries. So love your country, and it's history, as that's the way it is.

DJ Biscuit
21-07-2008, 22:57
Bels, I have a question. Your support Thatcher and you have said that putting her down is unpatriotic because she was PM, am I correct so far?

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 23:00
Instead of constantly repeating this infantile heroworship why not offer up some facts to support your contentions?

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 23:04
The Iron ladies unbiased history will be here soon. A true picture..

I assume you mean "Lady's". Or perhaps you are lumping Edwina in there as well and you do actually mean the plural;in which case it should be ladies'.

A true picture?From you? You haven't posted a single fact yet to support your adolescent crush.

DJ Biscuit
21-07-2008, 23:05
Instead of constantly repeating this infantile heroworship why not offer up some facts to support your contentions?

BTW If long service as PM is a prerequisite for a state funeral what about poor old Walpole (over 20 years) and then of course Liverpool and North who went well beyond Thatcher's meagre 11 years. (Seemed longer though!)

Bels
21-07-2008, 23:07
Bels, I have a question. Your support Thatcher and you have said that putting her down is unpatriotic because she was PM, am I correct so far?

Yes! And the greatest British leader of the 20th century. The rest were wimps, apart from Churchill.

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 23:08
BTW If long service as PM is a prerequisite for a state funeral what about poor old Walpole (over 20 years) and then of course Liverpool and North who went well beyond Thatcher's meagre 11 years. (Seemed longer though!)

Shouldn't think Bels has even heard of them.

DJ Biscuit
21-07-2008, 23:12
Bels, I have a question. Your support Thatcher and you have said that putting her down is unpatriotic because she was PM, am I correct so far?

So is that what you mean? I just want to be clear on this.

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 23:14
Yes! And the greatest British leader of the 20th century. The rest were wimps, apart from Churchill.

On what basis?? Why was Balfour a wimp? Or Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Atlee, Salisbury? Baldwin, Bonar Law?You called them wimps -on what evidence?

You can't keep making these bald contentious statements and running away.

Supply some evidence, a couple of facts perhaps.

DJ Biscuit
21-07-2008, 23:19
On what basis?? Why was Balfour a wimp? Or Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Atlee, Salisbury? Baldwin, Bonar Law?You called them wimps -on what evidence?

You can't keep making these bald contentious statements and running away.

Supply some evidence, a couple of facts perhaps.

Perhaps Bels can give us a summary of each of these PMs' careers and show us why Thatcher was the best among them...

Nothing too detailed, just a summary of what each of them did and why and a synopsis of the effects left after their policies took hold and then a comparison to the Thatcher years.

DJ Biscuit
21-07-2008, 23:34
The danger of internet debate is that someone can make unfounded sweeping statements and generalisations without backing them up and then, having entered the debate, once challenged to explain just stop or refuse to answer. Of course while this is frustrating it by defualt means the other side is victorious as the person not defending their position looks weak to the observer. That is the nature of forums.

pjw
21-07-2008, 23:41
Come on Bels. You´ve said alot. Now you´re on the ropes, it´s time to start throwing some intelligent, planned punches and stop just waving your arms like you´re drowning :boxing:

trebor
21-07-2008, 23:41
What, you mean that it being too long for your limited attention-span is classed as a "flaw"???.............

Ouch. You can be really vicious when you want to be! :rolleyes::D

Bels
21-07-2008, 23:43
I hope you are not talking about me, as I always answer questions to posters as you must know by now, apart from the very few idiots I have chosen to ignore long before this debate started.

trebor
21-07-2008, 23:45
On what basis?? Why was Balfour a wimp? Or Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Atlee, Salisbury? Baldwin, Bonar Law?You called them wimps -on what evidence?

You can't keep making these bald contentious statements and running away.

Supply some evidence, a couple of facts perhaps.

You mentioned much earlier in this thread that there was "another" way.
I'd still like to hear it.

DJ Biscuit
21-07-2008, 23:46
You have obviously thought this out and your conclusion is that Thatcher was the best PM of the 20th Century. Please tell me why was she better than Balfour, Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Atlee, Salisbury, Baldwin, Bonar Law? What did they do during their tenure that led you to this opnion?

Gypsy
21-07-2008, 23:57
You have obviously thought this out and your conclusion is that Thatcher was the best PM of the 20th Century. Please tell me why was she better than Balfour, Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Atlee, Salisbury, Baldwin, Bonar Law? What did they do during their tenure that led you to this opnion?

With respect Deej he called all the others wimps -he should back that up.

Trebor - I did answer it several pages ago,but I will repeat that a social compact such as those achieved by scandinavian countries, and Germany among others resulted in the same end point at far less cost and damage. There was no need to use mass unemployment and strict monetarism as those other count ries proved.

I have provided many many facts and experiences to support my case, as have you, we disagree. Fair enough.

However Bels has not provided a single one to back up his ridiculous assertions, and he should. It is simply discourteous to other members to post bald statements and run away when challenged.

A few posts ago he claimed that every other PM in the 20th century was a wimp. on what basis does he claim that. There are some good men there who served their country well.

DJ Biscuit
22-07-2008, 00:00
With respect Deej he called all the others wimps -he should back that up.

Trebor - I did answer it several pages ago,but I will repeat that a social compact such as those achieved by scandinavian countries, and Germany among others resulted in the same end point at far less cost and damage. There was no need to use mass unemployment and strict monetarism as those other count ries proved.

I have provided many many facts and experiences to support my case, as have you, we disagree. Fair enough.

However Bels has not provided a single one to back up his ridiculous assertions, and he should. It is simply discourteous to other members to post bald statements and run away when challenged.

A few posts ago he claimed that every other PM in the 20th century was a wimp. on what basis does he claim that. There are some good men there who served their country well.

And some of them Tories!

Bels
22-07-2008, 00:02
But as I said , Maggies true unbiased tibute to her should eventually happen on this thread, that has not been written bitching writers who obviously for one reason or reason hate her. Otherwise we will get the wrong vision. Let's not forget she was voted in, and for a long peiod time the Labour government were in despair, they didn't stand a chance. And the only thing they could do was to copy her policies, and hope that the change of support from Europes most popular newspaper would help them( The Sun).

And it did, the new labour (conservartive in disguise) leader Tony Blair came along. Unfortunately the real conservatives didn't have someone with charisma at the time.

DJ Biscuit
22-07-2008, 00:13
Fine, but none of that really means anything. Perhaps it would be easier if you explained Keynsian versus monetarist policies? After all that was the turning point wasn't it?

pjw
22-07-2008, 00:22
But as I said , Maggies true unbiased tibute to her should eventually happen on this thread, that has not been written bitching writers who obviously for one reason or reason hate her. Otherwise we will get the wrong vision. Let's not forget she was voted in, and for a long peiod time the Labour government were in despair, they didn't stand a chance. And the only thing they could do was to copy her policies, and hope that the change of support from Europes most popular newspaper would help them( The Sun).

And it did, the new labour (conservartive in disguise) leader Tony Blair came along. Unfortunately the real conservatives didn't have someone with charisma at the time.I´d like you to back up some of the $h;t€ you´ve doled out with some solid facts please. Otherwise you´re punching yourself :yellowcard: and it´s not worth the paper it´s printed on :rules:

Gypsy
22-07-2008, 00:22
Or perhaps having called 20 Prime Ministers wimps he might like to justify the remark with some facts or withdraw it?

And then maybe explain why he thinks Thatch was so good -not mere rhetoric,but some evidence?

trebor
22-07-2008, 01:13
..................Trebor - I did answer it several pages ago,but I will repeat that a social compact such as those achieved by scandinavian countries, and Germany among others resulted in the same end point at far less cost and damage. There was no need to use mass unemployment and strict monetarism as those other count ries proved...............

The Scandinavian countries and Germany were never faced with anything like the problems Britian faced.
Germany was in a mess after the war but had the Marshal Plan to help them out.
Also, those monetarist policies and privatisations that Thatcher introduced in the early 80's and that everyone here is complaining about are now standard proceedure round the world.;)

Gypsy
22-07-2008, 08:37
The Scandinavian countries and Germany were never faced with anything like the problems Britian faced.
Germany was in a mess after the war but had the Marshal Plan to help them out.
Also, those monetarist policies and privatisations that Thatcher introduced in the early 80's and that everyone here is complaining about are now standard proceedure round the world.;)

As did Britain. We in fact had more aid than Germany-from memory it was something like 30% more.

"Monetarist" is not a helpful word because I don't believe Thatch used monetarist policies at all - she didn't understand them, and she didn't understand Keynes either come to that.

She used crude interest rate policy to drive up unemployment and ignored all the other balances required when running an economy.

None of which is the point - when someone makes the kind of statements Bels has made a dozen times now - they should back them up with argument, logic, or facts, or if they cannot they should have the basic honesty to withdraw the remarks.

Trebor,you do it. You state your assertion, then argue it. Fine, Orion too.I will never convince you, nor you me.

It is the sheer,outright dishonesty and hypocrisy to do what he does.

Orion
22-07-2008, 12:35
In a related note...

The poor downtrodden, unemployed so created by Thatcher are lampooned in a recent column about cars:

It’s hard to find a point in history when a man sound in mind and body could have bought a Jaguar. Certainly it wasn’t possible in the 1970s, when they were made either badly or not at all by a bunch of Trotskyites who spent most of the working day at the factory gates round a brazier, popping inside occasionally to leave their lunch in an inlet manifold and then going on strike again when a foreman asked them to take it out.

There was even a time when the weak and stupid British Leyland management thought seriously about renaming Jaguar the Large Car Division. Hmm. I can see that someone might buy a piece of farm equipment from the People’s Tractor Factory, but that’s mostly because they’d starve or be shot if they bought something else. I cannot see, however, why anyone would want to drive round in a Large Car Division XJ12 when they could have a, er, Bavarian Motor Works 735i instead.

Eventually, though, Jaguar’s management was sent off to live on plastic inconti-armchairs on the south coast, the workforce was given a clip round the ear by Mrs T and the company was rescued by Ford.

For the article: It could be time to buy a Jag (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article4356909.ece?OTC-HPtoppuff&ATTR=clarkjag)

Gypsy
22-07-2008, 12:54
In a related note...

The poor downtrodden, unemployed so created by Thatcher are lampooned in a recent column about cars:

It’s hard to find a point in history when a man sound in mind and body could have bought a Jaguar. Certainly it wasn’t possible in the 1970s, when they were made either badly or not at all by a bunch of Trotskyites who spent most of the working day at the factory gates round a brazier, popping inside occasionally to leave their lunch in an inlet manifold and then going on strike again when a foreman asked them to take it out.

There was even a time when the weak and stupid British Leyland management thought seriously about renaming Jaguar the Large Car Division. Hmm. I can see that someone might buy a piece of farm equipment from the People’s Tractor Factory, but that’s mostly because they’d starve or be shot if they bought something else. I cannot see, however, why anyone would want to drive round in a Large Car Division XJ12 when they could have a, er, Bavarian Motor Works 735i instead.

Eventually, though, Jaguar’s management was sent off to live on plastic inconti-armchairs on the south coast, the workforce was given a clip round the ear by Mrs T and the company was rescued by Ford.

For the article: It could be time to buy a Jag (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article4356909.ece?OTC-HPtoppuff&ATTR=clarkjag)

Quoting Clarkson is amusing, but not terribly helpful.

None of the opponents to Thatch have said that the unions did not need to be reined in. So I can't see the point in posting this here.

It is a fun article -I like the line about Lexus drivers best.

Still nothing from bels then.

matlockk
22-07-2008, 14:00
Just to put the story right about the Daily Mirror here is the famous act from Yes Minister

"I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

Gypsy
22-07-2008, 14:08
Just to put the story right about the Daily Mirror here is the famous act from Yes Minister

"I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
Brilliant!! Thanks matlockk.

trebor
22-07-2008, 14:14
............None of the opponents to Thatch have said that the unions did not need to be reined in. So I can't see the point in posting this here.................

I love the way people wave their hands and say "yes, yes we understand the unions needed bringing under control" and promptly move on as this was somehow a minor, easy task and separate from her monetary and privatisation policies.
They were all linked and could not have succeeded without being so.

Gypsy
22-07-2008, 14:45
Still nothing from bels then?

petrusha
22-07-2008, 17:40
I've only just seen this now so will go right back to the start. Thatcher will be the fifth PM to have a state funeral - Wellington, Palmerston and Churchill were the others, and Disraeli refused.

I personally don't think that in the modern day it's appropriate for Thatcher, simply because she was such a divisive figure - she has plenty of admirers who'll vociferously support her, but she's also absolutely detested by large swathes of the population. Frankly, this is an accolade I'd give only to someone who brought the nation together in a time of crisis. On that basis, I can accept Churchill (the Victorian examples are from wuch a different era that I don't see them as comparable), but I don't really consider that it would be appropriate for any other modern PM.

At the time, I was among those who viscerally hated Thatcher. I was developing a political consciousness as a schoolkid growing up in a big city in the industrial north, and I started my sixth form politics course in the winter of the 1984/5 miners' strike. I was young and idealistic, with a keen sense of social justice, and seeing what was happening in the country's industrial heartland, I found it hard to come to terms with the deprivation and fracture of communities that seemed to me to result from the dogmatic imposition of a particular ideology. (And, though I was myself from a middle class household and attended a posh school, I was very aware of it, because my extended family was resolujtely working class).

Over the years, I've mellowed to a degree. Then I didn't really understand, because I was too young really to remember, the context in which Thatcher came to power. I appreciate, now, that Britian had serious and deep-lying problems and that some kind of decisive action had to be taken. But, as Gypsy said, I don't think anyone who's posted on this thread would dispute that.

Where the argument lies is in whether the degree of destruction of people's lives and of the country's industrial base was necessary to achieve that. I can appreciate, as trebor says, that it wasn't "a minor, easy task", but I personally think there's a persuasive case to be made for the fact that a recovery could have been achieved without recourse to that particular set of monetary and privatisation policies. (I don't intend to try to make that case now - I don't have time either to make a first post running through the arguments, or to get involved in the ensuing debate and disagreement).

But the fact is that Thatcher won the 1979, 1983 and 1987 elections and did what she did. We can never know for sure what would have happened had someone else won them and followed other policies. All we can do is each make our own judgement, which will be informed by our own experiences and beliefs, and try to debate the issues civilly, which I think the posters before me, to their credit, generally have.

Judge
23-07-2008, 20:40
About 3 mins 20 sec in they talk about Maggie...


YouTube - 8 Out Of 10 Cats 6x06 part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ccImZIos-PY)

Gypsy
01-08-2008, 14:22
Maggie Thatcher - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher)

Brilliant.

Transparent Theatre
02-08-2008, 04:09
... says Harriet Harman, apparently:

Harman: we have not agreed Thatcher state funeral | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/aug/02/harrietharman.margaretthatcher)

svelt
02-08-2008, 12:48
a truly great woman who temporarily put the 'great' back into britain. additionally a very early personal investor in russia, thank you
absolutely deserving of a state funeral.

Gypsy
02-08-2008, 12:56
a truly great woman who temporarily put the 'great' back into britain. additionally a very early personal investor in russia, thank you
absolutely deserving of a state funeral.

Mmm. Like Bels you use words like "undoubtedly" when several people here dispute her "greatness" so whether you agree with us or not there is clearly doubt.

And also like Bels - still waiting after two weeks Bels - you do not post a single fact to back up your claim.

DDT
02-08-2008, 13:16
Mmm. Like Bels you use words like "undoubtedly" when several people here dispute her "greatness" so whether you agree with us or not there is clearly doubt.

By that reasoning it is in doubt that the Earth is flat, because a few people dispute it.

pullar
02-08-2008, 13:27
a truly great woman who temporarily put the 'great' back into britain. additionally a very early personal investor in russia, thank you
absolutely deserving of a state funeral.

Would you be kind enough to explain why the thoughtless and unrelenting application of an untested economic theory (monetarism) which resulted in unprecedentedly high levels of unemployment for six years is the act of a prime minister who is making the country 'Great'?

Gypsy
02-08-2008, 16:40
By that reasoning it is in doubt that the Earth is flat, because a few people dispute it. What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

One is capable of proof - the earth being round - and one is not. So once it is proved that the earth is round there can be no doubt.

The character, reputation and abilities of The Maggon are, and can only ever be, questions of opinion. Therefore there will always be doubt.

DDT
02-08-2008, 17:18
What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

One is capable of proof - the earth being round - and one is not. So once it is proved that the earth is round there can be no doubt.

That's my whole point! People say there is doubt anyway. Like you only this case, it is Thatcher.
The problem is that you don't believe in absolutes. In your world there is no good or evil, right and wrong, only shades of grey.

Gypsy
02-08-2008, 17:41
That's my whole point! People say there is doubt anyway. Like you only this case, it is Thatcher.
The problem is that you don't believe in absolutes. In your world there is no good or evil, right and wrong, only shades of grey. You know nothing of me or my world.

Transparent Theatre
02-08-2008, 18:40
. In your world there is no good or evil, right and wrong, only shades of grey.

What a judgemental pile of crap.

I don't know what rock you crawled out from under - but do us all a favour and crawl back under it? We don't need trolls like you.

svelt
03-08-2008, 19:10
Mmm. Like Bels you use words like "undoubtedly" when several people here dispute her "greatness" so whether you agree with us or not there is clearly doubt.

And also like Bels - still waiting after two weeks Bels - you do not post a single fact to back up your claim.
it is only the weak and blind who have doubts. i have none. my heart bleeds for you and your condition. not

Gypsy
03-08-2008, 19:23
]it is only the weak and blind who have doubts[/B]. i have none. my heart bleeds for you and your condition. notThe words of tyrants through the ages. You'd have done well in the Inquisition.
Still not a single fact to back up your contentions.

MickeyTong
28-08-2008, 03:59
YouTube- Coal Not Dole