/ Thatcher Dead

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
Please no gloating!
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
ThunderCat - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Well, before the stream of vitriol and jokes about putting a PlayStation dance-mat in front of her headstone...condolences to family and friends.
Dave Garnett - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I'm sure Al Evans will be along shortly. He'll be devastated.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Well, before the stream of vitriol and jokes about putting a PlayStation dance-mat in front of her headstone...condolences to family and friends.

Not a political fan at all, but here here, condolences to family and friends indeed.
Eric9Points - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I think I'll book a foreign trip, maybe 3 weeks in China, to avoid having to put up with the beatification process.

No other sentiments from me.
johnj on 08 Apr 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to Jimbo W:

RIP x
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I think I'll book a foreign trip, maybe 3 weeks in China, to avoid having to put up with the beatification process.

I concur with that sentiment too.
Trangia - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

RIP. Condolences to family and friends
In reply to Jimbo W: Wow. It's weird when someone who's been such a significant figure passes away.
A Longleat Boulderer - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

A sad day. An incredibly important piece in the chess game of 20th century politics.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Well, I feel sad; she was a great woman and PM.

To my mind there has been a rewriting of history. She was a very popular PM for much of her time but all you hear now are comments from people who hated her - to the extent that they would have you believe everyone hated her. Sorry but she wouldn't have been voted in 3 times if that were the case.

After Churchill arguably the greatest PM of the 20th century.
In reply to Jimbo W: wasn't born when Thatcher was in power, bun she unquestionably made some difficult decisions (whether you agree with them or not!)
R.I.P.
winhill - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js

The comments are up to date already!

Cue the sanctimonious drivel about respect.
pepperpot - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Yes before the rubbish starts. Notwithstanding the unpopular policies she was one of the strongest leaders we have ever had, and possibly changed the UK more than any other. Something to be proud of surely.

Condolences to her family and friends.
redsonja - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: sad news
Kimono - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
Aha, popcorn time...

500 posts? Mostly predictable and very dull.
Come on Num Num, what are your views?
Chris the Tall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
"Rejoice, rejoice"
lowersharpnose - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

A quick reminder that her spokesman, Lord Bell, was done for onanism in public.
The Pylon King on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Now we just have Cameron to deal with.
Fredt on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I must confess, I switched on the news and when it was announced I couldn't help but let out a cheer while I punched the air. Yes!
The Lemming - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I'm not sure how I feel as I did not like the woman.

I said it while she was alive, and I see no reason to change my views now.

But, I won't be singing for joy or looking for a grave to dance on.
bluebealach - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to pepperpot:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Yes before the rubbish starts. Notwithstanding the unpopular policies she was one of the strongest leaders we have ever had, and possibly changed the UK more than any other. Something to be proud of surely.
>
> Condolences to her family and friends.

+1

icnoble on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Sad news indeed. I aggree with both Skyfall and Pepperpot.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The Pylon King:

> Now we just have Cameron to deal with.

I prefer the honest leader over the dishonest, and as far as I could tell, there certainly has seemed to be far less of that with Blair and Cameron.
Ava Adore - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to icnoble:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Sad news indeed. I aggree with both Skyfall and Pepperpot.

Me too.
winhill - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to pepperpot:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Yes before the rubbish starts. Notwithstanding the unpopular policies she was one of the strongest leaders we have ever had, and possibly changed the UK more than any other.

You'd have to have a very selective reading of history to make that point, Lloyd George reconstructed europe and introduced the idea of welfare, Atlee completely changed the landscape of people's lives.

Thatcher tinkered, there really is no comparison in the real world at all.
DNS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

At least she was prepared to make decisions - many unpopular and some undoubtedly wrong. RIP.
Mike Stretford - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>

>
> To my mind there has been a rewriting of history. She was a very popular PM for much of her time but all you hear now are comments from people who hated her - to the extent that they would have you believe everyone hated her. Sorry but she wouldn't have been voted in 3 times if that were the case.
>

That's a feature of out electoral system... she had a high percentage of the popular vote for a British PM, but still, more people voted against her than for her.
woolsack - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> I must confess, I switched on the news and when it was announced I couldn't help but let out a cheer while I punched the air. Yes!

Well done, you got in there before Al Evans
Pursued by a bear - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: 'Licenced for dancing' was what the Guardian once suggested be put on her gravestone.

Whilst a death isn't something to celebrate, I shan't mourn her passing. Too much collateral damage resulted from the changes she made.

T.
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> I must confess, I switched on the news and when it was announced I couldn't help but let out a cheer while I punched the air. Yes!

I just don't get it. I can understand celebrating the end of her career, her time as PM.. but she was now nothing in the political world.. her death changes nothing.. so why celebrate?
DNS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Papillon:

" more people voted against her than for her."

Has any modern British government been returned with a majority of votes cast?

Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> That's a feature of out electoral system... she had a high percentage of the popular vote for a British PM, but still, more people voted against her than for her.

But still, as you say, she had a high % of the vote. No party has received more than 50% since 1945.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/uktable.htm

James Jackson on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:

Cheering death says a lot about you.
toad - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) 'Licenced for dancing' was what the Guardian once suggested be put on her gravestone.
>
> Whilst a death isn't something to celebrate, I shan't mourn her passing. Too much collateral damage resulted from the changes she made.
>
> T.

This ^, though I bet some of the ex pit communities I've worked in won't be so restrained tonight.
johnj on 08 Apr 2013 - 86.112.78.158 whois?
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Fredt)
> [...]
>
> I just don't get it. I can understand celebrating the end of her career, her time as PM.. but she was now nothing in the political world.. her death changes nothing.. so why celebrate?

Maybe some people are just wired up wrong.
Mike Stretford - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to DNS: 1945 springs to mind but that was just close (49.7%). I'll have a look.


Our PMs get huge amounts of power considering the proportion of the vote they get.
Ramblin dave - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> Whilst a death isn't something to celebrate, I shan't mourn her passing.

Well put. Agree.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Papillon:

Follow the link on my last post which answered the question.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

> Whilst a death isn't something to celebrate, I shan't mourn her passing.

I respect that view and I know people who had good reason to dislike her policies. It's the people who want to effectively (or actually) stamp on her grave which I fail to understand.
Bulls Crack - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to pepperpot:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Yes before the rubbish starts. Notwithstanding the unpopular policies she was one of the strongest leaders we have ever had, and possibly changed the UK more than any other. Something to be proud of surely.
>
Only if she changed the country for the better, which, to say the least, is debatable.
Steve John B - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I remember her mostly for starting an illegal war in Iraq which resulted in a million deaths.

Oh no, hang on, that was the red team. Still, at least they banned fox hunting eh?

+1 to the comments about "cheering death" and what it says about someone.
GridNorth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> I must confess, I switched on the news and when it was announced I couldn't help but let out a cheer while I punched the air. Yes!

And there was me beginning to despair of the human race. What a thoroughly nasty thing to do and say.
neilh - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
At least she did not have a degree in politics or law, unlike the political elite which seems to be foisted on us these days.
DNS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Would someone nip round and see if Al Evans is OK please?
nightmonkeyuk - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Oh happy days!!
Mike Stretford - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to DNS:
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
>
> Has any modern British government been returned with a majority of votes cast?

1931 was the last time, not quite 'modern'.
lowersharpnose - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to neilh:

Agree, she studied science.

She was an establishment outsider, not male & not public school.

Mike Stretford - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Papillon)
>
> Follow the link on my last post which answered the question.

Yes I saw that thanks. I made the originally point because it does explain why former British PMs are not revered.
JIMBO on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to lowersharpnose:
The best thing she did was help invent Mr Whippy ice cream... although she did have to steal all the milk from the babes that then had to buy it frozen with a flake to make up for it!
Fredt on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to GridNorth:
> (In reply to Fredt)
> [...]
>
> And there was me beginning to despair of the human race. What a thoroughly nasty thing to do and say.

I see it less nasty than some of the things she did.
As a direct result of her policies, my best friend commited suicide as he was no longer able to provide for his family. That's why I hated her, I said then I would be glad when she too died, and I am.

cap'nChino - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Papillon:
> Our PMs get huge amounts of power considering the proportion of the vote they get.

It's part of being in a democracy mate. Not the best system but better than most. There a lot of leaders of countries who have total power with no votes. Consider your self lucky.

I'm not sad she is dead but I certainly think it's a bit warped to be punching the air in delight. Thatcher made a lot of hard decisions which politicians of today are quite happy to refer for the next government to mop up the mess. Most weren't popular but most had to be made.


Eric9Points - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to pepperpot)
> [...]
>
> You'd have to have a very selective reading of history to make that point, Lloyd George reconstructed europe and introduced the idea of welfare, Atlee completely changed the landscape of people's lives.
>
> Thatcher tinkered, there really is no comparison in the real world at all.

Agreed about Atlee, from Wikipedia:

Highly regarded both historically and today, in 2004 he was voted the greatest British Prime Minister of the 20th Century by a poll of 139 academics organised by Ipsos MORI.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee

A man and a Government who led a nation that created much.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Well, I feel sad; she was a great woman and PM.
>
> To my mind there has been a rewriting of history. She was a very popular PM for much of her time but all you hear now are comments from people who hated her - to the extent that they would have you believe everyone hated her. Sorry but she wouldn't have been voted in 3 times if that were the case.

This is simply factually incorrect. She got into power because there was a much more balanced 3-way political system than there is now (with Lib Dems much stronger and Labour much weaker) - i.e the opposition was divided. Mrs. T never had more than 44 % of the electoral vote; the remaining 56% loathed her for the damage she did to British society, to industry, to education, and to cabinet government. She was a great destroyer, a champion of mediocrity and a cultural philistine, who came to power by bribing the electorate with hugely irresponsible tax cuts which put the country into debts from which we've never recovered.

> After Churchill arguably the greatest PM of the 20th century.
toad - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Pursued by a bear)
>
> [...]
>
> I respect that view and I know people who had good reason to dislike her policies. It's the people who want to effectively (or actually) stamp on her grave which I fail to understand.

Whilst it isn't something I'd want to do, there are plenty of people who would dance in communities which were destroyed by her political vision. Whilst it was as they say, "a lot more complicated than that", and in the early 80s the country would have been in economic turmoil anyway, she was the figure head of a government that ripped the heart out of many towns, especially in the North. Ironically, you can probalby trace the origins of the feckless undeserving scrounging underclass so beloved of our current political leaders to the communities that her people destroyed and then (perhaps more importantly) abandoned.

So as I say, no dancing from me, but I won't begrudge others a slow, sad walz for what should have been.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to lowersharpnose:

I think the reason she polarises opinion so much is that she was genuinely a conviction politician in that she did believe in what she said and did and she took the consequences. She didn't do what most politicians do and squirm away from trouble. The problem with that approach is that you will inevitably p*ss off a fair number of people in the process. Personally I rather respect that in a person.

The one thing she didn't really do of course was to advance the cause of women in society. Other than actually being PM (and showing more balls than most men), she didn't really do a lot for women. An opportunity lost but I suppose she did show what was possible. I wonder when we will see another female PM.
Dirk Didler - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I will not celebrate the passing of any human life nor will i mourn the passing of a person who caused misery to millions.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:

> I see it less nasty than some of the things she did.
> As a direct result of her policies, my best friend commited suicide as he was no longer able to provide for his family. That's why I hated her, I said then I would be glad when she too died, and I am.

A friend in NI has just killed herself because of a lack of business success due to inability to get business loans and the market downturn. Indeed the suicide rate has doubled in NI over the last few years. ..I guess for those reasons Cameron, Clegg, and the bank bosses are the epitome of evil!
Alex@home - on 08 Apr 2013
ads.ukclimbing.com
nightmonkeyuk - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
...a path Cameron seems all too willing to go down again.
Tony the Blade on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Nothing to celebrate - the battle continues.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> Maybe some people are just wired up wrong.

Not really. Many people would have that kind of reaction to people they consider 'evil' - serial killers and so forth. For some people, Thatcher falls into that category due to the degree of harm they perceive her policies caused (more diluted but more widespread than a serial killer for sure).

Personally I don't feel at all sad. I never do when someone famous I don't know dies (although I did actually meet Mrs T when I was a kid), unless I'm fond of their work.
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: You've got to expect polarised views..

I guess for my generation 30-35, we don't know too much about her really. I suppose I view her now as a brave person, willing to make decisions, tough decisions. they may not have been the correct ones, but I do think she did what she thought was right for the country, and was willing to go against the tide so I respect her for that.

I just think, many look upon the UK's situation with a very UK-centric view, when its not always so simple. Most of her decisions I could understand the logic behind, whether I agreed or not.

neilh - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Did not go to eton and was the daughter of a shopkeeper.

I have placed a bet at work. Madela next, then the Queen. One big state funeral to save costs.
Bimble on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I'm not celebrating until I've waited by the grave for 3 nights with a stake, just in case it rises again.
DR - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt: I didn't cheer but certainly punched the air. Happy days. If I wasn't off work sick I'd be out getting pissed tonight.
Aye,
Davie
teflonpete - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Skyfall)
> Mrs. T never had more than 44 % of the electoral vote; the remaining 56% loathed her for the damage she did to British society, to industry, to education, and to cabinet government.

Always interesting how to interpret the stats.

Labour won a 'landslide victory' in '97 with 43.2% of the popular vote.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1997_general_election.htm

I'm no lover or hater of Mrs T but it can't be said that she didn't win 3 elections without being popular at the time.

GridNorth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt: I knew someone who committed suicide because the NUM ostracised him and his family. Should I dance on Arthur Scargills grave when he dies? Why do people with leftist views always turn things into personal vendettas fuelled by nasty, malicious bile. Get real and grow up.
Mike Stretford - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to cap'nChino:
> (In reply to Papillon)
> [...]
>
> It's part of being in a democracy mate.

Not necessarily, there are other version were huge amounts of power on a minority of the vote doesn't happen, and some of these countries do quite well.

Sarah G on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
RIP a great leader, with bigger balls than the rest of her own and subsequent Govts ever since.

Sx
A Longleat Boulderer - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to DR:
> (In reply to Fredt) I didn't cheer but certainly punched the air. Happy days. If I wasn't off work sick I'd be out getting pissed tonight.

Sickening.

Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> This is simply factually incorrect. She got into power because there was a much more balanced 3-way political system than there is now (with Lib Dems much stronger and Labour much weaker) - i.e the opposition was divided. Mrs. T never had more than 44 % of the electoral vote; the remaining 56% loathed her for the damage she did to British society,

Gordon, that's more misleading than my post. Who is to say that the remaining 56% loathed her? Clearly you did, but not all that 56% who didn't vote for her that's almost for certain. Interestingly the PM's with the lowest % votes in the latter half of the 20th/early 21st centuries were Blair and Wilson.
John_Hat - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

To be honest not really sad - I didn't know her, was neither and friend nor family, and personally she meant nothing to me. I've got my own views on her politics and actions whilst in government, but now is not the time to share them.

Incidentally, I feel that gloating at someone else's death is a bit low.(1)

Talking of which, Like others I'm getting really worried about Al Evans. Anyone got a phone number and can give him a ring?


(1) unless you killed them personally, in which case fair enough.
Darren Jackson - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

My mate Dave just telephoned me to say that he was messing about with his ouija board and received a message reading "We have become a cadaver.".

Scary stuff.
Bulls Crack - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

'Breaking News Downing Street has confirmed that Prime Minister David Cameron will return home early from Spain, where he had been in the country for talks with EU leaders, this afternoon.' BBC


To milk the occasion for all it's worth no doubt
Bimble on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
> (In reply to DR)
> [...]
>
> Sickening.

I agree. I couldn't imagine not being able to celebrate such a wonderful occasion.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> 'Breaking News Downing Street has confirmed that Prime Minister David Cameron will return home early from Spain, where he had been in the country for talks with EU leaders, this afternoon.' BBC

Yes, I can't see why that's necessary!! The interests of the UK should be coming first!!
The Lemming - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) You've got to expect polarised views..
>
> I guess for my generation 30-35, we don't know too much about her really.

And most of those polarised views will be from those that suffered under her rule.

She created a philosophy of greed above all else and to win at all costs. A belief that her own party took to heart, especially in the way that they kicked her out of office.

Her party got rid of her, not the electorate. This alone speaks volumes for what she created.


She may be gone, but there are countless families and lives destroyed by her and her party.
toad - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bulls Crack:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> 'Breaking News Downing Street has confirmed that Prime Minister David Cameron will return home early from Spain, where he had been in the country for talks with EU leaders, this afternoon.' BBC
>
>

David.

Stop grand-standing and get. back. to. work.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Love - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Im happy that spring had finally broke when she passed away. At peace.
Alex@home - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

out of interest, how many of those who are (for want of a better phrase) happy to see her demise were aware of the consequences of what she was doing at the time, and how many of those who are sorry to see her go were too young to be aware of what was going on?
icnoble on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sarah G: Well said.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

And many of those same people benefited greatly from policies such as allowing people to buy their council homes at what were effectively discounted prices. Yet that sort of thing tends to get ignored.
teflonpete - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bulls Crack:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> 'Breaking News Downing Street has confirmed that Prime Minister David Cameron will return home early from Spain, where he had been in the country for talks with EU leaders, this afternoon.' BBC
>
>
> To milk the occasion for all it's worth no doubt

Maybe he's going to inaugurated with the Prime Minister's balls. M.T must have taken them with her when she left No 10.
Love - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The Lemming: it's a shame grown men and people of an age who never knew her still prefer to blame their own fecklessness on a frail woman. You have a job paid for out of the public purse and sustain yourself on benefits and still you speak ill of an old woman.
Douglas Griffin - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to teflonpete:

> I'm no lover or hater of Mrs T but it can't be said that she didn't win 3 elections without being popular at the time.

Depends where you mean. Look at the trend for seats won by the Conservatives in Scotland in UK General Elections.

1974 (Feb) - 21 (out of 72)
1974 (Oct) - 16
1979 - 22
1983 - 21
1987 - 10
1992 - 11
1997 - 0

The Conservative share of the vote has never recovered N of the border. There may be other reasons for this, of course - but Thatcher is certainly a very significant one.
The Lemming - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> And many of those same people benefited greatly from policies such as allowing people to buy their council homes at what were effectively discounted prices. Yet that sort of thing tends to get ignored.


Are you serious?

And what was/is the result of that policy?

Steps away from the keyboard, to calm down.
Mike Stretford - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> And many of those same people benefited greatly from policies such as allowing people to buy their council homes at what were effectively discounted prices. Yet that sort of thing tends to get ignored.

It didn't benefit the country though. As you say the prices were discounted and we now have an affordable housing shortage.
icnoble on 08 Apr 2013
Rampikino - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

It is interesting to see how deaths of high-profile people have an effect on some.

Personally I find it hard to celebrate the death of anybody. The last time I did this was when I raised a glass at the news of the assassination of Zelko Raznatovic (Arkan) who was personally responsible for mass killings in Bosnia. I had been working in the MOD on the Bosnian conflict and having seen the evidence of his work I was glad he died.

But funnily enough when Saddam was hanged my overwhelming thought was that he should have simply stayed in jail and that publicising video of his hanging was cheap. When Bin Laden was shot my thought was relief but that they should have captured him to put him on trial.

Thatcher clearly polarised opinions, and if I open my windows here in Cheshire I could probably hear celebratory fireworks going off in Liverpool. I detest what her governments did to communities and how she and her policies were the catalyst for a "me me me" state of mind that continues today. I am not sorry that she has died, but I could not celebrate it.

I probably have stronger view about the news that she will get the same state funeral as the Queen Mother and Princess Diana. But that's a different story.

It is certainly a moment where something major for our country has passed.
A Longleat Boulderer - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to A Longleat Boulderer)
> [...]
>
> I agree. I couldn't imagine not being able to celebrate such a wonderful occasion.

Hmm. Well, regardless of my political persuasion I will be holding off celebrating the death of another.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The Lemming:

The result on a personal level was that those people, often not those likely to vote for her, gained financially. And, you know, actually owned their own home as a result. I know people who did exactly that and would only grudgingly admit they benefited. That was my only point. Now, go on bore me with your jaundiced view of it all.
paul-1970 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
I loathed and despised her, and all that she stood for. She has the misery and suffering of many as her epitaph. This day has been a long one coming. Let her rot.
Tony the Blade on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Rampikino:

Very well put - I completely agree
dale1968 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to paul-1970: silly boy, rip maggie
GrahamD - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Alex@home:

> out of interest, how many of those who are (for want of a better phrase) happy to see her demise were aware of the consequences of what she was doing at the time, and how many of those who are sorry to see her go were too young to be aware of what was going on?

Not only that, how many can remember what sort of a basket case the country was before Thatcher ? as if her policies came out of a vacuum.
Paul035 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Alex@home:

Good point.
Pinged - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Alex@home:

Great point!!

I was only around 14 when she was ousted so dont really know a great deal. My family are all left wing, (ex)steel working socialists so I was brought in a family of thatcher haters.

I dont hate her though, and I won't be dancing on her grave. She polarized opionion, thats for sure, and it seems people hold her responsible for all sorts of nasty acts.

Personally, and I'm talking with a degree of ignorance here so please dont crucify me UCK...I think she showed outstanding leadership skills in a time when Britain was in a bad way.

Some people believe that she and her government caused the demise of industry/manufacturing in the UK...its my view that the Unions had already done this. I have a very, very low opinion of Unions but I suppose thats a whole other debate!!
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to icnoble: Thatchers foresight on the Euro could almost be described as "spooky" she was so accurate.

"Today, Margaret Thatcher’s autobiography, first published in 1993, reads like a prophecy. It shows how deeply and with what extraordinary wisdom she had examined Delors’ proposals for the single currency. Her overriding objection was not ill-considered or xenophobic, as subsequent critics have repeatedly claimed.
They were economic. Right back in 1990, Mrs. Thatcher foresaw with painful clarity the devastation it was bound to cause. Her autobiography records how she warned John Major, her euro-friendly chancellor of the exchequer, that the single currency could not accommodate both industrial powerhouses such as Germany and smaller countries such as Greece. Germany, forecast Thatcher, would be phobic about inflation, while the euro would prove fatal to the poorer countries because it would “devastate their inefficient economies”.

It is as if, all those years ago, the British prime minister possessed a crystal ball that enabled her to foresee the catastrophic events of the past year or so in Ireland, Greece and Portugal. Indeed, it is one of the tragedies of European history that the world chose not to believe her.

Thatcher’s warnings read like headlines on page 1 today. Leaders aren’t always listened to. How unfortunate."

ads.ukclimbing.com
Paul F - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to paul-1970:

I could criticise her life, but I'll not celebrate her death.
teflonpete - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:
> (In reply to teflonpete)
>
> [...]
>
> Depends where you mean. Look at the trend for seats won by the Conservatives in Scotland in UK General Elections.

UK wide. Obviously heavily influenced by South East England.

> 1974 (Feb) - 21 (out of 72)
> 1974 (Oct) - 16
> 1979 - 22
> 1983 - 21
> 1987 - 10
> 1992 - 11
> 1997 - 0
>
> The Conservative share of the vote has never recovered N of the border. There may be other reasons for this, of course - but Thatcher is certainly a very significant one.

And yet according to those figures, the '79 and '83 elections when she was leader of the party were the Tories best showing since the mid 70s. Looking at those figures it would appear that Major p*ssed the Scots off more than Thatcher. Something to do with North Sea gas and oil and the employment that arose from it during the late 70s and early 80s probably.
EeeByGum - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Alex@home:

> out of interest, how many of those who are (for want of a better phrase) happy to see her demise were aware of the consequences of what she was doing at the time, and how many of those who are sorry to see her go were too young to be aware of what was going on?

I think it depends on how you see the result of her policies. If you see them as a graph on a piece of paper that denoting Britain's increase in wealth or GDP or any other economic measure, then you could conclude that she did well.

However, if you happen to have lived in a former industrial community that was absolutely desiccated by her policies and still has not recovered, you may feel somewhat differently.
GrahamD - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Rampikino:


> I detest what her governments did to communities and how she and her policies were the catalyst for a "me me me" state of mind that continues today.

Do people really and truly think that up until the 1980s people weren't out to get what they could for themselves and that somehow human nature took a massive change 35 years ago ?
jasonC abroad - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

Was that a great thing buying your own council homes, as a friend of mine pointed out a lot of his friend thought it was great that she allowed them to buy them, but now those people's children are unable to afford housing where they grew up as the prices are out of their league.

Thatcher was not great prime minister, more of a female Gordon Gecko - greed is good and stuff the poor.

I'm not going to dance on her grave but I'm not sad that she's gone either.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Pinged:

> Some people believe that she and her government caused the demise of industry/manufacturing in the UK...its my view that the Unions had already done this.

Indeed - I was discussing Thatcher with someone (now retired and a Labour voter) who worked in a largely manual industry and whilst he and others working with him saw their industry decline due partly to Thatcher's policies, he freely admits the Unions needed dealing with as they had already come close to killing off much of the UK's industry anyway.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

> The result on a personal level was that those people, often not those likely to vote for her, gained financially.

not necessarily. If you actually look at the home ownership levels you will see they are dropping again.
So what we have now is a return to the pre thatcher levels of home ownership but the state having to pick up increased housing costs for housing benefits since there are no longer the council homes.

Likewise to take another current issue. It was Thatchers government who started the use of disability benefit to shift people from unemployment.

So, despite some claims to the contrary she was more than capable of kicking stuff down the line for a future government to deal with.

Sam_in_Leeds - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
I'll be too busy celebrating the fall of communism/collecting the UK's EU rebate/Reining in the trade unions/celebrating increased home ownership/celebrating the deregulation and opening up of the city to oiks like me whilst also helping the UK create the world's leading financial services industry whilst also helping to create manufacturing jobs such as Nissan in Sunderland and stopping the subsidising of loss making national industries with archaic working practices!
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Pinged:
> (In reply to Alex@home)

> I think she showed outstanding leadership skills in a time when Britain was in a bad way.

I'm not very fond of the "strong leader" form of praise, as it applies even better to evil dictators than it does to Thatcher.
GrahamD - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

> However, if you happen to have lived in a former industrial community that was absolutely desiccated by her policies and still has not recovered, you may feel somewhat differently.

Sorry, do you really remember what the flagships of British industry like BL were like in the 70s ? I mean when they weren't on strike because someone had the temerity for reprimanding someone for being asleep at work ? Large parts of British industry were already dead or terminally ill long before she was elected.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> I'll be too busy...celebrating the deregulation and opening up of the city to oiks like me whilst also helping the UK create the world's leading financial services industry whilst also helping to create manufacturing jobs such as Nissan in Sunderland and stopping the subsidising of loss making national industries with archaic working practices!

Errr...have you been following the news since 2008?
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to GrahamD:

> Not only that, how many can remember what sort of a basket case the country was before Thatcher ? as if her policies came out of a vacuum.

Exactly. There was clearly an element of luck for Thatcher as the economy eventually pulled around and there was the Falklands effect (amazed no one has mentioned that yet). But this country was going down the pan and, whatever else she did, she put some self belief back into it.
Sam_in_Leeds - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

A bit controversial I know, but didn't Mrs T help to set up new industries such as Nissan in Sunderland/Honda in Swindon and helped us move away from unprofitable "metal bashing" industries with outdated working practices?

And don't forget Canary Wharf/Big Bang in the city?

Ok, so I'm not going to be popular for saying this, but isn't Financial Services still one of the few world leading industries we have employing millions?

London is after all the world's leading insurance centre (Lloyds of LONDON) Swiss Re tower etc
Douglas Griffin - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to teflonpete:

Look at the figures here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#Pre_1983

In post-WWII General Elections, the Conservatives were reasonably stable at somewhere in the region of 20-30 seats out of 72 in Scotland. Once Thatcher's policies (which of course survived her leadership) began to have their effect, their share of the vote collapsed in Scotland.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Alex@home:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> out of interest, how many of those who are (for want of a better phrase) happy to see her demise were aware of the consequences of what she was doing at the time, and how many of those who are sorry to see her go were too young to be aware of what was going on?

BTW, I am not 'happy to see her demise' (though I was ecstatically happy when she was ousted in 1990), nor do I want to criticise a 'frail old woman', as someone else has suggested. When he she was in power she was a formidably strong leader, rightly called the 'Iron Lady' and this was her greatest asset. But she was also a very divisive person, who created something closer to a civil war than anything since the Civil War. She seemed to thrive on hatred ... it was a kind of oxygen for her .. her eyes always blazed hatred. Scargill was perfect for her, because they were as bad as each other, like two sides of one very untypical English coin. All traditional English values of moderation, tolerance and sense of humour went out of the window, to be replaced by a terrifying new atmosphere of hate-filled tyranny led by someone with all the self-righteous zealotry of a Cromwell. And everyone I knew, of my generation, looked on in horror, watching institution after institution being destroyed. By about 1984 I was keeping newspaper cuttings and notes I made about the horror as it unfolded, because I knew that future generations might never realise quite how bad it was. I still have all those up in the attic, labelled Thatcher legacy.
EeeByGum - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to GrahamD:

> Sorry, do you really remember what the flagships of British industry like BL were like in the 70s ? I mean when they weren't on strike because someone had the temerity for reprimanding someone for being asleep at work ? Large parts of British industry were already dead or terminally ill long before she was elected.

I am not defending the behaviour of the unions. But the real losers here were ordinary hard working folk.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to GrahamD:
> Do people really and truly think that up until the 1980s people weren't out to get what they could for themselves and that somehow human nature took a massive change 35 years ago ?

Well apparently she made Gordon and the lemming greedy, so perhaps they can tell us how she carried out that transformation.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
Interesting also that the Falklands was our last 'just' war. Ok, it should have been avoided by taking action before the invasion (and let's not start the conspiracy theory stuff), but at least she had the guts to put down a marker and go for it.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds:
> (In reply to Skyfall)
>

> Ok, so I'm not going to be popular for saying this, but isn't Financial Services still one of the few world leading industries we have employing millions?

Only because it's state-subsidised, so the argument becomes completely perverse.
Grey area - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Sad to see her go - a Great Briton. RIP
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Scargill was perfect for her, because they were as bad as each other, like two sides of one very untypical English coin.

Except that Scargill was a hypocrite.
RKernan - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

She won't be missed in Belfast. Mostly.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to RKernan:

She might be in Hereford.
Al Evans on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> I'm sure Al Evans will be along shortly. He'll be devastated.

Well that's the champagne opened tonight, just thank god I outlived her to crack it :-)
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> Interesting also that the Falklands was our last 'just' war.

What Gulf War 1, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo?
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

BTW, I was totally in support of Mrs T re the Falklands, because it was the right policy ... but I believe sincerely that she did it for all the wrong reasons: that her primary motivation was to save her premiership at a time when things were starting to go very badly indeed for her at home. It was a breathtakingly bold political gamble and it paid off.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> She was a great destroyer, a champion of mediocrity and a cultural philistine, who came to power
> by bribing the electorate with hugely irresponsible tax cuts which put the country into debts
> from which we've never recovered.

Though if you look at the facts, the end of her time as PM (1990) saw the UK with the lowest national debt since World War 1, and you'd have to go back to 1712 to find it at a significantly lower level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png
wilkie14c - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
First Saville now Thatcher. Whatever side of the fence you sit on, you have to agree its been a great year for minors.
Al Evans on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Well said Gordon.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Though if you look at the facts, the end of her time as PM (1990) saw the UK with the lowest national debt since World War 1, and you'd have to go back to 1712 to find it at a significantly lower level.

can we see that minus the North Sea oil etc?
David Riley - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I don't believe Margaret Thatcher was motivated by hatred.
Hatred seems to be virtually the sole preserve of the red team.
They hate the rich, businesses, and the opposition.
Who do the blue or yellow teams actually hate ?
Chris the Tall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> RIP. Condolences to family and friends

Particularly her son - arms-dealer, tax-dodger, loan shark, mercenary....



Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Riley:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> I don't believe Margaret Thatcher was motivated by hatred.
> Hatred seems to be virtually the sole preserve of the red team.
> They hate the rich, businesses, and the opposition.
> Who do the blue or yellow teams actually hate ?

Well, as a gay man who grew up under the Tories, I can tell you pretty firmly that until they went all fluffy and modern, they hated gays (despite obviously having their fair share in the ranks). Just an example, you know.
Pursued by a bear - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I note that the Daily Mash website seems to be creaking under the weight of people seeking objective and cogent comment on the subject. I can see their headline 'Northern Britain already hammered', though getting to see the content is proving more difficult.

T.
gribble - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Finally, some closure. For those of you who weren't affected by her and her policies, perhaps this has less meaning for you. There are many who suffered greatly, this has a lot of meaning for them and their families. Especially where the effects of decimation are still being felt. Champagne or not, I hope this serves as closure for many. As the website says, "the lady's not returning".

Chris the Tall - best comment yet!
Rob Exile Ward on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Riley: The blue team seems to hate 'benefit scroungers' enough to use the death of 6 kids as a way of demonising them.
FrankBooth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
As it's been said before, we generally get the leaders we deserve. The UK in the 70s was in a terrible mess, and we needed a strong figure who could pull the country round.

The unions clearly needed to be called to task, but Thatcher's response was brutal - there was no sense of moderation or compromise. She set out to obliterate the unions and had no regard for any suffering that might bring.

Power corrupts. Leaders soon stop listening and mistake bloody-mindedness for strength. By 1990, Thatchers had become a gross caricature of herself - like Darth Vader without the small core of humanity.

When Blair was elected in 97 there was a genuine air of optimism - it's a shame he went on to squander all that faith we put in him in much the same way.
winhill - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Skyfall)
>
> BTW, I was totally in support of Mrs T re the Falklands, because it was the right policy ... but I believe sincerely that she did it for all the wrong reasons: that her primary motivation was to save her premiership at a time when things were starting to go very badly indeed for her at home. It was a breathtakingly bold political gamble and it paid off.

But then if you look at Goose Green, she continued that policy and pointlessly attacked a largely redundant enemy position purely for political reasons.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well, she had 'flogged off the family silver' in order to do that, and had thereby stored up huge debts for the future. She left our infrastructure in a disgraceful state (remember just what John Major was most famous for ... re. the traffic cones??) As a nation we were like someone that had cut off their own limbs; and after that, fiscal policy was doomed, because of course no opposition leader could say Vote for me, because I'm going to make huge increases to direct taxes in order to solve our problems. So indirect taxes burgeoned, and left most of the lower classes and lower middle classes with ever smaller savings, while the gap between the rich and poor, quite shockingly - at the end of the 20th century became ever wider. And with it came a new culture of sticking your fingers up at the less fortunate. And the legacy of 'cut, cut, cut' continues. I see Krugman today called it Sado-Monetarism .. :)
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Riley:

>Who do the blue or yellow teams actually hate ?

Blimey. You're kidding, right? Have you ever *heard* the stuff the privileged say among themselves about those who think they should give up some of those privileges?

jcm
ads.ukclimbing.com
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to winhill:

That part is true ... I'm not talking about the events of the war. I am thinking particularly of the shocking business of the Belgrano.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c: lol!
David Riley - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Your hatred makes you see it that way. Most don't.
Sam_in_Leeds - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

For a second I thought Gordon Stainforth was talking about the "Nu Labour" government until I noticed you said tax cuts and not welfare!
Mark Kemball - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Not sad to see her go, but I feel the climbing community owes her a massive debt - would we have had that massive rise in standards in the '80s were it not for the "government climbing grant"?
tony on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Riley:
> Who do the blue or yellow teams actually hate ?

Oiks. Young people (unless they were once William Hague).

There was a time when I thought I'd be celebrating her death, but it's not worth the energy now. Everyone dies, and I'm not going to spend time on this particular death. However, as someone else said earlier, I shall be doing my best to avoid the eulogising in the media over the coming days.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Riley:

> Your hatred makes you see it that way. Most don't.

ah so you are the sane one? righty ho.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Riley:
> (In reply to Rob Exile Ward)
>
> Your hatred makes you see it that way. Most don't.

Anyone with a brain, regardless of political persuasion was disgusted by Osbourne's comments on Philpott. Don't kid yourself.
In reply to gribble:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Finally, some closure. For those of you who weren't affected by her and her policies, perhaps this has less meaning for you. There are many who suffered greatly, this has a lot of meaning for them and their families. Especially where the effects of decimation are still being felt. Champagne or not, I hope this serves as closure for many. As the website says, "the lady's not returning".
>

Now that an old lady has passed away - how has your life improved in relation to her policies? Will the effects of her policies go to the grave too?


Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> What Gulf War 1, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo?

ok, apart from those..

(my "what have the Romans ever done for us" moment)

Only Sierra Leone was a UK only operation and it's hard to class it as a war. Successful though it was. Unfortunately though, its success inspired Blair to participate in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I was shocked that we were actually involved with invading Iraq and felt very strongly against that at the time.
winhill - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> First Saville now Thatcher. Whatever side of the fence you sit on, you have to agree its been a great year for minors.

I guess she'll soon know what a closed pit feels like?
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm glad someone has said that at last: better brains than balls in your leaders, as the real courage in politics is admitting you made a mistake and doing something about it.

Thatcher almost certainly has the top 3 most hated prime minister ever slots during her terms of office (even quite a few 'wet' tories I knew hated her) and of course she was also one of the most loved by a significant and very dedicated minority. This hatred is impressive given some significantly supportive sections of the press (hard to find for Brown say). Because things were so polarised, I think her stated benefits and stated damage are both very much overstated. In 100 years her hitorical impact will be what? She emotively and tightly managed an ex-imperial country very much in slow decline. Even just in the last century to put this on a pedestal clearly above the likes of Attlee, Churchill and Lloyd George is a sad joke.

Tobias at Home - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> [...]
>
> Well that's the champagne opened tonight, just thank god I outlived her to crack it :-)

drinking champagne doesn't sound very socialist :-)
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

Anyway some more rational views are on wikipedia (it wont copy in as UKC sees it as a very long word with no spaces) but just look up

Historical rankings of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

I'd agree she was very good at getting policy (even really politically stupid stuff like the Poll Tax) implemented.

teflonpete - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> First Saville now Thatcher. Whatever side of the fence you sit on, you have to agree its been a great year for minors.


Badum tish!

Loving your work mate. :0)
JDal - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The Lemming:
....
> She may be gone, but there are countless families and lives destroyed by her and her party.

+1
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Pinged)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I'm not very fond of the "strong leader" form of praise, as it applies even better to evil dictators than it does to Thatcher.

I disagree.. I think strong leadership by a democratically elected leader who wants to be elected again is different to strong by a dictator.

I felt the same regarding Blair. he went to war, rightly or wrongly, but put it to the people, made his decisions and was re-elected again. He risked his whole reputation and future elections on Iraq. Right or wrong, it was a brave call.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Well, she had 'flogged off the family silver' in order to do that

So Gordon had to go one better and flog off the family gold at historically low prices. Super.
lfenbo - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: whilst I wont be dancing on her grave ( I thought I would for many years but cant really be bothered with it now)am not sorry to see her go either. good riddance is about it for me and i wont be watching the news for a few weeks till all the bull and hypocrisy is over and done with. oh and finally I hope her family are paying for the funeral themselves and not expecting it to come out of the public purse...
ads.ukclimbing.com
In reply to lfenbo: state funerals do cost a bit - Mark and Carol may not have enough to cover it so.........
lfenbo - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat: I bet they have though ;-)
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Well, she had 'flogged off the family silver' in order to do that, and had thereby stored up
> huge debts for the future.

Err, how?? What debts did she store up? As in the graph I linked to, public debt was at historic lows and public finances were very healthy at the end of her time. The Tories left Labour with very healthy finances and the foundation for a decade of growth.

Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I disagree.. I think strong leadership by a democratically elected leader who wants to be elected again is different to strong by a dictator.
>
> I felt the same regarding Blair. he went to war, rightly or wrongly, but put it to the people, made his decisions and was re-elected again. He risked his whole reputation and future elections on Iraq. Right or wrong, it was a brave call.

We won't agree on this. Given just how catestrophic Blair's decision to deceive the nation into invading Iraq turned out to be, I think that's better evidence for the dangerous nature of "strong leadership" as a quality in a PM.
JDal - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Though if you look at the facts, the end of her time as PM (1990) saw the UK with the lowest national debt since World War 1, and you'd have to go back to 1712 to find it at a significantly lower level.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png

Those "facts" are from a website produced by a US conservative http://www.christopherchantrill.com/ "All government spending is waste".

They may be right, who knows. But not reliable.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> That part is true ... I'm not talking about the events of the war. I am thinking particularly
> of the shocking business of the Belgrano.

What was "shocking" about that?
tony on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Err, how?? What debts did she store up?

Lack of investment in infrastructure, the effects of which are still being felt.
Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> the real courage in politics is admitting you made a mistake and doing something about it.

Right, like any politicians do that (they may occasionally apologise for the actions of their predecessors of course - but generally only if it wins them votes).

> In 100 years her hitorical impact will be what? She emotively and tightly managed an ex-imperial country very much in slow decline.

It was on fastrack under Labour before that.

In terms of historical impact, she was one of the few national leaders to make a real impact globally. She befriended Gorby at the right time, remained solid with the US (for the right reasons for a change) and as a result had a real impact on the ending of the cold war. As previously stated, she also called it right on the EU.
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

You mean some of the gold. How much is that in today's value compared to the total of discounted council house properties and other assets that went under Maggie? I'd suspect Gordon will be regarded by history as much more guilty for what he did for pension tax (and its consequencies for private sector pensions) under Blair, than for that gold sale. Again there will be too much polarised shit on this thread to look at real benefits, problems and historical context though.
Douglas Griffin - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to tony:

A thoughtful blog post from Torcuil Crichton on Thatcher's legacy in Scotland:
http://whitehall1212.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/thatcher-and-scotland-legacy-of-self.html
toad - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: In amongst the big political decisions, there were a few little things (maybe not so little?) that still really catch in my craw. The support for Pinochet, the attitude to South Africa, and that damn hereditary peerage for Dennis, just so that unpleasant and incompetent Mark would be a baron.
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart: But its incomparable to that of a dictator. Blair stood again. The people could have voted him out. The bravery involved in making the decisions is incomparable for me. A dictator answers to noone, a PM answers to the people.

I'm not getting into whether he was right or wrong, just that such decisions should not be compared to those of a dictator, no matter how much we disagree with them.
andy farnell - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Mark Kemball:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Not sad to see her go, but I feel the climbing community owes her a massive debt - would we have had that massive rise in standards in the '80s were it not for the "government climbing grant"?

That was my first thought as well. How would Moffatt, Atkinson, Moon et al survived without Maggies 'sponsorship'. UK climbing blossomed under her guidance... ;)

Andy F
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> What was "shocking" about that?

Suggest you look that up. I'm back at work now.
woolsack - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Err, how?? What debts did she store up? As in the graph I linked to, public debt was at historic lows and public finances were very healthy at the end of her time. The Tories left Labour with very healthy finances and the foundation for a decade of growth.

And it is all the more shocking that Brown then embraced PFIs like a teenager maxxing a bunch of credit cards
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

On the Belgrano you know full well that asisde from the men who died on that ship she was accused of escalating a war which was very expensive and cost many lives on a false premise and at a time when the americans were still working on diplomacy. The exclusion zone cartoon with the circle and a long tail out to the ship was loved by the Thatcher haters and very resonant, probably more so than Blair and the Iraq WMD's.
Al Evans on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sam_in_Leeds: Please, she destroyed the UK manufacturing industry
Slarti B on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
She was a great destroyer,...........who came to power by bribing the electorate with hugely irresponsible tax cuts which put the country into debts from which we've never recovered.
>
> [...]

On earned income she cut the basic rate from 33% to 30% and the top rate from 83% to 60%.
How irresponsible she was compared to the recent Labour government whose last 8 full years had basic rate of 22% and top rate of 40%, but at least they were running a surplus and decreasing our debt, or were they ??
paul-1970 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
Juxtaposition on the BBC news feed panel:

Reaction to Thatcher death
UK retailers ration baby milk
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Sam_in_Leeds) Please, she destroyed the UK manufacturing industry

Al, you do know there is a UK manufacturing industry still?
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013

> On earned income she cut the basic rate from 33% to 30% and the top rate from 83% to 60%.

what happened with VAT etc?
Tony Naylor on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to toad:
> support for Pinochet

IIRC, it wasn't just support, it was love-struck doe-eyed adulation.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> On the Belgrano you know full well that asisde from the men who died on that ship she was accused
> of escalating a war which was very expensive and cost many lives on a false premise and at a
> time when the americans were still working on diplomacy.

Not attacking a ship (and escorts) that were lurking around aiming to cause a threat to the main British carrier group would have been utterly negligent.

Once the flotilla had been sent it couldn't just hang around, it had to get on with it. The Argentinians would have quite happily dragged out diplomacy until the Southern Hemisphere winter forced the British flotilla to go home.

There were really only two options, not send the flotilla and allow the de facto take over, or send the flotilla and let it get on with its job.

> The exclusion zone cartoon with the circle and a long tail out to the ship was loved by the
> Thatcher haters and very resonant ...

I'm just amazed that people keep misrepresenting this. The exclusion zone was very explicitly an instruction TO THIRD PARTIES. I.e., any craft in that area will be treated as hostile. It WAS EXPLICITLY *NOT* a "we will only attack military targets in this area". For example the SAS attacked targets on the Argentina mainland.

Anyone who thinks there was anything militarily inappropriate about the sinking of the Belgrano is letting their hatred of Thatcher cloud their sense.
a lakeland climber on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

VAT was raised from 15% to 17.5% to pay for the Falklands war. We must still be paying for it then.

ALC
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart) But its incomparable to that of a dictator.

Fair enough, it is different.

> I'm not getting into whether he was right or wrong

I just think that making "brave" decisions is worse than dithering, if the decisions you make are wrong. As such, I have no respect for someone simply because they force through their policies irresepective of opposition, inconvenient facts, or whatever. It's just not what I want in a leader.
Alex@home - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Pinged)
>
> [...]
... freely admits the Unions needed dealing with as they had already come close to killing off much of the UK's industry anyway.

a point i was discussing with someone a little while ago. the unions certainly needed to be reigned in/reformed/call it what you will, but there is still quite a leap from that to the wholesale destruction which she wrought on them
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

"Please, she destroyed the UK manufacturing industry" No she didn't, its still going, albeit much smaller. What she did was add a few spiteful nails to a coffin and allow her war on the unions take too many 'civilian' casualties. I was a young engineer doing a lot of industrial visits and with many friends in the industry at the time and saw clearly before and after effects. Despite her beliefs the heavy pruning of union power and removal of high tax levels of the bosses and cutting back on regulation and training levies, just didn't lead to a golden age of industry... it did allow financial parasites in to suck some of the life from it and removed national protection still provides by some of our main competitors.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

> Please, she destroyed the UK manufacturing industry

What you mean is that any UK manufacturing industry that was not competitive and could not pay its way was allowed to go under, rather than being continually propped up by the taxpayer, which was a necessary part of putting the economy on a sound footing.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> What you mean is that any UK manufacturing industry that was not competitive and could not pay its way was allowed to go under, rather than being continually propped up by the taxpayer, which was a necessary part of putting the economy on a sound footing.

aside from a quick glance will show she was happy enough to continue subsidising certain industries.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to a lakeland climber:

> VAT was raised from 15% to 17.5% to pay for the Falklands war. We must still be paying for it then.

dont think it was.
went to 17.5 in 1991 and the massive jump before that was in 1979.
aln - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> Please no gloating!

Gloaty gloaty gloat gloat.
dale1968 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: having worked in engineering in the eighties, we used machine that were 100+ years old; and working practices that were from the same era,the engineering industry deserved to die, along with many others from that period..
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Interesting view but not one shared by the military boffs where I worked on MOD contracts. They thought the Belgrano wasn't in any sense a serious threat to a modern navy. Thatcher sending a flotilla without proper air support was a big threat though: we were bloodly lucky the small number of Harrier teams were as good and as adaptable as they were and that the Argentinians didn't take heavier caualties and call our bluff in that. Maggie also removed the defenses that caused the invasion in the first place... also pissing off my more knowedgable pals.
teflonpete - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to a lakeland climber)
>
> [...]
>
> dont think it was.
> went to 17.5 in 1991 and the massive jump before that was in 1979.

Yep, 8% to 15% in '79, up to 17.5% in '91

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_Added_Tax_%28United_Kingdom%29
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> They thought the Belgrano wasn't in any sense a serious threat to a modern navy.

The two exocet-equipped destroyers with it were. The Argentines certainly considered themselves a threat; that is what they were there for. It was an entirely legitimate military target. The captain of the Belgrano has stated that himself.
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dale1968:

Engineering in the early 80's was a big and a wide beast. Plenty of good stuff existed, especially at the high tech end. I saw a pretty good range and much stuff deserved better protection and had few union issues at all (that was 10 to 20 years earlier).
ClimberEd - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

So none of you will be going here tonight:

http://maggies-club.com/about-maggies/
The New NickB - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Riley:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)

> Who do the blue or yellow teams actually hate ?

Blue, pretty much everyone who isn't them.

Yellow, themselves mainly.
Denni on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The New NickB:

I reckon a 1000 plus posts on this one. Over the years there seems to have been a UKC massive waiting just for this day...
Tony Naylor on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> What was "shocking" about that?

It's only shocking in a moral sense. If you use the word 'shocking' in the sense of 'surprising', then no.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sarah G on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Sam_in_Leeds) Please, she destroyed the UK manufacturing industry

Al, it was already dead.

Sx

Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Those three ships against a modern UK sub didn't prove much of a match now did it? I worked with the folk who made such weapons and that was their opinion before it was sunk and I had (and continue to have) no reason not to believe them. The Argentinian warmongers like their legitimacy as much as ours do.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Denni:

> I reckon a 1000 plus posts on this one. Over the years there seems to have been a UKC massive waiting just for this day...

i suspect server admins all over the uk have been shitting themselves and phoning up their hardware admins asking for more capacity.
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

The unions were as bad as she was and I’m pretty sure history will judge Scargill even more harshly, not so much for his beliefs as his stupidity and incompetence.

For me it was more the way she just went completely mad towards the end – typified by the poll tax. The idea that everyone should contribute the same flat amount wasn’t just politically unacceptable; it was stark staring bonkers.

jcm
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sarah G:

Shows how much you know. Its alive and pretty well despite much less state support than any of our main competitors.
Al Evans on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> "Please, she destroyed the UK manufacturing industry" No she didn't, its still going, albeit much smaller. What she did was add a few spiteful nails to a coffin and allow her war on the unions take too many 'civilian' casualties. I was a young engineer doing a lot of industrial visits and with many friends in the industry at the time and saw clearly before and after effects. Despite her beliefs the heavy pruning of union power and removal of high tax levels of the bosses and cutting back on regulation and training levies, just didn't lead to a golden age of industry... it did allow financial parasites in to suck some of the life from it and removed national protection still provides by some of our main competitors.

You needed to be there, and she did, she took the centre of the heart of UK manufacturing and the Uk's pride in being a working man, and put it in the mouth of bankers.
Fidman on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: no tears shed in my household, many of those contributing wont remember Britain before Mrs T, a land where opportinities were available for all irrespective of the wealth of your parents.

http://www.maggiethatcher.com/miner.html


Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> Those three ships against a modern UK sub didn't prove much of a match now did it?

The whole Argentinian army did not prove much of a match for the British Army when it landed. Does that mean it was immoral for them to land at shoot at the Argentinians?

This criticism is ridiculous, either they went to recapture the Islands or they didn't. Criticising them because they were too good at it was bonkers -- especially when you *also* criticise them for doing it with inadequate air cover and thus for taking too much of a risk!
Douglas Griffin - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> The idea that everyone should contribute the same flat amount wasn’t just politically unacceptable; it was stark staring bonkers.

...and of course it [The Poll Tax] was introduced in Scotland 12 months before the rest of the U.K.
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Scargill is very much like an anti-Thatcher also having much exaggerated glorifiction and hatred. He likely wasn't so important as he was made out to be, nor was he especially popular in some sister unions, nor even in some parts of the NUM (hence the Nottingham break-off). I'd agree they both did some very politically mad things that contributed greatly to their own downfalls.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> Scargill is very much like an anti-Thatcher also having much exaggerated glorifiction and hatred.

he was a poor strategist, although that might just be down to him not realising what Thatchers aims were.
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Read the interesting link above...not strictly speaking all her fault either... as much down to the scottish tories prevaricating on what to do about rates.
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

I think such characters thrive off each other and are dangerous people who should be kept a good distance from power.
tony on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
>
> Read the interesting link above...not strictly speaking all her fault either... as much down to the scottish tories prevaricating on what to do about rates.

I'm sure I've read that it was Malcolm Rifkind who suggested that the Poll Tax be introduced in Scotland earlier than in England. Funny how he never gets the blame.

Tony Naylor on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> Particularly her son - arms-dealer, tax-dodger, loan shark, mercenary....

Aye, but fair play - at least he isn't racist like his sister.
Seems she asked not to have a state funeral. Has asked to be cremated.

Al Evans was last seen with a can of petrol and a box of matches heading to Britain.

Only kidding Al!
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Wars in the modern age have rules too. Even above the Geneva Conventions if we behave with excess savagery we will be judged on that. I think the actual retaking of the islands didn't fall close to savagery but the sinking of the Belgrano did. As for the the removal of earlier protection from the islands that led to a war in the first place and the lack of proper air support... sheer incompetance (with its own moral issues).
Douglas Griffin - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to tony and Offwidth:

> Funny how he never gets the blame.

Not really; ultimately it was Thatcher's call even if the policy was suggested by someone else.
toad - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: oh dear. BBC makes a freudian slip

http://i.imgur.com/UGv6JpE.jpg
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sarah G:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> Al, it was already dead.
>
> Sx

It wasn't and isn't... a common pedalled myth.

It remains a huge sector.
ads.ukclimbing.com
JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Hurrah! She supported Pinochet and other dictators, was pro-apartheid, destroyed communities and the unions, persecuted gays and much much more.

Happy she's dead, hope it was painful!
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK: We actually produce, volumes wise, more than ever.

"Although the manufacturing sector's share of both employment and the UK's GDP has steadily fallen since the 1960s, data from the OECD shows that manufacturing output in terms of both production and value has steadily increased since 1945. A 2009 report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, citing data from the UK Office for National Statistics, stated that manufacturing output (gross value added at 2007 prices) has increased in 35 of the 50 years between 1958 and 2007, and output in 2007 was at record levels, approximately double that in 1958.[1]"

JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> Wars in the modern age have rules too. Even above the Geneva Conventions if we behave with excess
> savagery we will be judged on that. I think the actual retaking of the islands didn't fall close to
> savagery but the sinking of the Belgrano did.

Now quote an actual rule of war that would agree with you.


JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Some balanced thoughts here...

http://numero57.net/2013/04/08/thatcher-on-balance/
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630: I don't get your piont.. but I have no sound..

But its just rubbish that she destroyed that industry. They were modernised. They needed to be. We exploited the lack of competition in the late 40's/50's and 60's as other nations got up to speed, Japan, Germany etc, we needed to modernise.. but we still manufacture more than we did. I heard recently that sheffield produces more steal than ever, just at fewer plants with fewer workers.. inevitable consequence of modernisation.
aln - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
>
> [...]
>
> Now quote an actual rule of war that would agree with you.

The first casualty of war is the truth?
In reply to JayPee630:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> Some balanced thoughts here...
>
> http://numero57.net/2013/04/08/thatcher-on-balance/

balanced or biased?
icnoble on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Tobias at Home:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> [...]
>
> drinking champagne doesn't sound very socialist :-)


LOL

redsulike - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Very pleased it was a slow and protracted death, some measure of justice.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Al Evans:
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> [...]
>
> You needed to be there, and she did, she took the centre of the heart of UK manufacturing and the Uk's pride in being a working man, and put it in the mouth of bankers.

No we didnt, no she didnt, no she didnt and no she didnt.

How can one sentences be so wrong in all its intention.


Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Yet it makes you wonder what it could have been like now with a global level playing field on training, regulation, state investment and tax breaks. People also forget that a lot of UK management was shit in the companies that died. Most engineers I know think Thatcher cut too deep and believed too much in the markets and left us hamstrung compared to our competitor abroad and vulnerable to unproductive take-overs... she pushed things too far in the opposite direction. It does show how much talent still exists in the UK to be doing so well despite decades of ill treatment.

In reply to JayPee630: Throw this one into the mix too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11518331
Toby S - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Won't celebrate her demise and will not mourn her passing.
JJL - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

She was elected in the first election where I was able to cast a vote, and had mine.

Her tenure was a bit of a game of two halves IMHO - the first term I think was an object lesson in rolle dup sleeves, sorting out messes and getting some well overdue - but painful - things done.

The final few years she went mad as a box of frogs and I didn't vote for her again.

But she's been irrelevant for decades now, so I feel pretty much nothing about her death - she's had a pretty good innings really and there are much worse ways to go than a fatal stroke. Despite that, it wouldn't occur to me to celebrate a death I have to say.

Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Al Evans:

"You needed to be there, and she did, she took the centre of the heart of UK manufacturing and the Uk's pride in being a working man, and put it in the mouth of bankers. "

I was, from the beginning, as an young engineer, with great contacts and training via a levy that she removed. She did a lot of damage but you are mis-representing what happened.
Trangia - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:
> (In reply to Douglas Griffin)
>
>
> Happy she's dead, hope it was painful!

What a sick hypocritical comment.

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

> A sad day. An incredibly important piece in the chess game of 20th century politics.

Typical remark from a boulderer!
Trangia - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to GridNorth)
> [...]
>
> I see it less nasty than some of the things she did.
> As a direct result of her policies, my best friend commited suicide as he was no longer able to provide for his family. That's why I hated her, I said then I would be glad when she too died, and I am.

Not nice about your friend, but to blame his suicide on Thatcher is stretching things a bit far. Her policies affected lots of people, hundreds of whom lost their jobs, but they didn't all commit suicide. Committing suicide was hardly going to help his family was it? No, the decision to take that route was his responsibilty, not anyone else's, politicians make hard decisions all the time which are going to affect people's jobs, but that's the nature of government. It's not as though there is not the safety net of social security to help soften such a blow. To blame such a tragic act on Thatcher is both unrealistic and immature

TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> Yet it makes you wonder what it could have been like now with a global level playing field on training, regulation, state investment and tax breaks. People also forget that a lot of UK management was shit in the companies that died. Most engineers I know think Thatcher cut too deep and believed too much in the markets and left us hamstrung compared to our competitor abroad and vulnerable to unproductive take-overs... she pushed things too far in the opposite direction. It does show how much talent still exists in the UK to be doing so well despite decades of ill treatment.

Yeah, it makes you wonder what possible response she could have given to competitive countries realising that there's money in that there manufacturing. Also that if they tried hard they could do it more cheaply than us because they had lower costs and our labour force was too inflexible and believed that UK plc owed them a living.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to JayPee630)
> [...]
>
> What a sick hypocritical comment.

Why hypocritical? Maybe JayPee really didn't like her. What is hypocritical is all the praise and mourny statements from her tory colleagues, they were the ones who kicked her out of office, now they're all saying what a great PM she was... that's real hypocrisy.
Jim Fraser - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

This is so sad. I was hoping that after her idiot Tory successors back out of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of Protocol 11 no longer applies then we could execute her for treason. Too late.
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth: I think we've actually excelled in the niche manufacturing areas. I thought much of formula 1 manufacturing resides in the UK and we still have a very healthy aerospace industry.
Trangia - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
>
> Why hypocritical?

He hoped her death was painful in the same post that he adversely allured to her friendship with Pinoche who did torture people to death. That's hypocracy
JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Trangia:

No, IMO she deserves a taste of what she endorsed for others. Fitting not hypocritical.

Funny how everyone who likes her argues that she was good for industry and economy, but is strangely silent on her support for torture, dictators and racist policies the world over.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Trangia:

> He hoped her death was painful in the same post that he adversely allured to her friendship with Pinoche who did torture people to death. That's hypocracy

why?
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

> It's the people who want to effectively (or actually) stamp on her grave which I fail to understand.

Surely you can think of some people who did so much harm that you could feel this way - Hitler, Pol Pot, some mass murderer or rapist? It's doubtful that most saying this will actually go to her grave, if she has one, but they've been waiting for this release, the revenge that nature provides to all who have suffered at the hands of another, so what does it matter? She can't hear it and her "friends and family" have known what she did and was so they won't be surprised or upset by what her enemies say.

Personally I won't be doing any dancing, but I won't say RIP either, more like Good Riddance and RIH, as if anyone deserves to rot down there it is surely her.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:

> but is strangely silent on her support for torture, dictators and racist policies the world over.

The evidence seems to be that the UK did far more participation in and condoning of torture and collusion with dictators under Blair and Brown than under Thatcher.

For example: http://www.channel4.com/news/libyan-torture-victims-3-settlement-offer-to-uk-government
JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Yeah, totally, would be happy if they died too! Although still think Thatcher had a special place in the terrible things she did and supported.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

Our aircraft industry is a mere shadow of what it once was:

http://tinyurl.com/c4fmany
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Mangle makers are also thin on the ground.
Rob Exile Ward on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance: Jesus and Mo make the same point. It is hypocritical to wish that someone has died a painful death because they have been implicated in the painful death of others.
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Trangia:

>It's not as though there is not the safety net of social security to help soften such a blow.

Well, unless he was a striking miner, of course.

jcm
Trangia - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

But doesn't that lie at Scargill's door rather than hers?
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: not sure what that has to do with it.. we are still major players in the european scene..
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Our aircraft industry is a mere shadow of what it once was:

Which of course was entirely her fault and nothing to do with consolidation into two very big players, Boeing and Airbus (in which the UK has a large stake).
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I guess the Germans must be terrible then with even higher costs and a labour force that's more inflexible and greater belief that their government owe them a living. Or maybe its the opposite beacause they invested in and supported real growth based on proper added value rather than free market ideals. Even british workers make products like cars at a good profit; some of them are now owned by the chinese. Muppet.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Which of course was entirely her fault and nothing to do with consolidation into two very big players, Boeing and Airbus (in which the UK has a large stake).

That's true, dont we make the odd engine or two.

johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Trangia:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> But doesn't that lie at Scargill's door rather than hers?

Indeed; that was my point. (Well, in a sense; of course some people would say it was wicked anti-union legislation in the first place).

jcm

Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Engines are the one area in which we are still holding our own very strongly; we also make the wings for the Airbus. Beyond that, very small fry.
ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I can't find many stats.. but have you got any to back that up. I was under the impression technologically we are right at the forefront.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) Mangle makers are also thin on the ground.

To compare such great aircraft manufacturers as Avro, Blackburn, Bristol, De Havilland, English Electric, Fairey, Folland, Gloster, Handley Page, Hawker, Miles, Supermarine and Vickers with mangle makers is so daft as to be unworthy of comment. Except to say that it's about the silliest comment I've ever seen on here, or perhaps on the entire internet.


TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> I guess the Germans must be terrible then with even higher costs and a labour force that's more inflexible and greater belief that their government owe them a living. Or maybe its the opposite beacause they invested in and supported real growth based on proper added value rather than free market ideals. Even british workers make products like cars at a good profit; some of them are now owned by the chinese. Muppet.

So we broadly agree then, muppet, that the UK workers, strangled and suppressed by the trade union political ideals, needed to change but were ill advised by the unions or plainly ill prepared to change due to their own ill judged feeling of being owed a living?



David Martin - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> I felt the same regarding Blair. he went to war, rightly or wrongly, but put it to the people, made his decisions and was re-elected again.

..Yep, put it to the people, the people said "No!", and he went ahead and did it anyway. What good is "strong leadership" if that's where it gets us? I agree with the OP - that style of leadership appears far from a good thing.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to dissonance) Jesus and Mo make the same point. It is hypocritical to wish that someone has died a painful death because they have been implicated in the painful death of others.

i am struggling to see why. Cant say i really agree with it myself but it is not hypocritical to wish a painful death for someone implicated in painful deaths of others, especially innocents.
El-Mariachi on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Good Riddance.

She took my Milk away when in Primary school, I have never forgiven her for that.

And of course put my family out of work
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> So we broadly agree then, muppet, that the UK workers, strangled and suppressed by the trade union political ideals, needed to change but were ill advised by the unions or plainly ill prepared to change due to their own ill judged feeling of being owed a living?

or maybe, just maybe, it might be the incompetent management?
Strange how the trade unions seem to get on well enough with foreign managed companies such as the various car companies.
Darren Jackson - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I note that she never got around to privatising the Royal Mail. However, the Postal Services Act 2011 enables the government to privatise up to 90% of Royal Mail, with 10% being held by Royal Mail employees. The first sale of shares is expected in late 2013 or early 2014... Has Cameron been holding back, to allow them to deliver the Last Post?
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Arguably the strongest unions in the world are in germany.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth

"The aerospace industry of the United Kingdom is the second- or third-largest national aerospace industry in the world, depending upon the method of measurement. The industry employs around 113,000 people directly and around 276,000 indirectly and has an annual turnover of around £20 billion."

Wikipedia again.

IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to David Martin: When did the people say no.. he was re-elected. It wasn't as unpopular as is made out. Why was he reelected if it was such an unpopular move.

Governments make unpopular decisions. We democratically elect them to do so. We then trust them to make decisions, and if we disagree we do not re-elect.
wcdave - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Good.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Pinged:

> I have a very, very low opinion of Unions but I suppose thats a whole other debate!!

A true Thatcher's child :-)

I think you, and many others are confusing leadership skills with stubbornness... I remember her as stubborn, stupid, shallow and above all incredibly spiteful, she hated unions and working people who defended themselves in a way that was quite unbecoming for a public person, but, alas, it hit a note that appealed to a certain kind of person in Britain at the time, the Mrs Walkers (Coronation Street) of the day - a true blue Tory Daily Mail reader of the worse kind... When she spoke she came across as such an unpleasant snob too, really not someone you would have wanted to know.

Which is why her own party, having used her for a while, got rid of her themselves - she wasn't voted out of office in a national election, she was stabbed in the back by her own colleagues.... the same ones who are shedding crocodile tears now.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> [...]
>
> or maybe, just maybe, it might be the incompetent management?
> Strange how the trade unions seem to get on well enough with foreign managed companies such as the various car companies.

No question they were pretty shoddy as well and like much of our industry at the time, were stuck in an imperialist past.

Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) not sure what that has to do with it.. we are still major players in the european scene..

Yes, but there is a worry that government policies on Europe will undermine our role in European aerospace, and that the manufacture of the next generation of Airbus will drift away from the UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/29/uk-heart-europe-aerospace-industry-ads
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Avro, to take the first on your list, became defunct in 1963. Are you blaming Thatcher for that?
ruckman - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: the party here's already in full swing. Especially looking forward to tonight's celebratory firework's display in Sefton park. Many events planned, including a massive street party in Liverpool City Centre this Saturday. Anyone fancy free champagne?: https://www.facebook.com/events/592089550803499/
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I still have all those up in the attic, labelled Thatcher legacy.

Publish! Publish! The country has the right to know :-)
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Arguably the strongest unions in the world are in germany.
>

Nobody questions that point but are they enlightened?

Now do a quick fag packet comparison them to French unions and the British of yesteryear.

Now its clear...
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to David Martin) When did the people say no.. he was re-elected. It wasn't as unpopular as is made out. Why was he reelected if it was such an unpopular move.

firstly there wasnt much competition (the tories were cheerleaders for the war), second there was the strong expectation he wouldnt be long in office.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Some of that will be in volume 2 of my autobiography ... which is still three or four books down the line for me :)
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Arguably the strongest unions in the world are in germany.

using a Industrial relations framework put in by the British after the war.
For some strange reason they decided not to use it here as well instead preferring confrontation.
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>

> To my mind there has been a rewriting of history. She was a very popular PM for much of her time but all you hear now are comments from people who hated her

I was there she was hated by a large portion of the population. At the time I promised to throw a party when she died. But now, well water under the bridge, I can not feel sorry that she is gone but neither will I rejoice in it.
Jim C - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
My first granddaughter was born today, the same day Margaret Thatcher died, and my daughter's grandmother was called Margaret. However,I would be gutted if she called her Margaret, due to the association.( even though the MIL was a lovely woman)

My view, is Thatcher was borderline a war criminal, and that is being generous, and I will be more generous leave out my views on what she did to industry and communities in the North of England and Scotland .
I am not usually like this when someone dies, but Thatcher is an exception to the rule.
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

As a guardian reader and an engineer I always thought the guardian never really understood engineering. Some of the points made are good but the industry is still growing despite this. The UK's biggest problem with engineering remains public and policy pig ignorance.
ERH - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Turns out that there are a whole lot of cnts on this forum.
She had no direct affect on politics for years. Be happy when she left power, that's fine. But to be happy over the death of a person who was not currently doing anything negative is retarded and I hope that in the future those who gloat will feel disgusted at themselves (tho I know they won't)
dale1968 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim C: will you make the same exception for your friend Tony?
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to ERH:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Turns out that there are a whole lot of cnts on this forum.
> She had no direct affect on politics for years. Be happy when she left power, that's fine. But to be happy over the death of a person who was not currently doing anything negative is retarded and I hope that in the future those who gloat will feel disgusted at themselves (tho I know they won't).

Like button needed.



Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to EeeByGum:

> I am not defending the behaviour of the unions. But the real losers here were ordinary hard working folk.

Bad managers always blame Unions! It lets them off the hook, but if you look at the way companies were run you can see who was to blame - look at British Leyland, or whatever name it had at the time, loads of different brands and models, often really out of date and unreliable compared to the competition - that's not something that can be blamed on the Trade Unions.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> Engines are the one area in which we are still holding our own very strongly; we also make the wings for the Airbus.

So doesn't making the engines and the wings for half the world's airliners mean we're actually doing quite well in this area?
woolsack - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) Avro, to take the first on your list, became defunct in 1963. Are you blaming Thatcher for that?

I found another from the 1930s, that was definitely her fault
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

Some UK companies tried (on both sides of the negotiating table) ... especially so in engineering. In the end if things work better that way it's a good way to go. Looking back at the worst stereotypes isn't especially helpful other than as a warning.

Back to my pig ignorance point and the link to the thread, the best companies know what they want and are clear about why but you need to read trade mags to find it. Maggie ignored them then, like all have done since.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) Avro, to take the first on your list, became defunct in 1963. Are you blaming Thatcher for that?

No. Anyhow, Avro did not become defunct so much as taken over, like De Havilland and successful aircraft companies by the much bigger Hawker Siddeley, which in turn became part of the British Aircraft Corporation. The Avro Vulcan continued being made for years, and the HS 146 was came from an earlier Avro development.

Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> look at British Leyland, or whatever name it had at the time, loads of different brands and models,
> often really out of date and unreliable compared to the competition - that's not something that
> can be blamed on the Trade Unions.

But it is something that can be blamed on having protected the industry from the market and just propped it up with taxpayer subsidy.

You are entirely right to blame the managements of that era, and the lack of the "you need to sell in the free market" ethos (and instead adoption of planned-economy attitudes) was a large part of it.
winhill - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to EeeByGum)
>
> Bad managers always blame Unions! It lets them off the hook, but if you look at the way companies were run you can see who was to blame - look at British Leyland, or whatever name it had at the time, loads of different brands and models, often really out of date and unreliable compared to the competition - that's not something that can be blamed on the Trade Unions.

Specifically look at the Mini which never, in it's life, made any money.
GridNorth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: Some of it can be blamed on the unions. I worked at British Steel where the top union guy was someone called "Red Harry". He revelled in the name and had benefited from several holidays to the Soviet Union paid for by the Communist Party. He also called everyone out on strike on one occasion because a kettle in a rest room was faulty. I hate to think what it cost BS.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> So doesn't making the engines and the wings for half the world's airliners mean we're actually doing quite well in this area?

Yes, quite well. But we could be stronger, particularly in the light of our present strained relationship with Europe. I think the survival of Rolls Royce was a result of it being bailed out and nationalised by the Heath government in the early 80s, and then it was privatised again under Mrs. Thatcher.

gd303uk - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I am just glad she no longer breaths the same air, f*ck her and any mug that thinks the country is better off becuase of her.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> Yes, quite well. But we could be stronger, particularly in the light of our present strained relationship with Europe. I think the survival of Rolls Royce was a result of it being bailed out and nationalised by the Heath government in the early 80s, and then it was privatised again under Mrs. Thatcher.

Which Heath government? Really, about as daft as your list of aircraft makers who expired before Thatcher's time.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> No. Anyhow, Avro did not become defunct so much as taken over, like De Havilland and successful aircraft companies by the much bigger Hawker Siddeley, which in turn became part of the British Aircraft Corporation. The Avro Vulcan continued being made for years, and the HS 146 was came from an earlier Avro development.

BAC? Which went tits up in 77? Thatcher's fault too no doubt.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

We weren't actually talking about Mrs. Thatcher then - I was simply saying that our role in aircraft manufacturing (despite its strong position in Europe with the Airbus) was a mere shadow with what it once was. Re. Rolls Royce, The Heath govt in question was in 1973, and Mrs. Thatcher reprivatised it in 1987, so it seems a highly relevant example for today's discussion.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> BAC? Which went tits up in 77? Thatcher's fault too no doubt.

It didn't really go 'tits up' it became broader again, and became 'British Aerospace'. And I keep on repeating, but YOU ARE DEAF, (third time now) that - much to her credit (I didn't say that before) - Mrs T re -privatised Rolls Royce in 1987.

bouldery bits - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

oh, do I get my milk back now?
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I enjoyed the observation (stolen from the Guardian comments pages) that Mrs T has only been in Hell for an hour and she's already closed two furnaces.

jcm
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: So our aerospace industry is 2nd or 3rd in the world and it's a shadow of what it was? Do you think the world demand for planes might have changed?
sbc_10 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Is it true that because of a shortage of funds in the Department of Burials, due to out-sourcing,re-structuring and privatisation, they are going to lay her to rest in a dis-used mineshaft....on a couple of milk crates...?
pneame on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Brilliant.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Not for business jets, small passenger airliners. fighter aircraft or jump jets, for example, surely? The French still manage to make their own fighters.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Overall Gordon, overall, but you knew that didn't you?
Keep knocking uk industry if it makes you happy.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
> Some UK companies tried (on both sides of the negotiating table) ... especially so in engineering. In the end if things work better that way it's a good way to go.

there is a difference between trying something at a company level and having the entire system designed for it.

dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> But it is something that can be blamed on having protected the industry from the market and just propped it up with taxpayer subsidy.

you mean like BAE?
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to JayPee630)
>
> [...]
>
> The evidence seems to be that the UK did far more participation in and condoning of torture and collusion with dictators under Blair and Brown than under Thatcher.
>
> For example: http://www.channel4.com/news/libyan-torture-victims-3-settlement-offer-to-uk-government

I don't think it's fair to say "far more" - how are you quantifying it?

It might be fair to say that the UK still had a hand in collusion with dictators and condoning torture under Blair and Brown.

My impression is that Thatcher's friendship with Pinochet was rather closer and the shady relationships that subsequent leaders have had with dictators; thinking firstly of Gaddafi, these were more acts of compromise in which the brutality of their regimes was not simply ignored.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't think it's fair to say "far more" - how are you quantifying it?

Is there any evidence that the UK had any direct involvement in any of Pinochet's torture? Handing over of suspects, UK intelligence personal present when it was going on, that sort of thing? That seems to have gone on during Blair/Brown years (e.g. Guantanamo, Libya). Thatcher merely being chummy with Pinochet is not quite the same.

> thinking firstly of Gaddafi, these were more acts of compromise in which the brutality of their
> regimes was not simply ignored.

And wasn't Thatcher's attitude an "act of compromise" owing to the fact that Chile helped the UK in the Falklands war?
Jim C - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to icnoble:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Sad news indeed. I aggree with both Skyfall and Pepperpot.

I wonder if it is an age thing, are You Skyfall and Pepperpot old enough to remember Thatcher's Britain?

Like all leaders there will be people who will make a point only to remember them for the good (or the bad ) they did. Churchill for example has got a generally good press, but there were things he did that have been quietly forgotten, because 'history' has decided to do so. Thatcher will not be so lucky. ( and I am glad for that)

People bought their council houses, but, only the best properties were bought, and a large percentage of those properties have now been picked up by private landlords, and there is a shortage of good quality homes for people to rent at a time when youngsters cannot get a start on the housing ladder. It seemed. Good idea at the time I'm sure, but it is being re appraised now.

Think also of the regimes she supported for political expedience. I remember her as against Mandela.

And Good luck to any woman that would ever want to be Prime Minister, she has surely put the kiss of death on that happening again.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to ERH:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Turns out that there are a whole lot of cnts on this forum.
> She had no direct affect on politics for years. Be happy when she left power, that's fine. But to be happy over the death of a person who was not currently doing anything negative is retarded and I hope that in the future those who gloat will feel disgusted at themselves (tho I know they won't)

Since of those making the sanctimonious remarks feigning moral outrage at those celebrating her death, you'd go as far as to call people 'cnts', perhaps it falls to you to respond to this point, that's been made more than once:

> Surely you can think of some people who did so much harm that you could feel this way - Hitler, Pol Pot, some mass murderer or rapist?

If it's so morally repugnant to celebrate the death of someone who you think caused enormous harm in the life, does this extend all the way to Milosevic, Pinochet, Myra Hindly? What is the threshold to which we should all adhere?
Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Engines are the one area in which we are still holding our own very strongly; we also make the wings for the Airbus. Beyond that, very small fry.

Gordon, this is just utter nonsense. Britain has the second biggest aerspace sector in the world (after the US) and the biggest in Europe. It produces about £25bn pa in revenues and accounts for17% of the global total (2011). You seem to have trouble getting your head around the ides that in maturing industries with huge capital costs the nature of the industry changes in terms of size, type and specialisation of company.

Fat Bumbly2 - on 08 Apr 2013
Why should we gloat - we still have to live in the wreckage. Good riddence.
A wicked woman who made selfishness a virtue.

No mourning here.
wilding - on 08 Apr 2013
She had to shut down inefficient and unprofitable industries that required a massive subsidy from the taxpayer. She also had to face down powerful entrenched interests.

Compare to Gordon Brown and David Cameron, who simply rolled over when confronted with exactly the same situation with our finance sector.
I guess finance is different.
Gelstat5 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
In the immortal words of Mark E.Smith'A new face in hell'.
Fantastic news indeed,i lived through her misery and seen the suffering of not only myself and family but my entire community,which had been full of employment and hope until she took over.

I hope she rots in hell.
wilkie14c - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:
> (In reply to Trangia)
>
> No, IMO she deserves a taste of what she endorsed for others. Fitting not hypocritical.
>
thats the thing though, opinions are like arseholes as everyone has one. Your particular 'arsehole' of an opinion that you wished Thatcher died in pain says a lot about you more than anything else. You really are a nasty piece of work aren't you?

Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> [...]
>
> Is there any evidence that the UK had any direct involvement in any of Pinochet's torture? Handing over of suspects, UK intelligence personal present when it was going on, that sort of thing? That seems to have gone on during Blair/Brown years (e.g. Guantanamo, Libya).
>
I just don't think it's possible to quantify, so much is different - including, crucially, the availability of evidence.

> Thatcher merely being chummy with Pinochet is not quite the same.
> And wasn't Thatcher's attitude an "act of compromise" owing to the fact that Chile helped the UK in the Falklands war?

I think the difference with Thatcher's chumminess is that it certainly appeared to be a genuine friendship, and she actively and publicly defended his legacy. Many people would say this public display of friendship demonstrates an appalling moral deficit in her personally, not just in her record as an international politician - although the two cannot be entirely separated.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Timmd on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to The Lemming)
>
> The result on a personal level was that those people, often not those likely to vote for her, gained financially. And, you know, actually owned their own home as a result. I know people who did exactly that and would only grudgingly admit they benefited. That was my only point. Now, go on bore me with your jaundiced view of it all.

I'm not sure it's jaundiced to see the selling off of council houses as not helping towards there being enough affordable places to live in the country.

Why should it be Jaundiced?
Fat Bumbly2 - on 08 Apr 2013
A news blackout today - replaced by one story and history documentries. I wonder what bad news is being buried?

Is it OK to take the pins out now?.

Fans should understand that those of us who were there at the time, and on the wrong side of events are very bitter. This is not somebody I wish to mourn.
Gelstat5 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:You really are a nasty piece of work aren't you?
If seeking revenge and justice for the crimes of an actual nasty piece of work make you a nasty piece of work.The he who hath no sin cast the first stone.


Goucho on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I shall pull up a chair, and open a jumbo bag of popcorn for this one - it's going to be a hoot :-)

andyathome - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> Please no gloating!

You MUST have known what you were unleashing.......

Personally I see her as a politician who actually acted according to her guiding principles; and as such a rare beast she has my, grudging, respect.


Unfortunately her guiding principles disgusted me at the time of her premiership and still cause me disquiet as I watch her legacy being enacted.

The current head of the NUM said it well: his sympathy goes to her family but there it ends.
ranger*goy on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Goucho:

Me and my husband were guessing at the no of replies so far to a Thatcher thread, I guessed 300 and won.
Ridge - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gelstat5:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> i lived through her misery and seen the suffering of not only myself and family but my entire community,which had been full of employment and hope until she took over.

I'd don't know where you lived, but it must have been the only town in Britain that wasn't alread in terminal decline by the time Thatcher took over.

Gelstat5 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to andyathome:

I love the fact that old Arthur seen her to her grave,there will be many raised glasses down at my local tonight.
wilkie14c - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gelstat5:
> (In reply to blanchie14c)You really are a nasty piece of work aren't you?
> If seeking revenge and justice for the crimes of an actual nasty piece of work make you a nasty piece of work.The he who hath no sin cast the first stone.

Dont be such a dick, at the end of the day a frail old woman has passed away. She may well have had a political history but that was 20+ years ago. All this talk of dancing on graves, champagne and hoping that she died in pain sickens me. Maybe your mother upset someone 20 odd years ago and when the time comes for her to pass, how are you going to feel if this person surfaced and publicly stated that they hoped she'd died in pain?
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:

>All this talk of dancing on graves, champagne and hoping that she died in pain sickens me.

I have to agree: I loathed her, but this stuff does no-one any credit. It's not the time.

jcm
JIMBO on 08 Apr 2013
In other news, today is the 35th anniversary of the first ascent of Everest without supplementary oxygen....
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> Cant say i really agree with it myself but it is not hypocritical to wish a painful death for someone

There seems to be some confusion about the meaning of "hypocritical" on this thread :-)
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to andyathome:

> You MUST have known what you were unleashing.......

It was inevitable a thread would appear... ...I was just hoping that if I got in there quickly that it might temper the impoverished displays of humanity... ...no such luck.
gd303uk - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: impoverished? I see lively, polarised, opinions.
Nothing as impoverished as thatchers humanity.
JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:

Honestly, I despair! It's not about someone on here's mother saying something rude 20 years ago!

Thatcher was directly responsible for deaths and pain throughout the work due to her policies and attitudes. She supported apartheid and numerous dictators around the world. And continued to do so after she left elected political life.

Wishing her a painful death is less than she was responsible for inflicting on many many others.
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> firstly there wasnt much competition (the tories were cheerleaders for the war), second there was the strong expectation he wouldnt be long in office.

And Brown would take over..
gd303uk - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:
> (In reply to Gelstat5)
> [...]
> , how are you going to feel if this person surfaced and publicly stated that they hoped she'd died in pain?

if I was mark thatcher I migh think, fair enough ;) becuase a lot of people must hate my mum.

JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:

Anyway, we not going to agree, so I'm off to join the thousands of people around Britain having a drink to celebrate her death tonight.

Gerry_Doncaster - on 08 Apr 2013
Only just heard the good news. There'll be a smile on my face for the rest of the evening.
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
> (In reply to blanchie14c)
>

> I have to agree: I loathed her, but this stuff does no-one any credit. It's not the time.
>


I disagree. I am not going to celebrate her death, to me it was in the past and that is that.
But for some people that past had a big influence on them and rightly or wrongly they hated her. Such being the case it is only natural that some folk who feel that they suffered because of her will want to celebrate, it may not be nice but it is human.
If Hitler had survived the war and the same period of time had passed as for MT then I would still not wish to celebrate but some would and I couldn't criticise them for wanting to, though I would disagree with it myself.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Tony Naylor on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Thatcher merely being chummy with Pinochet is not quite the same.

'Chummy'? Every time she looked at him she got a wide-on so big the draught must have pulled his cap off.
johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> it may not be nice but it is human

Of course it's human. Lots of things that don't do people credit are human.

jcm
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I meant understandable.

But you are right of course. Everyone deserves compassion even if they don't possess it themselves
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Gelstat5)
> [...]
>
> I'd don't know where you lived, but it must have been the only town in Britain that wasn't alread in terminal decline by the time Thatcher took over.

Its interesting.. the FRA thread seems more balanced.. but it seems depending on political leaning correlates with where people saw that terminal decline..

I wonder how much it is similar to now..

There were suggestions that labour were 'happy' to lose the last election as they knew the party who got in were going to have to make unpopular decisions..
subalpine - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JIMBO:
> In other news, today is the 35th anniversary of the first ascent of Everest without supplementary oxygen....

wasn't that May 8?
similar hairstyle anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reinhold_Messner_at_Juval_%282012%29.JPG


Chardee B - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gerry_Doncaster:
Seems you are not alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jn8K8EA7-Q
Goucho on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to ranger*goy: I'm waiting to see how long it is before she gets blamed for the dry tooling incident at Milstone, and the collapse of the West Face of the Dru :-)
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne: I'm really not sure re the falklands.. its full of oil and fish.. we knew that then.. we just couldn't get to it.. strategically, for the Brits it made sense to hold on to an offshore island with huge oil reserves and good fishing grounds at a time when we knew North Sea oil was a finite resource and UK fish stocks were decimated..
Simon_Sheff - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> I must confess, I switched on the news and when it was announced I couldn't help but let out a cheer while I punched the air. Yes!


I find this sad
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK: And I'm always accused of being a pinky liberal socialist.. so far from Tory.. never have.. never will vote for them unless huge changes. I still think New Labour was the right direction.. and hope they go back that way. Ideally I like the lib dems, but thats all they are.. idealistic.
Goucho on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Ridge:
> (In reply to Gelstat5)
> [...]
>
> I'd don't know where you lived, but it must have been the only town in Britain that wasn't alread in terminal decline by the time Thatcher took over.

It's amazing how many folk on here don't remember (or weren't born) just how much of a basket case the UK was by 1979.

I'm no fan of Thatchers, but that clown Jim Calaghan and Labour, didn't do the UK any favours either.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I disagree. I am not going to celebrate her death, to me it was in the past and that is that.
> But for some people that past had a big influence on them and rightly or wrongly they hated her. Such being the case it is only natural that some folk who feel that they suffered because of her will want to celebrate, it may not be nice but it is human.

Its more animal to me.
JIMBO on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to subalpine: I think he started on the 8th... ;-)

Thought I'd try to add some climbing to the debate.

I think Kurt Cobain was found dead on this day in 1994?
Must be a joke there... one smelled like teen spirit and the other stole teen spirit... ? Any other ideas?
andyathome - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to pepperpot:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> Yes before the rubbish starts. Notwithstanding the unpopular policies she was one of the strongest leaders we have ever had, and possibly changed the UK more than any other. Something to be proud of surely.
>
> Condolences to her family and friends.

Substitute 'he' for 'she' and 'Italy' for 'UK' and you could wind up managing Sunderland FC. Know what I'm saying ;-)

johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> I meant understandable.
>
> But you are right of course. Everyone deserves compassion even if they don't possess it themselves.

I don't know it's even a question of compassion. All one's actually seeking on the present occasion is polite indifference at the close of a life. I see it more as a question of public good manners.

jcm
Fat Bumbly2 - on 08 Apr 2013

" I couldn't help but let out a cheer while I punched the air. Yes!"

Me2 - then I began to mourn as the memories returned and things long forgotten came to the fore. The likes of ruining a great policy like council house sales by not allowing any proceeds to be invested in new social housing, and personally: the long years of sending off application form after application form after application form.

Good riddence.

"but these lines are all individuals
and there's no such thing as a song "
Mekons - Empire of the Senseless.
JayPee630 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Why the request for dignified silence is wrong... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
andyathome - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JIMBO:
If we're talking anniversaries/birthdays; my mother - a lifelong Labour member - married to a communist - (and supporter of the miners) is shamed that she shares her birthday with not only Margaret Thatcher but also Edwina Curry. Sort of destroys your belief in birth signs.....
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I'd rather have compassion than good manners.
subalpine - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fat Bumbly2: isn't all this hating one person rather crass?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-4FJcnX0i8#!
ads.ukclimbing.com
MJ - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to gribble:

Especially where the effects of decimation are still being felt. Champagne or not, I hope this serves as closure for many.

You can blame Thatcher for many things, but changing the monetary system in 1971 isn't one of them.
Sean Kelly - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) I note that the Daily Mash website seems to be creaking under the weight of people seeking objective and cogent comment on the subject. I can see their headline 'Northern Britain already hammered', though getting to see the content is proving more difficult.
>
> T.

You obviously missed this on the DM website http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2305848/Margaret-Thatcher-died-STRIKE-BBC-forced-correct-bre...
icnoble on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: BAE systems??
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
> I'd rather have compassion than good manners.

I agree entirely.

I personally am not going out celebrating and don't have the strength of feeling of people whose lives were more closely affected by her policies - but my gut emotional reaction to the news was more on the side of happy than sad, and this is the reason: I hate the philosophy she espoused.

Whatever the practical consequences of her policies and the context in which they made - that can be debated forever - she was a woman who significantly contributed to the oppression of people who found themselves at the bottom of the pile. Black people, gay people, poor people. The individualistic philosophy, built on the illusion of equality of opportunity while maintaining systems that held those unfortunate enough to be born at the bottom down at the bottom disgusts me. I see no reason at all to pretend that I did not feel happy about the news, or not to mention it out of 'politeness'.

cragtaff - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: sad to see the end of this great lady. She held the office of Prime Minister for longer than any other in the 20th century in fully democratic elections. We have so much to thank her for.

I like climbing - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> Please no gloating!

Whatever people thought of her I think to gloat about her death is wrong. It's a sad time for her family and friends too. She was one of the most iconic British politicians ever and I will be fascinated in the coverage over the next few days.
Couldn't stand her personally.
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013


Funny how people accuse her of lacking humanity and then spend all night telling us how they punched the air when an 87 year old widow died.

FWIW there are a lot of myths about Thatcher, and many are erroneous. I didn't like her politics, but as I look back I see that she was in part "strong medicine", as well as a fool.

There will be good few PHD's in deconstructing her career and premiership - she's an enigma in many ways. The biographies I have read of her, left and right have been quite intriguing. what we think we know and the reality may well turn out to be very differant.



Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to icnoble:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) BAE systems??

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you mean they're a success, well it would be shocking if they weren't as they are the final remnant of all our previous aircraft manufacturing expertise that I mentioned above, which became first BAC then British Aerospace, now focussed largely on weapons, nuclear bombs, cluster bombs and shady arms deals.

Fat Bumbly2 - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to subalpine: Absolutely :-) - There was her supine cabinet and all the history rewriters out there.
This link is probably above somewhere, but no harm in repeating it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-BZIWSI5UQ
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I think you need to look closer to Sheffield.. far from a remnant..
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to pepperpot)
> [...]
>
> Substitute 'he' for 'she' and 'Italy' for 'UK' and you could wind up managing Sunderland FC. Know what I'm saying ;-)

or leading the NUM into a corner...erm.

The further right you go, the closer to the left you get, and vice versa - it's all statism.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
>
>
> Funny how people accuse her of lacking humanity and then spend all night telling us how they punched the air when an 87 year old widow died.
>
> FWIW there are a lot of myths about Thatcher, and many are erroneous. I didn't like her politics, but as I look back I see that she was in part "strong medicine", as well as a fool.
>
> There will be good few PHD's in deconstructing her career and premiership - she's an enigma in many ways. The biographies I have read of her, left and right have been quite intriguing. what we think we know and the reality may well turn out to be very differant.

I think you're fantasising, John. I can't for the life of me see what was remotely 'enigmatic' about her. Her values were very basic, open and obvious ... and there didn't seem to be anything else behind them. If anyone dared to suggest that there was anything more to life than monetarism and the Free Market, they'd be hit over the head by her proverbial handbag. I love her superb misunderstanding of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Exposes her for what she was to a ... T (sorry!). The exact point of the parable, that the background, status, reputation or wealth of a charitably minded person (not a giver of money) is totally irrelevant, was missed by her completely.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to winhill:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> Specifically look at the Mini which never, in it's life, made any money.

I didn't know that, I thought it was one of their successes! At the time I had Austins, 1100, 1300s, more or less bigger Minis and thought they were ok, it was later on that I discovered that all cars didn't drink oil and go wrong so often :-)
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

... Look closer to Sheffield? I don't get your point. I can't stand the climbing scene in Sheffield and am very happy to live quite a long way from it.
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:
> (In reply to blanchie14c)
>
> Honestly, I despair! It's not about someone on here's mother saying something rude 20 years ago!
>
> Thatcher was directly responsible for deaths and pain throughout the work due to her policies and attitudes. She supported apartheid and numerous dictators around the world. And continued to do so after she left elected political life.
>
> Wishing her a painful death is less than she was responsible for inflicting on many many others.


What deaths was she directly responsible for?

Her government opposed Apartheid ( a quick trawl through Hansard will confirm) but she preferred to use diplomatic pressure, partly on the advice of the FO than direct condemnation.

She did indeed pick some dubious friends, but so did our Labour governments - she should rightly be criticised for her friendship with Pinochet, but to absolve all previous prime ministers, left and right of anything similar is at best naive and at worse, disingenous.

FFS - can we have a reasoned political discourse, not "ding dong the witch is dead", which is politics of the 6th form. *


*i say this as a lefty -
ThunderCat - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> I must confess, I switched on the news and when it was announced I couldn't help but let out a cheer while I punched the air. Yes!

I was going to post a Martin Luther King quotation:

“I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.”

But it turns out to wrongly attributed to him. Shame, it seemed quite apt.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The snag with the Mini was that the concept and prototype were brilliant, but it was never developed properly, so that it had some appalling design faults e.g the universal joints, and the position of the distributor. And then it was manufactured to the lowest possible standards, with about three layers of paint, so that they just turned into rust buckets.
Sir Chasm - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Nobody mentioned the climbing scene, perhaps, y'know as you brought up planes, he's referring to Doncasters.
Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to icnoble)
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you mean they're a success, well it would be shocking if they weren't as they are the final remnant of all our previous aircraft manufacturing expertise that I mentioned above, which became first BAC then British Aerospace, now focussed largely on weapons, nuclear bombs, cluster bombs and shady arms deals.


See my post of 18.21
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to GridNorth:

> Some of it can be blamed on the unions.

When I first came to France and started working here in the late 70s it was in a small private English teaching company. The boss was a total crook and didn't respect work laws at all. Then as now in France unions were very weak, hardly existing in private firms so some of us tried to set one up. Another teacher was someone who had worked in British Steel before coming to France and his version of reality was a little different to yours, he said he found it really hard working in a situation where you had no rights, where even joining a union could get you sacked (I was trying to get him to join). He said that he'd been used to a work-place where if you had a difficulty with the management you just spoke to a shop steward and he would talk it over with the management and sort it out... No aggro, no worry of losing your job, unlike our situation in France.

So I'd say that the sort of anti-union anecdotes cited by many may not correspond to how it seemed for those who worked there.
ads.ukclimbing.com
wbo - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: It's amazing how many folk on here don't remember (or weren't born) just how much of a basket case the UK was by 1979.

I'm no fan of Thatchers, but that clown Jim Calaghan and Labour, didn't do the UK any favours either.

That is so true. The UK in the 70's was unbelievablr to modern eyes. IMF bailout, 3 day week, British Leyland et al, high inflation, 98% top end tax.... I was too young to vote for Thatcher in 79 but the alternatives were zero.
Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: If the French unions are so weak, how come he buggers are on strike every time I want to to go on holiday?
IainRUK - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to JayPee630)
> [...]
>
>
>
>
> *i say this as a lefty -

That's the problem..

Its either.. 'too young' yet those same people talk about Hitler et al..

Or

'Lefty'..

The level of engagement is pretty poor. I'm not a fan of hers, or her party.. my family have been labour for generations on all sides.. but even they knew she came from a position with few alternatives but harsh measures.. maybe it could have been easier.. but harsh was fairly much the only way out.
SARS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Interesting program on BBC One now.

The UK really was a different place when she came to parliament. Embarrassing to look back at how, for example, sexist the country was - 25 women mps out of 630. It's impressive what she achieved, and frankly it seems as though the UK really needed a kick up the arse.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> ... Look closer to Sheffield? I don't get your point. I can't stand the climbing scene in Sheffield and am very happy to live quite a long way from it.

Look here sonny! This thread has not place for this 'climbing' stuff whatever that is.

Now, put down those funny shoes, pick up that pitchfork or torch and get yourself to that big church to desecrate that rectangular box with all the other hate filled morons.

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:

> You really are a nasty piece of work aren't you?

And you're a pompous, self righteous one.... which is better? We don't have to love everyone, in real life there are bad people who do bad things, it's not a crime to say it and wish that they pay for all the evil they did.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
>
> See my post of 18.21

I saw that, and it was so abstract, and so ludicrously big a subject, that of course I didn't answer it. Death of T has been as right pain in the B today, because work has been severely curtailed ...

Re our industry. I have no idea why we can't still make cameras, bicycles, motorbikes, and even DIY tools that work (everyone I know now buys French or German). And we've just given up on car and aircraft manufacturing (even light aircraft, executive jets, fighters, jump jets etc). Pathetic. I say this as a champion of industry, and a strange reactionary earlier today then accused me of knocking industry. With my latest book I insisted that we produced the whole thing in the UK, using British printers etc., and very successful that operation has been too. In my earlier 'lives' working in the TV and film industries I had a huge amount of experience of British industry at its best, until it was very perversely handicapped by Mrs. T in 1984. It incenses me when people with probably very little experience of manufacturing start spouting this stuff.
Graeme Alderson on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to cragtaff:
> We have so much to thank her for.

Maybe some do but not all.

TheDrunkenBakers - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
>
> I disagree. I am not going to celebrate her death, to me it was in the past and that is that.
> But for some people that past had a big influence on them and rightly or wrongly they hated her. Such being the case it is only natural that some folk who feel that they suffered because of her will want to celebrate, it may not be nice but it is human.
> If Hitler had survived the war and the same period of time had passed as for MT then I would still not wish to celebrate but some would and I couldn't criticise them for wanting to, though I would disagree with it myself.

Yey, Godwin's. Only took about 350 posts.

Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> (In reply to cragtaff)
> [...]
>
> Maybe some do but not all.

Precisely. I won't be thanking the woman who stood up at her party conference and mocked,

"Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay"

And I don't really like all this sanctimonious shite about how I should be sad that she's dead.
Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: No doubt typed out on your British computer using British WP software.......
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

How come you accuse Thatcher of so many crimes, yet seem so happy to give Mao a reach around ?

One pissed off a few miners the other killed millions.


Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> I saw that, and it was so abstract, and so ludicrously big a subject, that of course I didn't answer it. Death of T has been as right pain in the B today, because work has been severely curtailed ...
>
You said our aerospace industry is "small fry". I pointed out it is the second biggest in the world in the world after the US. How is this "abstract". It just means you're wrong!

> Re our industry. I have no idea why we can't still make cameras, bicycles, motorbikes, and even DIY tools that work (everyone I know now buys French or German). And we've just given up on car and aircraft manufacturing (even light aircraft, executive jets, fighters, jump jets etc). Pathetic. I say this as a champion of industry,
>
French manufacturing is not significantly bigger than ours. Only Germany and Japan of western nations' is significantly bigger as a % of GDP. Basically we cannot compete in labour intensive industries because our labour is expensive and in capital intensive industries we need to work with other countries. We are also reaping the rewards of fifty years or more up to 1980 of crap management, Bolshie unions, being outside Europe and a disdain for commercial enterprise (amongst other things).
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> In my earlier 'lives' working in the TV and film industries I had a huge amount of experience of
> British industry at its best, until it was very perversely handicapped by Mrs. T in 1984.

What did she do to the film and TV industries?
Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Graeme Alderson)
> [...]
>
>
> And I don't really like all this sanctimonious shite about how I should be sad that she's dead.
>
Who said you should be "sad"?
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:


.....and i don't like people who were using their trousers as latrine in the 80's telling me I'm being sanctimonious about the prime minister i lived under (and hated).

Section 28 was wrong. The sad irony being Thatcher was a supporter of gay rights, where she went wrong, very wrong was that she moved to (or arguably needed) the hard right to support her against the increasing threat of the wets like Clarke and Heseltine.
andy - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby: erm... What's a "reach around", John?
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth) No doubt typed out on your British computer using British WP software.......

Of course not. I'd love to. That's my point. All my computer life, since 1990, I've been using Macs, and I now have three all working fine. The only reason that I've just got a new one is that the older models are rather slow, not compatible with latest software, and are now classified by Apple as 'vintage', which means that most spare parts are no longer available if they go wrong.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]

> Re our industry. I have no idea why we can't still make cameras, bicycles, motorbikes, and even DIY tools that work (everyone I know now buys French or German). And we've just given up on car and aircraft manufacturing (even light aircraft, executive jets, fighters, jump jets etc). Pathetic. I say this as a champion of industry, and a strange reactionary earlier today then accused me of knocking industry. With my latest book I insisted that we produced the whole thing in the UK, using British printers etc., and very successful that operation has been too. In my earlier 'lives' working in the TV and film industries I had a huge amount of experience of British industry at its best, until it was very perversely handicapped by Mrs. T in 1984. It incenses me when people with probably very little experience of manufacturing start spouting this stuff.

how about being the world leader of microchips in the whole world Gordon?

http://www.arm.com/about/company-profile/index.php

Just cos we no longer bother with the old cash cow/dead dog industries doesn't mean we are not leaders in other technologies.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
> Who said you should be "sad"?

Alright then

I really don't like all this sanctimonious shite about it being wrong to say I'm glad she's dead.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

> ... and a disdain for commercial enterprise (amongst other things).

One of the other things being a disdain for engineering. In the UK the political classes and business management have nearly all come from arts/humanities university subjects and a handful of professions such as law and accountancy.

In Germany you have vastly more politicians/businessmen with engineering, scientific and mathematical backgrounds, and much more respect for these fields, and IMO this contributes to their greater success at manufacturing.
wilding - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to wbo:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) It's amazing how many folk on here don't remember (or weren't born) just how much of a basket case the UK was by 1979.
>
> I'm no fan of Thatchers, but that clown Jim Calaghan and Labour, didn't do the UK any favours either.
>
> That is so true. The UK in the 70's was unbelievablr to modern eyes. IMF bailout, 3 day week, British Leyland et al, high inflation, 98% top end tax.... I was too young to vote for Thatcher in 79 but the alternatives were zero.

People forget how the unions became so powerful and then abused their power. I believe the winter of discontent occurred because the unions demanded a 5% wage increase for everyone regardless of productivity.

Of course, now the pendulum has swung too far the other direction. The net result of Thatcher's policies have led to a system were the elite get richer, while the middle are squeezed. Worker productivity has increased rapidly over the last ten years, but pay has not kept pace.

I assume a new Bevan, or FDR will come along soon enough to push policies back towards the middle class.
cander - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to wbo:

It was the first election I voted in, I was 19 and unemployed, traipsing to Carlisle scotch street dole office to sign on. Coming from a socialist family I was decided on Callaghan, but I listened to the arguements, someone was offering more of the same and someone else was offering real jobs.

The impact of the "Labour isn't working" slogan reasonated with me, the country was in turmoil (all the work of the unions as far as I could see) - I couldn't see any real jobs coming from Labour, even though I wanted a fair society, I wanted a good job even more. I voted Conservative. Do I regret it, not really, the country changed but it was always going to, if we hadn't we'd have been like Romania.

Margaret Thatcher was the agent of change .. if she hadn't done it Tony Blair would have done it (I reckon they're very much from the same mold). Is it sad to see the victims of the changes that happened - of course it is, driving through Consett when the steelworks were still there was impressive, but it's a nicer place now it's not covered in red dust. The world moved on, the clause 4 socialists got left behind, don't anyone feel sorry for them - they'd have ruined us (Derek Hatton and his gang).

Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
>
> .....and i don't like people who were using their trousers as latrine in the 80's telling me I'm being sanctimonious about the prime minister i lived under (and hated).

Haha. I'm not going to bang on about the policies that didn't really affect me, but I grew up at school under Section 28 so I feel like I'm precisely the right age to comment on that one, thanks.
>
> Section 28 was wrong. The sad irony being Thatcher was a supporter of gay rights, where she went wrong, very wrong was that she moved to (or arguably needed) the hard right to support her against the increasing threat of the wets like Clarke and Heseltine.

OK, I only know what she said in that famous conference speech, the legislation that was passed and the attitudes in the major institutions while she was in power. Forgive me for thinking that her intention was to shit on my rights.
andyathome - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> Basically we cannot compete in labour intensive industries because our labour is expensive and in capital intensive industries we need to work with other countries. We are also reaping the rewards of fifty years or more up to 1980 of crap management, Bolshie unions, being outside Europe and a disdain for commercial enterprise (amongst other things).

So you are saying that Thatcherism was a bag of crap that didn't work except on a superficial level?
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> What did she do to the film and TV industries?

Incredible stuff. Totally perverse. Just at one of our high points, in the early 80s, when we'd had some huge box office/Oscar winning successes like Chariots of Fire, she/ her govt. suddenly put just about every freelance worker who was on Schedule D on to PAYE as if they were in full employment ... and under an 'emergency' rate of tax of 45%. This may sound fantastic, but it is absolutely true. For about a week or 10 days - I was at Pinewood then - everyone was scuttling around in a complete panic, wondering 'What on earth's this all about?' We all had to get very expensive accountants to handle the mess by turning us into 'companies' (the accountancy bills then being about four times higher). Mrs. T made it quite plain that she disapproved of the entertainments industry, and then, to ram the point home, and to put a final nail in the coffin, she scrapped the Eady Levy, which was putting c. 50p of every cinema ticket back into the GB film industry (her mate was Lord Delfont, who was one of the major film distributors.) Then the final disaster was EMI (I think with Delfont now on the board of directors) selling Elstree Studios to an Australian guy called Bond, I think, who made huge promises of a great raft of films spread over the next year, but who kept it for precisely one week, and then sold it off to Tescos (a major financial supporter of the Tories). So, now, the foundations of 2/3 of the old, great Elstree Studios, which had a state-of-the-art dubbing theater and some of the finest film stages in the world (including the tallest) - where the likes of Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Shining were shot - are now under the Borehamwood Tesco car park.

Not many people know that.
Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> So you are saying that Thatcherism was a bag of crap that didn't work except on a superficial level?

No, it forced the economy, including manufacturing, to be more efficient and focus on things we could compete at. Hence we are still a major economy and major manufacturer. Sadly it couldn't work miracles on shitheaps by British Leyland.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
> I'd rather have compassion than good manners.

Good manners, the last refuge of a scoundrel :-)

john arran - on 08 Apr 2013
This isn't a day to rejoice at the passing away of a frail old lady.
But how we would have rejoiced 30 years ago had the same lady passed away then. Yes, the country needed a kick up the arse but the kicking was applied selectively and vindictively, such that poor people were turned against each other while concealing the hugely growing inequalities of the day. Cameron's trying the same tactic now in getting ordinary people obsessed with denigrating benefit cheats or hard-working immigrants - relatively minor issues at best - rather than focussed on the real causes of our economic malaise and inability to recover from it.

And the imposition of the Poll tax was proof indeed that there is evil in the world.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to andyathome:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> So you are saying that Thatcherism was a bag of crap that didn't work except on a superficial level?

Yup. With hindsight she did a lot more harm than good, though even at the time I was dead worried. How it turned out was much worse than I could ever have imagined. Which was what I had always jokingly said ... that Labour would get in, change nothing, and carry on just like Mrs. T, which is exactly what we got with Tony Blair. Bypassing cabinet government and lying to Parliament on a huge scale, which was by then established as perfectly respectable.

AdrianC - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to john arran: Aye - that's well put. Personally I keep finding the song "Ding-dong the witch is dead" floating around my head, about which I fell slightly bad.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> So, now, the foundations of 2/3 of the old, great Elstree Studios, which had a state-of-the-art dubbing theater and some of the finest film stages in the world (including the tallest) - where the likes of Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Shining were shot - are now under the Borehamwood Tesco car park.
>
> Not many people know that.

But people may know about investment such as http://www.pinewoodgroup.com/our-studios/uk/news/pinewood-starts-construction-new-stage

Pinewood, the place that made films such as


Jesus Christ Superstar (2000)
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)
Die Another Day (2002)
The Hours (2002)
28 Days Later (2002)
Love, Actually (2003)
Finding Neverland (2004)
King Arthur (2004)
The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
Nanny McPhee (2005)
United 93 (2006)
Stardust (2006)
Casino Royale (2006)
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Children of Men (2006)
1408 (2007)
Fred Claus (2007)
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Mamma Mia! (2008)
The Dark Knight (2008)
Quantum of Solace (2008)
The Bank Job (2008)
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)
The Wolfman (2010)
Gulliver's Travels (2010)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010)
Kick-Ass (2010)
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011)
Hugo (2011)
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Johnny English Reborn (2011)
My Week with Marilyn (2011)
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
The Iron Lady (2011)
Dark Shadows (2012)
Snow White & the Huntsman (2012)
Prometheus (2012)
Skyfall (2012)
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)
Les Misérables (2012)
47 Ronin (2013)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)
Jack Ryan (2013)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
The Muppets...Again! (2014)
Maleficent (2014)
The Hobbit: There and Back Again (2014)
SARS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

So one of your main gripes is that she stopped subsidisation of the UK film industry?

Not sure why brit film goers should sponsor failing films? People vote with their wallet - if a film's any good it will attract an audience.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:

> I was going to post a Martin Luther King quotation:
>
> “I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.”
>
> But it turns out to wrongly attributed to him. Shame, it seemed quite apt.

No less apt for not being King's, but his words are just as apt:
“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”
Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to andyathome)
> [...]
>
> Yup. With hindsight she did a lot more harm than good, though even at the time I was dead worried.
>
Judging from you comments on the aerospace industry nd manufacturing this may be because you just ignore the facts :) !
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
> Judging from you comments on the aerospace industry nd manufacturing this may be because you just ignore the facts :) !

And stuck in the good old days?
Rob Naylor - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to GridNorth)
>
> [...]
>
> > So I'd say that the sort of anti-union anecdotes cited by many may not correspond to how it seemed for those who worked there.

As a student in the early 70s I worked in an engineering company just south of Bradford. The summer I was there we had 2 walkouts. I don't remember what the second was over, but the first was a demarcation dispute. We made some industrial shelving units that were part wood and part steel. The fixing holes were drilled before assembly but due to occasional knocking or misalignment of the jigs, we had a high percentage of scrap units where the holes misaligned. So management wanted to switch to drilling the holes after the units were mated. The unions kicked up a stink over whether the holes should be drilled by the chippies or the metalworkers, as it was obvious that post-mating you couldn't drill all the way through the steel without going part way into the wood, or vice versa. It wasn't resolved amicably so we had a walk-out with the end result that things stayed as they were and we continued to have a high percentage of reject units.

I was shocked at this as my family were strongly pro-union (at one point family members made up over 80% of the Spen Valley Curriers, Leatherworkers and Strapmakers, Union....sounds very Music Hall, but it was real!!!). These particular stewards were far more interested in playing games and "getting one over on the management" than they were in actually making everyone's live easier/ more equitable.
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Hmm, re-read my post. If you are gay (as I read into your post) and grew up under Section 24 then I wind my neck in and say sorry, you do have experience that is relevant and I'm being an arse.

It was a poor piece of policy and a desperate act as she saw support ebbing away and needed the right to support her.

what makes me wonder is that most of the hate is for her early policiesto, yet her later polices where the most questionable.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)

> Not sure why brit film goers should sponsor failing films? People vote with their wallet - if a film's any good it will attract an audience.

Yes, once it's been made. But without a leg-up, good films can't get made in an industry dominated by vacuous Hollywood tosh.
SARS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Perhaps Hollywood is so successful because it offers what people want to see.

Just a thought...
ads.ukclimbing.com
stroppygob - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I'm late in due to the time difference, (I've only just got up,) a great leader who broke the stranglehold the unions had on the UK.

Like her or loathe her, without her heritage the UK would now be a second world country at best.

RIP Lady Thatcher.

Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> Hmm, re-read my post. If you are gay (as I read into your post) and grew up under Section 24 then I wind my neck in and say sorry

Cheers, it did genuinely make a difference to my view of the world, knowing at that age that the law (among other things) was against me.

Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> With hindsight she did a lot more harm than good, ...

You think so? The reason that I think that Mrs T will go down in history as one of the all-time great PMs is this:

Since the war, through the 50s, 60s, and 70s the UK had been in economic decline relative to Europe (Germany, France, Italy, etc, comparing GDPs). We were then among the poorest nations in the EU (GDP per capita). Then we turned around, and relative to those nations our GDP increased, and now we've made up much of the decline.

This was a multi-decade-long relative decline that turned into a multi-decade-long relative advance. The turning point (as can be seen from the data) is about 1980/1981, just after Thatcher's election. From that point we've advanced relative to the rest of Europe, through the Tory years and then through the long, steady growth under Blair.

It was Thatcher who turned Britain around from relative decline to relative advance. Yep, many people didn't like the medicine. Yep, many got hurt by it (though the blame is as much on those who allowed the long decline into a dire situation, not just on those who then did something about it), but we'd all be way worse off today without having had Thatcher and her turnaround.



Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to wbo:

> 3 day week

The 3 day week was Heath... It was what inspired Thatcher to provoke a show down with the Unions, prepared by stock-piling coal.
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to AdrianC:

John's guilty of conflation.

Think of Thatcher as the turnaround specialist. she made deep, hard decisions. She allocated investment elsewhere (UDCs - the City).

I don't recall her vilifying benefits claimant,s indeed I as a scanky working class scrote got to Poly under her grant regime. I doubt it would be the same under Cameron's.

Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

You'd do well to look at their earlier history when they were making at least 20-30 big movies a year. You have conveniently missed out the very bad period from the mid 80s of about 3 or 4 years when a mere handful of movies were made, and it took all that time (to c. 2000) to get anywhere near it's former glory. One of the main reasons it went wrong was lack of studio space for big movies (a big movie would typically take up all of a studio, so we needed at least three, and we'd suddenly lost one, with Elstree. ... Modern Elstree is very small compared with EMI Elstree of 1980). And you are talking about Pinewood, not Elstree. I worked at both, on several major movies at each. Pinewood, in terms of space, etc was always the creme de la creme, but it was very old fashioned, whereas Elstree, though smaller, had kept right up to speed, which was exactly why most of the greatest film directors in the world, like Spielberg, Lucas and Kubrick, preferred Elstree. Elstree is certainly the most exciting place I've every worked. Now reduced to a memory.
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> Perhaps Hollywood is so successful because it offers what people want to see.

Not really a fan of the arts, are you?

This is a whole thread in itself, but there are some things that the market can do well, and other things that the market will kill. Fundamental science and great art need public support and aren't encouraged by market forces. Without these things (and lots of others, like street lights and armies) our civilisation would wither.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) If the French unions are so weak, how come he buggers are on strike every time I want to to go on holiday?

They are only strong in the public sector, in fact in some cases they run them to a great extent - in Education, for example. Very weak in the private sector as if you try and set one up in a company, except some big ones, you usually get the sack, quite illegal but that's France.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> but even they knew she came from a position with few alternatives but harsh measures...

I've never heard a Labour supporter say that - I don't know them all of course - this sounds rather uncharacteristic to me.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> You think so? The reason that I think that Mrs T will go down in history as one of the all-time great PMs is this:
>
> Since the war, through the 50s, 60s, and 70s the UK had been in economic decline relative to Europe (Germany, France, Italy, etc, comparing GDPs). We were then among the poorest nations in the EU (GDP per capita). Then we turned around, and relative to those nations our GDP increased, and now we've made up much of the decline.
>
> This was a multi-decade-long relative decline that turned into a multi-decade-long relative advance. The turning point (as can be seen from the data) is about 1980/1981, just after Thatcher's election. From that point we've advanced relative to the rest of Europe, through the Tory years and then through the long, steady growth under Blair.

This is so odd. I don't know where you're getting the figures from. But industry after industry was collapsing by the week, with thousands being made out of work. The miner's strike was extremely unpleasant with it being put across always as a fight between 'them' (the unions) and 'us'. When the truth was exactly the other way round: just about everyone in the UK then, doing an honest day's work, and creating the wealth of the country, was in a union, and 'they' were the Etonians etc. who had never done a hard day's work in their lives. Much as now.

>
> It was Thatcher who turned Britain around from relative decline to relative advance. Yep, many people didn't like the medicine. Yep, many got hurt by it (though the blame is as much on those who allowed the long decline into a dire situation, not just on those who then did something about it), but we'd all be way worse off today without having had Thatcher and her turnaround.

You have a very deep contempt for some of our great industries, and what we managed to achieve. The 80s were not a turnaround so much as a demolition job: where once there had been hard working communities and industries (like the coal industry) there were suddenly new soulless housing estates, with coal tips landscaped out of existence, and huge swathes of unemployed. And what is more ... the Tories seemed to be delighted by their 'achievement'.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I'm talking about now Gordon.

These are real examples of good in this country. Elstree has gone. Maybe in the future it may rise in a new guise. You have lamented about the past. I've shown you the now.

You cite example of the death of the aviation industry and others have shown you how we have adapted to the future ie BAE

You cite examples of the car industry - latest industry figures show dramatic output of cars made in the UK (even though we have expensive overheads and workforce).

I've shown examples of where the film industry is expanding and healthy investment and development is coming in and where we are leaders of the technology industry.

What has happened has happened. For some it was the final nail and well deserved I say. Some, they pushed back and have come out stronger - good on them for showing their worth.

Sometimes it is worth looking to see whether the glass is half full you know.
Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to wbo)
>
> [...]
>
> The 3 day week was Heath... It was what inspired Thatcher to provoke a show down with the Unions, prepared by stock-piling coal.
>
Scargill, of course, had no intention of provoking a showdown.

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> How come you accuse Thatcher of so many crimes, yet seem so happy to give Mao a reach around ?
>
> One pissed off a few miners the other killed millions.

What a wonderful post... from a lefty!

"Lefty" seems to be going through the same meaning difficulties as "hypocrite" higher up the thread.
Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Okaaaay. That's not quite how you put it earlier.

doz generale - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

She's only been in hell a couple of hours and apparently they've closed down two furnaces.




Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
>
>
> [...]
>
> You have a very deep contempt for some of our great industries, and what we managed to achieve. The 80s were not a turnaround so much as a demolition job: where once there had been hard working communities and industries (like the coal industry) there were suddenly new soulless housing estates, with coal tips landscaped out of existence, and huge swathes of unemployed. And what is more ... the Tories seemed to be delighted by their 'achievement'.
>
You need to do some research on this. The decline in manufacturing jobs was bigger in absolute and percentage terms in the decades before and after Thatcher and Major than during that period. Output in 1997 was higher than in 1979.

How do you possibly think heavy industry could survive in the state it was???

Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> So one of your main gripes is that she stopped subsidisation of the UK film industry?

No, I didn't say that. I said that was a 'final nail in the coffin'. My gripe is the unnecessary damage she did to the film industry just at a time when it was doing very well.
>
> Not sure why brit film goers should sponsor failing films? People vote with their wallet - if a film's any good it will attract an audience.

You don't understand the economics of movie-making and what a gamble it is. The old rule of thumb was that, to succeed, as a major, you needed to be making at least 10 movies a year because only one would succeed in a big way. Some would be complete disasters. The rest would just about break even. You needed the one big success to carry all the rest.

tetley - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You seem to have missed out the great divide that was created between rich and poor during this period of "relative advance".
SO we are ahead of those other EU countries now? Based on what. WHat is our economy based on?
What about Germany or France?
Where did all our industry go?
Was this demolition really necessary?
Stop and look at the beneficiaries of her policies...including location.
Yes many people will celebrate today .... many lost their jobs, hopes and for some lives.
Let them celebrate!
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm not talking about heavy industry. I was talking about films, and bikes and motorbikes and smaller aircraft.
Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to SARS)
> [...]
>
> No, I didn't say that. I said that was a 'final nail in the coffin'. My gripe is the unnecessary damage she did to the film industry just at a time when it was doing very well.
> [...]
>
> You don't understand the economics of movie-making and what a gamble it is. The old rule of thumb was that, to succeed, as a major, you needed to be making at least 10 movies a year because only one would succeed in a big way. Some would be complete disasters. The rest would just about break even. You needed the one big success to carry all the rest.

So, if you hit the big one, the one in ten, did you repay the subsidy?
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
> You need to do some research on this. The decline in manufacturing jobs was bigger in absolute and percentage terms in the decades before and after Thatcher and Major than during that period. Output in 1997 was higher than in 1979.
>
Please, Nick. Of course output in 1997 has to have been much higher than in 1979. The whole of the western economy has expanded considerably in this time. That's what growth's about, even if it's rather small. I thought Tories understood about growth?
janiejonesworld - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> You think so? The reason that I think that Mrs T will go down in history as one of the all-time great PMs is this:
>
> Since the war, through the 50s, 60s, and 70s the UK had been in economic decline relative to Europe (Germany, France, Italy, etc, comparing GDPs). We were then among the poorest nations in the EU (GDP per capita). Then we turned around, and relative to those nations our GDP increased, and now we've made up much of the decline.
>
> This was a multi-decade-long relative decline that turned into a multi-decade-long relative advance. The turning point (as can be seen from the data) is about 1980/1981, just after Thatcher's election. From that point we've advanced relative to the rest of Europe, through the Tory years and then through the long, steady growth under Blair.
>
> It was Thatcher who turned Britain around from relative decline to relative advance. Yep, many people didn't like the medicine. Yep, many got hurt by it (though the blame is as much on those who allowed the long decline into a dire situation, not just on those who then did something about it), but we'd all be way worse off today without having had Thatcher and her turnaround.

google "north sea oil"

Thatcher had wealth beyond the imagination of 1970s administrations to play with and she pissed it all up against the wall to pay for disastrous overvaluation of the pound, resultant industrial collapse, and record unemployment. She sold immeasurable national assets to the private sector at what turned out to be a fraction of their true worth and wasted the one off windfall from this. Hers was perhaps the most economically incompetent government since medieval times
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:

It wasn't really a subsidy, it was part of the ticket price, paid for by Joe Public. And no, most of the exhibitors and distributors didn't bite the hand that fed them, only too happy to have more bums on seats if a film was a success; and desperately keen to try and help our own movie industry.
SARS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Chariots of fire may be a good film, but great art...?! Come on, please...

I'm a complete film geek - it's rare these days that I find a good old film I haven't already seen. However, I can probably only count on one hand films I would consider 'great art'.

I can see very little justification for subsidising the film industry over any other random small industry.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to janiejonesworld:

> Hers was perhaps the most economically incompetent government since medieval times

Yeah, right. Here's some actual data. Look at the first figure (page ii) of this:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/growthCommission/documents/pdf/contributions/lseGC-...

You'll see that, stating around 1980, and up until the resignation of Blair, the UK did very well in GDP relative to other countries. This shows the rise out of the trough what we were in around 1980, though it doesn't show the earlier decades of relative decline into the trough.
northeastbeast - on 08 Apr 2013
BBC coverage really starting to grate now.
biped - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I think we should all stop bickering and spare a thought for her now orphaned son Mark at this difficult time and wish him a speedy rendition to Equatorial Guinea where 20 years of buggery in Black Beach Prison will take his mind off his loss.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to tetley:

> You seem to have missed out the great divide that was created between rich and poor during this period of "relative advance".

Better than everyone being poor, as the lefties seem to prefer.

> Was this demolition really necessary?

Yes.

> Stop and look at the beneficiaries of her policies...including location.

Council-house owners for example? Relatively less-well-off people, bettering themselves.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to AdrianC:
> (In reply to john arran) Aye - that's well put. Personally I keep finding the song "Ding-dong the witch is dead" floating around my head, about which I fell slightly bad.

Yes, me too, there's a good clip linked higher up the thread which I've downloaded... I always thought it surprising that this song, applauding the witch's death had been put out by Hollywood at the time, it wouldn't be allowed today! It's existence rather show how silly it is to say that one really should never applaud the death of a human being... I know it's only fiction.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4BCUWopQQ4

The Liverpool football stadium clip is extraordinary too... all you Thatcherites just have to accept she was also a very unpopular person, she's your idol, but not that of many.
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't agree that we would necessarily be worse off without Thatcher. If the medicine is worse than the disease then for those affected it is as much use as a bullet to the head. So I didn't like her (to put it mildly).
BUT I will say this:
She has so far been our ONLY female prime minister and party leader
She was the last of the idealist politicians. Her long stay in office gave rise to the pragmatic crowd pleasing politics we have today in my opinion. She was in this sense the mother of Blair.
And she was an icon as this thread shows. Love her or hate her she had an impact that polarises opinion
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to janiejonesworld:

Both Labour and Tory spunked the oil cash, and even Wedgie Benn acknowledges this.

As for govermnent assets. mixed bag. Rail - f*cked, utterly f*cked. Gas - less so, electric - jury's out. cars f*cked f*cked f*ckedy f*cked. That said, the mall, privately owned suppliers were quite a revelation.

Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: I'm a little confused here (my fault, not yours)

If the money used to come from the Government, how come it was part of the price the public paid?

If the money came from the public as part of the ticket price, how come the Government withheld it?

Not having a go, genuinely don't understand.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> No less apt for not being King's, but his words are just as apt:

Didn't do him much good though, did it?
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Rob Naylor:

I've heard the "who drills holes in sandwich steel/wood plates" anti-Trade Union anecdote so many times by different people that I wonder if the whole country was not devoted to using this material in those days :-)
Jon Stewart - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to SARS:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)

> I'm a complete film geek - it's rare these days that I find a good old film I haven't already seen. However, I can probably only count on one hand films I would consider 'great art'.

Massively off-topic here, but film alongside music is the art form I get most out of. In the past couple of weeks I've watched Black Swan, Festen and Dancer in the Dark, all of which I consider to be great art. I have no idea what influence public funding had on their existence though!
Coel Hellier - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> When the truth was exactly the other way round: just about everyone in the UK then, doing an honest
> day's work, and creating the wealth of the country, was in a union

Yep, and most of those union workers wanted to keep on doing their honest days work, and keep on creating wealth, and not be used as pawns by the marxist union activists.

And the marxist union activists really hated Thatchers reforms. How *dare* you allow the members a vote on the strike, we want to *tell* the pawns when to strike. How *dare* you not let us intimidate people into stopping work, by mass picketing. How *dare* you not let us spread our class warfare into other industries by secondary action. How *dare* you outlaw the closed shop, thus breaking our hold over the pawns, meaning we can't threaten them with being sacked if they don't do our bidding.

One of the really good things that Thatcher did (with help from Murdoch etc) was to totally stuff the union *activists*, and give their power to the union *members*.

Why did Thatcher win the miners strike and Scargill lose? Because plenty of miners wanted to keep mining.
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to tetley)
>
> [...]
>
> Better than everyone being poor, as the lefties seem to prefer.
>

That was never likely to be the case



> Council-house owners for example? Relatively less-well-off people, bettering themselves.

by taking resources from the less well off. Council home were meant as a resource for the low incomed.
Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
> Please, Nick. Of course output in 1997 has to have been much higher than in 1979. The whole of the western economy has expanded considerably in this time. That's what growth's about, even if it's rather small. I thought Tories understood about growth?

Yes, I am simply contradicting the claims that manufacturing "collapsed", was "destroyed" etc during this period. Clearly if output rose it didn't collapse. It didnt even shrink.It certainly didn't do any worse than it did in the1970s. In relative terms british productivity started recovering.

And don't assume that growth is a divine Fact of economic life. The last I've years in southern Europe demonstrate that.

You should put "From empire to Europe" by Geofrey Owen on your (no doubt long!)reading list. Very good history of British ndustry in the post war period which avoids most of the usual Cliches of both "sides".

Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to SARS)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Massively off-topic here, but film alongside music is the art form I get most out of. In the past couple of weeks I've watched Black Swan, Festen and Dancer in the Dark, all of which I consider to be great art. I have no idea what influence public funding had on their existence though!

The film I have been most impressed by in the last month is A Late Quartet. Very moving, many times truer than all the other four in the 'ailing crinklies' genre I've seen recently, including the very overrated, grim 'Amour'.

Goucho on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]

> You have a very deep contempt for some of our great industries, and what we managed to achieve. The 80s were not a turnaround so much as a demolition job: where once there had been hard working communities and industries (like the coal industry) there were suddenly new soulless housing estates, with coal tips landscaped out of existence, and huge swathes of unemployed. And what is more ... the Tories seemed to be delighted by their 'achievement'.

I think some less emotive clarity is needed regarding this statement.

The Unions played a very big role in the demise of manufacturing and heavy industry.

Instead of trying to work with management, and try and modernise industry - they did exactly the opposite, driven not by a desire to represent their members in the 'real world economy', but out of hatred and their own distorted and completely unworkable political agendas.

They were nearly all fully paid up members of the 'awkward squad', and lets face it, none of them could ever be described as intellectual giants.

The Miners Strike was a classic example of how to get it wrong.

While Thatcher may well have but-f*cked the Miners, it was the man with the worst comb-over in history, who pulled their pants down, bent them over the table, and handed her the giant dildo.

I'm no fan of Thatcher, and she made and implemented some terrible policies, but the unions also played a very significant role in the destruction of many great British industries.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Oliiver - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: To all who hate/ despite Mrs Thatcher, you were the fungus leaching onto the rotting wood of a broken country. Thatcher rebuilt Britain, re shaped Britain and gave Britain the breath of fresh air she needed.
janiejonesworld - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier: your point being what? Your reference does not attempt to analyse the impact of North Sea oil revenue on the economy. This was the period during which North sea oil kicked in on a massive scale, a one off opportunity. With competent government the UK economy should have grown massively, exponentially, but it was wasted by an ideologically obsessed and corrupt regime
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> One of the really good things that Thatcher did (with help from Murdoch etc) was to totally stuff the union *activists*, and give their power to the union *members*.

As someone who has worked with the Unions for over 35 years now. I have to say that you are wrong with most of the above. The union members have far less power than they ever had. Yes there were and still are Marxists and communists in the unions, it is their natural home after all, but they never had it all their own way. The only power a union has is with its members and if they aren't onside then you can forget it.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Yep, and most of those union workers wanted to keep on doing their honest days work, and keep on creating wealth, and not be used as pawns by the marxist union activists.
>
> And the marxist union activists really hated Thatchers reforms. How *dare* you allow the members a vote on the strike, we want to *tell* the pawns when to strike. How *dare* you not let us intimidate people into stopping work, by mass picketing. How *dare* you not let us spread our class warfare into other industries by secondary action. How *dare* you outlaw the closed shop, thus breaking our hold over the pawns, meaning we can't threaten them with being sacked if they don't do our bidding.

I don't think you were there, Coel. This sounds like stuff that's been relayed to you at least at second remove, probably third or fourth. Mostly what people thought was being said. Worth looking at Andy Cave's book again to give an insight what it was really like in the real world.

>
> One of the really good things that Thatcher did (with help from Murdoch etc) was to totally stuff the union *activists*, and give their power to the union *members*.

The beauty of our tolerant culture is that there is no one to stop you keeping Murdoch as a hero.

>
> Why did Thatcher win the miners strike and Scargill lose? Because plenty of miners wanted to keep mining.

Of course. It needed huge guts to put yourself out of work and stand up to the establishment. In most cases, strikes were a tragic failure.

Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
Sigh* kids today they I have no idea
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

"Incredible stuff. Totally perverse. ....Not many people know that."

I did but despite this, the industry continued, albeit damaged. She also did lots of perverse stuff in the Engineering sector and other sectors but she didn't gut it either. In fact her government subsidised parts just like labour did (before and after). Like Postman Pat, I pointed out earlier just how massive Aerospace is still in the UK ... largely though it's just changed, as its a fast moving industry. This doesn't deny it may have been better still without her, but we cant tell. It's also a bit unfair to complain how much today is in defense spending... when she came into power most of the money in the semiconductor industry, let alone aerospace, shipbuilding, nuclear or defence, was from the MOD.

Despite her 'conviction' label she appeared to do (or allow) a lot of 'matey' deals, so dirty and yet so common in politics; which add to my view of her poor judgemnent. I'm with John Rushby that I think she was more interesting than we make her out to be, and yet I also think less important because of this. These key changes she made, that were so important, would likely have been made if she hadn't have won the party leadership or the election. As an example a lot of the power base of the unions had already left well before her, through exploiting their own power. Even the winter of discontent was no worse on average than quite a few bad periods afterwards; litter and dead bodies stacking up is oh so terrible compared to the later devastation of communities away from the centre of power of the UK. You could also argue some of what Blair did she never would have got away with and the current lot are way more radical if their policies go through.
Jimbo W on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Though if you look at the facts, the end of her time as PM (1990) saw the UK with the lowest national debt since World War 1, and you'd have to go back to 1712 to find it at a significantly lower level.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png

As an aside, interesting graph. Shows quite clearly that our level of national debt (as a function of GDP) was relatively low, and though increasing after 2002, the most marked increase occurred post 2008 after the bail-out of Northern Rock and the ensuing financial crisis.
Oliiver - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne: Duncan, you're clearly an ex miner and a labour supporter. Oh how much I feel for you.
Goucho on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
> Of course. It needed huge guts to put yourself out of work and stand up to the establishment.

Unless of course you were Arthur Scargill, with your free house, free car and guaranteed salary for life!

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> the Tories seemed to be delighted by their 'achievement'.

They still are - as their posts on this thread show :-)

Cutting "costs" to "turn industry round" sound fine in a Young Tory bean feast but not to the people who are this "cost" that has been cut.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I think some less emotive clarity is needed regarding this statement.
>
> The Unions played a very big role in the demise of manufacturing and heavy industry.
>
> Instead of trying to work with management, and try and modernise industry - they did exactly the opposite, driven not by a desire to represent their members in the 'real world economy', but out of hatred and their own distorted and completely unworkable political agendas.

Just where do you get all this from? There were a huge number of industries .. you are painting it all as if it was the miner's strike under Scargill. In many industries the unions and management worked together well and came up with perfectly workable agreements. The only dispute in the film industry, in the 13 years I was there, was about apartheid. Nothing to do with pay or working conditions.
>
> They were nearly all fully paid up members of the 'awkward squad', and lets face it, none of them could ever be described as intellectual giants.

You keep on saying 'they' .. as I said earlier 'we' (anyone in work in any big, respectable industry) was in a union.
>
> The Miners Strike was a classic example of how to get it wrong.

Agreed.
>
> While Thatcher may well have but-f*cked the Miners, it was the man with the worst comb-over in history, who pulled their pants down, bent them over the table, and handed her the giant dildo.
>
> I'm no fan of Thatcher, and she made and implemented some terrible policies, but the unions also played a very significant role in the destruction of many great British industries.

Well, there is quite a lot of truth in this, but what still has to come out in history more clearly is just how class-ridden and badly managed most UK industry was, and how the govt of the time hadn't a clue how to tackle the problem with anything other than brutal, extreme, panic measures.

Oliiver - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: jealousy is what is prevailing from the lefties of the Uk. They can't beat her, they can't match her, so they mock her whilst she's dead.
Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) jealousy is what is prevailing from the lefties of the Uk. They can't beat her, they can't match her, so they mock her whilst she's dead.

I'm starting to like your style
Offwidth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

"but not to the people who are this "cost" that has been cut."

In the end it comes back and bites you... look at those huge benefit bills and increases in crime from generations of problematic families not adding to the wealth of the nation. Investment in areas where industry closes pays back dividends... plenty of research has shown that. The sad thing is that some of it felt like they knew that and under-invested on pupose.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

The 'winter of discontent' was more or less a complete fiction, as I remember it, dreamt up by the Tory press. The situation under Heath with the miner's strike of c.1971? was much worse, with continual power cuts and I think a three-day week. That was grim, yet Ted Heath was never regarded with any hatred by anyone, IIRC. Yes, it got a little bit wobbly under Callaghan with quite a few strikes, but it was all about 100 times worse with the big battle between Mrs. T and Scargill and then the glee with which she confronted all of our finest services, one by one, the nurses, the teachers, and the firemen, as if they were evil people are the heart of UK's ills. She just cannot be forgiven for this false nonsense ... but as with many famous political hysterics in the past, many gullible people fell for her rhetoric.
John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

You quote Andy Cave, but to be honest it's not hard data.

To a lot of people of working class stock (of which I count myself and mt end of the terrace toilet among) she was a real light at the end of the tunnel. I come from wool mill stock. Our industry and town was dead. What were people from Bradford, Leeds, Manchester, etc etc to do? We had been dead for 30 years, no government spent money on us. We got investment, UDCs, Enterprise Zones etc.

She was also a fool, she was guilty of enormous cognitive dissonance, she was way too close to Reagan and she made some very poor political judgement when she was under pressure (S24).

but, she was not evil, she was't a witch and she was, either way, a woman PM - even Ginger Castle admired her!!
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
>
> [...]
>
> Yep, and most of those union workers wanted to keep on doing their honest days work, and keep on creating wealth, and not be used as pawns by the marxist union activists.
>

plain wrong. It was intransigent management who refused to negotiate that stopped workers from doing their honest days work. There was more to it than that but I'll come to that.

> And the marxist union activists really hated Thatchers reforms. How *dare* you allow the members a vote on the strike, we want to *tell* the pawns when to strike. How *dare* you not let us intimidate people into stopping work, by mass picketing. How *dare* you not let us spread our class warfare into other industries by secondary action. How *dare* you outlaw the closed shop, thus breaking our hold over the pawns, meaning we can't threaten them with being sacked if they don't do our bidding.

Naturally.
closed voting on strikes is good I agree
*tell* not in my experience, such things were always hotly debated. No body WANTS to strike you lose money for a kick off and jepordise your job.
Mass picketing is an interesting one. Yes it is intimidating but stopping mass picketing also handily reduces the effectiveness of a strike making it easier to ignore any legitimate concerns the workers may have.
The stopping of secondary action was aimed at weakening the position of the working man.
The doing away with the closed shop allowed victimisation by management to grow. Believe me I know. Unions don't sack people but managements do it all the time for often very questionable reasons.

>

> Why did Thatcher win the miners strike and Scargill lose? Because plenty of miners wanted to keep mining.

ALL the miners wanted to keep on mining. THAT is why they were striking. And where are all those miners who wanted to keep on mining now? Not mining that is for sure.

I am not going to say that all Thatcher did was bad but I have seen enough injustice to know that for the low paid unions are their only hope of a fair deal
Duncan Bourne - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
tsk jumping to conclusions I see ;-)
Your obviously.....well I am too polite to say ;-)
Eric9Points - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

From Billy Bragg, Calgary, AB, Canada, on the death of Margaret Thatcher:

This is not a time for celebration. The death of Margaret Thatcher is nothing more than a salient reminder of how Britain got into the mess that we are in today. Of why ordinary working people are no longer able to earn enough from one job to support a family; of why there is a shortage of decent affordable housing; of why domestic growth is driven by credit, not by real incomes; of why tax-payers are forced to top up wages; of why a spiteful government seeks to penalise the poor for having an extra bedroom; of why Rupert Murdoch became so powerful; of why cynicism and greed became the hallmarks of our society.

Raising a glass to the death of an infirm old lady changes none of this. The only real antidote to cynicism is activism. Don't celebrate - organise!
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
> Scargill, of course, had no intention of provoking a showdown.

Simple historical fact says "no"... Thatcher prepared it by stock-piling coal, then when she felt strong enough picked a fight and had the fuzz take a hard line. Scargill warned the miners that if they didn't fight back so many pits would be closed that their numbers would be reduced many fold. At the time few believed him, they said he was exaggerating grossly, but by the end he was shown to have underestimated the destruction and the numbers left were even lower than his prediction.

She chose the miners as they were amongst the strongest unions and once they were broken, the rest of the union movement would be too, and given the economic factors of the coal industry she thought she could beat them and make do with cheaper imported coal. All of this is in the public domain. Scargill and the NUM reacted to Thatcher, she was the instigator, which is one of the things most of her fans love for - the "Iron Lady" they all slaver before, slavered rather, they'll have to find a new hero now.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Oceanrower - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: The fuzz? Wow, you really are still living the '80's!
Eric9Points - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

And a longer critique:

We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-thatcherism-was-a-national-catastrophe-that-s...

Skyfall - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim C: In reply to Jim C:

> I wonder if it is an age thing, are You Skyfall and Pepperpot old enough to remember Thatcher's Britain?

Er, yes, or I must have illegally voted for her a couple of times. I have a very good recollection of growing up in the 60's and 70's and the mess the country was in. The power of the unions, rampant inflation, the winter of discontent etc. I don't view it through rose tinted spectacles or having heard it from someone else. I remember the Cold War, waking up to hear the bombers had been up for false alarms, and when that all came to an end. I remember the changes to the feel of the country and the opportunities opening up. Thatcher was an agent for change, love her or hate her. She only knew how to fight, however, and eventually that together with her personality change (obvious in her 3rd term) meant she lost the plot and the inevitable happened.

How I wish some politicians nowadays had half her conviction and courage.
Deviant - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Interesting thread !

R.I.P Mrs. T.

At the risk of being crude: she had balls !
Deviant - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Jim C) In reply to Jim C:
>
> [...]
>
>
> How I wish some politicians nowadays had half her conviction and courage.

Amen !

She'd sort out the Bulgarians and the other unwanted scroungers that are milking our hard fought for N.H.S and Social Security.

Postmanpat on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
she was the instigator, which is one of the things most of her fans love for - the "Iron Lady" they all slaver before, slavered rather, they'll have to find a new hero now.
>>
The mine closures that Scargill resisted were similar in number and type to those that had been undertaken under several administrations of different hues in the previous decade. Scargill chose to block them in an attempt to undermine the democratically elected government.

That Thatcher had anticipated this and taken preparatory measures is completely different to her "provoking" it.

Where Thatcher was quite wrong was in her lack of magnanimity having won the strike battle which betrayed a vindictiveness which was both small minded and bad politics..

Your blather about "slaver" or whatever you are on about is utterly pathetic by the way.

John Rushby - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:


Really?

The 70's was arguably much more devastating, it left us unable to compete with the far east

The 80's was the hangover, not T's fault really

The 90's was hard but more down to interest rates and external pressure

This time is due to greed, and stupidity. (20 goto 10 )
Oliiver - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne: you may not like me, or like Mrs Thatcher, but without people challenging the status quo of life - we would remain in idle. Black people would still be persecuted, gay rights would be the laugh of the town and let's not forget the kinder mass trespass, without those courageous souls, we might not of had free access to some of the places we take for granted today. You might love or loathe her, but she is on par with some of the greatest leaders in peacetime history.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]
>
> As someone who has worked with the Unions for over 35 years now. I have to say that you are wrong with most of the above. The union members have far less power than they ever had. Yes there were and still are Marxists and communists in the unions, it is their natural home after all, but they never had it all their own way. The only power a union has is with its members and if they aren't onside then you can forget it.

Thanks for this post, I get very irritated by the anti-union fantasists, who spout such bollocks that you can be sure they have never actually participated in Trade Union activities nor seen how they function. You said it better than I could have, and a lot quicker.

nastyned - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to paul-1970:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> I loathed and despised her, and all that she stood for. She has the misery and suffering of many as her epitaph. This day has been a long one coming. Let her rot.

+1
SARS on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Aah unions. Those great guys who still manage to shut down London's tube at the drop of a hat, inconveniencing millions.

My only - very negative - experience of unions.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) jealousy is what is prevailing from the lefties of the Uk. They can't beat her, they can't match her, so they mock her whilst she's dead.

She was pretty convincingly mocked when she was alive... and I really can't believe that anyone could be, or think others were, jealous of Mrs Thatcher - as a human being she was simply appalling.
Goucho on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Goucho)
> [...]
>
> Just where do you get all this from? There were a huge number of industries .. you are painting it all as if it was the miner's strike under Scargill. In many industries the unions and management worked together well and came up with perfectly workable agreements. The only dispute in the film industry, in the 13 years I was there, was about apartheid. Nothing to do with pay or working conditions.

Of course, apologies for the generalisation, but the majority of the biggest industries - steel, coal, automotive & transport - were all dominated by trouble causing left wing union leaders.

These big unions were a law unto themselves during the 70's, and unfortunately, it was the members who they supposedly represented, who paid the price.


The New NickB - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Skyfall)
> [...]
>
> Amen !
>
> She'd sort out the Bulgarians and the other unwanted scroungers that are milking our hard fought for N.H.S and Social Security.

I think the irony meter just exploded!
Oliiver - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Unions were setup for the good of the workers - now they're maintained for the good of the members coffers.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Council-house owners for example? Relatively less-well-off people, bettering themselves.

Apart from if you look at the actual statistics the rate of home ownership is dropping and instead of affordable housing the local councils now get to pay way higher rents to the landlords who brought them up cheap.
Still it gives the current government something to attack benefit claimants based on so I guess as strategies go its not bad.
what is it by the way about righties loving to give assets away?
Council houses, industries, schools all penny on the pound.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne) you may not like me, or like Mrs Thatcher, but without people challenging the status quo of life - we would remain in idle. Black people would still be persecuted, gay rights would be the laugh of the town

yes if it was left to thatcher and co. Sorry your point is?

> and let's not forget the kinder mass trespass, without those courageous souls, we might not of had free access to some of the places we take for granted today.

yes and bugger all to do with thatcher or the tories.

> You might love or loathe her, but she is on par with some of the greatest leaders in peacetime history.

really? take several years yet to see if the path she started the country on is a good one.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) The fuzz? Wow, you really are still living the '80's!

At least I am speaking as someone who did live through the 80s, unlike a lot of the toryboys posting :-)

What would you have me say? Fuzz is not too derogatory - I dislike "pigs", too offensive and to yankish - and simply saying "police" would not convey disapproval of their attitude during the strike. Pray allow me to benefit from your erudition and bring me up to date.

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Your blather about "slaver" or whatever you are on about is utterly pathetic by the way.

Sorry, but you do have a tendency to slaver quite a lot when you get excited... I point it out for your own good.
The New NickB - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne) you may not like me, or like Mrs Thatcher, but without people challenging the status quo of life - we would remain in idle. Black people would still be persecuted, gay rights would be the laugh of the town and let's not forget the kinder mass trespass, without those courageous souls, we might not of had free access to some of the places we take for granted today. You might love or loathe her, but she is on par with some of the greatest leaders in peacetime history.

Wow, wow, wow! So despite Section 28 Thatcher was champion of the gays and let's not forget Benny Rothman a true Thatcherite. Oliiver my boy, whatever you are drinking, I want some!
Jim C - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The Lemming: I am with you mate, these people trot out this stuff at a time when that very policy is being seen in it's true light.

The best of the countries affordable rental property was sold off leaving the country denuded of good housing stock which was never replaced. Leaving councils with low grade stock that needed a lot of maintenance .

A lot of those properties have now gone from those who bought the best properties in the best areas, , and are are now in the hands of private landlords.

Are they saying that this Was to the benefit of the many of the country who assets these were, or the few who gained short term.?

I don't step away to calm down, but I do shake my head in dismay.

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Goucho:

> were all dominated by trouble causing left wing union leaders.

They were all "dominated" by their managements, who were dominated by their shareholders or owners... Working men and women have been getting together in Unions since the 19th century to try and even the pitch a bit - please don't lose sight of the reality of who tells who to do what and who has the power in the workplace.
Oliiver - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance: My point is blatantly obvious - not in your case clearly. If people didn't challenge the status quo,we'd end up with a stagnating society; going no where. Ask your self this, do you really thing miliband, Cameron, or Clegg have the guts and determination to do what Thatcher did? Callenge the outdated union struts of society? Go to war over the Falklands? Fight the forefront of terrorism? Mean it when no ment no? I didn't think so.
woolsack - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> - and simply saying "police" would not convey disapproval of their attitude during the strike.

like when they threw the concrete block off of the motorway bridge?
ice.solo - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

im upset shes died, as theres nothing more vile than watching the matyrdom process in action.

Oliiver - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to The New NickB: I'm not saying Thatcher did anything for gays or blacks. What I'm saying is if the affected didn't stand up for their beliefs, they wouldn't be in their position now.
dissonance - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to dissonance) My point is blatantly obvious - not in your case clearly.

it was the sheer stupidity of your examples that made me blink.

> I didn't think so.

oh dear.
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Apr 2013
In reply to woolsack:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> like when they threw the concrete block off of the motorway bridge?

I never heard of that... Surely the policeman who did that was punished though?

The New NickB - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to The New NickB) I'm not saying Thatcher did anything for gays or blacks. What I'm saying is if the affected didn't stand up for their beliefs, they wouldn't be in their position now.

I appreciate that, to attribute this to Thatcher is possibly one of the most monumentally ignorant things I have ever read.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance: maybe I should of picked things that affected you? Like..uhm, I don't know women's rights, child benefit and tax credits?.
woolsack - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to woolsack)
> [...]
>
> I never heard of that... Surely the policeman who did that was punished though?

Sorry, my mistake, that was the strikers. It was all a bit two sided wasn't it?
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to The New NickB: I was probably a bit hasty to make reference to homosexuals I agree.
The New NickB - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to ice.solo:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> im upset shes died, as theres nothing more vile than watching the matyrdom process in action.

This is the bit I am going to struggle with. I have avoided the TV today, but I did pass one on in a shop, Henry Kissinger was paying his tribute, I guess that last of her mass murdering friends, although I guess some will argue TB fits that category.
The New NickB - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to The New NickB) I was probably a bit hasty to make reference to homosexuals I agree.

And the Kinder Trespass and ethnic minorities, but apart from that!
Offwidth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

Well I see much rose tint in that... the last big scares of the cold war were in the 60's. Most remembered post war rationing in the 50's as when things were really bad. The opening up of opportunity happened more under the period from Macmillan to Wilson. The winter of discontent was nothing like as bad as Heath's problems with all the power cuts. The unions were as polarising as Maggie (many agreed with them, many thought by then they were exploiting their power). Rampant inflation was as much from the oil crisis as anything and didn't really hit ordinary people's pockets that badly, even though it did mess up the economy. Things were actually pretty good in the late 70's in my teenage years and had been so for around a decade, despite the economic woes. Things felt noticably nastier and greedier in the first years of Thatcher and she was distrusted, disliked or hated by most people then (people forget she wasnt central to the conservative party of the time and things were not going so well then... her approval rating hit a record low of 23% for a PM at the start of '81) and without the Falklands few I knew from either side thought she would have easily won again. The conviction bit was more image and more second term and easier to swallow as the economy finally started to improve.
Love - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance: not as stunning as your utterly vacuous responses
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Goucho:

My strongest recollection from the 80's was no school for weeks, literally weeks We might get the odd lessons, and i do recall the teachers who gave those lessons being set upon as they crossed the picket line.

but that's ok, cos it's left wing innit

Unless you switch it, and make all teachers neo-cons - but you then they would be baddies. I recall getting left wing lectures from teachers in class, and FFS I was left wing at the time.

Teachers should be like the BBC but they resembled something from North Korea. I went to a shit hole comp so no chance for me and my mates as we got endless diatribes about the government.

teaching was massively politicised, we got lectures about why the government was wrong etc etc. F*cking and utterly pathetic in hindsight. I have more respect for the professional teachers who broke the strike than those that enforced it.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to The New NickB: no nick, they're merely examples.
Jim C - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne) you may not like me, or like Mrs Thatcher, but without people challenging the status quo of life -....

You really are up your own arse, Oliver, so YOU ( and Thatcher) are the leader types and we are the sheep that need the likes of you to challenge and lead us?







Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Jim c you've hit the nail (metaphorically) on the head. But I'm only 16, so I'm afraid you've 20 or so years of long hard waiting to go before I'm sailing your sinking ship. But, now I must get some sleep so I can be your political utopian visage in the future Jim.
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to dissonance) maybe I should of picked things that affected you? Like..uhm, I don't know women's rights, child benefit and tax credits?.

no you shouldnt have chosen things which were contrary to Thatchers position. Havent you heard of section 28
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Love:
> (In reply to dissonance) not as stunning as your utterly vacuous responses

a well thought through argument. I feel privileged for your response.
winhill - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

She more than doubled the number of children living in poverty in her time in office, from 2 million to 4.5 million. Something like 1 in 7 to 1 in 3.

Things improved during Blair and then Brown but have not recovered at all now.

I can't see how anyone can say they are proud of that achievement.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: furthermore, labours open door immigration policy, encrusted millions of foreign migrants into so called 'poverty'.
lemonparty - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Jim c you've hit the nail (metaphorically) on the head. But I'm only 16...

Well get back to masturbating then and stop trying to talk seriously.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: you've got completely of topic and quite frankly, considering your probably an adult I'm quite disgusted you've made a comment like that. Your lucky if I was 15 you'd be labeled a pedophile.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013

In reply to winhill:

Did she?

Can you provide a source and a data source since the concept of "poverty" seems to rather fluid
winhill - on 09 Apr 2013
Jim C - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:
> (In reply to Jim C) In reply to Jim C:
>
>
> ........How I wish some politicians nowadays had half her conviction and courage.

I'm looking back in history ,and present day around the world , at 'conviction ' politicians and thinking they should have been locked up , and I'm scared of what other 'conviction' politicians may do tomorrow. I'm sure you can name a few of them without too much trouble.

They are 'convinced' that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong. They are 'convinced' that they have the right to rule for as long as they want, and however they want, and anyone who says otherwise is an enemy of the state.







The New NickB - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to The New NickB) no nick, they're merely examples.

Utterly meaningless examples in an utterly meaningless argument.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to cander:
> Coming from a socialist family I was decided on Callaghan..... I voted Conservative.
> The impact of the "Labour isn't working" slogan reasonated with me, the country was in turmoil (all the work of the unions as far as I could see)

That's what happens when you are manipulated by the right-wing media corporations.

i came from a Socialist family and oh how they would have loved to have seen this day after the utter destruction which that creature wrecked on our city.

> the country changed but it was always going to, if we hadn't we'd have been like Romania.

Interesting leap you make there,how we could only end up like Romania if we didn't do it the Thatcher way.

How can you know this?

Did you see how they did it in say Germany?Which has been far more successful in helping their people and not throwing entire communities and generations into the same levels of unemployment,prison,crime,violence,debt,drugs,depression,abuse and neglect as we experienced.Although W.Germany was far worse in those respects than typical Eastern bloc countries.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to winhill:

Off for a read....


John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to cander)
> [...]
>
> That's what happens when you are manipulated by the right-wing media corporations.
>
> i came from a Muslim / Catholic/ Atheist family and oh how they would have loved to have seen this day after the utter destruction which that creature wrecked on our city.
>
> [...]
>
> Interesting leap you make there,how we could only end up like Romania if we didn't do it the Thatcher way.
>
> How can you know this?
>
> Did you see how they did it in say Germany?Which has been far more successful in helping their people and not throwing entire communities and generations into the same levels of unemployment,prison,crime,violence,debt,drugs,depression,abuse and neglect as we experienced.Although W.Germany was far worse in those respects than typical Eastern bloc countries.

John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

Thatcher was opposed to he re-unification of Germany as she thought it was too much too soon. One of the reason leading to her downfall.

when I was was there , it was "rough".
SteveP40 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to winhill:

She crippled the north, covered up murder, and sold off our national businesses which every prime minister has regretted since, sad she's died, but people need to stop praising this utterly incompetent woman
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

Hmm, not convincing - more from just a research point. The qualification point for "poverty" is a bit of a shifting meme.

I tried to look at the updated info and the point of reference was vague. It seemed too politicised.

i am a history gimp - I have no real love either way - just want t get to the "cut".

stroppygob - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I think some less emotive clarity is needed regarding this statement.
>
> The Unions played a very big role in the demise of manufacturing and heavy industry.
>
> Instead of trying to work with management, and try and modernise industry - they did exactly the opposite, driven not by a desire to represent their members in the 'real world economy', but out of hatred and their own distorted and completely unworkable political agendas.
>
> They were nearly all fully paid up members of the 'awkward squad', and lets face it, none of them could ever be described as intellectual giants.
>
> The Miners Strike was a classic example of how to get it wrong.
>
> While Thatcher may well have but-f*cked the Miners, it was the man with the worst comb-over in history, who pulled their pants down, bent them over the table, and handed her the giant dildo.
>
> I'm no fan of Thatcher, and she made and implemented some terrible policies, but the unions also played a very significant role in the destruction of many great British industries.

Bravo sir! As one who suffered greatly under the unions at that time, I fully concur.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> Really?

> The 70's was arguably much more devastating, it left us unable to compete with the far east

How much was this down to the devastating oil crisis bad management and not the usual tory scapegoat of trade unionism?

> The 80's was the hangover, not T's fault really

Making excuses for her!Shows where your real loyalties lie John

> The 90's was hard but more down to interest rates and external pressure

Ah but there was no external pressure on Labour in the 70s eh? ....mmmm.

> This time is due to greed, and stupidity.(20 goto 10 )

Were you actually there in the 80s with the prevalent i'm alright jack and F you! attitude or in your misty maggie fantasy world?

Well while you were, record breaking numbers of unemployed were being broken,thrown on the scapheap and excluded from the yuppie lifestyles of the south,no future and no hope!....for generations!

All that oil and all our wealth sold off to the rich and middle classes that could afford to buy the shares.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

Russia was always opposed to the re-unification of Germany with good cause.

If GDR was now i'd be there.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Goucho)

> Bravo sir! As one who suffered greatly under the unions at that time, I fully concur.

Oooow ! "i fully concur" la de da gunner Graham....hahaha!

Its tory claptrap!
ads.ukclimbing.com
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> Despite her 'conviction' label she appeared to do (or allow) a lot of 'matey' deals, so dirty and yet so common in politics; which add to my view of her poor judgemnent. I'm with John Rushby that I think she was more interesting than we make her out to be, and yet I also think less important because of this. These key changes she made, that were so important, would likely have been made if she hadn't have won the party leadership or the election. As an example a lot of the power base of the unions had already left well before her, through exploiting their own power. Even the winter of discontent was no worse on average than quite a few bad periods afterwards; litter and dead bodies stacking up is oh so terrible compared to the later devastation of communities away from the centre of power of the UK. You could also argue some of what Blair did she never would have got away with and the current lot are way more radical if their policies go through.

I believe, perhaps wrongly, that she was ideologically convicted and stubbornly inflexible, but I think she sincerely believed she was doing something for the greater good. In contrast, I think Blair and Cameron should have known better having learnt the historical lessons. In contrast, Blair/Brown went even further with financial deregulation, got us involved in wars they knew were not justifiable on the grounds they put to the public, and Cameron is busily providing an unpleasant caricature of thatcherism with an unequal distribution of the burden of austerity that is the excuse for hurting the poor, and increased rewards for financial sector failure, privatising what they view as a communist institution, the NHS. Thatcher may well have done a great deal of damage, but she didn't have our benefit of hindsight. Blair, and Cameron have that benefit, and have ignored it for their own benefit.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to John Rushby)
>
> Russia was always opposed to the re-unification of Germany with good cause.
>
> If GDR was now i'd be there.

Watching on as your 13 year old got an arse full of growth hormone.

Of course, you would be in the GDR, and without internet access and wondering if that time you drank some imported Buckie and said "that Honecker, he's a western lacky" would lose you your job (see Tascon list for details).

bless.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to John Rushby)
>
> Russia was always opposed to the re-unification of Germany with good cause.
>
> If GDR was now i'd be there.

Russia wasn't btw - Gorbachev said as much - he was concerned about US military investment (which never happened).
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to SteveP40:
> (In reply to winhill)
>
> She crippled the north, covered up murder, and sold off our national businesses which every prime minister has regretted since, sad she's died, but people need to stop praising this utterly incompetent woman

British Leyland - f*cked under public ownership

British Rail - f*cked under public ownership

the rest is a moot point but if we still had nationalised industries Land Rover and Jaguar would be no more and the midlands would be a wasteland.

The Labour government should be held accountable for the Rover fiasco - which is still contemptible to the point of sickening but the f*ckers that spunked that deal still hold a nighthood. Alchemey should have taken control but dirty deeds did out.....Blair f*cked Longbridge.

b

Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

> Really?
> The 70's was arguably much more devastating, it left us unable to compete
> The 80's was the hangover, not T's fault really
> The 90's was hard but more down to interest rates and external pressure

Aye, but was it really Thatcher wot done it?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/did-thatcher-turn-britain-around/

> This time is due to greed, and stupidity. (20 goto 10 )

Can't disagree with that!
stroppygob - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to stroppygob)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Oooow ! "i fully concur" la de da gunner Graham....hahaha!
>
> Its tory claptrap!

Grow up or piss off.
stroppygob - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Statement from President Obama on the Passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher

Washington, DC--(ENEWSPF)--April 8, 2013.

With the passing of Baroness Margaret Thatcher, the world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend. As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered. As prime minister, she helped restore the confidence and pride that has always been the hallmark of Britain at its best. And as an unapologetic supporter of our transatlantic alliance, she knew that with strength and resolve we could win the Cold War and extend freedom’s promise.

Here in America, many of us will never forget her standing shoulder to shoulder with President Reagan, reminding the world that we are not simply carried along by the currents of history—we can shape them with moral conviction, unyielding courage and iron will. Michelle and I send our thoughts to the Thatcher family and all the British people as we carry on the work to which she dedicated her life—free peoples standing together, determined to write our own destiny.

Source: whitehouse.gov
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to stroppygob:

Ha she kicked him up the arse.

That's why we never learned of the invasion of Grenada, and why the Falklands became a major internal US power fight between the doves (UK) and the hawks( Argie / Chile). It's way we know so much about Haig (a reformer dove) and less about Kirkpatrick (a hawk) .

btw - the Argentine navy (Anaya) admitted after that she was right to sink the Belgrano, either way a tragic event.
Tony Naylor on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> But I'm only 16

Aw, bless you, but we'd already worked that out. Fair play though, there's plenty of people on this thread who are more sycophantic towards the Glorious Thatch than you are - and some of them don't have your excuse of historical distance, having lived through her vile reign.

Looking at the thread as a whole, one thing really cheers me: no matter how much the dominatrix-besotted stroke themselves into a dreamy frenzy about her 'strength', and no matter how much the apologists wriggle and squirm and try to pretend that she was alright really - she's still DEAD. That's just brilliant, and there's naff all they can do about it. Granted, it would have been better twenty years ago, but still, mustn't grumble. The world is now a slightly cleaner place.

Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

Go Thatcher lover go !Go Class traitor go!

Keep posting as fast as you possibly can John to prove to yourself that she was good for the workers...keep going until you disappear up your own ahole and the truth is suppressed under the mass of your frantic postings.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to stroppygob:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Grow up or piss off.

That is an unusually articulate and lenghy response from you,have you been taking lessons?
stroppygob - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun: It's all you deserve.
stroppygob - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
Connotatively, a ‘‘feminist’’ has a chip on her shoulder the size of a two-by-four, never shuts up about ‘‘empowerment,’’ is eternally on the look out for sexist slights, and never considers the possibility that other people might deny her a job or dismiss her opinions because she is personally insufferable. The movement has often obsessed with language, leaving a legacy of awkward ‘‘him/her’’ constructions or faddish but equally sexist Bibles whose God is a ‘‘she.’’

Given the humorless blah-blah-blah the term feminist evokes, it’s little wonder that many young women today avoid the label. Margaret Thatcher was a real feminist. Not for what she said but for what she did. She did not pursue justice for her gender; women’s rights per se was clearly a low priority for her. She was out for herself and for what she believed in.

If we had more feminists like Thatcher, we’d have vastly more women in Parliament and the US Senate, as well as more trees and fewer tedious television talk shows. More ‘‘feminists’’ like Thatcher, the first woman to lead a major Western democracy, and young women would be clamouring to be called one, too.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/thatcher-was-a-real-feminist-20130409-2hibr.html#ixzz2PvqWtaIH
birdie num num - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
Me and mrs Num Num are selling roll out novelty cardboard graves for folk to dance on and effigies for folk to burn for the funeral day celebrations. £6 for the full kit.
Duncan Bourne - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
I am in complete agreement with you there. Like her or loathe her she certainly rocked the status quo
Duncan Bourne - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Unions were setup for the good of the workers - now they're maintained for the good of the members coffers.

Unions are still for the good of the workers. Surely the good of the members coffers is the same thing? After all the workers are the members. But to take your point. No the unions are not there just to provide a comfy living for the exec. I think misuse of funds was more a problem in the past now like every other institution transparency is the rule and the fall in union membership over all means that the purse strings are held tighter.
For me the real job of the union is not about securing big pay rises (it may well have been in the seventies and I know that workers sometimes have an unrealistic view of what a union can provide)but about tempering exploitation and ensuring that everyone can have a voice.
Duncan Bourne - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Well work has come in so I am off.
Have a nice thread and don't play too rough :o)
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Cripes! This thread has gone on all night - I'm just waking up.
ThunderCat - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to biped:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> I think we should all stop bickering and spare a thought for her now orphaned son Mark at this difficult time and wish him a speedy rendition to Equatorial Guinea where 20 years of buggery in Black Beach Prison will take his mind off his loss.

Yay! Male rape jokes!

Can we joke about the rape of females, or is it just male rape comedy that's allowed...

I forget.

woolsack - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to ThunderCat:
> (In reply to biped)
> [...]
>
> Yay! Male rape jokes!
>
> Can we joke about the rape of females, or is it just male rape comedy that's allowed...
>
> I forget.

Come on, be fair. A lot of people have been storing up this nastiness for over over 20 years, you must allow them time to relieve
ads.ukclimbing.com
Fat Bumbly2 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: Were you there. A nasty wee kleptocrat who milked the country dry, lining the pockets of a few. Remember the millions of us who denied a living wage had to stand by and watch our property being sold off on the cheap with no benefit to ourselves - save the farking giro.

Grim times and as always, history rewritten by the winners.

Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
>
> For me the real job of the union is not about securing big pay rises (it may well have been in the seventies and I know that workers sometimes have an unrealistic view of what a union can provide)but about tempering exploitation and ensuring that everyone can have a voice.


The problem is too many people think they are above the need of union representation. Think again when you are totally knackered after a 60 hour week, in your so called management capacity. Think again when you have a problem with your employer and you finally realise that you were just being screwed like the poor buggers on the minimum wage and have nowhere to turn to for advice, but these very same forums.

In Germany the unions are still strong and represent a massive part of the work-force. Industry is still competitive and the workers do indeed reap their just rewards e.g the recent bonuses for all workers at BMW. I fully realize Germany isn't perfect, but they have shown that a modern economy can advance and flourish with unions, employers and Government prepared to negotiate and compromise.

To return briefly to the demise of Mrs T. Heaven alone only knows what shape Britain would be in today had she not held the reigns of power.

cander - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

we didn't have to do it the Thatcher way - but thats what was realistically on offer - old Labour was a shot bolt as far I could see, offering nothing new. Tony Blair could have achieved what Margaret Thatcher did - but he wasn't in a position to take over - Neil Kinnock paved the way.

I'm not sure our society would not have degenerated the way it has, even if the Thatcher government hadn't come to power. The norms of behaviour where changing anyway from what I witnessed - the rise of Chavdom (Neds to you) was inevitable I'm sad to say.
Fat Bumbly2 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: When I was your age, I was working hard and trying to get into university. I like many like me had a future. The reality was years of unemployment, used as a blunt tool of fiscal policy; theft on a grand scale and living each day as if it were your last due to the escalation of the Cold War.

I wish you better luck, but her legacy has not provided you with the world that we would wish for you.

As for the paedo comment - beneath contempt, but I agree with you that putting someone down because of their age is pretty low.
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> [...]
>
> To return briefly to the demise of Mrs T. Heaven alone only knows what shape Britain would be in today had she not held the reigns of power.

I can easily imagine a scenario in which another more enlightened great leader had come along, who had concentrated more on modernising industry and handled privatisation more intelligently while retaining the power of the unions and not letting our tax system get out of control. Something more on the German or Scandinavian lines.

Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Deviant)
> [...]
>
> I can easily imagine a scenario in which another more enlightened great leader had come along, who had concentrated more on modernising industry and handled privatisation more intelligently while retaining the power of the unions and not letting our tax system get out of control. Something more on the German or Scandinavian lines.


I'd also prefer to think that this was possible but have serious doubts.

andyathome - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
My favourite headline so far:

'Thatcher's role 'in saving Nelson Mandela'' - from the BBC.

Can beatification be far away.
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
>
> I'd also prefer to think that this was possible but have serious doubts.

Why? Are you saying that as a 'people' we are less intelligent than the Germans or the Scandinavians? Probably more lazy, bigoted and greedy, more like. Which is exactly what Mrs T tapped in to.
Coel Hellier - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> I can easily imagine a scenario in which another more enlightened great leader had come along, who
> had concentrated more on modernising industry and handled privatisation more intelligently while
> retaining the power of the unions and not letting our tax system get out of control.

Easy to *imagine* such, far harder to actually do it, especially with the vast amount of opposition that any reform faces. By the way, in what way did Thatcher "let our tax system get out of control"?



New POD - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

In the words of Billy Bragg :

When did it fall apart ?
Sometime in the 80's, when the great and the good gave way to the greedy and the mean.

Whilst I am sure that her family have a right to our sympathies, I'm sure that many will find it hard not to view the scyophantic nature of respect from all sides of the political spectrum, as hypocritical and crass. If Miliband can't and won't say the following:
She was evil, and her policies were evil.
then I fear we are doomed.
Sir Chasm - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Fat Bumbly2: During which part of Thatcher's time did you feel you were "living each day as if it were your last due to the escalation of the Cold War"?
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
> (In reply to Oliiver) When I was your age, I was working hard and trying to get into university. I like many like me had a future. The reality was years of unemployment, used as a blunt tool of fiscal policy; theft on a grand scale and living each day as if it were your last due to the escalation of the Cold War.
>
> I wish you better luck, but her legacy has not provided you with the world that we would wish for you.
>
> As for the paedo comment - beneath contempt, but I agree with you that putting someone down because of their age is pretty low.

Just saw what Paul Pritchard put on the book.. thanking MT for the sharp raise in UK climbing standards.. they certainly didn't waste those years of unemployment.

IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) furthermore, labours open door immigration policy, encrusted millions of foreign migrants into so called 'poverty'.

have you any experience of UK immigration? it is a ballache and an expensive one..
Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Deviant)
> [...]
>
> Why? Are you saying that as a 'people' we are less intelligent than the Germans or the Scandinavians?


Less intelligent, no, but certainly chained to a deep-rooted class-system that stifled much personal ambition.
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
>
> Less intelligent, no, but certainly chained to a deep-rooted class-system that stifled much personal ambition.

Yes, that probably has been our biggest problem, which meant that a 'them' and 'us' mentality permeated not just industry but the whole of society. We are slowly shaking it off, but probably too slowly.

Al Evans on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to Al Evans)
>
> "You needed to be there, and she did, she took the centre of the heart of UK manufacturing and the Uk's pride in being a working man, and put it in the mouth of bankers. "
>
> I was, from the beginning, as an young engineer, with great contacts and training via a levy that she removed. She did a lot of damage but you are mis-representing what happened.

Maybe it was where you had to be, rather than you had to be there.
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Deviant)
> [...]
>
> I can easily imagine a scenario in which another more enlightened great leader had come along, who had concentrated more on modernising industry and handled privatisation more intelligently while retaining the power of the unions and not letting our tax system get out of control. Something more on the German or Scandinavian lines.
>
Given that successive governments, both Labour and Tory, had been trying to do this for a decade or more and been blocked by the unions and the Labour left ("In place of strife" anyone.) how do you imagine this might have been achieved? You can really imagine the hard left agreeing to privatisation?

Sounds like the triumph of hope over experience.
Fredt on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to jimmyjjohn:
> I'm sure Al Evans will be along shortly. He'll be devastated.
>
>
> http://www.thehaircarespot.com , http://www.wildthingsafaris.com , http://www.green4ecigs.com

I'll see your http://www.wildthingsafaris.com and raise you a http://www.thigasafari.com
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> have you any experience of UK immigration? it is a ballache and an expensive one..

I think they will be talking about EU immigration.
wercat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I was one of the NE England jobless in the early 80s and I went from being glad she had been elected to thinking her government's policies didn't show enough compassion for the communities facing devastation as industries were shut down. At times I think I thought I hated her.

Yet a few years later I experienced some very much more prosperous times under the later years of her government.

During the whole time she was in power I often felt that there were faults with policy but I never thought she was self seeking and that she did what was interests of the country, even if wrong.

I cannot say that of TBlair - I think that was the most dishonest and self seeking period of government I have ever experienced and one that introduced Britain to new standards of news and press manupulation. And one in which Britain really was led into an illegal war of aggression
ads.ukclimbing.com
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Yeah but she was no great shakes on grit. Now Dennis........
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Gordon, you're a bright and well read bloke and all that, but your knowledge of economic history is woeful.

British industry was in catastrophic decline by the turn of the 19th C, and it was recognised as such at the time in many of the economic journals of the day.

Significant factors included the UK class system, which meant that entrepreneurs and industrialists were keen to disavow their origins and become part of the aristocracy, whereas in the US and Germany industrialists were (and still are) seen as important figures in their own right. Other factors included an education system where, in Germany, equal status was accorded to technical and vocational subjects as to academic disciplines - something we still haven't achieved. Both in the US and Germany there was close collaboration between industry and tertiary education - how many professors from Oxford were intimately acquainted with the Cowley works do you suppose? (The Battle of Jutland was if not won, then possibly drawn partly in the optics labs of the University of Jena and Zeiss). And then we had our unions, who soon came to match the management in incompetence, bigotry and short sightedness.

You can read all this stuff in Royal commissions, economic journals and the like publisjed 80 years before Thatcher came to power. You can blame her for many things, but precipitating the UK's industrial decline is not one of them.
Skyfall - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm quite surprised by how blinkered you are.

> the last big scares of the cold war were in the 60's.

I said that I grew up through the 60's and 70's - to put my comments in context (after effectively being accused of not having lived through it). I wasn't saying Maggie single-handedly brought the Cold War to a close. However, it is fair to say there were significant scares throughout the late 70's even. It is also fair to say, as noted by even her political opponents, that she played a not insignificant part in bringing the Cold War to a final close.

Could you have seen that sort of influence under Foot or Kinnock? No, I didn't think so. Or maybe you would have preferred to have seen the USSR retain its hold over Eastern Europe?

Of course, her switch of focus to more global matters was part of her (eventually deserved) downfall.

> The unions were as polarising as Maggie (many agreed with them, many thought by then they were exploiting their power).

Come on; even most people who worked in union dominated industries will come out and admit they needed reforming. If she hadn't tackled them this country would have died on its feet. With hindsight we can all say it was too brutal - but ask yourself this. Would the union leaders of the time allowed reform to happen if any politician had asked nicely? We know the answer - they'd have gone out on strike as they did many times. I am sure a full on confrontation was the only way to do it. Do you really honestly think there was an alternative given the union power at the time?

> Things felt noticably nastier and greedier in the first years of Thatcher and she was distrusted, disliked or hated by most people then

Simply not true yet you portray it as fact. I was brought up in the south and she had extensive support. And, no, I wasn't brought up as some toff -my parents were both working class background and I went to a London comp etc etc.


> without the Falklands few I knew from either side thought she would have easily won again.

Yes, I agree. It's funny how so many people (I assume you are one of them) don't care at all that the country's stock rose considerably around the world because of events such as the Falklands and simply the Thatcher effect.

Of course, Spain rather quietened down about Gibraltar at about that time as well..

> The conviction bit was more image

You're sure about that are you - and not just (re) writing your own history? If there is one thing that most people agree on, her opponents included, is that she had conviction and balls in bucket loads. That was a large part of her problem when the big fights (Unions, Falklands) were over and she was left looking for the next one eg. Europe.
Skyfall - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to wercat:

great post
Denni on 09 Apr 2013
I'm quite indifferent about Thatcher.

At least she actually made a decision and stood by it, right or wrong.

She was democratically elected, longest serving PM this century which says something (added century before some smart arse tells me that the longest serving PM was actually Walpole) so more trusted her to do a job than didn't, stood up to people and didn't care what people thought about her.

And she had some balls in comparison to all the spineless politicians that we currently have who are more interested in themselves than the people who elected them
Morgan Woods - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> Yet it makes you wonder what it could have been like now with a global level playing field on training, regulation, state investment and tax breaks. People also forget that a lot of UK management was shit in the companies that died. Most engineers I know think Thatcher cut too deep and believed too much in the markets and left us hamstrung compared to our competitor abroad and vulnerable to unproductive take-overs... she pushed things too far in the opposite direction. It does show how much talent still exists in the UK to be doing so well despite decades of ill treatment.

Maybe neither here nor there but I am currently working on a rebuild project in Christchurch. UK engos and PM are very highly regarded mainly because they have been innovators in the construction field due to low levels of unionisation (unlike what we experience in Oz). So I don't see curbing the unions as a bad thing in someone's legacy.
paul-1970 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Denni:
> At least she actually made a decision and stood by it, right or wrong.

That is where most of the ire stems from! "The lady is not for turning" and all that puffery. No matter what she did, whether it seemed a good idea afterwards, or was unpopular, unwise or just plain wrong would EVER have stopped her. She was never wrong, just other people hadn't caught up with her. The rest of her party eventually realised that, and so dumped her. She became a liability because she would never admit to being wrong.

A fascinating snippet of an interview with her on the 'Today' prog this morning; she was clearly far more energised and interested in concepts and theory rather than understanding reality and consequences. Waxing lyrical about "the market" and "the global village" as if these theoretical concepts are actually real and tangible. It was clear that she NEVER connected with the grief and havoc she wreaked, simply because it was all literally academic to her. And so were the people who's livelihoods she ruined and the societies she told them didn't exist.
krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: F U C K Thatcher and her lying thieving arms dealing offspring!!

Made Britain a selfish money grabbing, uncaring country.

The reason there’s a housing shortage is not just down to the wholesale sell off of council houses BUT the money from the sales could not be used to build more. Just one of her divisive “let’s make them all capitalists” policies.

I hated her, I still hate her.

And all this bullshit about not speaking ill of the dead! Where’s your line Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mengele ? or should we not speak ill of those either?

Piss poor European policy, South Africa, the Falkland’s that should have never happened (all those people dead)

I could spend all day typing about how bad a person she was but I’m off for a pint or two.

She was a vindictive cow and the country is better off without the likes of her in it.
dale1968 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) F U C K Thatcher and her lying thieving arms dealing offspring!!
>
> Made Britain a selfish money grabbing, uncaring country.


wow, she had that much influence! you must really rate her...
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to paul-1970:
> (In reply to Denni)
> [...]
>
> That is where most of the ire stems from! "The lady is not for turning" and all that puffery. No matter what she did, whether it seemed a good idea afterwards, or was unpopular, unwise or just plain wrong would EVER have stopped her. She was never wrong, just other people hadn't caught up with her. The rest of her party eventually realised that, and so dumped her. She became a liability because she would never admit to being wrong.
>
Her strengths were also her failings. She had a clear vision of what needed to be done, the single mindedness to drive it through, and loyalty to those who supported her.

The flip side of this was that she was loyal to people who didn't deserve it (Pinochet, Archer etc) and vindictive to those who stood in the way of her vision.

Offwidth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

Its a bit rich accusing me of being blinkered when my point was that your portrayal was muddled in its time line and her support was clearly far from universal around 1980. You were the one afterall who claimed no rose tint and I see pink tinge everywhere.

I never denied she had extensive support - just the opposite - I've been clear from the beginning she had a minority who loved her to bits. As for the things most people agree on: history is full of rewiting based on hindsight. At the time, on the record, she was in deep trouble. When "the lady is not for turning" happened this wasn't from strength it was her defence line as she could have been removed as leader. The record at that time of the smallest support ever for a PM won't get bigger becausue you were part of that, nor will the experiences of most folk in the UK at the time, especially away from the SE.

Another thing which is intersting is all the stuff coming into public view from papers that were held secret. Things as a conviction politician (whci I think is a political invention) she would never countenance... like starting secret negotiations with the IRA. Also her tax postion turned out to be much murkier than people remember at least accroding to right wing comentators "As Bruce Bartlett, a former policy adviser to Reagan and George H. W. Bush, notes, taxes as a share of the economy actually increased under Thatcher."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-margaret-thatcher-built-the-myth-of-the-iron-lady-...
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> And all this bullshit about not speaking ill of the dead! Where’s your line Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mengele ? or should we not speak ill of those either?

Poor, very poor comparison.

> I could spend all day typing about how bad a person she was but I’m off for a pint or two.
>
At 10:20am on a Tuesday, no wonder you didnt like her, she wanted to end this kind stuff.
Sir Chasm - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman: Are you selfish, money grabbing and uncaring? You don't sound very nice.
paul-1970 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> [...]
>
> Poor, very poor comparison.

Fair comparison.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette argues better than I can against the whole "Nil nisi bonum" bunkum. If you despised her when she was alive, then consistency demands you adhere to that even while she burns in the fire.
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Denni:

> She was democratically elected, longest serving PM this century which says something (added century before some smart arse tells me that the longest serving PM was actually Walpole) so more trusted her to do a job than didn't

It doesnt show more trusted her. Two problems with that claim.
Firstly more people could vote against her than for.

Secondly with regards to the actual general population the figure which counts is the number of terms, not years served. Which Blair, for example, matches. Difference being that within the Labour Party he jumped while the going looked good.



dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to paul-1970:

> Fair comparison.

if i am bored while watching a batch job run I might go and do a compare against what people said about Chavez.
krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> [...]
>
> Poor, very poor comparison.

I never said I was comparing her to these people. I asked where you draw the line?

>
> [...]
> At 10:20am on a Tuesday, no wonder you didnt like her, she wanted to end this kind stuff.

Maybe I've been working 12 hour shifts for the last three weeks and this is my 1st day off.

You're very presumptuous.


krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to krikoman)

> At 10:20am on a Tuesday, no wonder you didnt like her, she wanted to end this kind stuff.


Also the pint was a metaphorical one, as I don't drink during the week.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: why so much hate for a great, inspirational leader? She made Britain competitive and quite frankly, if you hate her she very clearly put you back in your place.
JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

That's the attitude, we all need putting in our places like the women, gays, immigrants, uppity unions, blacks... in fact anyone that questions her and her politics.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Offwidth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

A few more things a friend of mine remined me of that the worst of the bite may still be to come:

The break up of the GEGB and subsequent energy investment problems since.
The start of the move to rail privatisation and the choice of waterloo International station.
The removal of senate power and loss of tenure in universities leading slowly to independant centres of learning becoming more of a controlled education business.
Setting off the demutalisatio of building societies.
Skyfall - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> my point was that your portrayal was muddled in its time line and her support was clearly far from universal around 1980.

My time line was not muddled - what on earth are you on about. I was merely describing the backdrop to her election in 1979 - which was decades of decline and the cold war. As you implied, post war Britain was not pretty and at the time of my youth people still vividly remembered both rationing and the war itself (then less than 20 years ago, which is less time than between the Falklands and now). By the 70's, the UK was starting to put the war years behind itself but inflation was running close to 15% (less than 5% in Germany) and the unions seemed intent on stopping the country from becoming competitive. I don't know what your memories of the 60's and 70's are but mine are of continual strikes or threats thereof, a depressed stagnant country, shabby towns and cities and with more people emigrating (for the hope of more prosperity and simply a better life) than immigrating. Funny how we have an immigration problem now isn't it.

Thatcher was elected and it is very true that her attempt at reshaping Britain played a part in hastening the end of some industry. But it also brought opportunities in other areas. Some of that was in the financial sector - but a shift from an industry to service sector based economy whilst retaining the hi tech elements of industry - is a facet of most developed countries. Of course, though people might now like to lay the blame for the banking crisis at her door, that is ridiculous. It's up to us how we use opportunity and of course the greatest era of a greed based economy was, counter intuitively, under Blair/Brown. Modern Britain developed partly on the back of Thatcher's policies. She started the ball rolling, though it may eventually have happened anyway of course.

We all have different views on this based on how and where we were brought up, what sort of early working (or non-working) life we had etc. I came from a working class background in the SE and we had little sympathy for the miners. Many people of the generation before mine still had not forgotten the miners' (and Liverpool dockers') strikes of the war years and felt they were due their comeuppance. Again, a little context for how some of the more aggressive union activity was viewed even by people of the same social class.



Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) why so much hate for a great, inspirational leader? She made Britain competitive and quite frankly, if you hate her she very clearly put you back in your place.

Well it's the hatred for gays that does it for me. She passed a law that made a significant contribion to my deep misery as a teenager, by explicitly stating that under the law, I should have no rights. She put me in my place, did she?

Here's something you need to understand:

Thatcher did stuff that some people really suffered from
Those people are very bitter and they hated her
That is completely valid and you are in no position to criticise

I've resisted the temptation to respond to your pathetic drivel until now, but I've got some work I really ought to do and I'm procrastinating. Please don't interpret this response as interest in what you have to say.

Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart: Jon, it was a sarcastic comment. I'm not homophobic i know a few gay people and I don't mind gay people what so ever - quite frankly their fun to be around. Margaret thatcher did good and bad things like any politician and its completely ok to love or loathe her. But,to really celebrate another human passing away?. Take for example the queen, the majority of Brits adore her but if she was to pass away and the radical Muslims held street party's would you think that's acceptable?
JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:


What a surprise, her right to buy scheme ends up like this...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/right-to-buy-housing-shame-third-ex-council-1743338
JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

FFS< you are beyond the pale, have you no idea how much your comments there are homophobic and sound like something from the 30s?
JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:

Just substitute gay for black and see how it reads you bigot.
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) F U C K Thatcher and her lying thieving arms dealing offspring!!
>
> Made Britain a selfish money grabbing, uncaring country.
>

People were saying this in the victorian times..
ice.solo - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:

johnny rotten couldnt have said it better.
Morgan Woods - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance: I'm sure I might have mentioned I was glad the Venezualans had got rid of chavez. Not sure how such a sentiment could translate to feeling happy about MTs death since she hasn't been in power for ages. Seems weird to get hung up about a frail old lady.
paul-1970 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> i know a few gay people and I don't mind gay people what so ever - quite frankly their fun to be around.

You mean they're all camp and give us a laugh 'cos they like to dance expressively to disco songs?

I know a few red-haired people too, and they're fun to be around. A bit fiery and short-tempered though.
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart) Take for example the queen, the majority of Brits adore her but if she was to pass away and the radical Muslims held street party's would you think that's acceptable?

They can do what they like in that respect. I'd think it was an odd reaction but aside from that I don't give two hoots about what nutters think of the Queen.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: actually, the man in question is not camp - he's far from it, but his partner is. I don't really care if they are or arnt.
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> Well it's the hatred for gays that does it for me. She passed a law that made a significant contribion to my deep misery as a teenager, by explicitly stating that under the law, I should have no rights. She put me in my place, did she?
>
I'm loathe to question you on this because I understand the whole period was a very bitter and personal experience for you.

However, her government passed clause 28 banning promotion of homosexuality by local authorities: bad law, bad policy.

But most of the rest of what I read-voting for legalisation of homosexuality in England and passing laws to that effect in Scotland, and her personal relationships with acknowledged homosexuals don't suggest "hatred" or a a belief that they should "have no rights".

To what are you referring?


krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> [...]
>
> People were saying this in the victorian times..

Does that make it any less true?

They were saying life's tough during the war but I'm sure it's still tough living on bread line.
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]

> But most of the rest of what I read-voting for legalisation of homosexuality in England and passing laws to that effect in Scotland, and her personal relationships with acknowledged homosexuals don't suggest "hatred" or a a belief that they should "have no rights".
>
> To what are you referring?

The quote from the 86 conference:

"Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay"

Sounds to me like a denial of my right to exist.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Jon I have a question for you, off topic - but relevant. I'm aware of a thing called gay pride in Manchester and it dosnt bother me the slightest bit. But why do gay people need to have pride in them selves for being gay? I know they were persecuted but dose it not isolate them more? If there was such as straight pride would that be deemed homophobic?
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

Come on folks, we can make 1000 posts by the end of the day at this rate.
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> The quote from the 86 conference:
>
> "Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay"
>
> Sounds to me like a denial of my right to exist.

Very wrong, but I suspect done for political expediency, but wasn't thatcther one of the first Tories to stick her head above the parapet and vote for the decriminalisation of homosexuality.
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The quote from the 86 conference:
>
> "Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay"
>
> Sounds to me like a denial of my right to exist.

I can see why you'd hear it like that but that doesn't seem to tie in with her voting and personal record. It seems to me she was against the promotion of homosexuality rather than its existence (which I understand would still make you angry).

I can't find any reference to the issue at all in her memoirs which suggests to me that she simply wasn't interested in it. Her attitude was more a laissez faire, don't promote, don't condemn. More a sin of ommission?

ads.ukclimbing.com
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> The quote from the 86 conference:
>
> "Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay"
>
> Sounds to me like a denial of my right to exist.

I think you need to calm down about that..

Its just time/era.. it wasn't an uncommon view.. attitudes even in the senior tories have changed now.. so why bother about the past..

We're all products of our generation, the environment we get brought up in. Her view then was similar to many of our grandparents.. they were brought up in an era when homosexuality was a crime. Its understandable.

I'm not defending her view at all.

Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Jon I have a question for you, off topic - but relevant. I'm aware of a thing called gay pride in Manchester and it dosnt bother me the slightest bit. But why do gay people need to have pride in them selves for being gay? I know they were persecuted but dose it not isolate them more? If there was such as straight pride would that be deemed homophobic?

You won't find my views on gay pride marches representative of gay people generally and I'm no spokesperson for other gay people. But yes, it's certainly a reaction against oppression as you say, and the issue of accentuating the difference is quite valid I think.

I've been in lots of discussions on here that explain the asymmetry between minorities who've been denied rights in the past and the mainstream. People often use the 'positive discrimination' argument (that something positive relating to a minority is equivalent to real discrimination) and it's completely false. There's some stuff about that in this thread:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=534470

Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Okay, how about some suggestions of good things that she or her Government instituted? I'll start with:
- Right to Buy - I think a generally good policy, except insofar as it wasn't matched by commensurate investment in new housing.
krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Okay, how about some suggestions of good things that she or her Government instituted? I'll start with:
> - Right to Buy - I think a generally good policy, except insofar as it wasn't matched by commensurate investment in new housing.

Then how can it be good you dolt???
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I think you need to calm down about that..

And I think you need to empathise.

> Its just time/era.. it wasn't an uncommon view.. attitudes even in the senior tories have changed now.. so why bother about the past..

Because it had a significant effect on me personally.

> We're all products of our generation, the environment we get brought up in. Her view then was similar to many of our grandparents.. they were brought up in an era when homosexuality was a crime. Its understandable.

Not good enough. A crap excuse for failing to tackle discrimination, and no excuse at all for legislating against the rights of minorities.

> I'm not defending her view at all.

Thank god.
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:

> Then how can it be good you dolt???

Err... because not thinking ahead to create further housing stock is separate from the social value in providing that right!
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
>
> Okay, how about some suggestions of good things that she or her Government instituted? I'll start with:
> - Right to Buy - I think a generally good policy, except insofar as it wasn't matched by commensurate investment in new housing.

Here's another. Trying to create a culture of personal responsibility rather that personal abdication, except insofar as it wasnt matched by commensurate personal responsibility for indebtedness, which we are all suffering from now.

TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
> [...]
>
> Then how can it be good you dolt???

What's a dolt?

JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

So much rubbish spouted about Unions it's quite depressing. If any of you appreciate the weekend, the 8 hour day, the 5 day week rather than the 6 day week, paid holidays, etc etc. thank the unions.
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Here's another. Trying to create a culture of personal responsibility rather that personal abdication, except insofar as it wasnt matched by commensurate personal responsibility for indebtedness, which we are all suffering from now.

I think Blair and Gordon Brown are more culpable in terms of financial de-regulation on that front, especially because they should have known better! Futhermore, don't swallow that right wing media rhetoric that conflates our personal indebtedness (or rather lack thereof), with indebtedness due to American sub-prime mortgages and banking failures.
Offwidth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

As someone who read very widely and developed political views quite young, I'm seriously impressed that as a child you worried that much about the unions and especially inflation (which to me at the time was like something that happened to someone else as wages increased around the same rate and many past genuine luxuries were simply easier to get and cheaper).

I had a great childhood, my parents were caring and hard working and taught us fair play and honesty. This was backed up by christian philosophy from the 3 churches chasing my soul although I soon lost faith with them all as many of their leading lights were dishonest and more interested in themselves than their 'neighbours' or the needy (I kept the social message though). Like most around us, we never had that much money but people around me were becoming visibly better off in real terms. The arts made a big influence in my early life. Books were freely available in libraries; the development of popular music was simply amazing from the earliest I remember all the way into the early Thatcher years. My favorite science and engineering interests seemed to be blooming. Later on as I became more aware of unfairness and hypocricy, it was clear the old strangleholds of class and the establishment appeared to be still breaking. Old people around me remembered the broken promises following the first world war and had genuine love for the post war labour led social changes, especially the national health servioe. Many people from families around me had members going to university for the first time. Local tenant farmers rights were improving, much to annoyance of the Spencer family estate (that I learned to loathe). My political thoughts were that conservatives despite their spin were basically for the rich and the establishment; the local obvious tory supporters were frankly odious. Labour were better and spoke up for the 'common man' but seemed too clubby, sometimes illiberal and mysogynistic. Most politicians in their proselytizing reminded me of the dishonest church folk: I prefered listening, reading and doing. I also visited France and Germany in the 70's and was amazed how far they were ahead of us in terms of the voice of ordinary people and how their standard of living was much better than ours despite being models of what the 'zeitgeist' told us was wrong (jokes abounded about the french and the germans at the time but the joke seemed to me to be on us). My dad and others I knew had had major problems with unions in a few jobs in the 60's but it hardly mattered as it was always easy to find other jobs, pre-Thatcher.

We all have our different experiences but when it comes to averaging across a nation you have to put these behind you and look at data. The data to me says things got loads worse on average during Thatcher's first term... it may be down to what came before but it did happen.
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I can see why you'd hear it like...

Because that's what it explicitly says.

> that but that doesn't seem to tie in with her voting and personal record. It seems to me she was against the promotion of homosexuality rather than its existence (which I understand would still make you angry).

The quote was in a conference speech, so I imagine it was a well considered expression of what she wanted to say. She's saying that as a matter of policy children should be taught that homosexuality is wrong ("traditional values") in an effort to stop them being gay. It is pure, vile homophobia, expressed succinctly and clearly.

> I can't find any reference to the issue at all in her memoirs which suggests to me that she simply wasn't interested in it. Her attitude was more a laissez faire, don't promote, don't condemn. More a sin of ommission?

No. Not a massive issue for her and I accept John R's comments about the motive being tied up with internal party politics. Which of course changes my view on it not one jot, it only serves to highlight the appalling moral vacuum that characterised her life's work.

I'm not terribly impressed by attempts to dilute and excuse the denial of people's rights.

cander - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

As a somewhat old fashioned and rather straight man, I'm somewhat bemused by your clearly obtuse and mean little posts.

Gay people are allowed to celebrate their lives, just the same as anyone else is, ever seen the Notting Hill carnival, we're even allowed harvest festivals, village fetes, these are all examples of groups of people celibrating. Even soldiers marching through towns on their return to Blighty are a demonstration of this. You haven't got gay friends ... you just have friends - welcome to the new millenium.

JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

I've just read that you're 16, so I'm going to cut you some slack, but apart from that I suggest you go away from this thread, stop being a little bigot, and go and do some hard thinking about why some of the things you're saying are homophobic, and then try and grow up a little.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> So much rubbish spouted about Unions it's quite depressing. If any of you appreciate the weekend, the 8 hour day, the 5 day week rather than the 6 day week, paid holidays, etc etc. thank the unions.

Or competition.

I get private medical cover and 25 days holiday because my commercial competitors offer the same. If one of them offered me dental and 30 days holiday when I next look for a change, that might sway me, all things being equal.

krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to krikoman)
>
> [...]
>
> Err... because not thinking ahead to create further housing stock is separate from the social value in providing that right!

But the whole idea didn't work so who got the social value? - the landlords!!

Who are now private individuals.

What you said is like the gun laws in America and then saying "yeah, but we didn't mean for all these people to get shot".
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Jon I have a question for you, off topic - but relevant. I'm aware of a thing called gay pride in Manchester and it dosnt bother me the slightest bit. But why do gay people need to have pride in them selves for being gay? I know they were persecuted but dose it not isolate them more? If there was such as straight pride would that be deemed homophobic?

You won't find my views on gay pride marches representative of gay people generally and I'm no spokesperson for other gay people. But yes, it's certainly a reaction against oppression as you say, and the issue of accentuating the difference is quite valid I think.

I've been in lots of discussions on here that explain the asymmetry between minorities who've been denied rights in the past and the mainstream. People often use the 'positive discrimination' argument (that something positive relating to a minority is equivalent to real discrimination) and it's completely false. There's some stuff about that in this thread:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=534470

krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> [...]
>
> What's a dolt?

Look in the mirror
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> Because that's what it explicitly says.
>
It explicitly rejects the idea that the concept should be taught.
>
> No. Not a massive issue for her and I accept John R's comments about the motive being tied up with internal party politics. Which of course changes my view on it not one jot, it only serves to highlight the appalling moral vacuum that characterised her life's work.
>
>
She didn't work in a "moral vacuum" but she had moral blindspots of which this was one, albeit a very common one at the time. You'd struggle to find any politician anywhere, anytime who didn't bend their moral standards to achieve what they regarded as greater ends. It's the reality of power.
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Here's another. Trying to create a culture of personal responsibility rather that personal abdication, except insofar as it wasnt matched by commensurate personal responsibility for indebtedness, which we are all suffering from now.

apart from its a meaningless phrase. Especially when you look at her policies.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: Depressingly, and much in the nature of a stopped clock that is right twice a day, I find myself agreeing with Gideon Osborne here:

"She had optimism in the ingenuity and enterprise of the British people, when most had written them off," he says.

I'm sure that won't happen again.

Father Noel Furlong on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
> [...]
>
> Look in the mirror

LOL :-)
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart: I think you need to get over it and look for the future.. she has no impact on that now.

She impacted on many across society, but she was also democratically elected. Many did hold those views, right or wrong. To blame her solely is rediculous.

A prime minister governs because the people elect them to based on their beliefs. Many held similar view. We've seen marked shifts in view over the last 20 years so people of our generation don't think anything of issues such as those surrounding gay marriage. But you have to understand that for the elderly its been a huge change in what they were brought up with.
GrahamD - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:

> Made Britain a selfish money grabbing, uncaring country.

Whatever else you can accuse her of, she did not invent greed. In 1979 the country (tax payers - I was just about getting on that ladder)were being totally held to ransom by anyone who had the power to disrupt.

People have always gone for what they could get - so grabbing bastards like Scargill (he didn't actually suffer much, did he ? apart from being made to look like the self promoting arse he was)were replaced by a different bunch of gerabbing bastards in red braces.

Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:

> But the whole idea didn't work so who got the social value? - the landlords!!
>
> Who are now private individuals.
>
> What you said is like the gun laws in America and then saying "yeah, but we didn't mean for all these people to get shot".

Its a poor analogy precisely because buying a house isn't going to kill anyone, i.e. the direct effect isn't harmful, the "right to bare arms is harmful. So you're saying that only landlords benefited from the right to buy, and no tenants ever bought a house or got on the housing ladder that way.
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
> It explicitly rejects the idea that the concept should be taught.

"who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values" - are you reading that bit?

> She didn't work in a "moral vacuum" but she had moral blindspots of which this was one, albeit a very common one at the time. You'd struggle to find any politician anywhere, anytime who didn't bend their moral standards to achieve what they regarded as greater ends. It's the reality of power.

That's fair enough. From where I'm stood, the combination of her friendship with Pinochet, her views on the ANC and S28 (so leaving aside the economic policies and individualism on which a justifyable moral stance can be taken on either side, in my view) demonstrate rather too many blindspots. To extend the metaphore, she would not be legal to drive and yet she was running the country.

Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> She impacted on many across society, but she was also democratically elected. Many did hold those views, right or wrong. To blame her solely is rediculous.

What is far more ridiculous is that Labour and Conservatives haven't learnt the lessons from her tenureship and mould their politics partly or more completely in her ideological mould. That for me is more unforgiveable, because we do have the benefit of the hindsight, she didn't.
krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to krikoman)
>
> [...]
>
> Its a poor analogy precisely because buying a house isn't going to kill anyone, i.e. the direct effect isn't harmful, the "right to bare arms is harmful.

Why is the right to bear arms harmful?? It's the shooting of someone that's harmful. IT's like it's not thought through or something!! It’s the consequences or misuse / misappropriation that’s harmful.


With over 40% of ex council houses in landlords hands and a massive housing shortage because they were never replaced. Now means we're(the average working Joe) to line the pockets of private individuals (landlords) who can charge massive rents because people need to be housed. Which then puts house prices up which in turn puts rents up. All this shit started by her and it's not like it wasn't mentioned at the time.
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)

> But you have to understand that for the elderly its been a huge change in what they were brought up with.

Not being bright or creative enough to challenge the status quo was not normally a charge levelled at poor old Maggie.

I'm not talking about what your gran says over dinner, I'm talking about the PM who implemented policies to enure that gay teenagers would be psychologically crushed.
Skyfall - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> As someone who read very widely and developed political views quite young, I'm seriously impressed that as a child you worried that much about the unions and especially inflation

Are you serious? Well, clearly you're trying to say I can't really recall, but I can assure you I do. Maybe I was just always interested in the news, politics, the economy etc. Perhaps my parents instilled a certain 'seriousness' in me. Regardless, as a teenager growing up in the 70's it was hard to be unaware of all those things. I say these things not because I've read them on wiki, I genuinely remember my young life being punctuated by these events. I agree, inflation was something talked about by older generations and on the news, but I remember the financial impact on my parents (and yes for many decent people who didn't borrow but saved it did have a v real impact - on retirement in the earli 80's their savings had been hammered by the inflation of the 70's).

On reflection, I was brought up to be fiercely patriotic and I think a lot of people of all classes thought the unions were doing their best to crucify the country and that offended their sense of national pride. People now talk of Thatcher saving the country by killing off the unions and winning the Falklands. I think patriotism goes to the heart of both those issues. For good or bad.

Incidentally, if you think the cold war had ended by 1979, you should do some more reading up.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
> [...]
>
> Look in the mirror.

A quick peruse at your profile pic would suggest that you shouldn't be throwing those big rocks from your fragile glass house.

Mike Stretford - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Agreed, although I particularly despise Labour for this, they were ideally positioned to rebalance the economy in 1997.
JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:

Agree, and as well as that being old is no excuse in my book, there were gay people back then and there were also people that weren't homophobic of course. People make a choice whatever generation they're from whether to be a bigot or not.

IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Not being bright or creative enough to challenge the status quo was not normally a charge levelled at poor old Maggie.
>
> I'm not talking about what your gran says over dinner, I'm talking about the PM who implemented policies to enure that gay teenagers would be psychologically crushed.

What our grans thought over dinner was their politics.. you can't separate the two.. you get what you want in a democracy.. homophobia was a common trait. It was a legacy from the environment they were brought up in. How you can stick that solely on her door is ludicrous.

But thats all change, as time passes generally we've got more and more liberal, more open minded. We've gone from homosexuality essentially being a crime to gay marriage in 50 years. Thats a big swing.

The racist gran is a common trait in British comedy for a reason, because its very true..



Eric9Points - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

You know I've been giving a bit of thought to the commonly expressed sentiment that goes roughly "she was a bit of cow but at least she had convictions and got things done, right or wrong, so I respect her."

If you think about it it's a funny and confused attitude to have. I think a lot of people are confusing effectiveness with competence. Sure her Government was effective in destroying things, it's not that difficult to do that. Offer no help whatsoever to struggling industries, reduce the national debt by not investing in our infra structure and services and pay for massive levels of unemployment from oil revenue. If you respect someone that behaves like that then fair enough, that's your view. Much more difficult to try and bring about difficult changes in the nation in a humane and fair way. That sort of approach requires compromise and accommodation which many seem to confuse with a lack of vision or beliefs. Not true in my opinion.

Moving on to convictions and sticking to them right or wrong. I'm reminded of the 9/11 thread that's still chuntering on on here. While some seem to respect Thatcher for sticking to her guns even if she was wrong those who advocate the various 9/11 conspiracy theories are ridiculed mercilessly because of their stubborness to see reason. Why is stubborness a virtue in some and a trait to be riduculed in othes?

Remarkable.
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
>
> Agree, and as well as that being old is no excuse in my book, there were gay people back then and there were also people that weren't homophobic of course. People make a choice whatever generation they're from whether to be a bigot or not.

Of course there were.. and thats changed with each passing generation hence we've seen change in the legislation reflecting that..
krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> [...]
>
> A quick peruse at your profile pic would suggest that you shouldn't be throwing those big rocks from your fragile glass house.

I just like the irony, sorry :)
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> "who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values" - are you reading that bit?
>
Yes, but I don't assume it means condemining homosexuality. My guess it was deliberately ambiguous.
>
> That's fair enough. From where I'm stood, the combination of her friendship with Pinochet, her views on the ANC and S28 (so leaving aside the economic policies and individualism on which a justifyable moral stance can be taken on either side, in my view) demonstrate rather too many blindspots.
>
I think she was quite wrong on Pinochet and the ANC but I think both situations stemmed from her own moral viewpoint: that she regarded personal loyalty as very important quality, and (especially in the light of the IRA attacks on her and her colleagues) condemned terrorism.

Both are perfectly reasonable and moral viewpoints but her black and white approach to such things led her down moral some dead ends.



Chris Harris - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
> (In reply to krikoman)
>
> [...]
>
> Its a poor analogy precisely because buying a house isn't going to kill anyone, i.e. the direct effect isn't harmful, the "right to bare arms is harmful.

Damn right. Long sleeves are much better.

krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
> (In reply to krikoman)
> [...]
>
> A quick peruse at your profile pic would suggest that you shouldn't be throwing those big rocks from your fragile glass house.

What does that mean, I'm not pretty enough for you?
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> You know I've been giving a bit of thought to the commonly expressed sentiment that goes roughly "she was a bit of cow but at least she had convictions and got things done, right or wrong, so I respect her."

it is one of the more bizarre arguments. There are plenty of people who got things done, wrong.
I think its more about the idea of a conviction politician. Whilst there is a certain amount to be said for someone thinking beyond the next polls it does have its own drawbacks.
Sean Toms - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:

Well Fred says more about you than Mrs Thatcher does it not ?

In 79 we were the sick man of Europe , Unions ruled the country & we were the laughing stock of Europe. By the time she left office in 1990 the UK was respected & strivers not lazy skivers was the name of the game.

The coal industry was subsidised by hard working tax payers in the South of the UK for years it was always going to restructured she recognised that the UK could not compete with the low cost commodity producers of the emerging economies in the old industries , by contrast many other countries took a lot longer to restructure & look at things in Europe now.

I left school at 16 & my first job paid me just over £2k a year in 1980 , by 1990 I was on £26K a year salary over a 1000% increases & drove a BMW 325I company car , that is the legacy of the Thatcher years opportunities for hard working strivers.......

Shame you are still stuck in 70's !

I will be thinking of you on my next Caribbean holiday !



paul-1970 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
We're nearly at post 666 on this topic.

Is that when Mrs T herself creates a profile, posts and tells us all that the rules of her demise were greatly exagerrated?
paul-1970 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to paul-1970:
*rumours* even...
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:

> You know I've been giving a bit of thought to the commonly expressed sentiment that goes roughly "she was a bit of cow but at least she had convictions and got things done, right or wrong, so I respect her."
> If you think about it it's a funny and confused attitude to have. I think a lot of people are confusing effectiveness with competence. Sure her Government was effective in destroying things, it's not that difficult to do that.

Well I don't disagree that being stubborn, recalictrant, etc is not a virtue, and I don't think it was a virtue in Thatcher. I do want to employ a little relativity to the situation and ask whether acting as a recalcitrant stubborn ideologue who (I believe genuinely thought she was helping the country) is as bad as being a post-modernist politician who redefines the idea of truth, consequent discourse with the electorate, lies to get us immersed in illegal and expensive wars, and at the same time doesn't learn the lessons from Thatcher's tenureship and goes for even more banking de-regulation. Or the tories, who are actually adopting Thatcherism almost unmodified despite the benefit of hindsight. To me, Blair and Cameron are far more malevolent.
TheDrunkenBakers - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to TheDrunkenBakers)
> [...]
>
> What does that mean, I'm not pretty enough for you?

I dunno, a feigned attempt at wit and nonsense on a boring Tuesday afternoon whilst I'm waiting for some carpet fitters.

Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

> why so much hate for a great, inspirational leader?

Perhaps you should stop repeating what your parents (or other oldies) have told you and try to find a few videos of her actually speaking? She just wasn't inspirational, she sounded awful when she spoke, affected posh accent an' all. Just apart from looking at her policies at least try and discover a little bit of the reality of the person... otherwise you just won't be able to understand her critics, those that experienced her for years.
Sean Toms - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Once Scotland takes Scotland independence Labour are dead forever , roll on Alex Salmond.

No wonder Labour don't want to see an independent Scotland , it all about self interest.
JayPee630 - on 09 Apr 2013
krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> [...]
>
> .. those that experienced her for years.

Did you "experience" her? You have my sympathy

dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sean Toms:

> Once Scotland takes Scotland independence Labour are dead forever

oh really? Care to explain why?
As a starting point you can list how many elections the Scottish vote would have tipped it one way or the other.

Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:

> We're all products of our generation, the environment we get brought up in.

I feel more like a by-product.
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Perhaps you should stop repeating what your parents (or other oldies) have told you and try to find a few videos of her actually speaking? She just wasn't inspirational, she sounded awful when she spoke, affected posh accent an' all. Just apart from looking at her policies at least try and discover a little bit of the reality of the person... otherwise you just won't be able to understand her critics, those that experienced her for years.

She was a far better orator than Major, Blair, Brown and infinitely better than Cameron, affected accent or not! Not that this has anything at all to do with her legacy...
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

> To me, Blair and Cameron are far more malevolent.

but then they seem both as ideological driven as thatcher was. More competent at spinning but still the same approach.
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Papillon:

> Agreed, although I particularly despise Labour for this, they were ideally positioned to rebalance the economy in 1997.

Exactly.
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> Perhaps you should stop repeating what your parents (or other oldies) have told you and try to find a few videos of her actually speaking?

someone doesnt need to sound good to be inspirational, it can be their attitude and actions as well. Considering she seems to be an inspiration to all the following PMs policy wise I think it isnt unreasonable to say she was inspirational.
Of course its a different discussion as to whether that inspiration was good.
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

> but then they seem both as ideological driven as thatcher was. More competent at spinning but still the same approach.

I don't believe a word of it.. ..I think the evidence suggests that they don't believe in anything, unless you'd have postmodernism, populism and political expediency as ideologies being driven.
teflonpete - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> [...]
>
> Perhaps you should stop repeating what your parents (or other oldies) have told you and try to find a few videos of her actually speaking?


Good advice for those on both sides of the coin who are too young to have experienced living in Britain pre and post Thatcher.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/people-with-no-idea-who-thatcher-was-ecstatic-that-shes-d...

Stolen from another thread on here but so true. :0)
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:

> With over 40% of ex council houses in landlords hands and a massive housing shortage because they were never replaced. Now means we're(the average working Joe) to line the pockets of private individuals (landlords) who can charge massive rents because people need to be housed. Which then puts house prices up which in turn puts rents up. All this shit started by her and it's not like it wasn't mentioned at the time.

That's a good point, I haven't seen the figure before. So nothing was in the original law that prevented tenants buying a council house cheaply then selling it on for a profit?

It's a good argument against those who argue the "common sense" view, that allowing long term tenants the possibility to buy their rented property rather than pay rent all their lives is a "win win" situation, if you'll excuse the Blairism. This appears to "make sense", as Mrs T would have said, but clearly has back-fired in reality. Back-fired in terms of best use of public funds, not in her political aims of pulling working class people into the net of property owning and hence tory voting, of course.
krikoman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: To compound this, the money that went to the councils from the sale of the housing stock was specifically prevented from being spent on new council housing. So they were being forced to sell a finite resource at below market value and not being able to replace them.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Sean Toms - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Fredt:


So have I got this right ? your friend was so dependent on the government was that a change in government policies meant he committed suicide ? are you really saying this ?

A decision to commit suicide is a personal one , the one responsible for such a decision was your friend not Mrs Thatcher or indeed anyone else.

No one ever starves to death in the UK , with the advent of the welfare state , the state would have provided for your friends family as is the case now & will be in the future.

This is unquestionably a real tragedy but whilst it may be easier for you to seek to blame others for this , the responsibility for this enormous decision lies absolutely with your friend.

You have a right to feel glad , if you chose to , but your perspective is warped by your continued grief.

dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

> That's a good point, I haven't seen the figure before.

There was a short term increase in home ownership but now it is dropping again.
its something consistently ignored by those raving about how good right to buy is. Often accompanied by rants about benefits whilst conveniently ignoring how much of those go to the landlords.

> So nothing was in the original law that prevented tenants buying a council house cheaply then selling it on for a profit?

there was/is a tie in of 5 years during which you would need to repay the discount (on a sliding scale).
Sean Toms - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:


Without the support of Labours 50 Scottish MP's , the Conservatives would have a parliamentary majority in England Wales forever.

Roll on independence for Scotland !
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: My first property was an ex council flat. The original tennant bought it for £37k. They sold it to me for £132k many years later. I sold it for £280k 6 years after that. A quick cursory glance on rightmove shows that the price has stagnated around that level so I sold at the top. But because I went up a rung I didn't benefit from the timing.

Sean Toms - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630:
> (In reply to Sean Toms)
>
> This made me laugh...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2y5VKnFgSI

Ho Ho very good , less time swearing & more time driving his taxi & he might not be living in it !

Tall Clare - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sean Toms:
> (In reply to Fredt)
>
>

>
> No one ever starves to death in the UK , with the advent of the welfare state , the state would have provided for your friends family as is the case now & will be in the future.
>
>
Wasn't there something in the news recently about either a parent or a child starving to death due to a gap in benefits payments when they'd been left high and dry by other circumstances? There's also been a significant rise in crisis food banks over the last year.
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sean Toms:

> Without the support of Labours 50 Scottish MP's , the Conservatives would have a parliamentary majority in England Wales forever.

it doesnt matter how much you say it the facts dont support your case.
Historically the Scottish vote has not been a deciding factor (think it is one election it would have swung last century).
Offwidth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

Well I guess both our parents got their way.

Savings were poor in the 70's but most people had more income so the two cancelled out and on average most felt better off in the working classes. I still dont get your timelines... how did your parents retire in the early 80s with you just out of your teens and how did you know the impact on their retirement before it happened? You also seem to have forgotten in all your news watching that the labour government preceeding Maggie bought inflation down pretty well from a mid 70's peak of 25% to single figures.

A lot of people of all classes thought UK management was doing its best to crucify the country. Both views on mangement and unions are childish stereotypes despite the bad practice that did occur in both areas. Talking of stereotypes Maggie killing off the unions and the Falklands saving the UK are even worse.

I grew up in the cold war but I never felt I was about to die next week as many did during the Cuba crisis. To be honest I was more worried about paranoia on the right leading to something stupid in the US... blame propaganda films like Dr Strangelove if you want.
mockerkin on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

>> She was well known overseas. I knew a Portuguese woman who taught English in a Lisbon school. To explain alliteration in the English language she used this example. "Mrs Thatcher the milk snatcher"
tony on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sean Toms:
> (In reply to dissonance)
>
>
> Without the support of Labours 50 Scottish MP's , the Conservatives would have a parliamentary majority in England Wales forever.

No they won't. In 1997 the Labour majority was 179 - way more than the Scottish MPs. In 2001, there was another Labour landslide which would have given the same result without Scottish MPs, and even in 2005, the majority and figures were such that Labour would have formed the government.
Jimbo W on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sean Toms:

> Without the support of Labours 50 Scottish MP's , the Conservatives would have a parliamentary majority in England Wales forever.
>
> Roll on independence for Scotland !

I agree.. ..for a different reason, that it is the only thing that will eventually shift the underlying political spectrum in England away from the Tories. A generation of Tory government will see reform of the vote, even amongst Tory safe seats. Aye, bring it on!
Douglas Griffin - on 09 Apr 2013
David Martin - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to David Martin) When did the people say no.. he was re-elected. It wasn't as unpopular as is made out. Why was he reelected if it was such an unpopular move.

The public overwhelmingly opposed the war in just about (if not all) polls. The fact that he was re-elected in 2001 and 2005 says nothing about the validity of what he undertook in 2003.

It would be far more realistic to say the general public only re-elected TB because the opposition was neither an option, nor differed in its view on the war anyway. What alternative was there? Blair might even have been less war-mongery than the conservatives.

> Governments make unpopular decisions. We democratically elect them to do so. We then trust them to make decisions, and if we disagree we do not re-elect.

That didn't give him a license to invade in the first place. While we can certainly trust our leaders to make some decisions regardless of what the populace thinks, on matters of invading another nation that should not be the case. He was asking citizens to go and die, and kill, and expose UK residents to greater risk, on a nation that had done nothing to us, all on concocted evidence...and the vast majority said "No!". He went ahead and did it anyway, with the audacity to lie and say we just had to trust him because he had access to information on Iraq's guilt that we weren't party to.

If you can excuse all that you can excuse anything. Democracy is a thin veneer to hide behind.
Offwidth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Skyfall:

Oh the reference was from the following which I cant link direct for some reason.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/.../social-trends-41---income-and-wealth.pdf

It shows real income improving since the 1970 (despite savings rates being ~ annually -3% in the 70s) and with savings rates around 10% the overall change would be positive until you have actually retired (as you would have more money to save each year than the loss on your savings).
marmot hunter - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to mockerkin:
> (In reply to Jimbo W)
>
> >> She was well known overseas. I knew a Portuguese woman who taught English in a Lisbon school. To explain alliteration in the English language she used this example. "Mrs Thatcher the milk snatcher"

That's rhyming not alliteration.
Alliteration would be:
Maggie makes me mad. (poor example but factually correct).
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> What our grans thought over dinner was their politics.. you can't separate the two..

And our grans' politics don't matter, whereas MTs did, rather a lot. Which was my point about grans.

> you get what you want in a democracy..

So if you implement a policy that's racist or homophobic, it is the voters that are accountable, not the PM? No. The PM is accountable for policies which make people suffer. There is no get-out clause.

> homophobia was a common trait. It was a legacy from the environment they were brought up in. How you can stick that solely on her door is ludicrous.

I don't lay it all at her door. I hold her accountable for the policies she implemented.

> But thats all change

Despite the best efforts of Margaret Thatcher.

paul-1970 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to marmot hunter:
> (In reply to mockerkin)
> [...]
>
> That's rhyming not alliteration.
> Alliteration would be:
> Maggie makes me mad. (poor example but factually correct).

Depending on the accent, it could be assonance.

Chay - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: What? Thatcher's Dead?

Surprised I haven't seen loads about in on here before now!
Skyfall - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Offwidth:

> Savings were poor in the 70's but most people had more income so the two cancelled out and on average most felt better off in the working classes.

So you experienced this personally? I will accept it as your experience with hindsight.

I know that a lot also borrowed a lot and inflation outran the cost of borrowing. Very much as the Gov't are banking on now. Some people refused to do that which, albeit a more principled approach, cost them.

> I still dont get your timelines... how did your parents retire in the early 80s with you just out of your teens

My parents are 40 years older than me. I was still at university when my parents retired (both retired at 60). I'm slightly (only slightly mind) offended you have twice implied I am lying to make a point. It made for a slightly odd childhood at times (funny how kids will find any reason to bully you - old parents!) but was probably something to do with being adopted. They're both still alive, if v elderly, if you are that interested in my 'timeline'.

> and how did you know the impact on their retirement before it happened?

I didn't say or imply I did. You're doing that. I stated it as a fact with hindsight. See my earlier comment above about your own version of this.




IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> And our grans' politics don't matter, whereas MTs did, rather a lot. Which was my point about grans.
>
> [...]
>
> So if you implement a policy that's racist or homophobic, it is the voters that are accountable, not the PM? No. The PM is accountable for policies which make people suffer. There is no get-out clause.
>
> [...]
>
> I don't lay it all at her door. I hold her accountable for the policies she implemented.
>
> [...]
>
> Despite the best efforts of Margaret Thatcher.

I disagree.. I'm not sure she was a racist though. Of course our grans politics mattered at the time.. that gave her the power. You get the goverment you deserve is the saying..

Those policies wouldn't have been allowed if the people didn't support them, or at least weren't totally against them. You give her too much credit as to how much power she had.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Duncan Bourne - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Jon I have a question for you, off topic - but relevant. I'm aware of a thing called gay pride in Manchester and it dosnt bother me the slightest bit. But why do gay people need to have pride in them selves for being gay? I know they were persecuted but dose it not isolate them more? If there was such as straight pride would that be deemed homophobic?

If I may jump in. Good question.
I believe the reason for Gay Pride was as a direct result of the persecution. In the same way that you have black pride movements and womens movements, it is a) a way of raising your profile so that you become visible and the problems you encounter become visible to the wider public. b) It is a self-esteem boost to those who are being constantly told that they are worthless, criminal or dangerous. It is saying "I am proud of who I am, not ashamed". c)It also goes some way to normalising your life style and getting you treated as a human being rather than an oddity. Granted that might seem counter intuitive but if people become accepting of the more outlandish behaviours then you can start to temper it down until you are accepted as normal.
Straight pride is an interesting one and as an answer I would say that because it is the majority stand point it has nothing to achieve but the exclusion of the minority. Whereas the Gay pride has the aim of raising the issues of the minority
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to JayPee630: I'm not sure Olivers post was homophobic? I see how could read it that way.. I'm not sure..

Isn't it good that he feels the need to ask that? Shows how things have changed.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: I'm no homophobe. At a model engineering club I go to, I'm a minority 2 straight people to 4 gay people. Hardly homophobic with that many gay people around
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sean Toms:

> I will be thinking of you on my next Caribbean holiday !

Another Thatcher's child :-)

Do you really believe what you've typed about the unions running Britain before Thatcher? Just because you've read it in the Telegraph doesn't mean it's true... Enjoy your foreign holiday abroad, for information in the 70s a lot of us didn't have much money but we went a lot further than that for our holidays, money isn't everything :-)
didntcomelast on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth: Well said. I grew up in a mining village in the North East, I could see the pit head from our front room window. My family depended on the pit for their livelihoods and Margaret Thatcher's policies destroyed everything we had. I saw many friends labelled 'scab' and their homes damaged for doing nothing more than trying to put food on the table. We actually came close to starving during that strike. The shame of accepting food parcels is still there.

If you didn't live in the dark days of Thatcher you would find it hard to understand the misery caused. That and the fact that her action only affected certain areas of the country who were reliant on mining meant that if it didn't affect you it was not too bad. The early 80's were very dark days in the recent history of Britain and I for one have no feeling for her on passing away.

We still live in the shadow of her actions and today it's the greed of the financial sector she created that has caused so much trouble with Britain today.
Jim Hamilton - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to didntcomelast:

I saw Kinnock on the box last night and I think he said the demise of the mining industry was more the fault of Scargill than Thatcher
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: Well there was the small matter of an entire country being forced to work a 3 day week because of union action. I was working on Liverpool docks at the time, seemed pretty real to me. You may have missed that. Or perhaps the winter of discontent? London practically ground to a halt in the winter of 1978/9 because there was no gritting, no refuse collection, corpses unburied...
Only a hill - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
I like cake.
Skyfall - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim Hamilton

He did indeed say that - she was lucky in her choice of enemies
puppythedog on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Chumba Wumba Ep arrived. quite melodic.
Paul Atkinson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sean Toms:
> (In reply to Fredt)
>
> Well Fred says more about you than Mrs Thatcher does it not ?
>
> In 79 we were the sick man of Europe , Unions ruled the country & we were the laughing stock of Europe. By the time she left office in 1990 the UK was respected & strivers not lazy skivers was the name of the game.
>
> The coal industry was subsidised by hard working tax payers in the South of the UK for years it was always going to restructured she recognised that the UK could not compete with the low cost commodity producers of the emerging economies in the old industries , by contrast many other countries took a lot longer to restructure & look at things in Europe now.
>
> I left school at 16 & my first job paid me just over £2k a year in 1980 , by 1990 I was on £26K a year salary over a 1000% increases & drove a BMW 325I company car , that is the legacy of the Thatcher years opportunities for hard working strivers.......
>
> Shame you are still stuck in 70's !
>
> I will be thinking of you on my next Caribbean holiday !

you sound familiar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Kum8OUTuk
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Well there was the small matter of an entire country being forced to work a 3 day week because of union action.

in 1974. Generally taking action 10 years or so after is considered with suspicion, take Gulf war 2.

> You may have missed that. Or perhaps the winter of discontent? London practically ground to a halt in the winter of 1978/9 because there was no gritting, no refuse collection, corpses unburied...

in London? I think you are mixing up myths here.
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to krikoman:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
> [...]
>
> Did you "experience" her? You have my sympathy

I experienced hearing her horrible affected voice on the telly, it made you wince! I couldn't turn it off as telly was watched in family at the time so you just read a book and let it go over your head.

I think the truth is that she was used by the tory "barons", who saw her as a useful front-lady, original at the time, in order to foist their wicked ways on the country. When they saw she was no longer a seller they dropped her like a brick.

Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: also, what you must now look at, coal is deemed too 'dirty' and 'polluting' by some international authorities So even if we did have a mining industry they'd be damned now, due to the obtuse and quite frankly futile demands of the Kyoto agreement and many others; which insist on 'green energy' . To summarise, if we did have a coal mining industry; without a political party with a bite larger than its bark we'd be doomed anyway.
Fat Bumbly2 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm: Every day in the early 1980s. Always thought that they would not do it, but there was always that reality that one slip up, one mad general on either side and we would end up growing mushrooms. The early 1980s were very frightning.
ruckman - on 09 Apr 2013
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance: Just suggesting that unions weren't all benign, and they didn't seem to get much better between 73/74 (maybe it was 74) and 79.

And yes London did practically grind to a halt, I was there and remember walking to the tube past piles of refuse because the buses couldn't navigate the ungritted roads of Crouch End.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to ruckman: utterly disgusting.
wercat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

refuse collection certainly stopped in London during that time. Do you not remember the Gurkhas having to fight fires using Green Godesses during the Fire Brigade strike of 77/78? You must surely remember it all to speak with such authority about myths?

It reminds me of the popularly supposed myth status of the Millenium Bug by those who don't know how much work was done in the 3 or 4 years leading up to Dec 31 1999
wercat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to wercat:
The reason I was happy to see her elected in the first place was the degree of disgust we felt at what the unions had been permitted to get away with by Labour governments, and I am a socialist at heart
ads.ukclimbing.com
pneame on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:
While I think that the Falklands war was somewhat justified (although what we are doing with a colony that far away beats me - we didn't know about the natural resources at the time AFAIK) - this comment from SteveF on the NYT website "Bury her on the Falklands and finally bring prosperity to the place when all Conservative politicians take to "doing the hajj" every election cycle." seems about right!

The psychotic way that she dealt with unions (some of whom did need a kick) and cut-throat way she dealt with struggling industries appalled me. Not a shred of compassion, just "off with their heads". Perhaps, given the hand that she was dealt, this was the only way, but I think it's much more likely that it was product of short-term political goals rather than any effort to make society better.

The divide between wealth and struggling in the UK has, it seems, got substantially worse as a result of her policies.
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) also, what you must now look at, coal is deemed too 'dirty' and 'polluting' by some international authorities So even if we did have a mining industry they'd be damned now, due to the obtuse and quite frankly futile demands of the Kyoto agreement and many others; which insist on 'green energy' . To summarise, if we did have a coal mining industry; without a political party with a bite larger than its bark we'd be doomed anyway.

Coal is still needed.. but open cast mining finished south wales.. its 1p/tonne from places like poland.. deep faulted pits like South Wales were priced out of the market as there is limited demand for quality coal..
doz generale - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) also, what you must now look at, coal is deemed too 'dirty' and 'polluting' by some international authorities So even if we did have a mining industry they'd be damned now, due to the obtuse and quite frankly futile demands of the Kyoto agreement and many others; which insist on 'green energy' . To summarise, if we did have a coal mining industry; without a political party with a bite larger than its bark we'd be doomed anyway.

Still plenty of coal being used round the world. I don't think the demand will peter out for a while.

I knew everything too when i was 16. it doesn't last
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to dissonance) Just suggesting that unions weren't all benign,

I dont believe anyone was claiming that.

> and they didn't seem to get much better between 73/74 (maybe it was 74) and 79.

well if you are referencing a particular action, eg the 3 day week then its kinda important to note when it was and what happened in the inbetween period. Otherwise you end up with Blair and co invading Iraq for round 2.

> And yes London did practically grind to a halt,

sorry I should have made it clearer, I was talking about the corpses unburied.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Gudrun)
> Russia wasn't btw - Gorbachev said as much - he was concerned about US military investment (which never happened).

Quote thatcher -

Writing of the meeting with Gorbachev, she says: "I explained to him that although Nato had traditionally made statements supporting Germany's aspiration to be reunited, in practice we were rather apprehensive." In reply, "Mr Gorbachev confirmed that the Soviet Union did not want German reunification either. This reinforced me in my resolve to slow up the already heady pace of developments.
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Paul Atkinson:
> (In reply to Sean Toms)
> [...]
>
> you sound familiar
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Kum8OUTuk

That is an awesome encapsulation of the culture Mrs T fostered and the people she targeted.
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

> The early 1980s were very frightning.

You must be a very sensitive person!

Please don't exaggerate, some who weren't alive at the time might believe you... Total nonsense, as you know full well.
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) Well there was the small matter of an entire country being forced to work a 3 day week because of union action. I was working on Liverpool docks at the time, seemed pretty real to me. You may have missed that. Or perhaps the winter of discontent? London practically ground to a halt in the winter of 1978/9 because there was no gritting, no refuse collection, corpses unburied...

I was there too, and you are exaggerating wildly. The three-day week of 1974 was much worse and, more, I remember extremely little 'discontent' in 1979 compared with the horror of, first, the mid-80s, and then the Brixton riots. Some Tory came up with the brilliant title of 'Winter of discontent' and it's stuck ever since. I'd go as far as saying it was a period of relative content between much, much worse periods of dissatisfaction, discomfort and disenchantment.
pneame on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I cannot for the life of me remember a thing about the 3 day work week - according to wikipedia it was the beginning of 1974. I'm sure I'd have remembered as I'd have done a lot more climbing but I don't recall any disruption to University lectures/labs
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to doz generale: there's no need to bring age into it your clearly youngophobic. There's demand from place such as china and so on so forth. But it wouldn't be cost affective, due to life in the 70s/80/ was so expensive compared to china and Eastern Europe
Graeme Alderson on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: I don't know if you are young or not, but you clearly seem to not know much
woolsack - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> (In reply to Fat Bumbly2) During which part of Thatcher's time did you feel you were "living each day as if it were your last due to the escalation of the Cold War"?

That time when that dickhead Reagan joked on the microphone soundcheck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos
doz generale - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to doz generale) there's no need to bring age into it your clearly youngophobic. There's demand from place such as china and so on so forth. But it wouldn't be cost affective, due to life in the 70s/80/ was so expensive compared to china and Eastern Europe

Not youngophobic. I just remember being 16 and thinking I knew it all. Your posts remind me of being 16 and knowing everything.

You are not wrong about cost effectiveness and that is at the hub of the issue. Thatcher and her gov could see that the coal industry in the UK was not competitive so they decided to get coal from abroad effectively closing down the uk coal industry. Unfortunately the collateral damage from this was the communities that revolved around mining many of which never recovered. Kind of ironic as she was happy to throw cash about having a war to protect a small community on the other side of the world.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Of course, you would be in the GDR, and without internet access and wondering if that time you drank some imported Buckie and said "that Honecker, he's a western lacky" would lose you your job (see Tascon list for details).

People did live happily before the internet you know.You would not lose your job in the GDR for saying that John and you are confusing GDR for Venezuela.In a country where the fascists supported by the US kidnapped Chavez in 2002 the Tascon list was always going to cause trouble.Have you heard of the he Consulting Association blacklist?

It's what UK construction employers use to keep Trade Unionists,communists or even people who have raised a safety concern in the past from employment in the UK industry.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-21319239


Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to pneame:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> I cannot for the life of me remember a thing about the 3 day work week - according to wikipedia it was the beginning of 1974. I'm sure I'd have remembered as I'd have done a lot more climbing but I don't recall any disruption to University lectures/labs

I remember being in the dark with candles (in South Wales, I was at Cardiff University then) many nights running. And the 3-day week was extremely depressing, because normal life ground to a halt when everything was shut down. Maybe it was much worse in S Wales than England ??
ruckman - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to ruckman) utterly disgusting.
Not as disgusting as the corpses piled up in Chile by her partner in crime General Pinochet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcJTBl_T8JU

wilkie14c - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to wercat:
> (In reply to dissonance)

> It reminds me of the popularly supposed myth status of the Millenium Bug by those who don't know how much work was done in the 3 or 4 years leading up to Dec 31 1999

Quite laughable when we look back now and it was only 13 years ago
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Graeme Alderson: your right I don't know very much at all - I was born into a labour government. But, what I can't stand is the vile, sickening jokes about a dead human being, when quite frankly she was democratically elected and thus, people vote for her and her partys manifesto. the majority of Brits look back at Churchill and admire him and say he was great, but in reality he was more devious and cold than thatcher ever was. He ordered the sinking of the American ship Lusitania, which resulted in 100s of Americans and British people dying - but he had his reasons. I can't think of any politician British politican over the last 100 years, who has had the courageous will to better herself, better her country and also to better you. It may not of worked in some circumstances, but by god she meant in when she said - something politicans now are incapable of.
Gordon Stainforth - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to pneame:

Sorry, big correction is due now. I was in London in 1974, and the miner's strike I remember with Heath (that I was referring to in earlier post) must have been in c. 1971.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: And as the lady famously said "I love argument. I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me - that's not their job."
ads.ukclimbing.com
ruckman - on 09 Apr 2013
Goucho on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to doz generale:
> (In reply to Oliiver)

> You are not wrong about cost effectiveness and that is at the hub of the issue. Thatcher and her gov could see that the coal industry in the UK was not competitive so they decided to get coal from abroad effectively closing down the uk coal industry. Unfortunately the collateral damage from this was the communities that revolved around mining many of which never recovered. Kind of ironic as she was happy to throw cash about having a war to protect a small community on the other side of the world.

I could be mistaken, but wasn't it the case that the government tried to address the whole 'cost effective' coal production issue, but the Miners Union adopted their usual 'flat earth society' approach, which led to the inevitable confrontation.

Thatchers stock-piling of coal and outsourcing it from Poland, could be seen as a prudent and politically astute strategy, bearing in mind that the Miners Union's response was likely to be depressingly predictable.

And while Thatchers approach was far too brutal and also short-sighted, the Miners Union - or should I say Scargill - turned what was always going to be a painful process, into the genocide of the coal industry.
Eric9Points - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to doz generale) there's no need to bring age into it your clearly youngophobic.

No, he just doesn't like you.

I'd suggest you cut your losses, stop typing drivel and get back to some serious self abuse.

BTW it's "you're" not "your".
In reply to ruckman:
> (In reply to Oliiver) I seem to remember she was a close friend of one James Saville. in fact, he had his Christmas dinner with Maggie and Dennis on ELEVEN occasions. And I always thought that the security services carried out background checks on everyone dining with the PM. Did they do their jobs properly? Relax mate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmomV-ax-s

I'm sure he passed the tests as they were not his demographic.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: you're honestly spell and punctuation checking my opnions written on an iPhone now?? I've got an A* in language and predicted the same in literature - that's a damn lot higher than you've got
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

Funny how you ran off crying to your handler soon as anyone maligned your BFF Chavez but it's ok to for you to lay into the stiffening cadaver of a confused old lady.

Class traitor - I know of an ex employee of Kent Police who's internet ramblings are more sophisticated than yours.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

If you are comparing the Tascon list with the CAL then you must live in a wonderful world of sherbert fountains, lollipop trees and commute on a unicorn.


The CAL was laughable from the outset - everyone in the construction industry (me included) knew it was bollocks - it was brought to book and shut down by the courts.
andy - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) you're honestly spell and punctuation checking my opnions written on an iPhone now??

Comedy gold, that.

Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I disagree.. I'm not sure she was a racist though.

I'm pretty sure she was, based firstly on her support for apartheid. The classic quote goes

"The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation … Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land"

But someone more knowledgable about 1980s Britain will be able to fill you in on how her domestic policies weren't particularly successful at addressing inequality or uniting divided communities.

I would say that in common with her overt homophobia, her racism was possibly not a just simple hatred of black people (and gay people), but a set of beliefs that stem from a deeper philosophy - social Darwinism. Those who groups who find themselves oppressed should not be helped, because it somehow natural order. This is a thread that ran through her political life, connecting all those decisions that I find morally disgusting.

> Those policies wouldn't have been allowed if the people didn't support them, or at least weren't totally against them. You give her too much credit as to how much power she had.

You might misunderstand what I blame her for with respect to the homophobic environment I grew up in. I don't blame her for the pervasive homophobic attitudes of the day. I blame her for encoding them law, and driving society further in that direction when she had the power to lead the country towards equality. She made that choice, and she died personally responsible for it.
pneame on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to pneame)
> [...]
>
> Maybe it was much worse in S Wales than England ??

It might be - and worse in London than up N (Liverpool).
The only thing I remember is a picket outside our department and me being a bit impolite.... (to the picketers)

Also remember students occupying university administration. When the chemistry senior faculty appeared with little clipboards, everyone mysteriously took an interest in lectures again....

Bunch of wimps
:-)
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> I'm pretty sure she was, based firstly on her support for apartheid. The classic quote goes
>
> "The ANC is a typical terrorist organisation … Anyone who thinks it is going to run the government in South Africa is living in cloud-cuckoo land"
>
>
But she didn't support apartheid. She just argued that terrorism was wrong and that constructive engagement would work better to end apartheid than sanctions or violence. Despite the history being written by the victors this is still an arguable point.

She was very clear about apartheid:

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=368488&sn=Detail&...
lemonparty - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) you're honestly spell and punctuation checking my opnions written on an iPhone now?? I've got an A* in language and predicted the same in literature - that's a damn lot higher than you've got

Yeah but it's piss easy to get A* at GCSE nowadays. How do you know it's a damn lot higher than Eric has? Even I, the 'paedo' (I'm 17 by the way), managed mostly A*'s at GCSE. You clearly think a lot of yourself, wrongly as it turns out.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: there's no reasoning with the liberals and fanatical, flag waving labour supporters of ukc.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to lemonparty: Considering, you probably only took 5 GCSE; gaining a whopping majority of 3 A*s is no mean feat.
Eric9Points - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) you're honestly spell and punctuation checking my opnions written on an iPhone now?? I've got an A* in language and predicted the same in literature - that's a damn lot higher than you've got

Like I said Oliver, best to stick to self abuse. You can't make many spelling mistakes when you're fiddling with yourself.

You do realise you've spelled your own name wrongly? Or are your parents similarly challenged when it comes to the written word?
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) there's no reasoning with the liberals and fanatical, flag waving labour supporters of ukc.

you realise peoples political viewpoints can be a tad more complicated than just Labour or tory?
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: Eric, firstly, the name Oliver is taken, secondary my fathers a managing director of a multi million pound company on a six figure salary - clearly not an uneducated pleb like some. Furthermore, your grotesque and quite frankly disturbing comment is sickening beyond belief.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) Eric, firstly, the name Oliver is taken, secondary my fathers a managing director of a multi million pound company

Comet

on a six figure salary

£3,747.97p

- clearly not an uneducated pleb like some.

Well, not educated enough to spell

Furthermore, your grotesque and quite frankly disturbing comment is sickening beyond belief.

You are Sloper and I claim my £5
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
> But she didn't support apartheid. She just argued that terrorism was wrong and that constructive engagement would work better to end apartheid than sanctions or violence. Despite the history being written by the victors this is still an arguable point.
>
> She was very clear about apartheid:
>
> http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=368488&sn=Detail&...

It's rather a complicated issue because while she certainly talked the talk, she completely opposed the people who were actually trying to change the regime (other than by just asking politely, which I'm sure black South Africans were very grateful to Mrs T for). Why? Not because she hated black people, but because of economic interests.

We're back the social Darwinism and the moral vacuum again.
winhill - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) there's no reasoning with the liberals and fanatical, flag waving labour supporters of ukc.

> I've got an A* in language and predicted the same in literature

Isn't a common argument on here.

Have you got an ology to add to it?
ads.ukclimbing.com
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:

> Mrs T was fully aware of the economic reality that faced Britain and acted accordingly. It was far from perfect, but Britain enjoyed a long period of prosperity. I think all our friendly lefties on here forget just who holds the majority of the countries wealth.

ermm nope I think most people do. Hence why many objected to Thatcher handing over more of the countries wealth. Many of the decisions she took are still coming back to bite us now (yes the ones inbetween did bugger all to sort it out but that doesnt excuse her).
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Goucho:

Thatcher had it all planned in advance. Heath had called a three day week for various reasons including a miner's work to rule then calling a snap election in 1974, which to his surprise he lost. His slogan was "Who rules the country" and the country replied "not you" :-) There were then two Labour governments, during which Thatcher replaced Heath as leader of the Conservative party and then in 1979 the Tories beat Labour and she became PM.

Right from the beginning she stock-piled coal and prepared to break the British Trade Unions, at the time probably the strongest in the world, and chose the miners as her battle ground, partly out of spite but probably also because she thought British coal could be done without. Until then most people thought in terms of WW2 and the strategic need for Britain to be self reliant for energy, she saw this as unnecessary and realised that by breaking the Unions, including docks and transport she could just buy cheap Polish, and IIRC South African coal which were open cast, she could both get rid of the power of working people to defend their interests and do away with the need to compromise with labour.

That this would destroy whole villages and areas of the country didn't worry her in the slightest. You can say the miners were wrong to call her bluff but they didn't really have any choice as they could see that the plan was to reduce the mining industry to a small fraction of profitable pits... This was Scargill's position, and he was proved right. Other's didn't believe a British government could destroy an industry that had been it's backbone for so long, and through two world wars... they were proved wrong.

The destruction of the unions wasn't just in mining, I had two uncles who worked in the docks in London, one was a shop steward and from being in steady work with good conditions one time I saw them (at a family funeral) the next time I saw them, also at a funeral, they were both out of work - Thatcherism and containers had destroyed their whole world. Luckily for them they were at retiring age by then anyway but their children weren't.

The question is was all this even worthwhile in an economic way, if the human cost is neglected? Given the unemployment that followed I'm not sure it was, so it's seems to have turned out to be a lose lose deal, except for the fortunate few.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to winhill:

as a literature student you'd think she'd understand the word "hubris" :)
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

> You are Sloper and I claim my £5

no use of moron plus Sloper has style. I reckon in a few years they will be going through their rebellion stage and standing side by side with Gudrun waving the red flag.
Darren Jackson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to winhill:

I was expected to gain a C in English, but confounded them all by getting an E. I also once failed my beans on toast practical in Home Economics.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: quite frankly, I find it rather amusing how grown adults insist on arguing with a 16 year old - even though they're wrong.
Eric9Points - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Eric9Points) Eric, firstly, the name Oliver is taken, secondary my fathers a managing director of a multi million pound company on a six figure salary - clearly not an uneducated pleb like some.

It's either "secondly" or just "second" but not "secondary".

It's a pity your father didn't pay for some english tuition for you if he's earning so much money. I guess the company he manages doesn't have anything to do with publishing. Spelling mistakes just make you look like an uneducated moron - a pleb even.

> Furthermore, your grotesque and quite frankly disturbing comment is sickening beyond belief.

I'm sorry you're upset that I've corrected your english.
Duncan Bourne - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> the majority of Brits look back at Churchill and admire him and say he was great, but in reality he was more devious and cold than thatcher ever was. He ordered the sinking of the American ship Lusitania, which resulted in 100s of Americans and British people dying - but he had his reasons.

and, unlike Thatcher, he set the troops on the striking miners in Wales.

I can't think of any politician British politican over the last 100 years, who has had the courageous will to better herself, better her country and also to better you. It may not of worked in some circumstances, but by god she meant in when she said - something politicans now are incapable of.

I'll give you that.
But one thing I find odd is the discrepancy of how thatcher made the country better and saved us from the terrible state we were in, according to the statistics compared to my actual experience.
For instance in 1975 it was perfectly possible to leave one job in the morning and start another in the afternoon, work was plentiful and communities were thriving. I worked on potbanks, tyre makers, shops, bars, steel work, all over. Being out of work was seen as odd and deliberately lazy. After the torys got in it started to change as industries closed and redundancies came in. It was slow though, it was 1986 before I saw my first beggar on the streets, a sight I never imagined. In 1975 the high street was a thriving place (yes I know that hypermarkets & internet have played their part) there was perhaps one or two charity shops and no shop was boarded up for very long. Some friends got together and ran a cafe. Now most of the shops are either dead or charity. Small family businesses are dead. I now know of families where they have three generations out of work, grandfather, father and son (also of course grandmother, mother and daughter).
I find it strange that we could have been doing so well when people were so much poorer. Could it be that all the wealth being made went into the hands of the few at the expense of the rest? I am not saying that things didn't have to change but the way inwhich it was implemented came with a devastation that took people decades to recover from and some never did. I am sure some one will be along to quote the figures, the lies, the damned lies and statistics (to coin an old phrase) that say we never had it so good under the Tories (to paraphrase Wilson) yet I saw it happen and it wasn't like that. Sure I did well, I am intelligent, motivated and blessed with an education and parents who could help. But not everyone is so fortunate.
It isn't about how much we make, or how much power the unions or the bosses had, opportunities were there for those who could take them it isn't about that either. It is about how we cared for the vunerable and those less fortunate than ourselves, not lavish them with an easy life but to make sure that they are treated fairly. I believe we sold them short.
The paradox is that the Tory policies intended to enable people created instead generations where not working was the norm. It never used to be like that believe me.

Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Eric9Points: really? You calling me a pleb? I'm from Cheshire - you need to rethink.
marmot hunter - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
From Billy Bragg, Calgary, AB, Canada, on the death of Margaret Thatcher:

This is not a time for celebration. The death of Margaret Thatcher is nothing more than a salient reminder of how Britain got into the mess that we are in today. Of why ordinary working people are no longer able to earn enough from one job to support a family; of why there is a shortage of decent affordable housing; of why domestic growth is driven by credit, not by real incomes; of why tax-payers are forced to top up wages; of why a spiteful government seeks to penalise the poor for having an extra bedroom; of why Rupert Murdoch became so powerful; of why cynicism and greed became the hallmarks of our society.

Raising a glass to the death of an infirm old lady changes none of this. The only real antidote to cynicism is activism. Don't celebrate - organise!
Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to dissonance:

I deleted my post as it didn't really say what I had in mind.

Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Marmot your right there is a shortage of affordable housing. But it's not the developers fault, they have the capita but they're shackled by the rigid planning laws.
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> I disagree.. I'm not sure she was a racist though.

I just stumbled on this too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22087702
doz generale - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) quite frankly, I find it rather amusing how grown adults insist on arguing with a 16 year old - even though they're wrong.

I love the fact you are so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong! classic teenager. I was the same, but left not right.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to marmot hunter:


He's right, and he's actually, and perhaps as a consequence of age, being quite middle ground in what he says.

<<shambles of to find his Red Wedge badge>>
wilkie14c - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> I've got an A* in language and predicted the same in literature - that's a damn lot higher than you've got

Both vital life skills for working the till AND talking into that headset thingie at the drive through. Well done you, yer mam must be reet proud
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> It's rather a complicated issue because while she certainly talked the talk, she completely opposed the people who were actually trying to change the regime (other than by just asking politely, which I'm sure black South Africans were very grateful to Mrs T for). Why? Not because she hated black people, but because of economic interests.
>

She opposed their methods. There is still a reasonable argument that the real catalyst for change in South Africa was the big corporations who realised that the the economy could never survive and they could never get enough skilled labour under apartheid. The system retarded economic growth.Her focus to work on them and on the self interest of the whites to get change. She argued that sanctions would hurt the black population more than the whites and were therefore counterproductive. She claims she argued Mandela's case with Botha and De Klerk-which should be disproveable.

This does not make her pro apartheid or racist.

The truth is apartheid ended for a confluence of reasons .



Darren Jackson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
>
> ... I'm from Cheshire - you need to rethink.

This is getting quite entertaining...


John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Don't you have a police commissioner to advise ?

anyhow, I bet Jackson's owl suit you're 42 and a middle ranking civil servant with thrush.
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to doz generale:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> I love the fact you are so sure that you are right and everyone else is wrong! classic teenager. I was the same, but left not right.
>
At least he's interested. Anyway, you can't have been right about everything when you 16, because I was! :-)

Duncan Bourne - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> I can't think of any politician British politican over the last 100 years, who has had the courageous will to better herself, better her country and also to better you.

Clement Attlee. Admittedly his father was a solicitor but he did introduce the National Health service.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Attlee#Early_life_and_education

and let's not forget
Lloyd George
Duncan Bourne - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to marmot hunter:
very true
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> The paradox is that the Tory policies intended to enable people created instead generations where not working was the norm. It never used to be like that believe me.
>
Not according to the Rowntree report it's not (see other thread). Two generations out of work are a tiny few, let alone three-so we are told.

You lefties must get your story straight :-)

dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

> You lefties must get your story straight :-)

awww why arent we allowed to pick and chose like the righties?
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to winhill)
>
> I was expected to gain a C in English, but confounded them all by getting an E. I also once failed my beans on toast practical in Home Economics.
>
I've got a white owl that flies around my garden. Wot's that then? I'll send a pic if I can get one.

Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

and let's not forget that Adolf Hitler built Europe's first and finest motorways !

Now that's what I call a legacy !
IainRUK - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/21/arthur-scargill-battle-union-flat

Scagill was a tw*t.. he screwed the miners more than she did..
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:


Atlee - agree.


Lloyd George - hmm, not sure, he did rise from "lower middle class" but he was a devious and dirty little bastard. if history is written by victors, he also did the sound track and the DVD box set.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Lloyd George what a spineless liberal. Torn between sanity and suicide. He played a major role in creating the stepping stones for the worst conflict known to civilisation.
Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Lloyd George what a spineless liberal. Torn between sanity and suicide. He played a major role in creating the stepping stones for the worst conflict known to civilisation.


Shouldn't you be in bed ?
Jon Stewart - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> She opposed their methods...

> This does not make her pro apartheid or racist.

The Thatcher Government

From the beginning Margaret Thatcher’s opposition to apartheid was steeped in reluctance. The Pretoria regime, seen as an ally in the Cold War, enjoyed a kind of covert support from the new Conservative government. Unable to openly side with a racist regime, and publicly expressing abhorrence of apartheid, Thatcher used every loophole to oppose sanctions, preferring ‘dialogue, steady pressure and exploitation on SA provided by our economic involvement there’.

According to Christabel Gurney: ‘At the moment when the AAM was at last succeeding in building a coalition of support for the isolation of apartheid, it was confronted by a prime minister who was implacably opposed to sanctions.’

Nonetheless, it is a testament to the AAM that even a government as conservative as Thatcher’s was forced to take steps against Pretoria that eventually pushed it to the negotiating table. The fact that Thatcher was positioned to the right of most of her cabinet meant that certain forces within the Conservative Party were more receptive to the call to end apartheid.

In the face of widespread scepticism towards PW Botha’s Tripartite Parliament that persisted in the exclusion of Black South Africans, Thatcher refused to condemn the constitutional makeover of apartheid, preferring to give it ‘the test of time’. When Botha tried to garner international acceptance for his new scheme by touring Europe in June 1984, the British government was the only Western power to extend an invitation to Botha. The AAM ensured that Botha got a frosty reception, and a wide range of groupings protested at his visit. So effective was the anti-Botha lobby that Thatcher was forced to meet with the leaders of the AAM – in the first and only such occasion. After talks with Trevor Huddleston and Abdul Minty, Thatcher issued a statement recommitting the British government to the arms embargo and the Gleneagles Agreement. On the day of the meeting between Botha and Thatcher, 50,000 people marched to an AAM rally in Hyde Park.
http://www.sahistory.org.za/topic/british-anti-apartheid-movement?page=5

It seems bloody obvious that the "opposition to their methods" was a weak cover.
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
>
> Shouldn't you be in bed ?

Lloyd George spent a lot of time in bed.

John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Lloyd George what a spineless liberal. Torn between sanity and suicide. He played a major role in creating the stepping stones for the worst conflict known to civilisation.

It's good that Horrible Histories isn't it?

you had sex yet?
wilkie14c - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
>
> Shouldn't you be in bed ?

Its school hollies still
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK:
> (In reply to Deviant) http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/21/arthur-scargill-battle-union-flat
>
> Scagill was a tw*t.. he screwed the miners more than she did..

What did I say, more hatred from the tory clan!

Arthur Scargill, the man they love to hate.

John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> What did I say, more hatred from the lefty clan!
>
> Thatcher, the man they love to hate.

As you were.
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Deviant:

You know you shouldn't be feeding the troll, don't you?
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: shouldn't you be in bed for work? Or has Cameron taken on the fast food outlet unions?.
Darren Jackson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

Say what you will about Lloyd George, but Karma Chameleon was a cracking tune at the time...
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) shouldn't you be in bed for work? Or has Cameron taken on the fast food outlet unions?.

we are all one legged lesbian asylum seekers living in mansions in london, dont need to work the state gives us all the money we want.
ads.ukclimbing.com
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

McDonalds (or BK) isn't a unionised workplace.

I credit you this, you post a lot between wanking over the Grattan catalogue lingerie section. .
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> [...]
>
> It seems bloody obvious that the "opposition to their methods" was a weak cover.
>
Like I said, history written by the victors.

She didn't seem to like Botha much as it happens.

Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to Deviant)
>
> You know you shouldn't be feeding the troll, don't you?

I guess trolls are like gay drag Queens; they lighten things up !

John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:

When it comes to SA the CofE has more to answer for
Oceanrower - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> McDonalds (or BK) isn't a unionised workplace.
>
> I credit you this, you post a lot between wanking over the Grattan catalogue lingerie section. .
Harsh. Be honest now, we've all done it.......
Deviant - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
>
> McDonalds (or BK) isn't a unionised workplace.
>
> I credit you this, you post a lot between wanking over the Grattan catalogue lingerie section. .

Now you ARE showing your age !

Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby: Grattan? Why would I need to do that? Isn't that what females are for?
wilkie14c - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oceanrower: It was universal stores when I was a lad. with a magnifying glass you could occasionally make out spiders legs
Dr.S at work - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
more of a bravisimo man myself, but isnt this getting off topic? think of thatcher quickly!
Darren Jackson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
>
> I credit you this, you post a lot between wanking over the Grattan catalogue lingerie section.

Nowt wrong with that, in the comfort of your own home, John...

Best not 'graduate' to doing the same over the Argos catalogue, though. In Argos... Causes you to drop those little blue pens.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to John Rushby) Grattan? Why would I need to do that? Isn't that what females are for?

So they say.

Good troll btw.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: oh dear.... Number 2 in the charts is currently singsong the witches dead
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to John Rushby)
> [...]
>
> Nowt wrong with that, in the comfort of your own home, John...
>
> Best not 'graduate' to doing the same over the Argos catalogue, though. In Argos... Causes you to drop those little blue pens.

Argos my arse- the last time the Figleaves catalogue arrived you didn't leave the house for a week. We had to resort to pushing those small packets of pig snacks through your letter box to sustain your frenzy.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: ding dong the witches dead
Darren Jackson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

The thought of Argosing your arse conjures a very disturbing mental image of the scene waiting in the collection area...
Rob Exile Ward on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby: 'We had to resort to pushing those small packets of pig snacks through your letter box to sustain your frenzy. '

There exists a world of which I know nothing.

Thankfully.
Jim C - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne: >" I can't think of any politician British politican over the last 100 years, who has had the courageous will to better herself, better her country and also to better you"

You have got to be kidding, she married a very rich businessman who bankrolled her career, paid for child are etc. and gave her choices in life that others can't hope to have.

whether it was deliberate or not for her to seek out to marry a rich man , she did what goal diggers have been doing for possibly centuries, the difference with Thatcher is she was not happy with just money, her ego demanded that she also had influence. Without the money behind her I doubt she would have managed to do what she did. Dennis has a lot to answer for.

Please don't try and tell me that Thatcher has bettered me, you don't know me, or m family circumstances, you cannot judge such a thing for anyone other than yourself.

If she has 'bettered you' then Perhaps you could share with us in what way you have been 'bettered' ? But, please don't make such assertions for others.
wilkie14c - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) ding dong the witches dead

No, its either ding dong the witch IS dead or ding dong the witch's dead <the apostrophe replacing the I in IS> Your E between H and S suggests there was more than one?
Not bad for a former bin man eh, I thought you'd got an ology?
sbc_10 - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
>
>
> .... wanking over the Grattan catalogue lingerie section. .

I didn't think that a 'happy' memory would emerge from this thread, but there you go.
The full glossy, hint of nipple and the furry continent excitement. What a way to be drawn into the free market economy, hand over fist.

Who said the 70's and early 80's were full of desperately gloomy, strife torn inner city landscapes. Playtex would always support the masses.
Oliiver - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c: seriously, it's not count down
ads.ukclimbing.com
wilkie14c - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver: countdown has got nothing on UKC
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

unlike yours my arse will not arrive in the "outsize" area.
Darren Jackson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:

It's got Rachel Riley.
Gudrun - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart:
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
>
> She opposed their methods...

> This does not make her pro apartheid or racist.

She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist for fighting apartheid.

Did you know it was the CIA that caught Nelson M for the S.African rascist regime?
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> In reply to Postmanpat:
> [...]
>
> [...]http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/
>
> She called Nelson Mandela a terrorist for fighting apartheid.
>
> Did you know it was the CIA that caught Nelson M for the S.African rascist regime?


that's quite well known, apparently they tortured him with a halibut.
Darren Jackson - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

I've heard that Airfix do a 1/72 scale model of yours, complete with an "I love Bratfud' decal and a requirement for ginger paint.
Postmanpat on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> In reply to Postmanpat:
> [...]
>
> Did you know it was the CIA that caught Nelson M for the S.African rascist regime?

How? Did they cut and paste him?

Love - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim C: the fact that she didn't better you is plain for all to see. Shame you couldn't do it yourself.
John Rushby - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:

They do indeed, but make sure you get an adult to help, and don't smell my special glue.

p.s. the pantone is 345c - "vibrantly auburn"
Oceanrower - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun: Whatever the reason (and fighting apatheid is a pretty good one), Nelson Mandela WAS a terrorist.
wilkie14c - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to blanchie14c)
>
> It's got Rachel Riley.

for a second there I thought you said Lisa Riley, I was like WTF?
dissonance - on 09 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim C:

> You have got to be kidding, she married a very rich businessman who bankrolled her career, paid for child are etc. and gave her choices in life that others can't hope to have.

its a bit like the "grocers daughter" conveniently ignoring that he owned a couple of shops and was a prominent local politician among other things.
Oliiver - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: Let's hope yobs don't ruin her funeral
Gudrun - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Oceanrower:
> (In reply to Gudrun) Whatever the reason (and fighting apatheid is a pretty good one), Nelson Mandela WAS a terrorist.

No the state were the racist terrorists Mandela was a freedom fighter against racist terrorism.
Oliiver - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W: one mans freedom fighter, is another mans terrorist.
Gudrun - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:
> (In reply to Jimbo W) Let's hope yobs don't ruin her funeral

Funny but i hope they do en-mass(not really)

We had a great wee night out in Glasgow celebrating Margaret Thatchers death last night,the place was buzzing and the drinks were reduced in the city center bar we went to,which was mobbed.They got a DJ for the night and it was all celebratory songs and dancing all the way,we didn't bother with the big party in George Square cos it was cold but my pal who owns a nightclub had people phoning him all night t open it up and keep the party going.
Jim C - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to marmot hunter:
> (In reply to Duncan Bourne)
> From Billy Bragg, Calgary, AB, Canada, on the death of Margaret Thatcher:
>
>" of why tax-payers are forced to top up wages; of why a spiteful government seeks to penalise the poor for having an extra bedroom; "
>
I agree, they are targeting people who get taxpayers money to support homes that have bedrooms that are not used. How many MP's get taxpayers money for second homes with more than the one bedroom that they require?
What about the prime minister and chequers? What about the Queen and her brood, all getting money from the taxpayer, all have homes and security funded by the taxpayer with under utilised rooms.

When my parents rented rented a large flat ( paid with their OWN money) that had two extra bedrooms, they took in students from the local university, and a chap who worked with my father. Why cannot everyone who is taking taxpayer's money not take in lodgers to bridge the gap and let the extra rooms out, and the money raised should go back to the taxpayer?

The queen could easily take in all her family in BP! (and never see them,) why do we have to pay for additional homes and security?

Same with MP's they should b forced to fill those extra bedrooms in second homes, or pay the the difference just , the same as they are requiring those hit by the bedroom tax to do.


wilkie14c - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to Oliiver)
> [...]
>
> we didn't bother with the big party in George Square cos it was cold

Thats sounds like somthing wolfie smith would have said
John Rushby - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:

You paint a lovely picture, as you slither from your moral high ground.

Was it like this as you slapped each other on the back celebratign the death of the lady that killed humanity/

http://thefunambulistdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/christ-in-limbo-hieronymus-bosch.jpg
dissonance - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (but my pal who owns a nightclub had people phoning him all night

sounds a bit of a capitalist to me.
ads.ukclimbing.com
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Oliiver:

>He ordered the sinking of the American ship Lusitania, which resulted in 100s of Americans and British people dying - but he had his reasons.

Eh????? WTF are you talking about? Are you saying Churchill had the power to order German submarines about?

jcm
johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

>and, unlike Thatcher, he set the troops on the striking miners in Wales.

I'm no expert, but according to that well-known historical source wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_Riots

(i) the troops did not in fact fire on the strikers, this being a myth deliberately invented by the miners' leaders after the event, and (ii) Churchill actually acted with far less vigour than his party wanted him to.

I suspect, as wikipedia says, that the anger caused by this act was much more to do with its success than with any brutality that resulted.

jcm
Jimbo W on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Eh????? WTF are you talking about? Are you saying Churchill had the power to order German submarines about?

http://bit.ly/17pFQmB
Gudrun - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to John Rushby:
> (In reply to Gudrun)

> Was it like this as you slapped each other on the back celebratign the death of the lady that killed humanity/
>
> http://thefunambulistdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/christ-in-limbo-hieronymus-bosch.jpg

No that's the club called Madness at the other end of the city.
Gudrun - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to blanchie14c:

Wolfie Smith ?!?!woosssssh !!
wilkie14c - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Gudrun:
> (In reply to blanchie14c)
>
> Wolfie Smith ?!?!woosssssh !!

Some anarchist you are ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Smith

johncoxmysteriously - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Jimbo W:

I don't really keep up with the Churchill-bashing/conspiracy industry, but even that doesn't claim Churchill actually ordered the sinking, as the deluded gentlemen upthread seems to believe.

Colin Simpson's a well-known loon who writes about extra-terrestrials, right?!

Looking at your link, one is rather reminded of the 9/11 people, isn't one?

jcm
Jimbo W on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Looking at your link, one is rather reminded of the 9/11 people, isn't one?

yes
Jim C - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Goucho:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
> Of course, apologies for the generalisation, but the majority of the biggest industries - steel, coal, automotive & transport - were all dominated by trouble causing left wing union leaders.
>
> These big unions were a law unto themselves during the 70's, and unfortunately, it was the members who they supposedly represented, who paid the price.

So she privatised, and what do we get? Well the same as with council house sales, the countries best assets were taken, and the dross left.

We had the CEGB who looked and planned our future energy needs, we now have private (mostly foreign owners) who have run the stations to the ground taking the profit , but building or investing nothing for the future , and why should they, they have no vested interest, it is not their country that is suffering.

What do we have now. A Tory government that said as an election pledge the that there will be NO subsidy to build the new generation of Nuclear Stations. What are they now doing ?they are now in discussions with EDF to subsidise , effectively, the French Government for the next 40 years to build our new power plants that the 'private industry failed to do( because there was no profit in it)

Privatisation has meant no long term strategic thought, just a disparate group of mostly foreign profiteers pushing up our fuel costs, with no money going into long term investment, and it all going into their profits.

And when the Government, do this deal ,that they promised they never would do, what strike price will be agreed, and how much will the consumer have to pay for energy in the future?
Well it will be dependant on how much subsidy the French get, more subsidy will mean a lesser strike price, but either way, we the taxpayer and consumers will pay the price for the years of profiteering and lack of investment in the power industry, with huge profits leaving the country for foreign economies to benefit from British foolishness.

Do the Tory apologists on here not see that these policies are those of making a quick buck for the benefit of the few where the private companies are allowed to cherry-pick the countrie's profitable assets, whether it be the best of the public housing, or the profitable rail lines, or power stations,leaving the unprofitable , but necessary, services for the taxpayer to pick up the tab.
IainRUK - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> [...]
>
> What did I say, more hatred from the tory clan!
>
> Arthur Scargill, the man they love to hate.

I'm now a tory.. for calling one man a tw*t????

This, in a nut shell is why the UK is what it is...
IainRUK - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Jon Stewart: Pretty shit comment.. bloke lacks balls..
IainRUK - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to IainRUK: Far far from a Tory apologist..

You make a bed and lie in it..
Duncan Bourne - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
did you actually read the rest of my post?
Duncan Bourne - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Jim C:
That was Oliivers assertion Jim
Duncan Bourne - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
Lies, damned lies & statistics.
Doesn't quite gell with the actual experience of living through those times
Jon Stewart - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Postmanpat:
> (In reply to Jon Stewart)
> [...]
> Like I said, history written by the victors.

If it's grossly distorted, could you be more specific about how? I don't consider that to be an argument that she did not support apartheid as it stands.


In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to SARS)
> [...]
>
> No, I didn't say that. I said that was a 'final nail in the coffin'. My gripe is the unnecessary damage she did to the film industry just at a time when it was doing very well.
> [...]
>
> You don't understand the economics of movie-making and what a gamble it is. The old rule of thumb was that, to succeed, as a major, you needed to be making at least 10 movies a year because only one would succeed in a big way. Some would be complete disasters. The rest would just about break even. You needed the one big success to carry all the rest.

I'm lost, you said earlier that the British TV and film industry was at its best before Mrs. T but then you highlight that only 1 in 10 films would be a success, some of the rest would be break even contributions and some would be disasters.

If I try that model of success to other industries it just doesn't add up to be a competitive model.

Surely, 10 in 10 films with success would be a film industry at its best? Even 9 out of 10 would be a success but 1 in 10?


woolsack - on 10 Apr 2013
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
> Lies, damned lies & statistics.
> Doesn't quite gell with the actual experience of living through those times

There were 1.5 million unemployed under Callahan, hardly full employment was it?

Taking the rose tinted 1970's specs off, it was from my memory quite a dismal decade and we as a country seemed to stumble from from one crisis to another. With hindsight it is easy to see that what happened under the Thatcher governments could have been handled so much better, mainly the lack of compassion but at the time there was no hindsight and I don't remember much in the way of compromises being offered by her adversaries.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.