Margaret Thatcher dies at 87

[Easy Bakes 253]

One of the  longest serving prime ministers.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/world/europe/uk-margaret-thatcher-dead/?hpt=hp_t1

 

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

And history will remember her as one of the worst prime ministers the UK has ever seen. Mark my words. 

[Bdub01 201]

I always thought she was the female version of Ronald Reagan. I admit I don't know much about English politics but I've always heard good things about her. Was she a bad prime minister?

[libellibicus 396]

IMO she was probably the best PM our country has had since Winston Churchill.  She didn't take any $%&^! from anybody, something our recent PMs are severely lacking!

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

She was good on foreign policy but crap on domestic. She sold this whole country out!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Iron Lady Passes.

 

A tough old bird for tough times.  She even got to give the old lion a roar.  Britain was in about as rough shape as it had been in a while and she tackled some pretty stiff domestic problems head on.  The present shower at Downing Street is a result of easing up too much.

[JanYpe 17]

The Iron Lady Passes.

 

A tough old bird for tough times.  She even got to give the old lion a roar.  Britain was in about as rough shape as it had been in a while and she tackled some pretty stiff domestic problems head on.  The present shower at Downing Street is a result of easing up too much.

Too bad the old bird was a vulture.

 

I always thought she was the female version of Ronald Reagan. I admit I don't know much about English politics but I've always heard good things about her. Was she a bad prime minister?

Yes, a female Ronald Reagan, i.e. a godawful leader who's only legacy is leaving their country a far worse place than they found it.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I always thought she was the female version of Ronald Reagan. I admit I don't know much about English politics but I've always heard good things about her. Was she a bad prime minister?

Ronald Reagan will also not be remembered with any kindness by historians in a few decades. 

 

You know that our current economic crisis is pretty much the result of what Thatcher and Reagan started. They were the first to deregulate the financial markets, and now we are reaping the fruits of their labor. Crisis, unemployment, a hugely unfair distribution of wealth, etc. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Well, you can also put a lot of the problems in the UK to Clement Atlee and the Labour Party as well.  The UK was bankrupt after WW II and it hasn't done well in recovery what with the emergence of the, until lately, strong EU.  You might have noticed that Mrs. Thatcher was very much against anything to do with the EU.

 

Socialism is all very well until you run out of someone else's money.

[libellibicus 396]

Britain in the 70s was a grim place. There was still bomb sites from WWII, that had remained uncleared and undeveloped. When Maggie Thatcher came to power in '79, she dragged the country kicking and screaming to a standard of living more in line with the rest of the developed world. She made it possible for thousands of people to buy their Council House, when previously they would have had no chance of property ownership. I joined the Army in '85, when there was a bad recession, and she well and truly looked after the Military. No defence cuts when she was the Gaffer! I think most peoples hatred of Maggie Thatcher comes from the Miners Strike. Personally, I think she dealt with it the right way. The miners were just being used by Arthur Scargill to try and further his own political ambitions. He thought that he could hold the country to ransom by getting all the miners to strike. No chance! In '82, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, she was up and at 'em in the blink of an eye. Even the IRA tried to blow her up in Brighton, but failed.

A great leader of a great country. Everybody will have their own opinion of Maggie Thatcher, most will completely disagree with my view, but she took us from the 3 day week, power shortages and being ruled by the militant Unions to being one of the leading financial and commercial centres of the world. RIP.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Britain in the 70s was a grim place. There was still bomb sites from WWII, that had remained uncleared and undeveloped. When Maggie Thatcher came to power in '79, she dragged the country kicking and screaming to a standard of living more in line with the rest of the developed world. She made it possible for thousands of people to buy their Council House, when previously they would have had no chance of property ownership. I joined the Army in '85, when there was a bad recession, and she well and truly looked after the Military. No defence cuts when she was the Gaffer! I think most peoples hatred of Maggie Thatcher comes from the Miners Strike. Personally, I think she dealt with it the right way. The miners were just being used by Arthur Scargill to try and further his own political ambitions. He thought that he could hold the country to ransom by getting all the miners to strike. No chance! In '82, when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, she was up and at 'em in the blink of an eye. Even the IRA tried to blow her up in Brighton, but failed.

A great leader of a great country. Everybody will have their own opinion of Maggie Thatcher, most will completely disagree with my view, but she took us from the 3 day week, power shortages and being ruled by the militant Unions to being one of the leading financial and commercial centres of the world. RIP.

There are still unexploded bombs in Britain as well as in the rest of Europe. 

 

As for her economic reforms, she managed to single handedly strangle the life out of entire areas in Britain. Yes, London is a great financial center, but a lot of old miner areas have seen no profit from that at all. Those areas have now been turned into slums, with high unemployment, below the national average income, shorter life spans, unhealthier life styles, higher teen pregnancy rates, more alcoholism, etc. The distribution of wealth in the UK went from relatively equal (not much worse than what Sweden has today) to extremely unfair (about as unfair as in the US) and certainly the worst in Europe. There is a huge debt problem and the only reason you guys are not in trouble for that is because everyone is so busy worrying about the Euro. On top of that comes the fact that London is essentially the European version of Wall Street, with its excesses and companies and financial institutions that make a lot of money over the back of others. Its not something to be proud of really. 

[libellibicus 396]

The mining communities in the north of England still hate Maggie for her actions during the Strike. However, what these people fail to realise is that Coal was no longer King. Fossil fuel use was in a decline (much as today). Do these people seriously think that they would still have operational mines nowadays? The mining communities killed themselves by thinking they had a stranglehold on the country, and it turned out that they were all sold down the river by their own union leaders, who were out to further their own political careers. As for the distribution of wealth that you mention, I am originally from the North (Yorkshire), and believe me, there has never been an equal wealth distribution in this country. The North of England has always been a far poorer part of the country, as far back as the 16th Century, so I don't think we can lay the blame for that on Maggie Thatcher!

I take it that you are not from Britain, lexinfernus. I don't suppose you will have had to endure the constant power cuts of the 70s, when the militant Unions sought to wrestle power for themselves from the ruling Labour Party. I don't mean loss of power for a few hours, but no power for 2 or 3 days a week, for months on end!

When I was talking about Bomb Sites, I don't means unexploded bombs found buried under someones garden found accidentally by someone digging up their veggie patch. I mean, there were blocks of houses and streets that were bombed during the war and the rubble still hadn't been cleared up in the 70s!

Like I said, not many people will agree with my opinions, but I'm not writing this to try and win friends. History will show her as the PM who split the country, however the country was already split. She just happened to be the one with the balls to try and sort out the mess. When she signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, that was the first step towards the Good Friday Agreement and a peaceful solution to the troubles in NI. There must be some reason why she never lost a General Election?

[Gurning_Chimp 398]

The mining communities in the north of England still hate Maggie for her actions during the Strike. However, what these people fail to realise is that Coal was no longer King. Fossil fuel use was in a decline (much as today). Do these people seriously think that they would still have operational mines nowadays? The mining communities killed themselves by thinking they had a stranglehold on the country, and it turned out that they were all sold down the river by their own union leaders, who were out to further their own political careers. As for the distribution of wealth that you mention, I am originally from the North (Yorkshire), and believe me, there has never been an equal wealth distribution in this country. The North of England has always been a far poorer part of the country, as far back as the 16th Century, so I don't think we can lay the blame for that on Maggie Thatcher!

I take it that you are not from Britain, lexinfernus. I don't suppose you will have had to endure the constant power cuts of the 70s, when the militant Unions sought to wrestle power for themselves from the ruling Labour Party. I don't mean loss of power for a few hours, but no power for 2 or 3 days a week, for months on end!

When I was talking about Bomb Sites, I don't means unexploded bombs found buried under someones garden found accidentally by someone digging up their veggie patch. I mean, there were blocks of houses and streets that were bombed during the war and the rubble still hadn't been cleared up in the 70s!

Like I said, not many people will agree with my opinions, but I'm not writing this to try and win friends. History will show her as the PM who split the country, however the country was already split. She just happened to be the one with the balls to try and sort out the mess. When she signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, that was the first step towards the Good Friday Agreement and a peaceful solution to the troubles in NI. There must be some reason why she never lost a General Election?

 

Michael Foot/Neil Kinnock was a prat. That's why she didn't lose, no other viable options. 

 

Also, the North wasn't poor in the 19th Century. Everything moved through Manchester at one point.

[LexusInfernus 908]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

 

In particular, look at the last few graphs. Thatcher made people poorer and the income equality shot up from .253 to .339. Unemployment also hit record highs. 

 

Look, I understand that Britain of the late 70's had problems, serious problems. But Thatcher didn't improve the situation, she merely replaced one problem with another problem. An analogy, a building has rats and to get rid of the rats, there are a few things you could do. You could call in an exterminator and kill the rats, which is the most sensible solution. What Thatcher did was to tear down the entire building, killing the rats and then replacing the building with an incredibly ugly looking skyscraper build on ground and foundations that cannot support the skyscraper making the whole building ready to collapse at any moment. Should such a person be lauded for killing the rats and should you just forget about the fact that she tore down a perfectly good building and replaced it with an unstable monstrosity? 

[FrenchThom 27]

Bye bye , Vieille peau ! Peu sont ceux qui te regretteront , en France ... Roger Waters who didn't like her is surely enjoying his day now ...

[Panos 29]

150 mines closed. Hundreds of thousands of people on the road. 

 

Britain from self sufficient in coal, ended up importing from Russia & S Africa 80% of it. While the whole north of England and Wales have become a virtual slump that hasn't recovered 25 years now. 

 

Of course inside the M25 nobody felt a thing. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

IMHO the labour unions in the UK make their own bed.  They got to lie in it too.  All this angst and for what?

[JanYpe 17]

^ Well, you can also put a lot of the problems in the UK to Clement Atlee and the Labour Party as well.  The UK was bankrupt after WW II and it hasn't done well in recovery what with the emergence of the, until lately, strong EU.  You might have noticed that Mrs. Thatcher was very much against anything to do with the EU.

 

Socialism is all very well until you run out of someone else's money.

 

Clement Attlee created the NHS, gave independence back to a boatload of countries that the Empire had taken over, introduced policies on housework and welfare reforms to help women and families, and made free secondary school education a right. He's pretty much at the head of the pack when you're looking for best post-war UK prime ministers.

 

Also, Mrs. Thatcher was very definitely not against anything to do with the EU, given that she fully supported Britain's EEC entry in the seventies and had the UK join the European Exchange Rate Mechanism ERM, a precursor to the Euro.

 

And yes, her very witty socialism quip. Of course the quickest way to run out of money by giving away public institutions to private interests for laughably low prices, deliberately gutting industries, deregulating financial markets in a wildly irresponsible manner and instituting deliberately regressive tax policies. But well done her, and you, for that very funny comment.

[north country dude 202]

In all the disagreement and disparagement of Margaret Thatcher after her passing, no one has paid any mention to the fact that 1) she was the first and only woman to be elected as Prime Minister, and 2) she was re-elected and remained for 11 years. Whether you agree with her policies or not , those are some big accomplishments by themselves.

 

So, I still don't understand why all the vitriol and hateful speech from the left. You know, the side that supposed to be all about compassion and understanding? Am I missing something? Are you supposed to hate and say horrible things about a person you disagreed with in life? Am I socially inept?

 

The same goes for President Reagan, you may or may not agree with his policies, but he was re-elected. His re-election campaign asked a simple question; "Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?" and he won, by a landslide. Obviously the people thought he was doing a good job or he would not have been re-elected. The same goes for President Clinton and any other President who was re-elected.

 

But still, after former President Reagan passed away, out comes all the vitriol and hatred, again from the left. Why?

 

For myself, whether I agree or disagree with a person's politics(including current ones), I am still respectful of their positions and know that they are trying to improve things. I also understand that they have a lot of pressure and the jobs they have are very difficult. I may think they are misguided or foolish in their views, but I don't hate them and dance on their graves.

 

Maybe I'm just a socially inept minority to be ignored?

[Bdub01 201]

^  It is very sad to see the hate coming out of the left.  There are several pages on Facebook that are glad and gleefully cheering her death.  I really don't know why, cause all I have heard about her has been nothing but good things.  It seems like some of the liberal left didn't like her cause she took them farther away from socialism and closer to capitalism, and that she was a conservative.  When  Bill Clinton or even Obam dies I'm not going to cheer and be glad they they are dead unlike what the left is doing to Thatcher.  They are a lot of talk about compassion and tolerance but when it comes down to it, I don't see either!

[dazza262 133]

In all the disagreement and disparagement of Margaret Thatcher after her passing, no one has paid any mention to the fact that 1) she was the first and only woman to be elected as Prime Minister, and 2) she was re-elected and remained for 11 years. Whether you agree with her policies or not , those are some big accomplishments by themselves.

 

So, I still don't understand why all the vitriol and hateful speech from the left. You know, the side that supposed to be all about compassion and understanding? Am I missing something? Are you supposed to hate and say horrible things about a person you disagreed with in life? Am I socially inept?

 

The same goes for President Reagan, you may or may not agree with his policies, but he was re-elected. His re-election campaign asked a simple question; "Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?" and he won, by a landslide. Obviously the people thought he was doing a good job or he would not have been re-elected. The same goes for President Clinton and any other President who was re-elected.

 

But still, after former President Reagan passed away, out comes all the vitriol and hatred, again from the left. Why?

 

For myself, whether I agree or disagree with a person's politics(including current ones), I am still respectful of their positions and know that they are trying to improve things. I also understand that they have a lot of pressure and the jobs they have are very difficult. I may think they are misguided or foolish in their views, but I don't hate them and dance on their graves.

 

Maybe I'm just a socially inept minority to be ignored?

 

I'm sorry, but I think that you've called this one wrong.

 

There has never been a politician in the world that everybody agrees with, but few will polarize public opinion the way that Thatcher and Reagan do.

 

I can't comment too much on Reagan, but I grew up in the Thatcher era here in the UK.

 

There are many people in this country who completely disagree with the current governments policies, but I really don't think that David Cameron will attract the sort of hatred and vitriol that Thatcher does.

 

There has to be a reason for this, and for me it is that while she feathered the nests of certain parts of society, she treated others with utter contempt. Not least the British and Argentinian soldiers that were killed and maimed in a war over a rock in the South Atlantic. That war, I believe, could have been avoided through dialogue, but she chose to use it as a flag waving excercise to win more votes in the upcoming election. One image that sticks in my mind is that of her giving the thumbs up after the sinking of the Belgrano (which was actually sailing AWAY from the Falklands at the time), causing 316 Argentine deaths.

 

It also seems to be conveniently forgotten that Britain suffered TWO recessions under her leadership, during which the unemployment figures doubled. She completely dismantled our manufacturing and service industries by selling them off to private investors, which has now left us with nothing to fall back on, now that the bottom has fallen out of the markets.

 

While nobody will disagree that the union culture had got out of hand, she made it some sort of personal crusade to smash those unions, most notably the miners. In doing so she ripped the heart out of many communities, with no thought of what to put in it's place.

 

I could go on, but I hope I've made my point.

 

And forgive me for not shedding any tears at her passing.

[Bdub01 201]

I was a child during the Reagan years and even though I don't remember much before him it seemed like America was strong and better with him as president. I wish we had more like him...

[north country dude 202]

^ I didn't call it wrong, but I think you missed my point entirely. Review please. Whether you agree or disagree with any politicians policies, why the vitriol and HATRED.

 

I may think they are misguided or foolish in their views, but I don't hate them and dance on their graves.

 

I never said that I agreed with her policies or disagreed, or whether the current problems were caused by her. Again, please review.

 

As for her being re-elected, twice,...I personally think that no government can come to power without the consent of the governed. I also think that the people can be just as foolish as the ones they elect, but hatred? vile comments?

 

But that's my personal opinion. It's okay to not morn a person that you disagreed with in life, but to hate them?

 

I mean, for example, Muslim fundamentalists HATE the Western cultures(not just America), and they show their hatred by their actions,...but what is that accomplishing? Are they any nearer to their goals? Or does it turn public opinion against them?

[LexusInfernus 908]

In all the disagreement and disparagement of Margaret Thatcher after her passing, no one has paid any mention to the fact that 1) she was the first and only woman to be elected as Prime Minister, and 2) she was re-elected and remained for 11 years. Whether you agree with her policies or not , those are some big accomplishments by themselves.

 

So, I still don't understand why all the vitriol and hateful speech from the left. You know, the side that supposed to be all about compassion and understanding? Am I missing something? Are you supposed to hate and say horrible things about a person you disagreed with in life? Am I socially inept?

 

The same goes for President Reagan, you may or may not agree with his policies, but he was re-elected. His re-election campaign asked a simple question; "Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?" and he won, by a landslide. Obviously the people thought he was doing a good job or he would not have been re-elected. The same goes for President Clinton and any other President who was re-elected.

 

But still, after former President Reagan passed away, out comes all the vitriol and hatred, again from the left. Why?

 

For myself, whether I agree or disagree with a person's politics(including current ones), I am still respectful of their positions and know that they are trying to improve things. I also understand that they have a lot of pressure and the jobs they have are very difficult. I may think they are misguided or foolish in their views, but I don't hate them and dance on their graves.

 

Maybe I'm just a socially inept minority to be ignored?

Being elected by itself is not much of a feat. People have elected utterly incompetent politicians as well as war criminals. The fact that she got elected twice only proves she had a good election staff who managed to make people forget about the bad stuff and focus on the good stuff. 

 

The left is all for helping people who need help, it is all about being socially inclusive. But that does not mean that the left will be nice or respectful to someone who categorically denies the very existence of a society, who openly shows utter contempt for people she deems below her and who has a burning hatred for anything socialist or communist to the point that she is willing to work with racists (lets not forget that Thatcher was very much pro apartheid) and fascist dictators. Generally we don't dance on peoples graves, but Thatcher and Reagan were both so defining for their time, and are both the root cause for a lot of problems back then and even today that they cannot reasonably expect any love from the left. 

[dazza262 133]

^ I didn't call it wrong, but I think you missed my point entirely. Review please. Whether you agree or disagree with any politicians policies, why the vitriol and HATRED.

 

 

I may think they are misguided or foolish in their views, but I don't hate them and dance on their graves.

 

I never said that I agreed with her policies or disagreed, or whether the current problems were caused by her. Again, please review.

 

As for her being re-elected, twice,...I personally think that no government can come to power without the consent of the governed. I also think that the people can be just as foolish as the ones they elect, but hatred? vile comments?

 

But that's my personal opinion. It's okay to not morn a person that you disagreed with in life, but to hate them?

 

I mean, for example, Muslim fundamentalists HATE the Western cultures(not just America), and they show their hatred by their actions,...but what is that accomplishing? Are they any nearer to their goals? Or does it turn public opinion against them?

 

Okay, perhaps I didn't  make my point very well.

 

You are asking "why the hatred?", and I am trying to point out the reasons why I feel that people do have such strong opinions about her.

 

I've got no problem with your views or anyone elses on her, I'm just saying that I feel people have a valid reason for deeply resenting what she did to them.

 

I do disagree with your example of the Muslim fundamentalists though. I don't think people are trying to accomplish anything by hating her, it's simply the way they feel about her.

 

Just to throw another one in the mix though, did you know that she was also a close friend and staunch supporter of the Chilean dictator and mass murderer General Pinochet ?

 

Maybe one more reason for the hatred.

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"The evil that men do lives after them.

"The good is oft interred with the bones.

"So let it be with <insert name>."

Paraphrased from Wm. Shakespeare - Julius Caesar - Act II.

 

The socialists show their true colours.  It is wrong to speak ill of the dead in my ethic.

 

Frankly, the left factions in the UK remind me of the Bolsheviks and Luddites.

[LexusInfernus 908]

"The evil that men do lives after them.

"The good is oft interred with the bones.

"So let it be with <insert name>."

Paraphrased from Wm. Shakespeare - Julius Caesar - Act II.

 

The socialists show their true colours.  It is wrong to speak ill of the dead in my ethic.

 

Frankly, the left factions in the UK remind me of the Bolsheviks and Luddites.

So it would be wrong to speak ill of Stalin, Hitler, Mao or Saddam Hussein because they are dead? So we should only remember the good things those people brought us, and just forget about the wrongs they did? Or is it okay because they are gruesome dictators and gruesome dictators are held to another standard? 

 

Of course, Thatcher was no gruesome dictator, but that does not mean that one cannot criticize what she did when she was prime minister. And quite frankly, there is a lot that one can criticize. And if you can't freely criticize someone simply because he or she is dead, and you are only allowed to speak praise over the dead, you falsify history, which is a far worse crime than criticizing the dead. 

[dazza262 133]

 

The socialists show their true colours.  It is wrong to speak ill of the dead in my ethic.

 

 

Would you say the same of a despot or dictator upon their death?

 

The dictate that one 'not speak ill of the dead' is (at best) appropriate for private individuals, not controversial public figures.

 

I'm not suggesting in any way that Thatcher was a dictator, but some people feel deeply wronged by her, so I think it is a matter of personal choice.

 

When her successor John Major, or any other conservative PM, passes away you will not see anything like the hatred engendered by Thatcher.

 

There has to be reasons for this, but I'm not going to cover old ground again.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The only past dictator that has any good left over is Mussolini.  He reformed the alphabet (Italian is phonetic now), and made the trains run on time.  The problem with him is that he was such a good teacher, and the student (Hitler) surpassed him.

 

As for Mrs. Thatcher, you do want that off-shore oil in the Falkland Islands, don't you?  And what about breaking the vice-grip of labour on the whole country.  You can make an omelet without breaking eggs, you know.  If you don't like the taste you can always vote with your feet.

[north country dude 202]

...The fact that she got elected twice only proves she had a good election staff who managed to make people forget about the bad stuff and focus on the good stuff.

 
The first part of that argument is a fallacy and the second part implies that she must have done some good.

The left is all for helping people who need help, it is all about being socially inclusive. But that does not mean that the left will be nice or respectful to someone who categorically denies the very existence of a society, who openly shows utter contempt for people she deems below her and who has a burning hatred for anything socialist or communist to the point that she is willing to work with racists (lets not forget that Thatcher was very much pro apartheid) and fascist dictators. Generally we don't dance on peoples graves, but Thatcher and Reagan were both so defining for their time, and are both the root cause for a lot of problems back then and even today that they cannot reasonably expect any love from the left.

 

If you boil all this down, it sounds like the left view is all for compassion and understanding as long as you agree with certain dogmatic principles, otherwise you are to be reviled. The paragraph also contains many subjective views and opinions while ignoring oppositional viewpoints and evidence. Again, the arguments presented here contain fallacies.  

 

...Thatcher was very much pro apartheid.

 

Evidence shows that while she was anti-apartheid, she stood against the sanctions imposed on South Africa by the Commonwealth and the European Economic Community. She attempted to preserve trade with South Africa while persuading the regime there to abandon apartheid. This is not the same as being "pro apartheid".

 

As for controversies from the Falklands conflict, I can understand how much of the incidents can be criticized "after the fact" and how some situations could have been handled differently, but, in the "fog of war", these options were definitely not as clear cut as post analysis would have you believe.

 

Now again, after much reading and research, I can understand the resentment from the left or Labour Party, but hatred?? It still seems to me that acting on emotion, rather than rational thought, is not the way to win a debate over what policy should be pursued for the future.

 

And again, I do not agree or disagree with her past policies, both foreign or domestic. The same goes for Ronald Reagan. While they are both iconic figures from the 1980's, after much reading and research, it still seems that these people will be known more for the positive changes than the negative ones.

 

So far, no one has made a good case for emotional hatred.