Maggie is Dead.(354 Posts)
RIP to a great, if polarising, PM. The first woman PM, remember. And the only one so far. She did what had to be done.
Can't agree with a lot of what she did but I won't be celebrating.
Still someones mum & grandma.
Attacks on the poor ... Demonisation of those in need ... The rich getting richer ... Unemployment ... Precarious employment...
Nope. Her spirit looks more than hale and hearty to me.
The end of an era.
One of the greatest political figures in twentieth century British political history.
Sorry but...Yeah hey!!!!!
I grew up in a mining community - the damage that woman did was immense and is still felt today.
Agree with Lemonsole that her legacy is still alive and well today but at least she's gone.
<<hums Witch is dead>>
On the one hand: Strong political leader, first female PM of GB (although her effect on female mobility very debatable), managed to keep the political house in order for 15 years including some very mediocre men who would have otherwise made it to the top.
On the other hand: set out (and succeeded) to dismantle many things the UK held dear, large amounts of contempt for the poor, utterly changed the mentality of this country in too short a space of time to the extent that my father (ardent tory), who has lived abroad for 40 years, no longer even recognises the country of his birth.
The lefty trolls will be out in force now. RIP to a great woman and a great PM who never backed down and did what was right for this wonderful country.
So many threads already.
Indeed - the end of an era.
A woman who made it to be a elected an MP in 1950's Britain, the first and only woman Prime Minister we've ever had, 3 General elections and a war won. Many of her policies are widely hated but you cannot argue she achieved what no woman in politics before or since has managed to do against the odds.
I'm a scottish lefty, but really think that revelling in any death is pretty revolting. Either you're doing it for effect, or you're callous.
She came from humble origins, from Grantham, went to state school, got to Oxbridge, and became the first woman PM against all the odds. The most anti-establishment PM of all time in many ways.
Shocked how much this has made me remember my dad. He died in '86 and utterly despised her....
It was a special occasion when the Maggie bog roll was produced... Or we were completely skint...
She married a millionaire. Hardly anti-establishment.
Could someone please explain why she's being granted a state funeral ? I don't want to be contentious, but I genuinely can't see why her passing would be marked this way. Yes - as a woman she achieved political heights no other woman has ever done, but she also wrought huge misery with her policies. Can't help but feel it's somewhat insensitive, given the current economic climate, to mark the death of someone in this way who, amongst many other questionnable policies, set in motion the whole right to buy thing which kicked off the housing crisis that's had such a serious knock on effect upon the UK's economy to this day.
Is she? I can't see why she would be.
Ah okay - someone told me she was, but it looks as though she'll apparently get "a ceremonial funeral with military honors at St Paul's". I have no idea if that's the done thing for former PMs or not.
Is it a full state funeral? Wasn't it described as a celebratory funeral with military honours? Is that different from a state funeral?
Sorry ceremonial not celebratory!
As a woman, what she fought against to become an MP, let alone PM, was heroic.
There were tough issues that needed taken in hand. The Unions had too much control over the UK. Students really did not need Welfare during the summer break.
More thinngs that I disagree with, than agree with though........
Having had a relative with dementia, thoughts are with the family. A merciful release indeed, but still terribly sad for them.
It was agreed long ago that she could have a state funeral in recognition of the fact that she was Britains first woman PM, a long serving PM who had international links and was considered one of the most important PMs of the 20th century.
Apparantly Gordon Brown is the one who originally proposed a state funeral for her when it was all being discussed in 2011
It's days like this that reveal the truth about the Left and that their portrayal of themselves as lovely, decent caring people is exposed for the sham it really is.
> Is it a full state funeral? Wasn't it described as a celebratory funeral with military honours? Is that different from a state funeral?
I don't see how it is any different.
I think arguing about this misses the point: that Thatcher should not have any sort of state-funded ceremony or funeral in her name. It should be an entirely private affair.
It was all decided long ago - under Labour.
I wish people with mining connections would apply a misogyny filter when waving the banner of their parent's views of Maggie.
Let's be honest mining communities were......
a) on the whole, not a highly educated sector of the population (will get flamed for that statement for sure)
b) again, on the whole, behind the times with women's rights
Maggie was well spoken, educated and female, so would have been an unpopular prime minister anyway. From what I saw (working in bars to pay my way as a student) miners didn't sit in their welfare & social clubs discussing economics and bigging up their missus' careers or rushing home to get involved in childcare etc.
She had the vision to not shirk from having to carry out the naturally unpopular modernisation of labour practices in some very unionised sectors of the economy. SHE HAD BALLS - GREAT BIG ONES and the undeniable collateral damage of this was that the availability of a reasonably well paid job role (because of the risks and unpleasant working conditions) that didn't require school type qualifications disappeared. The individuals were fighting for a way of making a living that would simply not be available to them if they "lost the fight" and who wouldn't challenge such a possibility very strongly ?
She was however just the person who had the balls to do it at the time when male politicians shied away from such a poisoned chalice.
I could say lots more having lived in a large city where miners demonstrations took place and seen the amount frittered away on beer and the crude behaviour towards women in general.
I'm not saying she was a genius or saint or anything like that but FFS take the blinkers off about the mining situation in this country at that time and the unions in general. I mostly support unions as they are now but yet again there are still would-be leaders involved who treat them like their own little fiefdom and love the power they wield.
I never liked the woman when she was alive. Not gonna be two faced about it now. So many people say lovely things about people after they've died. If they were old buggers, they were old buggers and she was one of the worst.
I don't think we should be paying loads of money to pay for a huge ceremonial funeral for her. Let her family and friends grieve her loss. I'll be glad when all the fuss is over and we can get back to the every day fight to survive without having this woman's 'greatness' thrust down our throats on every piece of media available. Thank God we are currently watching videos back to back.
Really good article on The Commentator about the myths around Maggie destroying the coal and steel industry.
There are some long words, and some facts and figures and even a graph, so Guardian readers are advised to sit down before they try to read it.
I am sickened by the number of my friends' FB statuses in support of her. I am delighted she is gone.
Dp told me this 20 mins ago my first thoughts were not of yey/aw but more wondering if they ever decided she was important enough to stop programmes to announce her death like they do for major royals also whether the fancy funeral was ever granted.
I was born late 80's so missed her rule but i know that 30 years later there is still major divide over her.
She did what had to be done.
Exactly. And that's why a lot of people hated her. They didn't like the fact she did what was necessary. They'd have rather she left Britain a laughing stock of the world, winter of discontent, going cap in hand to the IMF and Falklands back to Argentina.
Its the lost generation I can never EVER forgive her for.
And that is the part that even magazines like the Economist warn today's politicians never to repeat.
I remember the three day week. The Unions and freeing up of the UKs economy needed doing, but she was to willing to leave people on scrapheaps.
She also forgot that other working mums did not have multi-millionarire husbands and invisible nannies : hence why the Tories are yet to have strong female politicians in her wake.
Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.
As the article which FPH posted shows, the reality was that she tried for a while to improve things before bowing to the inevitable.
I think she needs to be judged on what the country was like when she became PM and what it was like when she left. And I think whether you measure that on economic output or standard of living, you cannot fail but agree that she left the UK in a much stronger position than when she arrived.
Did everyone agree with her policies? No. Of course not. But at least you knew where you stood. Nowadays you can't trust politician's at all. They say one thing and renege on it moments later. Student fees anyone? And that was just the lib dems!
She was a formidable person. It was kind of amusing when she had grown men quivering in their boots. I bet Dennis didn't refuse to do the washing up! But I didn't agree with a lot she did. And don't agree with her having a ceremonial funeral. It's not state but much the same thing or so it said on TV.
There are some long words, and some facts and figures and even a graph, so Guardian readers are advised to sit down before they try to read it.
And don't agree with her having a ceremonial funeral. It's not state but much the same thing or so it said on TV.
If it's virtually indistinguishable from a state funeral it is going to cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money. When one considers her attitude to the taxpayer providing for others that would seem very wrong to me.
Good riddance. And I am not alone. At 17:02 this was tweeted:
Tony Gallagher Daily Telegraph editor tweets: We have closed comments on every #Thatcher story today - even our address to email tributes is filled with abuse
They should leave all the comments section open, so that the decent people of this country can see the reality of some of these hate-filled progressives.
The Daily Mail has got an article on Galloway and some of teh left's reactions. Read it and see what lies beneath the progressive veil.
Good point Claig.
Is anyone else just waiting for ttosca to turn up?!
Im nearly 40 and i remember her minion Peter Lilley (under her leadership and bidding) making a very mysogynistic speech about single mothers only just stopping short of saying they should have kept their legs closed.
It was vile vile vile. She was NO feminist
Was some cwuel perthon nathty to der wovely weft wingers, was they?
"It's days like this that reveal the truth about the Left and that their portrayal of themselves as lovely, decent caring people is exposed for the sham it really is."
For someone as sweet-natured, kind and caring as you, flatpack, with your thoughtful political analyses and your limitless compassion for the less fortunate, it must come as a terrible shock to have to deal with these nasty lefties. Perhaps you should have a lie down?
Hackman beautifully put
Sorry hackmum got your name wrong too much smirking
For someone as sweet-natured, kind and caring as you, flatpack, with your thoughtful political analyses and your limitless compassion for the less fortunate, it must come as a terrible shock to have to deal with these nasty lefties. Perhaps you should have a lie down?
I don't pretend that I'm a lovely, kind caring person. That's the difference. I know I'm a mixture of bad and good and I know that the politics I espouse would make some people happy and others unhappy. Compassion never paid down the national debt.
There's a really fine article in today's Telegraph by Brendan O'Neill where he suggests that the reason the Left is so angry is that they are unable to do anything but rage, because they have no political power left. I think he's right. How many mainstream parties articulate a socialist stance? Not one.
Thatcher herself once said I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. And she's right, isn't she? The torrent of hate is because the Left is destroyed. That's her legacy and one of which she can rightly be proud.
Wandering off-topic, claig, I wonder why you use 'progressive' as an insult?
With my 'scientist' hat on, I feel progress has dealt us some pretty good shit over thhe years, from not dying of smallpox to being able to carry virtually the entire sum of human knowledge around in a small shiny thing in our pockets.
With my 'liberal' hat on, I feel that such things as inventing the NHS, not jailing gay people for having sex, using public funds to stop the disabled and unemployed from begging in the streets... all these are progress, no? Are these bad things?
Or do you feel that humanity reached its maximum possible peak on the 8th of April 2013, and no further progress can be made?
You can go ahead and use 'liberal' as an insult though, I believe it's all the rage with our our friends across the pond.
I almost wish she was still hiding away in her room at the Ritz because Radio 4 have got RIGHT UP MY NOSE today with all their navel gazing and interviews with has been politicians.
FFS there is REAL news going on
she is history.
Keep here there
learn from her successes
learn from her mistakes
'Wandering off-topic, claig, I wonder why you use 'progressive' as an insult?'
Because I am highlighting foir those who cannot see it, the hypocrisy of what these charlatans call themselves.
These vicious, nasty haters who would dance on the grave and celebrate the death of the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever seen. These progressive charlatans who wanted every citizen in our free country to carry biometric id cards and wanted all our DNA on databases and who wage progressive 'humanitarian' wars.
Not one rightwinger would celebrate the death of any Labour politician. We mock them, we expose their hypocrisy and their incompetence but we don't hate any of them.
We have common decency and respect, we hate no one, we do not celebrate the death of any human being, we are not progressive.
I don't mock liberal, unless it is used by illeberals who wish to curtial our free speech and who wish to curtail our civil liberties and who wish us to carry biometric id cards.
Progressive is their latest trick to disguise their real nature - the nature that they have revealed with their shameful celebrations.
I believe in progress but not in those who falsely claim they are progressive.
Frnankie Boyle, a scumbag who limked to a celebratory youtube video.
The Labour candidate who joked about being disappointed that Margaret Thatcher had not been killed in the IRA bombing.
Indecent scumbags without human decency who claim they are progressive.
There is wall-to-wall TV coverage of Thatcher's death in America because she was one of the leading world figures of the 20th century.
Let's hope they don't witness our progressive scumbags celebrating her death and shaming our nation.
I am not celebrating and won't be unless her ideas and her policies die with her. They won't, so nothing to celebrate.
"These progressive charlatans who wanted every citizen in our free country to carry biometric id cards and wanted all our DNA on databases and who wage progressive 'humanitarian' wars."
Hmm. Those would be Labour party policies. Maybe you could say 'labour' instead of 'progressive'? Then it would be a bit clearer what you are talking about?
Because I feel insulted when you deride 'progressives', despite not espousing any of the ideas you mention as associated woth them.
Come to think of it, let's not go as broad as Labour party - those were Tony Blair and David Blunkett's policies. I'll wager that the majority of Labour party grassroots members went WTF? at those doozies.
Yes, I am not on about decent Labour voters. I am on about the powerful charlatans and their teams of spin doctors who claim they are progressive.
Ordinary decent Labour voters like Mrs Duffy don't call themselves "progressive", that is a trick of the political elites and their spinners in order to claim the caring cloak of progress and paint their opponents as backwards.
Its galling to hear the Tories talk about compassion less than a week after the six late Philpott children were used by them and the Daily Mail to make a political point and a smear campaign against benefit claimants.
This is another Labour own goal. If I was a Tory spin doctor, all I would do now is to show the quotes of the people who celebrated Thatcher's death and videos of their "street parties" or whatever some of them are planning in all of the party political broadcasts until the next election.
The decent people of the country, who are by far the majority, will be disgusted by what they witness. And they will listen to the TV stations playing Billy Bragg's song "whose side are you on?" and they will decide they are not on the side of these scumbags who celebrate the death of a human being.
And it is not the Labour leadership's fault because they have been very respectful and said good things and they have shown respect. It is some of their supporters who are letting the Labour party down.
OK. So instead of 'progressives' you could say 'Labour politicians'? 'Some Labour politicians'?
Because, really, the word 'progressive' bears no relation to the context you are using it in. You might as well refer to your powerful charlatans as 'begonias'. Or 'duck-billed platypi'.
I use progressive in order to highlight the fact that they are not progressive. Those who boast of their good deeds are often deceivers.
'Let another praise you, and not your own mouth; a stranger, and not your own lips.'
Orwell's Big Brother said he loved you, but he didn't.
Progressives say they are progressive but by their deeds and celebrations you know that they are not.
I will start identical threads when
Arthur Scargill (an offensively greedy man after his union was crushed by his own arrogance) and
Tony Bliar (war criminal who needs to be arrested soon)
Divisive unapologetic figures deserve to be despised even at death.
I respect Arthur Scargill. He fought for his beliefs and was true to them.
I repect Scargill and I respect Thatcher. They were both committed to fighting for what they believed in. That is what politics is all about. It is about ideas and beliefs.
I don't respect Blair, but I don't despise him. He was a politician who did what he was probably told to do. That is how many of them are. They can't all be of the quality of Thatcher or Scargill.
Scargill still gets all his bills paid by the NUM - including on his nice flat in the Barbican - even though there is no longer an NUM : he believed in himself and not much more.
Bliar "believed" : who was telling him what to do?
'he believed in himself and not much more'
I think that is the propaganda that we are told by the victors. The majority of miners supported him at the time. Now Kinnock blames Scargill. How much did he support him at the time?
Do you mean when he said something like God told him to do it?
If you believe that Blair believed anything, then I think he took you in. He was Thatcher's heir and he did not change most of what she introduced and he sold himself as being Labour.
Blair hopped on the bus that he thought would stop outside number 10. He guessed right. The man has no principles and no interest aside from self promotion.
"I use progressive in order to highlight the fact that they are not progressive."
Yeah, that sort of thing only really works if everyone knows what you're talking about. We're a diverse bunch here, and a lot of people have never 'met' you before.
You've got to be clear what youre talking about.
Otherwise you're just using language to obfuscate rather than elucidate. To coin a phrase.
Agree completely with talkinpeace post at 22:13:08.
I've had enough of megalomaniac politicians who Believe In stuff.
Could we have a bit of humility, looking at the evidence, and saying, 'oh yeah, maybe I was wrong and we should go for Plan B'? (I'm looking at you here, Osbourne...)
Her being dead doesn't alter the terrible things she did, which is why I am baffled about this glee that she has died. Nothing has changed. She still shafted large sections of the country. All her being dead means is that she is at peace and out of pain.
'Yeah, that sort of thing only really works if everyone knows what you're talking about.'
OK, maybe I am not clear enough. But it is so obvious to me that they use the term progressive to show themselves in a good light and that many of their deeds are the opposite. That is why I use the term "progressive" in an ironic, sarcastic way, since it is so often the exact opposite of what the charlatans are.
George Orwell said it better many years ago. The word is "dishonest" i.e. spin
"Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive reactionary, bourgeois, equality."
'I've had enough of megalomaniac politicians who Believe In stuff.'
So you prefer the spinners who will sell you what they think you want to hear and then will stitch you up when they get in and are told what to do by their paymasters?
The public wants real politicians who believe what they say. They respect the truth, not spin. You know where you stand with them. That was what Thatcher was like. You were under no illusion about what you would get and you could make your choice.
People like straight talking, that is why Blair used the line "I'm a striaght kinda guy" in his mockney accent. But it was pretty obvious that he wasn't with his pregnant pauses, his trained hand movements and all the rest of the arts of the spinner.
I don't remember her being so straight about Hillsborough.
Maybe it's just me.
All this "conviction politician" and "strong leader" stuff...I don't know. Strong leaders are not necessarily good for countries. Stalin was a strong leader. And Blair's last words on leaving office were "I did what I thought was right."
'Strong leaders are not necessarily good for countries.'
It depends what state the country is in. In wartime we needed a strong leader, Churchill, but he was voted out in peace time.
After teh Labour disatste in the 70s where we needed to be bailed out by the IMF and where strikes were frequent and where Britain was declining economically and was known as the "sick man of Europe", we needed a strong leader and that was Thatcher, while the Labour ninnies were suggesting we unilaterally disarm.
Well I think there will always be massive and irreconcilable polarisation of opinion over her. Suffice to say, those who hail her as being "just what the country needed at the time" are very very seldom from areas she ruined.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with difference of views and people disagreeing with everything that she did.
But what is objectionable is people who demonstrate such hatred that they talk of celebrating her death. That shows what these people are really like, and it isn't "progressive".
The problem is, this is supposed to be a democracy. And we are supposed to be able to influence the way the country runs by selecting our constituency MP who represents us at Westminster.
But the UK constitution - or lack thereof - gives a huge amount of essentially unchecked power to the PM. MT took massive advantage of that, so did TB. He made quite a few changes to cut down his democratic accountability. I knew what they were at the time, and was pissed off, but i forget now. Tempus fugit and all.
So the PM, elected by maybe 20,000 voters in their own constituency, gets to completely ignore the MP you voted for, be they the same party or different, and plough on with what the jolly robins in their head are telling them to do.
This is not a good system. Thank god Cameron has the Lib Dems weighing him down like a ball and chain, or who knows where we'd be.
Anyhoo... on a lighter note, a few weeks ago in the course of a random conversation with my niece (14) I said " Magaret Thatcher stole my milk at school"
Niece (with sad face) "Aww, was she bigger than you?" .
Say what you like about Mrs T but she put her all into the job and was never in it to milk the system for her own gain like the bunch of schemers we've got now (on both sides). Can you imagine her fiddling her expenses or using taxpayers money to buy herself a second home? She didn't tell lies and 'spin' either which is something I detest about modern politicians. Even the people who didn't agree with her policies knew exactly what those policies were. Nowadays we don't know what any of them really think, they seem to change their 'policies' to whatever seems most likely to keep them in
the money power for a bit longer.
Maggie had a multimillionaire husband : her nest was well feathered the day she married him.
But, yes, much as I fundamentally disagree with much of what she did, I do believe she had integrity
and breaking the unions (possibly not as completely as she did) has saved the UK from the 45% youth unemployment that is crippling Southern Europe.
Will lose no sleep over it!
I agree pixel. I always thought she knew how much a loaf of bread cost, I don't feel that about anyone sitting on the gov or opposition benches now could tell you.
I'm not sure her start in life was so humble, was it?
Small town girl for sure, but her father a local businessman, Alderman & Mayor, wasn't he?
Thatcher wasn't born in poverty, but she was like many of us - middle class. One of teh people, not one of teh elites.
She wasn't like Polly Toynbee, Harriet Harman, Tony Benn or Anthony Lynton Charles Blair. She wasn't a privileged Guardianista. She was one of us, one of the people and she was looked down on by both the privileged Tory elite and the privileged progressive elite. But unlike them, she understood the people and that is why she was the longest serving peacetime Prime Minister of the 20th Century, never kicked out by the people, but removed by the Tory grandees and the Tory elite against the wishes of the people who knew that she was just like us.
"Indeed, more than any of her grouse-moor Tory predecessors, let alone her privileged modern-day successors, she was determined to smash the obstacles that held people back. As one of her Shadow Cabinet reports put it in the late 1970s, her partys aim was to jump the class barrier.
To the patrician, public-school Tory Wets, this was anathema. There was no love lost between the grocers daughter and the privileged men who once dominated the party. I felt no sympathy for them, Mrs Thatcher said later of her well-heeled opponents. They had fought me unscrupulously all the way.
No one ever did their argument any favours by linking to that rag.
And I don't say that because I'm an evil leftie.
If Thatcher was so "one of us" why did she work so hard to erase traces of her accent?
'If Thatcher was so "one of us" why did she work so hard to erase traces of her accent?'
Because Thatcher was one of us born in 1925 and at Oxford in the 1940s. Times were different then. Just listen to newsreels and listen to received pronounciation on BBC newsreels. Many BBC presenters and actrors and actresses all had to have elocution lessons in those days in order ot get ahead because the elite did not want to hear the accents of the people on their airwaves.
In those days, people like us, the working and middle classes were considered oiks by the great and the good, but everything has changed since those days and now Anthony Lynton Charles Blair, the former Fettes public school boy, has to affect a mockney accent, and Thatcher was a major caused of that change as she broke the glass ceiling that held working people back from earning money like the elites.
As Alan Sugar said, in teh 1980s any cheeky chappy and clever young man or young woman from Essex could earn lots of money in the City and as he so rightly said those jobs were no longer reserved for the "elite".
But the battle for our rights is still not fully won. The elites still sneer at the papers that we read and call them "rags", they still think our views are less valid than theirs. But Thatcher taught them a lesson, and new Thatchers will arise from among the people and our voice will be heard.
The Daily Mail IS a rag. I am not one of the elite and yet I realise this. It is homophobic, misogynist, and tells outright lies. It focuses on people's insecurities and exploits them for thinly veiled political gain. Moreover it is badly written and often not even proof read. That's my definition of a RAG. I'd prefer the papers I buy to be written by people who have done some research and can write in decent English.
However, that's by the by.
'I'd prefer the papers I buy to be written by people who have done some research and can write in decent English.'
Then why on earth do you buy the Guardian?
Of course you are not the elite. You are not Harriet Harman and Tony Benn and Anthony Lynton Charles Blair, but it sounds like you have been taken in by their type of thinking and by those who view the people's paper as a "rag".
Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens and Richard Littlejohn can all write in decent English. They may not have gone to the schools that Anthony Lynton Charles Balir attended, but they make a lot more sense than his mockney mutterings.
Where on earth have I said I buy the bloody Guardian??????????
Talk about assumption! The world isn't neatly divided into Guardian and Mail readers! Good grief......
I not been taken in my anyone. I concluded the Mail is shit all on my own!
'I concluded the Mail is shit all on my own!'
Then please reevaluate your decision. Close your ears to the siren voices of the aristocratic progressive elite. Read the paper that is read by the people and by those who make it the world's leading online newspaper.
Ask yourself if those millions are wrong.
As the New Labour elite showed us, you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool Daily Mail readers all of the time.
Cast off your chains, set yourself free; Littlejohn, Phillips and Hitchens, read the wise words of those three.
You are definitely on a wind up. Very funny!
I am not on a wind up, I am not part of New Labour.
The Daily Mail is widely regarded as a well written paper. The Guardian is widely regarded as a badly written paper, hence it's nickname of the Grauniad.
Fargo86, I didn't know that, but I find nothing within it that I can disagree with.
Fargo, I think that comes from its reputation for tyos rather than the quality of the writing. The Guardian always had the reputation of concentrating so much on design that their proofreading wasn't up to much. At least I learned that when I was working on Nottingham University's paper in the 90s. That was the dizzy zenith of my journalistic career.
The Mail's website is certainly highly regarded in terms of layout and ease of use.
However some of their junior reporters are dreadful. Their articles are littered with spelling mistakes and rogue apostrophes and missing captions.
I'm not talking about the "heavyweights" you mention.
And claig, to reiterate, it is very simplistic to divide people into Tory voters (DM readers) and "New Labourites" (Guardian readers). There are a few more grey areas than that
Oh the irony. TYPOS not tyos.
I won't speak ill of the dead.
However I disagree with her having a funeral mainly paid for by the state. I certainly don't want MY taxes to pay a jot towards her funeral.
Let her supporters cough up the money if they really think she was so great.
My thoughts exactly. And if they are worried about disruption and protest why make such a provocative gesture as a semi state funeral? It's a slap in the face for many communities up and down the land. No other prime minister has had this except Churchill and he led the country through WW2. No comparison.
She deserves a state funeral because of her huge historical significance. She is a worldwide figure and one of the leading worldwide figures of the entire twentieth century. She represented our country and her name is known worldwide. Whether you agree or disagree with her, she is a towering figure that represented Britain and who will be remembered and written about for centuries. That is why she deserves to be commemorated by her country with the highest honour possible.
Heffer has an article on it in the Daily Mail. He says:
'Our nation pays no higher tribute to its great men and women than to accord them a state funeral. There have been only 12 for commoners in 427 years: men such as Nelson, Wellington, Gladstone and Churchill, names that will forever resonate in our history.'
'When you see the other names on the list of men and they are all men who have had state funerals, few actually hold a candle to Lady Thatcher.
The last before Churchill, in 1935, was Sir Edward Carson, who was largely responsible for the creation of Northern Ireland, and a figure so divisive in his time that he makes Lady Thatcher seem like Nelson Mandela.
Before Carson, in 1928, was Earl Haig, under whose direction 20,000 men died and 40,000 more were wounded on the first day of the Somme, and who was hardly uncontroversial either.'
Her huge historical significance?
What destroying the heart and soul of the country and turning us into a nation of selfish NIMBYs?!
If you think she deserves a state funeral, you and her other supporters should cough up, not people like me who despised her.
Who across the world knows of Sir Edward Carson or Earl Haig. These figures pale into insignificance when compared with Margaret Thatcher, the first woman Prime Minister of this country, and a person that will be studied and written about for hundreds of years and who was instrumental in shaping world events and ending the Cold War that was a large part of the twentieth century and which affected billions of people on this earth.
Great figures in history only come along rarely. THat is why they need to be honoured for what they did.
'What destroying the heart and soul of the country and turning us into a nation of selfish NIMBYs?!'
What have New Labour policies got to do with this?
She resurrected us as a country when we were known as "the sick man of Europe", when there were regular strikes and our industries were uncompetitive with the rest of the world. She created social mobility so that ordinary working people gained access to jobs that had previously been earmarked only for those public school boys wearing bowler hats.
She shaped international events and influenced all our lives. She worked tirelessly for this country and as we have heard often stayed up all night. She was dedicated to this country and its people and she fought the elites in order to make it a more egalitarian country where opportunity was open to all.
Some Labour politicians have said that she was a "towering figure" and that is exactly why the country should honour her with teh greatest honour.
There won't be another "towering figure" for decades if not centuries, giants walk the earth all too rarely. She was a giant, a colossus. She herself said "the Mummy has returned" and everyone knew what she meant. For a figure of such magnitude, nothing but a state funeral will do.
Ah you see, you think she's a great figure of history, but millions of us don't.
I certainly don't think she'll be a famous historical figure in say, 200 years time, whereas those like Nelson, Wellington and Churchill will be.
I may be wrong, but you seem to assume I'm a Labour voter - I'm not - I vote independent. I have no time for any of the main parties.
And you say she fought the elites, but my God, that is what she became and how she saw herself.
Who can forget the "we have become a grandmother," moment? Who speaks like that?
Answer: someone who thinks they are better than everyone else.
And also, someone who isn't elite, doesn't die living in the Ritz!
And my final comment claig - you clearly worship the ground she walked on - and thus you prove my point, that you and others who worship her so, should be the ones paying for her funeral.
Leave the rest of us out of it.
'Ah you see, you think she's a great figure of history, but millions of us don't.'
But Kissinger, Obama, Shimon Peres, Gorbachev and leaders of every country have acknowledged and respected her enormous siginificance. The Queen will attend the funeral. To call her a legend is to undervalue her contribution to this country and the world.
In centuries to come, history books will talk of the Cold War and they will mention how Communism ended and how the Berlin Wall that divided the German nation fell. And at the heart of it all, there was a woman called Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain.
She will never be forgotten and what she did will never fade from memory. She was a legend, and legends are told for centuries. She represented us, the millions of citizens of Great Britain on the world stage. We lived through those times and she affected every one of our lives. She is one of the tallest giants and that is why she deserves the highest honour.
'Who can forget the "we have become a grandmother," moment? Who speaks like that?'
Legends speak like that.
'And also, someone who isn't elite, doesn't die living in the Ritz!'
She stayed in the Ritz as a guest of the Barclay brothers who respected her as the legend that she is.
'And my final comment claig - you clearly worship the ground she walked on'
I don't worship her. I think she got some things wrong. But I know a legend when I see one and I respect greatness and that is why I would like a state funeral for one of the greatest figures in twentieth century world history.
Claig, I'm afraid you sound a little unhinged. Sorry.
Only a little?
They say we read "rags", they say we are "unhinged" if we respect Thatcher. But the milliosn are not "unhinged" in their respect for Thatcher.
Some of them say Thatcher was "unhinged" too. The shameless scoundrels!
Claig you are wasting your breath on here. Even ken livingstone can appreciate her historical significance. Why people cannot appreciate that I do not know. The queen is reversing years of protocol to attend her funeral. Of course she should have a full ceremonial funeral, how people cannot see it is beyond me. It's nonsense for the sake of bloody mindededness. No one is asking anyone to lover her now in death,but to just honour her place in history.
She served our country and we should honour great servants of our country and our people, and to quibble about the cost of honouring her is shameful for a great country such as ours.
I agree Chipstick - her opponents agree her policies were wrong or worse than wrong but will still concede her enormous impact on 20th century Britain and her place in world history. Her death is news all around the world. The Queen will break protocol to personally attend her funeral. Representatives from around the globe, even the Pope, reacted to the news and many will send representatives next week to mark the passing of a world leader.
She isn't just another political leader or former PM in that sense, she is considered a great leader of her time. Not great as in 'good' for many people. But great as in significant and important to that period of history
All these articles eulogising her are making me feel quite ill.
She created all these fat cat bosses we love to moan about, by privatising service and utility industries.
People bought their council houses for tuppence ha'penny and then sold them at market price, thus fuelling price increases.
Because of her, we have to have a maths degree to work out the cheapest route when we want to go somewhere on a train.
And all the rest of it.......
But, like any politician - she knew she was right!
A big ceremonial funeral? Paid by the tax payer? That also makes me feel quite ill.
Very few people have the patience to retread the detailed economic arguments for and against Thatcher's policies. But what is more apparent is the zeal and the ruthlessness and at points the apparent pleasure with which she pursued these policies - and it's her haughty, cruel, uncaring rhetoric that still draws the most ire, I think.
Sometimes I feel that if I provide enough evidence then even her supporters will begin to understand where she went wrong, and how misguided and damaging her political approach was. But then off the wall comments like Claigs remind me that her supporters are fervent ideologues, with a bizarre banal devotion to MT and a frothy fantasy about Britain on the world stage. I truly hope you are joking, Claig, because I worry for your health otherwise.
I don't deny she was a historical figure at all! Just because someone is not a rabid Thatcher-eulogiser, doesn't make them into some ignorant Trot . I repeat
yet again you don't either lump people into Thatcher or New Labour supporters. Some people vote for other candidates entirely. Yes, imagine that!
And what I think the eulogisers are forgetting is the people whose lives she screwed over are still alive and the communities still messed up today. To compare her legacy to Churchill's is ludicrous - he was a figure who inspired this country to hold on and sit tight and stand firm until the Americans joined the war to help us out. But even Churchill had his detractors - the people in Tonypany, for example, who he pretty much ordered troops to fire on during their demonstration. I doubt many of them were weeping at his funeral.
Having this jamboree for her is provocative. Ordering football and rugby crowds to observe a minute's silence is ludicrous and insulting. The 80s was not long ago. Why on earth SHOULD they observe a minute's silence for her? This will backfire spectacularly and merely give the Conservative party and their supporters another reason to despise the lower orders and brand them as reds with no morals or respect. Just bury her quietly with the respect she deserves as a dead former politician. She was not some kind of saint.
>> All these articles eulogising her are making me feel quite ill.
And all the people on here, hating her simply because their Dads told them to long ago, is making me feel ill.
Well, that's why I hated her at the age of 11 anyway. Everyone did in Wigan, and most still do. Thing is though, when you get to 18, you really should start making your own mind up.
* Take a look at life during the Winter of Discontent, and the actions of the Callaghan government. Look at the Unions. Yes - those are Graveyards being picketed by the way!
* Examine the decline of the mining industry since 1947 (nationalisation). Look at how many pits had already closed between 1947-1979. The facts & figures are in the public domain.
* Check out how women were perceived in the late 70's, and how they were viewed by the mining communities. (Imagine going for a drink in a "working men"'s pub in 1979).
* Check out the records of the negotiations between Buenos Aires & London. Look at how much Thatcher bent over backwards, offering to compromise on virtually everything, to avoid conflict.
* Take note of how pivotal she was during the fall of Communism. Only Reagan & Karol Wojtyla could compare.
* Read her full quote on "No such thing as society". She never actually said it, and the way it is being quoted is one of the most heinous lies told about her (one my Dad still trips out all the time, like a stuck record).
>> But, like any politician - she knew she was right!
This was her greatest weakness - and led to some policies which can only be described as Lunacy. The Poll tax was the prime example of this.
Still, second only to Churchill in terms of "Greatness". Churchill's quote seems rather apt as well:
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
Check out her great friendship with Pinochet.
I wonder how many of the people rejoicing at her death, including posters on here, actually were old enough to vote in 1979.
How many had been working, raising a family, through the disastrous seventies, before she came to power, when the country had been brought to the verge of bankruptcy by militant unionists?
It was no joke. The three day week meant virtually everything was at a standstill. Try getting to work when hardly anyone had a car & the buses & railways are on strike. We had power cuts almost every night so no light,no heat if you had any kind of heating other than a fire, no way to cook a meal when you got home in the evening. No hot water to bath the children, I had a toddler & a newborn.
Inflation was galloping away.Our mortgage interest rate reached 17%. Compare that to now.
Bin men on strike. Black bin bags were piled up to waist height in many streets, the stench was dreadful.
Even the gravediggers went on strike. In Liverpool, not far from us, the health & safety people were becoming so concerned at the number if bodies waiting for burial that they began to discuss burial at sea.
As for the miners, well not only was my father a miner but I was teaching at the time in a school in a Lancashire pit village so I know something about it. It's rarely reported on the BBC that more pits were closed in the sixties under Harold Wilson than were ever closed under Margaret Thatcher,or that not all miners were enamoured of Arthur Scargill & his militant stance. That's why some in Nottingham & Derby broke away from the NUM to form the UDM.
So yes, we were glad to see the back of that disastrous Labour government. By the time of the next election the country was clawing it's way back from being the notorious "sick man of Europe", that's why she was re elected.
It disgusts me to see reports of people waving placards rejoicing at her death, partying in the streets. People obviously too young to have even known what it was like back then. And what does it say about them to cheer when a family is mourning the death of their mother? How would you feel if it was your mother who's death was being gloated over?
BombJack, you are again talking, like a lot of her supporters are at the moment, as though everyone is the same age or younger than you, and therefore they are just parroting what older people, who can remember the Thatcher years, are saying.
How do you know how old people are and what they can remember? MN covers a huge age range. People in their 40s and 50s are perfectly capable of remember Margaret Thatcher as PM, on account of being adults at the time.
I was 15 when she resigned, but I remember the poll tax riots, the miners' strike, I remember watching Hillsborough unfold, and the constant news rolling in from Belfast of death and violence, and my dad's face grey with worry, and I remember the sinking of the Belgrano, and I am 38 years old. I also remember seeing her speeches on the news and being struck by the absolute conviction with which she spoke, which went hand in hand with the total lack of empathy or remorse for any of the people whose lives she was ruining. People have long memories. It is insulting to suggest that they are just ignorant stupid leftists who have forgotten how bad Labour were in the 70s. Yes Labour were bad in the 70s, but this does not make Margaret Thatcher into a nicer person.
>> Very few people have the patience to retread the detailed economic arguments for and against Thatcher's policies.
No, they don't. They also don't trouble to inform themselves about a time before they were born. They don't appreciate the history, the context nor the reasoning behind the events.
I know plenty of people like this, who will vote for their Party (Tory or Labour alike) without giving any thought to it whatsoever.
>> Sometimes I feel that if I provide enough evidence...
Please do. On all the hate threads running at the moment, on various sites, I have not seen one piece of factual evidence posted. Not one.
But I see plenty of statements like:
"She started the Falklands war to boost her popularity"...
"She destroyed the mining industry"...
"She destroyed my town"...
Oh, OK then. I'll just believe that shall I? Like I believed my Dad when I was 11?
ipadquietly - the whole buying your council house cheaply has now come back and bitten the country on its arse hasn't it?
The housing waiting lists are growing at a rapid rate, as more and more people lose their homes in today's economic climate, and there isn't enough council housing stock to meet demand.
My cousin is a housing officer in an Eastern county, and based on the average rate that council and housing association homes become available, it would take TEN YEARS to home everyone on their list right now. If they still had the stock of homes they had before 'right to buy' came in, the situation wouldn't be anywhere near as dire.
Right to buy may have benefited the families who bought their homes, but years later, we're seeing the downside of it.
But who cares right, if families are living in hostels, because there aren't enough council/HA houses to go round?!
People will still say it was a great idea. It wasn't.
council hous sales was a cynical vote winner It worked for greedy Maggie
Oh here we go, the old "how many of you were old enough to vote in 1979" argument, I love that old chestnut.
Not me. I wasn't born until the following year.
However this country today is still reeling from some of policies and decisions. She destroyed this country's sense of community, we have become a more selfish nation, and it all started with her.
And no, that isn't what my dad told me, I'm big enough and ugly enough to have formed my own opinion thank you very much.
Just because I didn't vote, or wasn't old enough to really understand politics while Thatcher was PM, doesn't mean I'm not entitled to an opinion. My generation are living through the effects of her rule later down the line.
Thatcher dying has proved good for me...
... in the sense that it's made mine and DH's decision on what to name our baby girl (due July) a bit easier.
We were considering Margaret, as it's a family name, but we wouldn't use it now as so soon after her death, people might assume it was after Thatcher.
So now we're only down to two.
Silver linings at all that.
Aquelven - spot on...
My Grandad's colliery near Wigan closed in 1967. His opinions of Scargill were unrepeatable.
There really was no low to which the Union Left would not sink. Thank God they're history.
>> Check out her great friendship with Pinochet.
I'm not comfortable with her relationship with Pinochet, no. But I wonder what else I would have done in her place?
When the Chileans stopped providing radar surveillance for one day due to maintenance, an Argentinian attack got through and killed 53 British servicemen. Would it have been right to put people at risk by refusing Chilean aid?
Does ending the government of Galtieri and his dirty war somehow atone? I doubt it. I don't know to be honest.
She had to make those decisions, not us.
To be direct, Bomback, I do believe that the economic context of her policy decisions ought to be, and need to be re-examined at this point in time.
But I find that many of those critical of her policies can point to precise events and places that she drove in the wrong direction, while those who supported her offer nothing about vague praise about get-up-and-go or optimism or some other tosh.
And all this spite for people who criticise her - and the patronising assumption that they were to young to see her rise to power (based on what?) is, I think, nothing but the product of frustrated right wingers who realise that a new generation of young voters are ready to question the legacy of Thatcherism and move away from the center ground.
"And what does it say about them to cheer when a family is mourning the death of their mother? How would you feel if it was your mother who's death was being gloated over?"
That's the "Progressive Left" for you.
Still, Thatcher was told about the party plans & websites a few years ago. The Standard said she was apparently pleased by it all... I hope so. Shows she mattered.
No it isn't the "Progressive Left".
Most of these people are very unlikely to be involved be in politics at all.
Let us also not forget, how Thatcher managed to "fight off" demands for stronger sanctions against South Africa, when Britain and the Commonwealth were dealing with the issue of apartheid.
She had tried to fight against sanctions of any kind, and it's said she said apartheid as an economic liberalism issue, and not a humanity issue.
Her reasoning for this, is she didn't want any sanctions to damage wealth creation in the country. Oh and surprise surprise, her husband Denis had business interests in South African, so we know why.
Don't try to paint her as some saint, because she wasn't.
The Labour Party had thirteen years to put right her her supposed wrongs. Why didn't they build more housing? They seemed to enjoy spending our money. I don't profess to know facts and figures but am I right in thinking they haven't reversed much of what she did.?
That's the "Progressive Left" for you.
The right have always tried to hang the actions of thugs and morons on The Left to try and politically points score. The Nazis did it very effectively when they were coming to power.
There have been more homes built, but there isn't the SPACE to build all the homes that are needed!
The area my cousin works in, is very rural and filled with green belt land, which you cannot build on. I know the Tories want to try and relax the green belt rules, but that is controversial in itself.
The simple fact is, if councils had retained their stock, it wouldn't be such an issue right now.
And with the worst of the austerity measures yet to come, it's only going to get worse, as more people are going to get added to the housing lists.
It would have been a massive economic gamble for them to have tried to reverse what she started.
I was listening to this yesterday www.youtube.com/watch?v=itCgyBwtV_A
At some point "new" Labour made the choice to pursue neo-liberal economic policy because so far down the line they realised that we were already held over a barrel by global capital. They felt for some reason that they could continue with economic policy that caused great wealth inequality but that they could mitigate against the worst effects by increasing government spending.
Such a very stupid idea because neo-liberal policy is actually creating greater welfare need, ensuring greater tax avoidance, higher military spending, ensuring greater flight of investment out of the country and is causing government debt. Combine lower tax receipts with higher spending on welfare and you have NEW labour! The demand in the economy was built on two things neither of which were workers wages, debt and welfare payments incl tax credits.
Wow Slug - I had no idea about the Pol Pot thing - cripes.
And yet she's being hailed a hero by some. Pah!
I can understand the antipathy to Thatcher from the left and from those who personally suffered.
What I would really like to ask those that think she is devil incarnate is that, if they were PM in 1979 facing the problems that the country faced in the 70s what they would have done given the situation the country was in at the time.
This is a serious question WWYHD?
I confess I am someone whose husband tried to run a business in the 1970s and who lost it because of the unions - not because he was directly involved at all, or even because of secondary picketing at his business, but because he was a supplier to a firm that supplied another firm who was brought down by secondary picketing. And of course, not helped by the three day week, endless power cuts, postal strikes etc. etc. by the unions who effectively ran the country.
So I admit my personal interest makes me biased - as it does all those whom Thatcher damaged.
'I truly hope you are joking, Claig'
I am certainly not joking about Thatcher. She was a titan aqnd even Labour politicians admit that. She changed the course of history and changed politics forever. All subsequent politicians, including New Labour have followed her lead. She achieved more than any other peactime British politician last century. She is such a huge historical figure and of such great importance that she deserves respect.
I think she got lots of things wrong and I disagree with some of teh things that she did, but she is probably the most significant peacetime British political leader of the twentieth century. It's not about whether you like her or agree with her, because I don't agree with everything she did. It is about respecting her historical importance and her service to our country.
She changed the world and few people get anywhere near doing that. That is why she should be honoured.
Deniis Healey was on the opposite side, but he understands her brilliance and her undoubted significance to the history of this country.
'It was in the 1970s, when Healey was on the economic front line as chancellor, grappling with inflation, fiscal crisis, soaring oil prices and industrial strife, that the 1945 spirit of planned progress unravelled. Looking back now, did he sense the scale of the cultural and political change that Margaret Thatchers victory heralded in 1979? I expected her to move in that direction. I never expected her to do so much. He was advised early on to watch out for the up-and-coming Thatcher by an MP friend who knew her well. He said, Shes good-looking but shes also politically brilliant. He was right.
There is no partisan animus in Healey at all, whether with regard to past battles between the parties or to his own bruising combat with Labours hard left.
In those days the unions had far too much influence. They could really veto anything they didnt like, he says, skimming over one of the most turbulent chapters in his partys history as casually as he sips his coffee. And that time has gone.
'There is no partisan animus in Healey at all'
That is how the nation should view her too. The rabble of Socialist Workers and anarchists and 24 year old Unite members celebrating her death have a partisan animus.
But Healey and the country takes the long historical view - the view that recognises her as a towering historical figure.
As a servant of our country, who led our country for all of us, she deserves to be honoured by her country.
Would we not honour the Queen just because there are anti-royalists who object?
Should we not honour Thatcher, who served the nation, who was almost killed in an assination attempt by the IRA, just because there are some anarchists and socialists and miners who object?
What have we become if we cannot honour one of our greatest leaders for what she did for the country?
Do the miners who say they want to celebrate her death and the rabble who celebrate her death have precedence over teh millions of citizens of this country who respect what Thatcher did for us?
This has shown how sadly divided as a nation we are.
While everyone on the right of politics would respect a minute's silence for any past Labour leader, such as Michael Foot, or any Labour politician, all of whom have served our country, it is clear that we cannot have a minute's silence for Thatcher in football matches across the country, because tens of thousands of people will not respect the silence in honour of our longest serving leader of the twentieth century.
The intolerance, the disrespect, the hatred and glee at someone's death is the real face of Britain beneath the mask and it is very sad indeed.
But fortunately it is only the face of a vociferous minority of Britain. The silent majority, as ever, are not like that.
But that's exactly what I said earlier. You are ignoring the fact that not all of those celebrating her death are "Socialist Worker rabble" as you put it, nor are they 20 year old students. There are an awful lot if very ordinary people e.g my friend from the South Wales valleys whose dad lost his job in the mid 80s and went from being a miner to a checkout assistant at Tesco's. This friend is now a successful and respectable solicitor with two children, and he has had a bottle of champagne waiting to be drunk since his wedding ten years ago. A silly gesture you might say, but he is certainly no rabble, nor is he a Socialist Worker.
'A silly gesture you might say, but he is certainly no rabble, nor is he a Socialist Worker.'
Is he a socialist?
Tell me Hester...should I then open a bottle of champagne when Scargill dies as his beliefs and actions were the cause of my husband losing his business, every penny he ever had and having to start all over again, spending many years on the breadline?
Funnily enough I see even the miners have rumbled that self serving old scoundrel Scargill now
Some of the miners are doing themselves, and possibly Labour, great harm as they talk of having a party and celebrating. Because millions of citizens are watching and many never lived through those years.
But to see people who put their "communities" and their "villages" above the nation and who disrespect one of the nation's greatest leaders and talk of celebrating her death, because she did not give in to their demands for state subsidies to keep their "communities" and pits going, will eventually lead to the public losing their support for the miners and giving their support to the rest of the nation who did not receive any state subsidies.
I watched Channel 4 News last and they showed a mining community and an ex-miner saying that he would celebrate and the people in the room were shouting at teh Conservative MP who was there. Then they showed a working class man in Romford, who had worked hard all his life and had never had a state handout to keep his "community" or "village" going, but who was grateful to Thatcher for giving him the opportunity to buy his council home and to have achieved something in life which was to own his own home rather than merely surviving.
That man would have paid rent to live in that same council home for a lifetime. But now he lives in that same home and he is teh proud owner of it, a home that he would have paid for more than once in rents to teh council. That home would never have gone to a new housing claimant because he would have and still does live there.
He didn't strike for state handouts, he didn't demand state handouts and he won't celebrate the death of Thatcher, unlike teh ex-miner.
As the public see more of the people celebrating Thatcher's death with bottles of champagne because she refused to continue subsidising failing industries with money contributed by the man from Romford in order to keep their "communities" going, then the public will begin to lose respect for the people who disrespect Thatcher.
If you read my post properly you would have realised I wasn't condoning or condemning his actions. I was simply showing Claic that the opinion she and those like her seem to hold that those who won't kowtow to Thatcher's memory are a rabble rousing, disrespectful bunch of reds, is misplaced.
Crack open the champagne when Scargill dies by all means. It's none of my business.
Again I'd like to say that many of those praising her fulsomely her aren't actually pointing to specific political achievements but are simply throwing around emotive words like 'service' and 'honour'. And silly words like colossus.
I'd also like to say that singling out certain totemic roles, like mining, is only a very partial rejoinder to a one sided view of MT's career. We could talk, for example, about the failure of her care in the community policy, which increased homelessness and premature deaths enormously, the legacy of which we still deal with today. And then there are the many other industries and communities that suffered under her leadership - and those who were made so suddenly and callously unemployed were treated as if they deserved it. Let's look at the political situation we're in now, because it's clear that what Thatcher managed to do to the working classes - destroy their means of organisation, grind down their attempts to improve their living and working conditions (and then tell them that they lack aspiration), and dismantle pride and autonomy in their work - is what the current Conservative government are trying to do to much of the middle classes. Middle class professionals with good jobs in the public sector - our police, our nurses, our civil servants, our teachers - are suffering a similar assault - to their pay, pensions and professional conditions. It will devastate another class and another generation.
Claig, I have no idea how he votes. I imagine given his background, he is a Labour voter, but the Labour party are hardly "socialists" nowadays. He might vote Plaid, I don't know.
But surely you're not implying that if someone doesn't vote Conservative, their opinion can be discounted?
Crack open the champagne when Scargill dies by all means. It's none of my business.'
We won't crack open the champagne when Scargill dies, because we respect Scargill just as we respect Thatcher. Scargill fought for his beliefs and Thatcher stood up for hers.
They were both political figures who played a part in the political life of this country. They are both historical figures who deserve respect.
Excellent post Unami . I wish I had the patience and stamina to write that!
'But surely you're not implying that if someone doesn't vote Conservative, their opinion can be discounted?'
Certainly not. But if an adult cracks open a bottle of champagne to celebrate the death of the country's longest serving peacetime leader then I feel that is shameful.
'Again I'd like to say that many of those praising her fulsomely her aren't actually pointing to specific political achievements but are simply throwing around emotive words like 'service' and 'honour'. And silly words like colossus.'
Is Harriet Harman being silly when she described Thatcher as a "towering figure"? Everyone knows she was and most can admit it.
That's your opinion and of course you're entitled to it. But again, I think it's worth remembering that the Thatcher kowtowers are very unlikely to be from any of the areas she shafted. I told you my friend's background and yet you still describe his actions as shameful. Thus to me displays a startling lack of empathy.
The Scargill comment wasn't directed at you, by the way. I believe you on that score. Despite completely disagreeing with you about almost everything, I don't think that would be your style, Claig
Excellent post, by the way, unami.
'We could talk, for example, about the failure of her care in the community policy'
It's not about whether you agree with her. I don't agree with her "care in teh community" policies and many other of her policies, but I still respect her and want her honoured as the former leader of our country who was almost killed by the IRA while Prime Minister of this country.
I don't agree with Scargill, but I still respect him and would never party at his death.
It's about basic respect.
And lastly, castigate the miners by all means, but not for "putting their communities and villages before their country." Show me a tight knit community which doesn't.
yes it's rather rich the 'community before country' comment when bankers try to 'hold the country to ransom' by demanding extreme, I'd say immoral, levels of bonuses and bleat that they will leave the country IF their pay isn't maintained. Many of these will be Thatchers 'children; if not contemporaries.
I told you my friend's background and yet you still describe his actions as shameful. Thus to me displays a startling lack of empathy.'
You see, I lived through those days and teh biggest recession and highest level of unemployment for a long time, higher than today. But it wsn't only miners and their "communities" and "villages" who were affected. It was millions of us elsewhere, and in industries that never received state handouts.
As I look back on it now and as I hear some of these miners talking about celebrating Thatcher's death because she ruined their "community" because she refused to keep giving them state subsidies, I start to wonder who cared for teh rest of us who never received state handouts.
We got on with it, we retrained and moved home and travelled and got jobs. We didn't nurse a 40 year hatred and sing songs about teh death of Thatcher and hand out death cakes and crack open champagne.
When I see teh actions of these people, I am starting to lose my symapthy for them, and I bet millions of others are too.
'Show me a tight knit community which doesn't.'
Well the rest of the country is not there to serve their "tight knit communities" and to give our tax money to keep their "communities" going. While they were striking and our lights were going out and while we were lighting candles every night, they didn't care about us.
Pan, I agree with you about the bankers. I thought it was a disgrace that Labour knighted them "for services to banking" and neglected to regulate them adequately with their "light touch regulation".
I think some of those people should be in front of a judge for what they did.
erm..see the bank's bail out using taxpayers monies to keep their 'community' going, claig.
besides, I'k old enough to remember the 3 day week and candles and it was fun! And the fact that the birth rate in 1974/5 shot up as tv finished at 10.30pm. Though I always thought that was a political move by Heath.
ooh, the Tories didn't want regulation at all! The mess would have been even bigger IF Gideon and Cameron had their way.
That is what Labour say, but the public don't believe them.
Good for you that were able to. I'm just imagining what it must have been like to have been a miner since leaving school, to live in some rain sodden bloody Welsh valley, your nearest town being BRIDGEND for God's sake, knowing nothing else, and suddenly facing the wholesale dismantling of the only industry and employment there has ever been in your village, in fact the village's entire reason for existing. And then a dole cheque and a job in Tesco's. Have you ever been to Nantymoel for example? I am not saying the coal industry as it was was sustainable. But the rapid and wholesale closure of the industry, and the obvious pleasure with which it was done is what people remember. Mines like Tower Colliery proved they were not all uneconomical, by any means.
It's all very well being told to get on your bike and look for work, but if I was one of them, I'd not be a fan of Thatcher either.
'erm..see the bank's bail out using taxpayers monies to keep their 'community' going, claig.'
Well yes, we all know teh bankers had New Labour under their thumb and they have teh current lot under their thumb too. But if Thatcher were in charge now, she would probably have sorted the bankers out too.
She took teh miners on and she would probably have taken the bankers on too.
It's comments like that which smack of hero worship and cult of personality.
'It's all very well being told to get on your bike and look for work, but if I was one of them, I'd not be a fan of Thatcher either.'
I'm not a fan of Blair, but I don't disrespect him.
The country does not run in order to keep people in their "communities" because they have known nothing else. The country does not run in order to keep MPs' in expenses either. Things change and times change and the global economy forces change.
Thatcher could not sit there like King Canute or King Scargill and order change to stop. She was responsible for the entire country, the entire economy and not just some "communities".
no she wouldn't have taken the bankers on. They are the vested interests that keep Tory ideology in place. Even you know that claig.
fwiw I despise New Labour. Gutless chancers and character-wise not holding a (1973/4) candle to Thatcher.
'It's comments like that which smack of hero worship and cult of personality.'
Thatcher was a brave woman. She took on the miners and faced them down in a battle that lasted over a year. She took on General Galtieri and won when many of her ministers and even some of eth military were saying it could not be done.
I think the bankers may also not have been a match for her, since she created the Big Bang and ended the dominance of our small merchant banks with their public school boys in bowler hats and opened up banking to the world.
All I hope from this is that when the dust settled she is remembered for ALL she has done, GOOD and BAD.
She changed Britain. It was out with the old, in with the new. It was the end of bowler hats and the decline of coal mines. It was a renaissance in small business and a share-owning, property owning working and middle class.
She took on the vested interests who resisted change - the miners and the merchant bankers and teh elites who looked down their nose at a woman leading teh country. She smashed through their glass ceilings and the working classes of Essex and beyond voted for her and her real "aspiration nation".
It was the end of the Etonians in bowler hats and the end of privilege and the rise of ex-market traders like Alan Sugar. It was a time for enterprise and the end of who you know and the start of what you know.
It was a time of change.
The class system has been shattered. We no longer respect the toffs because of their accents. Ther eis no longer a need for "elocution lessons" because it is now all about what you know and not who you know.
She started the real meritocracy where working and middle class people could earn huge rewards in business. They were no longer held back by stifling class structures.
She fought the elitists tooth and nail while they looked down on this middle class grammar school grocer's daughter.
"To the patrician, public-school Tory Wets, this was anathema. There was no love lost between the grocers daughter and the privileged men who once dominated the party. I felt no sympathy for them Mrs Thatcher said later of her well-heeled opponents They had fought me unscrupulously all the way.
She was one of us, not one of them.
They said she had teh eyes of Caligula and teh lips of Marilyn Monroe, and like the great Caesar before her whe was betrayed by the grandees who acted like Brutus and brought her down.
She took them on, she changed Britain and eventually they did her down. But Britain was never the same again and their world has vanished as teh working and middle classes have been liberated and are on the rise.
They will never be able to hold us down again because of what she started.
Yes, they fought her unscrupulously but just like with Scargill, she was the ultimate winner.
And teh people were the winners too, which is why MP Connor Burns reported teh words of a taxi driver in parliament today.
"We've never had a good'un since"
You keep going on about miners Claig. Yes, the miners' strikes were iconic and historically important, but there is more to the context of Thatcher's rise to power than Scargill, no matter what your position on the strikes themselves is.
And quite frankly, the people who come down hardest on industries like mining and have a tough anti-union stance are often the first to say that what's wrong with this country is that we "don't make things anymore". I think we can now all see how dangerous it is to have an unbalanced economy which relies too heavily on the service sector and financial services - and yet that was exactly what Thatcher's economic policies sought to achieve. And it's going to be very hard to revive a manufacturing sector when your industrial infrastructure and skills base as been decimated.
It is nothing but fantastical to suggest that Thatcher would have taken on the bankers. After all, weren't the Barclays brothers footing the bill for her extended stay at the Ritz? And much of what is made of the social impact of the Big Bang is a pure myth. Yes, there was a very brief period where people (almost exclusively men, to be blunt) entered the trading floor and earned a lot of money very quickly, but that was just a blip in the end, and the establishment soon figured out how to dominate this newly deregulated industry. Take a look at the recruitment strategies of major banks and see how many new entrants come from an ordinary background. You won't find many.
IU don't think the Barclay brothers are bankers. I think they just share a name with Barclays bank.
'the establishment soon figured out how to dominate this newly deregulated industry. Take a look at the recruitment strategies of major banks and see how many new entrants come from an ordinary background.'
There was a time when they would employ old Etonians because of who they knew and what they sounded like. But those days are gone. They now employ PhDs from our top universities and from France and Germany and Russia. Not just anyone can be hired, but it is now about what you know, not who you know, because it is business skills that count, not social skills and which spoon to use at the dinner table. The two hour liquid lunches of teh bowler hat brigade went out of teh window and it was sandwiches over a screen as the American banks arrived. There was competition and teh old dogs declined and teh new dynamic entrants thrived. Thatcher lit the fuse of change and teh rest happened.
I mention the miners because that is what the BBC and our leftwing media are showing us, all these ex-miners speaking of partying and celebrating with a drink.
But yes you are right, instead of just shutting down failing industries, we should have invested in new ones. But Thatcher and presumably her advisers thought we should concentrate on a service economy where our skills were greater (in part due to our Enghlish language in a globalised business world). But I think we should have invested in manufacturing and modernised our companies.
She didn't do everything right. She was one woman against those who foughtunscrupulously against her.
She got things wrong, but she got a lot of things right.
They just had a man called Tony Cane on Channel 4 News. He left school at 15, stacked supermarket shelves. He was an Essex boy, who were often teh working class people who voted for Thatcher. He said he was affected and inspired by her philosophy and that you could do what you want regardless of your background.
He said she laid the ground to opportunity and he is now rich.
We can't all be like that. But it was Thatcher who released the vitality and dynamism of teh working and middle classes and allowed teh rise of people like Sugar and other entrepreneurs in a stock market world where business enterprise was important.
She left her mark on this country and one of teh effects was the end of stifling class barriers that kept the working class dowm.
Now, Tony Balir and George Osborne have to speak with mockney accents because the people are king and class is no longer king.
You can't kepp the people of Britain down. Thatcher released us from our chains and the rest is for us to do.
They fought her unscrupulously, but she beat them, just like she beat the miners.
Some of them may celebrate her death, but we won't be joing them. We, the people, celebrate her life.
As the taxi driver said
"We've never had a good'un since"
and it will be an awfully long time until we get another.
oh dear. Thatcher supporters are quoting dictators, racists, and now London cabbies. Lordy.
Glenda Jackson launches tirade against Thatcher in tribute debate
>> It is nothing but fantastical to suggest that Thatcher would have taken on the bankers.
I think if she were in power, RBS and HBOS would have been told to whistle (which they should have been). It would take someone with massive Cojones to take that decision, and I think Thatcher would have done it. All speculation of course.
She would of course then be criticized for the ensuing banking crisis.
>> Take a look at the recruitment strategies of major banks and see how many new entrants come from an ordinary background.
Many of them do. I was about to do a long post about why I know this to be the case - but Claig sums it up nicely. If you think the banks today recruit mainly from an "un-normal" background. Please tell us why, and give us your evidence.
You're confused and incoherent, claig.
You shouldn't be supporting anyone who praised mass-murdering dictator pinochet and called him a 'democrat' and called Nelson Mandela a 'terrorist'.
could we have evidence of people unscrupulously fighting Thatcher please.
that Thatcher would have told the bankers to go whistle is pure speculation.
>> Glenda Jackson launches tirade against Thatcher in tribute debate
Good for her! Who can tell me her achievements in politics without Googling?
Wow, thanks ttosca. Really powerful stuff.
I don't think she was arguing that she achieved more in office, Jack. Your Ad Hominem doesn't contribute anything.
'could we have evidence of people unscrupulously fighting Thatcher please.'
It was what Thatcher herself said. I believe what she said, because she was one of us and not one of them.
"To the patrician, public-school Tory Wets, this was anathema. There was no love lost between the grocers daughter and the privileged men who once dominated the party. I felt no sympathy for them Mrs Thatcher said later of her well-heeled opponents They had fought me unscrupulously all the way.
Everyone knows that London cabbies are the font of all wisdom, they meet everyone from Lords to hoodies and they see all life and have their feet on the ground. Let us reflect on what one of their community said for they have an uncanny knack of summing up in one sentence what it would take a toff volumes to say.
"We've never had a good'un since"
that was what she said but could you provide evidence.
Boney, it never occurred to me to check, for I am not one even consider doubting Thatcher's word. But I will see if I can google and find anything on it.
>> I don't think she was arguing that she achieved more in office, Jack. Your Ad Hominem doesn't contribute anything.
Ad Hominem? You are calling me out for using an ad-hom? Oh Jesus my sides. Have you actually read this thread?
>> You shouldn't be supporting anyone who praised mass-murdering dictator pinochet and called him a 'democrat' and called Nelson Mandela a 'terrorist'.
Nope you're absolutely right. It's so clear cut when you say it like that isn't it? Thanks for blowing through all the unnecessary debate and getting straight to the nub of the issue.
>> Everyone knows that London cabbies are the font of all wisdom
a reminder of the sort of people Maggie promoted. Admittedly he made this speech after Thatcher had left office, but still, she brought him into government...
Interesting article here about Thatcher and Mandela/De Clerk
Doesn't entirely support the pro-Thatcher viewpoint, but gives some background.
This is from a book by Simon Jenkins called "Thatcher and Sons: A revolution in three Acts"
Thatcher believed in a revolution aimed at a society where class was overwhelmed by the benign equilibrating forces of a free market economy....The modern Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm understood this better than many Marxists. He cited Thatcher's determination to break with the traditional British ruling class ... The pillars of the British establishment wrote Hobsbawm rightly regarded Thatcherism not as the continuation of the old ways by another means but as a striking and worrying innovation Thatcher described her seizing of power within her party as a shattering blow to the Conservative establishment. I felt no sympathy for them. They had fought me unscrupulously all the way
Now I fully understand what teh London cabbie meant by
"We've never had a good'un since"
She wanted to destroy teh class based system that held back our people and create a meritocracy based on a competitive free market. Our elite didn't like it because they knew they could not compete against our people. Why do you think they all get jobs in charities and think tanks and at publi expense, not many of them can compete against teh working class and middle class PhDs from our universities and former polytechnics or even our further education schools. Come to think of it they can't compete against our best primary school pupils either. That is why they are all now found on 6 figure salaries in charities paid for out of teh public purse.
The modern Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm understood this better than many Marxists
should have been
The modern Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm understood this better than many Thatcherites
So other than sound bites and a single quote, that would be a no?
Boney, I could write a thesis on it, but sound bites are more appropriate for a forum.
Put some links on and will go read them.
In fact, it was a shame that there weren't more women MPs in the Tory party at that time. Because women were not part of the old boys' cosy network and they would have supported Thatcher against the Tory grandees and wets who fought unscrupulously against her.
There was a fascinating Radio 4 programme about Thatcher the other day by Andrew Neil. He said something to her about change or policy and she said to him "unfortunately Andrew there are not enough people like us".
Her Thatcherite revolution of the middle classes to free our people was hamstrung by these Tory wet grandees who surrounded her. She didn't have enough support to do what she wanted to do and eventually they ganged up and betrayed her.
Thatcher truly was one of us and she made many changes, but in the end they betrayed her and brutally deposed her and the rest is history or tradey.
"We've never had a good'un since"
"unfortunately Andrew there are not enough people like us"
There were not enough of the middle clases at the top. That is what we need to effect real change and to free our working and middle class people and create a dynamic, class-free society of social mobility and opportunity.
We will get there one day. Thatcher started it, but they got rid of her. But there will be future Thatchers, we just have to hope and wait.
MARGARET THATCHER - BSE COLLABORATOR
Such a pity she was not brought to justice for her involvement in the BSE cover-up, the truth about this woman will be revealed, glad she is dead, rest in hell Thatcher.
We have heard how she loved an argument and held her own against every single one of them. Not one of them was her match or her equal. She stood head and shoulders above every single one of them and she dominated the despatch box too.
They don't make em like Thatcher anymore - the grocer's daughter from Grantham showed them and she showed teh whole world. That is why she is a 'towering figure' and a world leader respected by the leaders of every country. She was one woman among 81 men in the summit of world leaders and not one of them could hold a candle to her.
I don't want to derail the thread by going into detail about the recruitment strategy of financial service companies, but I will say that in my experience of their graduate recruitment strategies there is a tendency to concentrate recruitment efforts within a select number of the Russell group. Moreover, when the hr departments of said institutions do use an apparently transparent skills-based assessment procedure, this is hamstrung by the weight they also place on internal work placements (which obviously exclude many students anyway, but that's another issue) which incorporate many dinners and other social occasions as part of an informal assessment procedure. Mangers may not be sporting bowler hats any more, but don't be mistaken, class is very much still in play!
And I have to laugh at the idea that Thatcherism was good for working class people. Laugh.
unami late to this but just wanted to say your 18:34 post was spot on. Thank you
oh claig, Hobsbawm was simply referring to the ability of capitalism to avoid the inevitable self-destruction it's destiny is. Self-promotion is an end-game. Thatcher, in those terms was an agent of that acceleration. We see it today - evermore serious crises, til one day it all goes pffff. But a slow pfff, when co-operation and sanity will eventually prevail.
You heard it here second.
yes that post of Unami was the most sensible one amongst all of the MT threads this week.
She wanted to fight the class based system, actually Claig I don't disagree with you, I think that is exactly what she thought she was doing. She listened to the neo-lib economists at the Institute of Economic Affairs spouting ideas, she seized upon their lies about trickle down economics, free markets and privatisation. She was just a pawn in a much larger game. She was used, she was deceived.
One of the founding members of Mont Pelerin society was Hayek, The society was funded by some of the worlds richest people, the old European oligarchy. The name of the game was to restore their fortunes and shore up their class interests, to overcome progressive taxation, to open up new markets like health and welfare to private investment, to impoverish states, to create greater welfare need because these markets are not "optional" but necessities. These people believed in "small government" because any state that provided welfare could become in their opinion, subject to some form of collectivism (socialism) I think you might even find some parallels with your concerns about green meanies and wind farms.
These elites that you are so fond of Claig played Maggie!
Her death won't change a thing, there was no such thing as "Thatcherism" just neo-liberalism and the people who this benefits couldn't give a flying fuck about Maggie.
Mini, you are right. Of course she was played. She was only a grocer's daughter from Grantham. You can't get to teh top amongst teh billionaires and trillionaires without being played to some extent.
They are all played and all all puppets to a greater or lesser extent.
But, as Hobsbawm said, this was a challenge to teh British ruling class, and it was a challenge by international capital and finance. It was bout destroying the world of privilege and class and snobbery and unleashing teh dyamic creativity and energy of money-making capitalism. It was epitomised by Harry Enfiel'd plumer "Loadsamoney". It was about the emancipation of teh working and middle classes in a capitalist meritocracy where rewards would accrue to those who were teh best.
Capital does not care about class, it cares about making moeny and for that it needs teh best brains and the best skills. It is capitalism that harnesses teh talent of women and kicks down barriers so that women can compete with men, because capitalism only cares about talent - not colour, class or sex. Capitalism wants to use teh best talent avaolable in order to make money.
I agree witha capitalist society because it is one that provides social mobility and opportunity because it is a meritocracy. I believe in a meritocracy not in a hereditary class system.
Thatcher was cjhosen by Keth Joseph and other people as teh dynamic middle class woman who could sweep away teh old and bring in the new. They spotted her potential and they knew that she had teh guts to carry it out and take on teh establishment.
No sustem is perfect, no leader is perfect and mistakes and scandals are part of every reign, but you have to take teh long view (without partail animus) as Denis Healey did. Taking teh long view, we needed Thatcher to force through change and break the class system.
The elite got rid of her eventually after she made some mistakes, but we need another Thatcher to drive through more change, because the Etonians are back and teh clock seems to have been turned back.
We need more middle classes and more women in power, we need to create a dynamic new enterprise capitalist culture that provides opportunity to all regardless of background.
Mini, now you have stumbled on Larouche. If you don't watch out, you'll be a conspiracy theorist of the highest order soon, once you realise that Marxism is part of the conspiracy!
Rifkind said in parliament
"was she a Conservative?"
She wasn't a Conservative, she was a revolutionary, she was a change agent and she was for capitalism and enterprise and dynamism. That is why teh people loved her, because she was on our side, one of us, who wanted to open up opportunity for us.
Campbell on Newsnight sounds worried that Cameron will gain popularity now.
I think Labour is now finished. The miners talking about celebrating and the anarchists and socialists on the streets spells the end of Labour's chances. The public will eventually lose all sympathy for what they see as bitter people disrespecting our longest serving peacetime leader of the twentieth century.
Labour are yet again on the wrong side of the public and it wil cost them in the next election.
So we'll be a one party state. Oh goody. That always works really well.
I read a lot of things Claig. Marxism.... part of a conspiracy! you have been listening to too many American Loons. Who do you think pays their wages claig? The same people that fund these think tanks.
Go back and listen some more.
No, Labour will need to reinvent itself.
The Philpott case unfortunately put Labour on the wrong side of the public (despite all of the complaints made to the Daily Mail) because of the way that the Daily Mail made capital out of it.
Now with the death parties and celebrations over Thatcher's death, unfortunately Labour are being associated with these people even though they would love not to be. With some of teh respected miners also talking about celebrating, it is nigh on impossible for Labour to distance themselves since they have been staunch supporters of teh miners.
The Daily Mail has again made capital out of it by saying that this is the way that the "Left has reacted.
Whatever happened to Labour's vaunted media management. The Daily Mail is single-handedly running rings around them and painting them into a corner.
The Labour party has to change and support the majority of the people. I don't think it is yet capable of making that change.
Thatcher represnted teh aspirations of teh working people - not the people who wanted handouts or state subsidies, but the ambitious working and middle classes. Labour needs to try and appeal to those people because they aren't Tories and don't like toffs, but they want someone to speak for them.
Labour have a chance to grab them, because the Tories are not Thatcherites, they are more like toffs and wets.
Can Labour changhe in time for teh next election? I doubt it, because they have now been wrongfooted twice by the Daily Mail and I think this election is practically over.
I know it's irrelevant to the discussion but please please PLEASE for the love of all that's holy can you fix the spelling of "the" on whatever device you're using?
We already have a one party state.
Thatcher may have represented the "aspirations" of the working person, who wouldn't aspire to have more, to earn more, to do well in life. But she was a tool of the wealthy who used her to consolidate their own wealth and power.
As for free markets, we don't actually have a free market because of the monopoly tendency which is inherent within capitalism. Markets are not unique to capitalism, what is unique is waged labour, exploitation of labour and capital accumulation. It is impossible to have a meritocracy.
If we have a level playing field and a meritocracy why do we have high unemployment? could that be because capitalism creates a dependency btw capitalists and workers? could it be because workers are dependant upon waged work which is not forthcoming and that even if they set up business they can't compete? they are then dependent upon welfare?
'But she was a tool of the wealthy who used her to consolidate their own wealth and power.'
Yes, but the working people didn't care as long as they benefitted. Labour are yet again on the wrong side of the public because they always talk about the wealth gap. The public do care about fat cats in public industries or charities earning 6 figure salaries because the public is paying for that, but they don't care what the CEO of Google earns as long as their earnings are increasing.
Labour need to concentrate on increasing the job prospects and earnings of the people rather than trying to reduce the wages of the top earners.
'As for free markets, we don't actually have a free market because of the monopoly tendency which is inherent within capitalism. Markets are not unique to capitalism, what is unique is waged labour, exploitation of labour and capital accumulation. It is impossible to have a meritocracy.'
It is not impossible and that is the challenge for politicians to win over the people. The EU and the US govt hold investigations into anti-competitive business practices and fine companies that are found guilty and competitors lobby govts if they believe that anti-competitive practices are taking place.
www.dsp.org.au/book/export/html/32 monopoly tendency of capitalism, explaining the mechanism for this and explaining why we do not have a free market.
The only thing I disagree with from that link is
"Imperialist exploitation of the colonies and semi-colonies retards and distorts the indigenous development of capitalism in these countries, perpetuating and intensifying their economic backwardness and their dependent and subordinate relationship to the advanced capitalist countries. It creates a permanent division of the world into rich nations and poor nations, consigning the majority of humanity to perpetual destitution"
The exploitation of third world countries has retarded the development towards an internal capitalist mode of production and the development of those countries. This was necessary whilst there was possible expansion and investment into markets in the west that relied upon natural resources and meeting unmet needs here, such as housing and consumer goods etc. However it is not perpetual because there are few new markets in the west now open to capitalist investment and expansion except welfare/health/education which actually leads to greater state spending (just wait and see!) Whereas the undeveloped markets can now be tapped. I think we will see massive capitalist expansion in other regions precisely because they are undeveloped.
Any way.....free market.....no such thing after 1900
"Labour need to concentrate on increasing the job prospects and earnings of the people rather than trying to reduce the wages of the top earners"
sorry wrong again.
During the 30s depression both here and in the U.S politicians went to the rich and said "if you won't invest (look up the falling rate of profit and the trusts btw corporations and banks "finance capital) and put people in work, then we will tax the money out of you and we will invest it" and that is what happened. Then the pattern of accumulation starts again except at some point in the late 1940s the rich industrialists and the trusts (thats where your vons come into it) set about coming up with a joined up economic plan, a plan so devious that it changed the way almost everyone thinks, it is the only view in the media, in schools, in most economics dept etc,...it is the only view espoused by politicians of all striped Neo-lib.
Its the history of class struggle and all played out since 1900
1920s, huge wealth inequality, rising poverty, banks contracted the money supply (remember finance capital) just as the industrialists realise that demand in the economy is grinding to a halt.
1930 depression. No demand, high unemployment. Governments introduce progressive taxation and use the money to invest. The workers are put back in work, demand returns for private goods and services, capitalists invest in productive things like manufacturing.
1945 Capitalists pissed off because workers demand good wages, taxes are high.
1970s progressive taxation and falling rate of profit means capitalists sulk and stop investing.
Then maggie rolls up and rather than say right you lot hand over the readies, she says, nah, have a tax break and get back to businsess and while we are at it, have a few cheap workers too. Two for the price of one in fact. Thing is, she did the only thing she could.
But look where we are, back where we started in the 20s.
Think of it like a plate with marbles rolling around. You can not have equilibrium because the system grinds to a halt. But everytime you tip the plate the marbles end up on one side or the other.
It will take a long time for people to realise that the fight is on for their living standards but to be honest it will be too late. We are too far down the road of neo-liberalism (it changed the way people think) plus we are a mature economy in decline.
You can't increase everyone's wages within having inflation. Plus 97% of money in the economy is debt.
>> that Thatcher would have told the bankers to go whistle is pure speculation.
I know - I said as much. It's a fascinating thing to ponder though.
When Labour bailed out the banks (Northern Rock, RBS, etc) I sympathised with their plight. The effects of a refusal would have rocked the entire world. What kind of politician would have made the decision to refuse?
Just RBS alone, if it were to default on its obligations, could have brought down the entire financial system. Worldwide.
I would argue that everything Thatcher said during her life indicates she would have refused a bailout - with her cabinet probably weeping in fear.
I'd love to see the commons debates regarding the Euro crisis too if she were in 10 Downing Street. She is on record as predicting the current problems with a Unified currency. I suspect she would have been (rightly IMO) telling Germany to leave the currency, and a return to national currencies in Europe.
The Euro is currently in the process of collapsing, yet none of the politicians in Europe, nor those affiliated with the EU, are being honest about the measures that must be taken.
The European single currency is bound to fail, economically, politically and indeed socially, though the timing, occasion and full consequences are all necessarily still unclear. - Magaret Thatcher.
Claig - most of those celebrating the death of Thatcher are not Labour voters - they are people far, far, far left of Labour.
Not everyone "lefty" is a Labour voter, you do know that right?!
Most of the people celebrating the death of Thatcher are just ordinary people who have suffered under her leadership or because they're angry about Thatcher helping to turn the UK in to a nastier, more selfish place to live.
Mark Steel: You can't just shut us up now that Margaret Thatcher's dead
If someone robs your house, you dont say: I disagreed with the burglars policy, of tying me to a chair. But I did admire his convictions.
Maybe a more modern way of broadcasting the news would have been for Davina McCall to announce it, saying: Shes gone, but lets have a look at some of her best bits. Then we could see her denouncing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist and befriending General Pinochet.
Instead it began as expected, with the Hurds, Howes and Archers phoning in their remarkables and historics, and we were reminded how she brought down the Berlin Wall and rescued Britain, then an article in The Times claimed she was responsible for ending apartheid, and it seemed by today wed be hearing she stopped Gibraltar being invaded by Daleks and made our goldfish feel proud to be British and took 8 for 35 against Australia to win the Ashes.
Even those who disagreed with her, respected her as a conviction politician, it was said many times, as if everyone would participate in the mourning. But soon it was impossible to pretend there was a respectful consensus, not because of the odd party in the street, but from a widespread and considered contempt. In many areas it must have been confusing for Jehovahs Witnesses, as every time they knocked on a door and asked, Have you heard the good news, theyd be told Yes mate, I have, do you want to come in for a beer?
Before long came the complaints, such as Tony Blair saying: Even if you disagree with someone very strongly, at the moment of their passing you should show some respect. Presumably then, when Bin Laden was killed, Blairs statement was: Although I didnt agree with Osamas policies, he was a conviction terrorist, a colourful character whose short films were not only fun but educational as well. He will be sadly missed.
The disrespect was inevitable, as millions were opposed to her not because they disagreed with her, but because shed helped to ruin their lives. If someone robs your house, you dont say: I disagreed with the burglars policy, of tying me to a chair with gaffer tape and stripping the place bare, even taking the pickled onions, which I consider to be divisive. But I did admire his convictions.
For example, a Chilean woman living in Britain was quoted in The Nation magazine, saying: The Thatcher government directly supported Pinochets murderous regime, financially, via military support, even military training. Members of my family were tortured and murdered under Pinochet, who was one of Thatchers closest allies and friend. Those of us celebrating are the ones who suffered deeply. Yes, but she was able to buy shares in British Gas so she was better off in other ways. In so many areas, the party that insists we show compassion for their departed heroine made a virtue of showing none when she was their leader. She didnt just create unemployment, she gloried in it. Her supporters in the City revelled in their unearned wealth all the more because they could jeer at those with nothing.
But this week Thatcher fans have been unrestrained in their abuse for anyone not displaying compassion. Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt and accept theyve just discovered it. Theyre all going to the doctors saying: Ive been getting this strange sort of caring feeling towards someone who isnt me. Do I need antibiotics? If theyre puzzled as to why there isnt universal sadness this week, maybe they should visit Corby. Its a town that was built in the 1930s, entirely round a steelworks, and thousands of unemployed Scots moved there for the work. As a result its people still have a strong Scottish accent, even though its in Northamptonshire.
But in 1980 Margaret Thatchers government shut down most of the steel industry, as part of her plan to break the unions, and the effect on Corby was like someone taking control of the Lake District and concreting in the lakes.
I was there to record a radio show about the town, and met Don and Irene, both in their seventies, at the Grampian Club. Dons father had walked to Corby from Larkhall, near Glasgow, in 1932. I mentioned the steel strike and plant closure to Don, but he gestured as if it had somehow passed him by. It would have to be mentioned in the show, so I tried to find someone in the town with a story, an anecdote, something. But no one wanted to say a thing about it. During the recording, I asked if anyone had a story to tell from those days, but no one did, until it felt as if the whole audience collectively passed a motion that went: I think youd best move on to another subject, Mark.
Afterwards in the bar, Irene told me: We werent being rude, love, when we didnt have a lot to say about the closure. But it wasnt an easy time. Don marched from Corby to London with a banner. It made him angry about everything, we split up for a year because it was too much to live with. But we were lucky, two of our closest friends committed suicide in the months after the closure. So people would rather forget about those times really. But apart from that we really enjoyed the show.
Still, even those who disagree with her policies, will surely commend her achievements.
Strangely, its now her supporters who are insulting her memory, with a funeral paid for by the taxpayer. Surely it would be more fitting to leave her where she is, and say: If you cant stand on your own two feet, you can't expect help from the state.
> I would argue that everything Thatcher said during her life indicates she would have refused a bailout - with her cabinet probably weeping in fear.
I doubt it. She would have realised that to refuse to bail out the banks would mean the collapse of the entire economic system which she was so fond of.
And anyway, if she had, she would have been deposed of quickly. Capitalists wouldn't risk collapse of the whole system and world-wide riots because of the wishes of one woman.
Over £9 million of Uk tax payers money will be spent on the military near state funeral of Margaret THatcher. Meanwhile victims affected by the HUman Mad Cow Disease have spent their dying days in poverty. THousand more 'living victims' of the disease eke out an existence,their lives and futures ruined. Margaret Thatcher her loyalties to big corporations and business put capitalism and greed before the nations health. Her policies & decisions allowed BSE to exist & contaminate a nation.
It is appalling that so much time, money,pomp & ceremony is being spent on Margaret Thatcher a woman who cared little for the ordinary person in the street & condemned hundreds of people to a horrific death "vCJD"
Well said Beaware. Keep up the good work with your campaigning.
Great Link ttosca, I notice at the bottom of the page almost everyone who has read it agrees.
Thanks MinibTheMinx, see this link www.justiceforandy.com
In response to ttosca. An article with some actual facts behind it:
Thatcher's achievements will long outlive the spite of Sheffield's sons and daughters - John Phelan
When Thatcher dies theyll have to build a dance floor over her grave for all the people who want to dance on it. When I was told this in a pub some years ago it wasnt the sentiment that struck me but that fact that the unimaginative fellow speaking might have thought it was the first time anyone within earshot had heard that rib tickler.
I was born in Sheffield in 1980 and through family and support of an underachieving football club I retain ties to the place and its people. I have heard Sheffielders, some quite reasonable folk, say that they wish the Brighton bomb attack had succeeded; I have heard them joke frequently about Thatchers dementia.
One told me that if there was a God he would believe in him if Margaret Thatcher died. But, if there is a God, shouldnt he believe in him anyway? And unless he was ascribing to Thatcher powers of immortality, her death is a certainty and, thus, so is his eventual embrace of theism.
You wont find logic where none exists. The visceral hatred of Margaret Thatcher isnt based on anything resembling rational thought. As one Sheffielder once put it to me I dont understand all this stuff about GDPs, Taxes, RPI etc etc. All i know is that growing up in Sheffield in the 80s. Thatcher demolished a once proud city & left alot of its inhabitants pennyless, jobless & without hope. You can argue about stats all day. But that was the reality of it all. People losing their, jobs, homes & pride.
Thats why people in places like Sheffield will be celebrating Margaret Thatchers death. Theres just one problem. Its wrong.
For starters, feel the parochialism. Thatcher was bad for Sheffield ergo she was bad. Never mind the rest of the country. Never mind the GDP growth of 23 percent or the increase in the median wage of 25 percent during her time in office. For most people the Thatcher years were ones of prosperity. Thats why she regularly tops polls of most popular Prime Ministers.
This is not to say that this persons view is worthless. But it is to say that an opinion formed simply by looking up and down your street might not be too useful.
Then, just how proud actually were places like Sheffield before Thatcher came along? How proud can any city be when it is, essentially, a vast welfare case getting by on the wealth transferred to it from other parts of the country?
That was the truth of the industrial situation in these areas. Take coal. Just before the First World War the mines employed more than 1 million men in 3,000 pits producing 300 million tonnes of coal annually.
By the time the industry was nationalised in 1947 700,000 men were producing just 200 million tonnes a year. To improve this situation, in 1950, the first Plan for Coal pumped £520 million into the industry to boost production to 240 million tonnes a year.
This target was never met. In 1956, the record year for post war coal production, 228 million tonnes were produced, too little to meet demand, and 17 million tonnes had to be imported. Oil, a cheaper energy source, was growing in importance, British Rail ditching coal powered steam for oil driven electricity, for example.
Jobs were lost in numbers that dwarfed anything under Thatcher. 264 pits closed between 1957 and 1963. 346,000 miners left the industry between 1963 and 1968. In 1967 alone there were 12,900 forced redundancies. Under Harold Wilson one pit closed every week.
1969 was the last year when coal accounted for more than half of Britains energy consumption. By 1970, when the Conservatives were elected, there were just 300 pits left a fall of two thirds in 25 years.
By 1974 coal accounted for less than one third of energy consumption in Britain. Wilsons incoming Labour government published a new Plan for Coal which predicted an increase in production from 110 million tonnes to 135 million tonnes a year by 1985. This was never achieved.
Margaret Thatchers government inherited a coal industry which had seen productivity collapse by 6 percent in five years. Nevertheless, it made attempts to rescue it. In 1981 a subsidy of £50 million was given to industries which switched from cheap oil to expensive British coal. So decrepit had the industry become that taxpayers were paying people to buy British coal.
The Thatcher government injected a further £200 million into the industry. Companies who had gone abroad to buy coal, such as the Central Electricity Generating Board, were banned from bringing it in and 3 million tonnes of coal piled up at Rotterdam at a cost to the British taxpayer of £30 million per year.
By now the industry was losing £1.2 million per day. Its interest payments amounted to £467 million for the year and the National Coal Board needed a grant of £875 million from the taxpayer.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission found that 75 percent of British pits were losing money. The reason was obvious. By 1984 it cost £44 to mine a metric ton of British coal. America, Australia, and South Africa were selling it on the world market for £32 a metric ton.
Productivity increases had come in at 20 percent below the level set in the 1974 Plan for Coal.
Taxpayers were subsidising the mining industry to the tune of £1.3 billion annually. This figure doesnt include the vast cost to taxpayer-funded industries such as steel and electricity which were obliged to buy British coal.
But when Arthur Scargill appeared before a Parliamentary committee and was asked at what level of loss it was acceptable to close a pit he answered As far as I can see, the loss is without limits.
Falling production, falling employment, falling sales, and increasing subsidy; that was the coal industry Margaret Thatcher inherited.
She did not swoop in and kill perfectly good industries out of spite. Industries like coal and steel were already dead by the time she was elected. Thatcher just switched off the increasingly costly life support which had kept these zombie industries going.
When Margaret Thatcher dies the streets of Sheffield will flow with ale. But the next day the revelers will wake up with headaches and Margaret Thatcher will still have crushed Arthur Scargill, will still have helped win the Cold War, and will still have shown the supposed inevitability of socialism to be the dimwitted sham it was. And those achievements will last longer than the hangovers.
"Most of the people celebrating the death of Thatcher are just ordinary people who have suffered under her leadership or because they're angry about Thatcher helping to turn the UK in to a nastier, more selfish place to live."
No. Wrong. Incorrect.
A "Nastier Place to live" is it? What a load of cobblers. Really going to have to dig out the photo I have of the Scousers picketing that graveyard. If my mum were still here, I could ask her to tell me the stories about working in a hospital during the late 70's. Ask her how pleasant a place it was to work in.
You can spot the people who are just parroting their family's beliefs about Thatcher. You'll only see them coming out with the bad, in ever more strident tones.
Or you'll see the old chestnuts... "She destroyed our community", "She ripped the heart out of...", "She closed our..."
Any political leader - yes even Stalin if you want to go press the point, will have had successes. Policies which can be argued to be a good thing. You'll never hear a Thatcher hater mention one good thing she achieved, however small. Thatcher supporters should at least be able to admit to her faults.
The people who's opinion is worth listening to, have at least cracked open Google. Nice to see a couple of people on this thread have done that, although given they mention the Winter of discontent as an example of "Progressive Taxation", I won't bother arguing the point back. Top marks for effort, though.
>> "Thatcher fans have been unrestrained in their abuse for anyone not displaying compassion."
Nope not really. Think some people are a bit shocked by it. But, if you grew up in the 70's you should have seen it all before (just not on twitter). There really was no low the left wouldn't sink to when they lost.
Bombjack, without getting into Phelan's article in great detail, as it is late, we have to acknowledge that no one from any position in the political spectrum is claiming that the country's coal mines were operating as money pits in the 1970s, but no analysis of the interaction between domestic energy sources and UK inflation approaches completion without being honest about the impact of the OPEC crisis - which Phelan completely ignores.
But despite the apparent economic unproductivity of the coal mining industry (the extent of which is still debatable) it is clear that Thatcher's approach has been costly in the long term. This week I've heard many politicians and commentators grumble that before Thatcher the government seemed to see its role as "managing decline". But where there is decline, it has to be managed. The problems facing Britain's energy sector and heavy industries were hardly unique to Britain, and they were managed far more effectively in much of Europe. Closing down a coal mine, as I'm sure you will appreciate, does not have the same impact as closing down an unprofitable shopping centre, it has a knock on impact on a plethora of secondary services and the wider local economy - and of course all the action Thatcher's government took to remedy this was to tragically increase welfare dependency and put it on the tab. We're still picking it up. Did changes have to be made? Yes they did. Were the right changes made, at the right time and in the right way? I honestly don't think that many of her supporters wholeheartedly believe so.
It's been almost impossible to say anything bad about her in the last few days, even on MN the anti Thatcher posters were flamed, with the complicity of MNHQ.
Great article. Mark Steel hits nail on head....again.
even on MN the anti Thatcher posters were flamed
I was called egocentric (that's hilarious) and mean spirited for starting a thread saying that I wouldn't be celebrating her death but but I feel an awful lot sadder about all of her peers who have died cold, hungry and alone because of the cuts she was instrumental in introducing, here.
I wonder what those same people said to the many who were actively celebrating.
So glad he wrote it. This baying condemnation of anyone who dares to voice disapproval of Thatcher is very disturbing. Just because someone's dies it doesn't change their actions.
the problem with your article is that it is just about 0ne aspect of what Thatcher did.
"You can spot the people who are just parroting their family's beliefs about Thatcher. You'll only see them coming out with the bad, in ever more strident tones.
Or you'll see the old chestnuts... "She destroyed our community", "She ripped the heart out of...", "She closed our...""
its doesn't stop them from being true.
I think that Thatcher would be proud that she has once again in death succeeded in what she did in life. She has spilt the country.
Bombjack my DHs take on the 1970s is very different. He says it was much better than it is now and much easier to find work even with the 3 day week.
Here is a post of mine from an older thread. He was speaking to me while i was typing it. So i typed exactly the way he was speaking. These are his exact words.
DarkesteyesSun 03-Feb-13 00:43:41
Eliza ive just asked my almost 63 yr old DH (hes a baby boomer too but without the baby boomer attitude)
He says it was better in the 70s that is now and that it was easier then because he was doing 3 12 hr days so that was 36 hrs in 3 days and then the other 2 days they used a generator which was shared between 3 small factories (note the lack of "im alright jack" here.) this was shared between 360 employees between the three sites. Food and drink was laid on for the employees FREE. In the circumstances ive described here from DH he says it was easier then BECAUSE THERE WAS WORK and you could finish in one factory one day and start in another the next day even with this 3 day week.
While this was all going on they were given fuel ration cards but you only had to mention where you worked to the garage and they guaranteed you would have the fuel.
All these companies ive mentioned were looking out for each other. DH says it was easier back then that it is now. (fuel ration cards they were given didnt even have to be used. Can you imagine that kind of selflessness happening now? Ha. Not by some of the attitudes ive seen on here!
Within this ten mile radius there were 7 contract firms which did the work for the bigger companies.
Now they would be fighting each other for contracts but back then they simply helped each other out with steel,materials etc which never got delivered because of the shortage of fuel.
Eliza DH has just said it was a completely different world back then so it cant be compared.
And they got paid OVERTIME RATE even on the 3 day week.
Thankyou Darkesteyes for reminding me that the 70's were much so much better. We all looked out for one another. I loathed Thatcher but she was never so vile as this lot
We like your DH are old baby boomers
The problem is "darkesteyes" that not all places where the utopia that your 63 yr old DP remembers.
A friend of my parents had a run in with the shop steward were he worked, he was removed from the firm (the shop steward issued the strike ultimatum to the boss). the shop steward then had him "black balled" from the union, he could enter any firm that had a closed shop (one union) policy.
That would be bad enough but every time this bloke got a job the shop steward would appear and have a word with management, or shopkeepers or whoever had offered this man employment, and he would be forced to leave or the shop would not be supported by the shop steward.
He omly gopt a job that saved his marriage and family because Thatcher stopped the closed shop (one union) stranglehold.
I have no Love for Thatcher but quite frankly the unions can go fuck themselves up the arse with the rough end of a pineaaple.
I thought both ends of a pineapple were rough?
I think my post wasn't very clear, sorry. I meant that we had progressive taxation 45-79
1970s progressive taxation and falling rate of profit means capitalists sulk and stop investing
From 45 onwards we had rising productivity & wages. This means demand for goods and services. I think another factor is that we had many more people being employed by nationalised industries and the introduction of the NHS. This meant workers had enough money to create demand for all privately produced goods/services.
The falling rate of profit is seen over any cycle, within any industry/business and over time. Because of competition, businesses invest in technologies to become more efficient. Efficiency leads to the falling rate of profit because less labour is needed combined with competition to bring down prices. Because you have this, capitalist sulk and stop investing or they invest elsewhere. I can't find a chart that specifically shows this in the U.K but I recall reading that sometime around 1965 (ish) profits slumped.
www.businessinsider.com/profits-at-high-wages-at-low-2013-4 graph one shows falling rate of profit in the U.S but a similar picture was seen in the uk.
"The body of evidence from a range of sources on measuring the US ROP since 1946 shows that there has been a secular fall in profitability since 1946 but that it has been interspersed with a cycle of up and down phases. There is mostly agreement that the first up phase was from 1946 to 1965, the next down phase was from 1965 to 1982 and then there was an up phase from 1982 to 1997
followed by a down phase afterwards. So there is a cycle of profitability, as well as a secular decline"
Falling profit has a wave or cyclical pattern with troughs and peaks thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/the-profit-cycle-and-economic-recession.pdf
We have seen rising profits over the last 30 years. However one thing that occurs to me is that this time (79 onwards) most of that profit is because of falling wages rather than technological advances, the demand has only come from the availability of borrowing because workers can't pay with their wages. So the profits come from debt. The other interesting thing is that the profits are not then invested into core business where value is created but into areas that create fictitious
When Maggie came to power she inherited stagflation, inflation, unemployment, which would still have risen because the capitalists were sulking and not investing. Without their investment the costs to the government of keeping industries which were failing nationalised and picking up the welfare tab would have been horrendous.
She created the conditions in which investment would be profitable, problem is we now need to be moving in the opposite direction and Scameron et al haven't caught on yet and business owners are unlikely to wake up until they are fighting each other for your last dime.
However with so much private sector debt & state debt sitting alongside huge levels of surplus capital which is essentially now fictitious capital, Keynes cure might not work???????? certainly investors are moving towards health/education/welfare to make money for them. The net result could be higher national debt and still no show from the private sector. What do others think?
"He says it was better in the 70s that is now and that it was easier then because he was doing 3 12 hr days so that was 36 hrs in 3 days and then the other 2 days they used a generator which was shared between 3 small factories (note the lack of "im alright jack" here.) this was shared between 360 employees between the three sites. Food and drink was laid on for the employees FREE."
Can someone remind him that it is not about him and how easy it was for him and how the food and drink was free for him
We were bankrupt as a nation, we were on our knees and Labour's Denis Healey had to call the IMF in, just like bankrupt countries do.
Unions could take strike action without balloting their members. They dictated many policies and they challened the Labour government who were ineffectual in curbing their power. We are a democracy and vote in a government on our behalf. We can't allow union leaders, Marxists and former Communists to dictate policy.
Heath was unable to turn things around, Healey invited the IMF in and Callaghan couldn't turn things around.
There was one person who could turn things around and that was Maggie.
'Thankyou Darkesteyes for reminding me that the 70's were much so much better.'
Inflation reached 27% in the 1970s
We were a basket case. If it had been allowed to continue, we would all now be wearing rags. Labour knew that the decline was out of control but thay did not have the strength and determination to put a stop to it.
The person who ended it was Margaret Thatcher. She saved the country.
claig it wasnt just his experience. They all got paid overtime rate not just my Dh and they all helped each other out. That is what my post says.
Can someone remind him that it is not about him and how easy it was for him and how the food and drink was free for him
How strange you should make this remark claig. After all it was Thatcher who said "there is no society only the individual"!!
Harold Wilson closed more mines in the 1960s than Thatcher did in the 1980s.
We are witnessing the real divide in this nation between leftwing activists who oppose any polcy of change implemented by a Conservative government and ignore teh changes made by Labour governments.
We are now witnessing the real hostility and enmity of some leftwingers to any policy that emanates from the right.
In Scargill's day, there were leftwingers like him who opposed the shutting down of a single mine and today we have some leftwingers who oppose the cutting of a single benefit after a Labour government left office and one of their MPs left a note saying there is no money left.
Things might have been good for some. Just in the same way that many older Russian's look back with nostalgia at the old communist days.
It doesn't mean that as a society though it was sustainable and the same applied to the UK in 1979. As a nation we had collapsed. It wasn't working.
It seems to me that those who were doing OK under the old regime hated the fact that change had to happen and unfairly blame Maggie for that change. But many actually did very well out of the changes she ushered in. Those people have been branded greedy capitalist pigs for having embraced change and worked hard. It's all bullshit to justify the fact that they didn't want to accept that the world changed around them.
We are now witnessing the real hostility and enmity of some leftwingers to any policy that emanates from the right.
Very true. I was having a conversation with a far leftie friend the other day who as usual was spewing unfounded bollocks about how the working class have now been priced out of uni education. And after 10 minutes of taking her through the REAL changes rather than the rubbish she was believing, even she had to admit that actually they weren't bad and in fact was more in line with left wing policy of taxing the rich.
What it taught me is that the left seem to only look at the rhetoric and pay little to no attention to the facts.
'How strange you should make this remark claig. After all it was Thatcher who said "there is no society only the individual"!!'
Yes, but Thatcher did not work for herself. She worked for the whole country, for everyone of us, and she survived a bomb in Brighton when working for all of us and for our entire society.
That Thatcher quote has been misinterpreted by leftwingers who try desperately to paint her as uncaring and even evil. She worked for the nation and those leftwingers who celebrate her death disrespect her.
We are witnessing a hatred of Thatcher and what she stood for. We are witnessing a real divide in our society by some on the left and the rest of teh public who voted her in three times and made her the longest serving peacetime Prime Minister of the twentieth century.
We are witnessing the difference in values between those who opposed any mine closures and who oppose any cuts and the rest of the public.
The media play Billy Bragg's song "which side are you on?"
In the 1980s, the public was mainly with Thatcher and I think that the silent majority still are today.
Actually claig we will be wearing rags in a few years anyway!
There is one other thing, around the late 70s containerisation came in which meant that cars and all sorts could be assembled in one place whilst component parts were made elsewhere. Moving goods, moving manufacturing around and moving capital became quicker, cheaper and easier. Computers came in and meant that moving money around the globe became as easy as pushing a button. That is what Thatcher faced, a sulky bunch of capitalists that would hop on the next boat out unless they got what they wanted. However what she did to our manufacturing industries has meant an over reliance upon the financial services sector and now we have unemployed de-skilled people. How are we going to turn things around now?
What do you want everyone to do, claig? No really, what is it you want?
You seem to want everyone to roll over and exclaim "Oh I SEE now! Thatcher saved us. She really was the best leader we have ever had. She really does deserve a state sponsored funeral, unlike almost every other PM. We are all wrong, and we are just brainwashed lefties. Thatcherism really is the only way."
That seems to be what you want, with your constant essays deifying Thatcher. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it seems.
People will not change their histories, their memories, the heritages and their beliefs because you are telling them they are all wrong.
How are we going to turn things around now?
Well in my opinion we invest heavily in high tech industries that will benefit us in the future. Things like microprocessor design, high end engineering and green technologies. Offshore the production of the actual widgets to China. Bit like Apple. They design the stuff, sell the stuff and make the profit. But the production is done in China.
To do this though we need massive changes in our society starting with our education system. Frankly it's shit. We've kids leaving with qualifications which are worthless in the real world competing for jobs with graduates who are better qualified and immigrants who will work for less.
Kid's don't see business and science as interesting career choices and too many are leaning towards the media/sports and other soft subjects which is fine in small numbers but it doesn't help us as a nation to be an economic powerhouse.
But such changes and return on any investment will take a generation to see. Our electoral system demands results in 5 years hence why politician's are only ever interested in quick fixes and do little to address our underlying structural problems.
PS the fact that she survived the bomb in Brighton is not testament to her strength of character. It was simply her good luck that she was not killed.
'However what she did to our manufacturing industries has meant an over reliance upon the financial services sector and now we have unemployed de-skilled people. How are we going to turn things around now?'
She did not get everything right, on that we can all agree. But she could not stop globalisation just as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Miliband can't either even if tehy wanted to which they don't.
The reality was that much of our manufacturing industry was not of the level of that in Germany. It wasn't Thatcher's fault of Labour's fault because all governments had spent billions on our state industries and were losing money hand over fist.
It was the fault of our managers, just like the banking crisis was the fault of our 'light touch regulators' and politicians who did not know what was going on under their noses.
We were in decline because the wrong managers were making the wrong decisions and were sitting on their laurels and not investing to modernise our industries.
We were lions led by donkeys, just like our soldiers were in the First World War. The upper classes, the bowler hat brigade and the upper class generals and earls who led our soldiers to their deaths were often incompetent. They were too comfortable and had not faced competition and were not sharp and educated enough. They led us up blind alleys and forced is to retreat and retreat while more dynamic societies advanced.
Thatcher changed all that. She smashed the system. She broke the class system and the bowler hat brigades howled at her in fury. She opened their comfortable ways up to competition, to global capital and finance. She had no time for them and they fought her unscrupulously but she never flinched from her determination to modernise the country and set it back on the path of growth for teh benefit of its hardworking working and middle classes who had for so long been lions led by donkeys.
The bowler hat brigade brayed like the donkeys that they were and the unions howled as their comfortable practices and ways were swept away.
The leftwing activists who cared only for themselves and not the country or its people opposed her very move. They despised her for changing things for the better and for exposing the fallacies of their arguments.
They hated her, they hated the middle classes and they hate the Daily Mail. But she never let their abuse stop her from doing what was right.
To Billy Bragg' song "which side are you on?", she would have answered that she was on the people's side, our side.
'What do you want everyone to do, claig? No really, what is it you want?'
I want these people celebrating Thatcher's death, passing around death cakes and singing songs about her death to have the decency to hang their heads in shame.
Criticism of her is fine, I disagreee with much of what she did. She was human and got some things wrong, but she does not deserve such hatred and disrespect for serving her country.
But, as has been proven, people doing that are in the small minority. The general consensus here seems to be that lots of people disliked her thoroughly, but they don't think it's decent to celebrate someone's death.
And you cannot change how people feel about her. I think she was a terrible, though impressive person - you are not going to change that. However I, like the vast majority, are not one of those people celebrating in the streets so I am not going to hang my head with shame. And I repeat the assertion that just because someone has died, it doesn't make them immune to criticism. Are Mark Steel and those agreeing with him among those who should be hanging their heads in shame?
'The general consensus here seems to be that lots of people disliked her thoroughly, but they don't think it's decent to celebrate someone's death.'
That's fine. I don't care if people dislike her and nor did she. She had the strength to ignore the jibes and criticisms of the left and their leaders and to put the nation above being loved by everyone.
She wasn't in a popularty contest, she was a conviction politician who wanted to do what was right.
I like Mark Steel. But I notice that the Independent article by him has a picture next to it of graffiti on a wall saying that Thatcher should "rot in hell".
I don't think Mark Steel put that picture there, I guess it was teh progressives on the Independent.
Thatcher didn't mind criticism. Kinnock criticised her every week at the dispatch box and she made him look a chump every time he tried it and the public knew and recognised that and never voted him in above her.
Criticism is fine. But the hatred displayed by some of the people who criticise her is not part of a tolerant Britain. However, it is very instructive for the majority of the people and the middle clases to witness it, so that they understand what lies beneath the mask.
Or there are those who realise there is more to being a decent politician than being the master of the put down.
I was working in 1981 in an office where I lost my job, because I had dared to say that I thought the country had needed a change of government in 1979.
The day I was sacked was the day after someone who held extreme left views was promoted to being a manager.
He had failed his 'A' levels because of his involvement in extreme left politics, and was working for the establishment of a totalitarian state in Britain. He wasn't joking. At the time, a man called Robinson - called Red Robbo in the tabloids was proved to have been paid by Moscow to use tactics to subvert British industry. This was part of the cold war.
In 1982, I went to work for a computer services company. Unfortunately, it provided computer services for a bank. There was a closed shop, sorry, 'union membership agreement'. I had no choice, but to join. If I didn't join, the contributions would have been deducted from my salary, and given to charity. Again there was no choice, the charity would have been the BIFU (banking, insurance and finance union) benevolent fund.
Some 18 months later, on becoming a division of the bank, rather than a separate company, the union rubber-stamped a change to the pension scheme. This scheme changed a contribution of 6% to 0% and the word 'spouse' to 'widow', thus removing the right to a widower's pension from all female members of staff. Rather than fight for the best deal for all staff, they agreed to a deal that gave no rights to the many female part-time staff employed for lunch-time cover.
Re - Glenda Jackson, she is a complete hypocrite. I was always sickened by her stories of growing up in Liverpool. When she was growing up, she lived 10 minutes walk away from where Cynthia Lennon lived. In Hoylake. Less than 5 minutes walk away from where Glenda lived was the home of Selwyn LLoyd, the MP for Wirral. 10 minutes walk away from their house, would have put you on the footpath leading on to the Royal Liverpool Golf Course. Up until 1974, Hoylake was in Cheshire.
She is a 'professional' Scouser, as Harold Wilson was a professional Yorkshireman - he was a pupil at Wirral Grammar School, in the constituency of Bebington, for many years a Tory seat, under Barry Porter (from memory).
In 1974, a friend at school, told me her parents had stopped putting up a poster supporting him - their garden was on a corner on the road leading to Bebington Village. Someone supporting free speech had thrown a brick through their sitting room window.
'Or there are those who realise there is more to being a decent politician than being the master of the put down.'
But that is why the public voted Thatcher in on a landslide twice. Kinnock tried to put her down quite often at the dispatch box, but if you go to youtube you can see hgow she defeated him time and time again by the clarity and force of her arguments and opinions.
She knew she was right, he knew she was right and most importantly the public knew that she was right and the left was wrong.
There is no doubt things needed changing. Kinnock realised this too - he angered a lot of the far left loons in his speech against Liverpool City Council in 1985. And he abandoned unilateral disarmament. Unfortunately, I believe that much of the anti-Kinnock sentiment was anti-Welsh, almost racist, nicely illustrated by the Sun and their "boyo" comments. You will probably disagree with that, however. And I also think that had he not died prematurely, then John Smith would have proved to be a proper vote winner (though after Thatcher admittedly)
Thatcher never touched Remploy, she never closed down jobs in Remploy for disabled people. It was Labour that began the policy of cutting jobs for disabled people in Remploy and it has been carried on by the Coalition.
And uet some Labour MPs and Labour councillors call her heartless.
Yes, John Smith would have been a good Prime Minister.
Yes, 'The Welsh Windbag', and other insults. That wouldn't be accepted today. I always quite liked him, but the press hated him.
And I agree about John Smith too, had he not died he would have been the next Labour PM.
And he would never have gone into Iraq.
Blimey. We agree on something.
Lots of these people celebrating Thatcher's death weren't even born when she was in power.
They are an indication of the divide and hatred we have in this country between a group of activists whose values are the opposite of the majority and our middle classes.
Thatcher's death has brought them out into the open and the public can see the hatred not only of Thatcher, for she was only one woman, but of the values of the majority of the people.
Just a quick one, only read the first two pages. This woman allowed an awful lot of you to become homeowners. Something that you wouldn't have thought of in the 70's. I am not sure i agree but by my nickname, you know what I think.
How many of us came from bought council houses and grew up thinking that one day we could be a prime minister! I did and never ever voted Tory but I didn't ever think I couldn't get on in a mans (Freemasons) world. I did and yes it's tough, especially when those babies arrive. I have been static recently because of that. But I am about to show my daughter what she can achieve if one tries!
Thatcher took away my home. My mother was made redundant in one of Thatcher's recessions in the mid 80s, became ill after an operation went wrong so couldn't go out and get another job immediately, and we lost our house. (Lots of other people fared even worse, of course - when my Mother recovered she was eventually able to find another job. But it has had long-term consequences.)
Fair enough for those that bought their own homes.
But the money made should have been invested in social housing.
And we now have a huge housing crisis, not enough social housing and a lot of private landlords making a huge profit, many of whom bought up cheap council homes.
And young couples who will never own their own home.
So basically, IMO her legacy is still here today.
I do think the council house sell off was a mistake, with many things in the government of that day it was for short term gains. The houses were sold so cheaply and no re-investment was made, so what were they thinking would happen to the next generation? yy I know Labour didnt build council houses later either but why no generation of new homes or future plan then?
To be fair the last government did encourage the building of new social housing. Not council houses, though, and not nearly enough of them.
I think now any new development has to build a proportion of social housing in thier developments, is that right?
But, although the sell off was good at the time for the people living in them, I think its left a massive amount of people needing social housing.
That was the case under the last government but this government has seriously weakened the requirement to include social housing - it's pretty much gone, in effect.
There is such a backlog needed for social housing, in London its pretty much new flats being built which are really quite small for families, i despair tbh.
Thatcher is being offered a right royal send off or almost. Some of the population, a sizeable number, are making their protest known that they did not enjoy the eulogising of Cameron and other MPs and do no think the pomp of her send off is wholly appropriate as she has as many detractors as supporters. "Ding Dong" - a protest call to help Tories realise they do not have a mandate to privatise the NHS etc. It is important people protest so that this other popular voice is heard.Also important All politicians listen to this - it is real sentiment
No, absolutely not. The Ding Dong is disgusting. Riot if you want at our current government et al but do not, ever intrude on the funeral of anyone. It's vile and abhorrent. Her policies and stuff can be discussed and always could have, but to hijack the death of someone within a week of their funeral is beyond measure.
Somebody called Burgled1 put an apposite comment beneath a 'Ding Dong the Witch is Dead' Youtube clip (it's very well done, by the way) - he suggested the funeral should be privatised, with adverts on the coffin - it's what Maggie would have wanted!
I don't think there would be as much hooha as there is about the impending funeral if Pudding Face hadn't decided to turn it into a state funeral in all but name. Of course it shouldn't be any more special than any other ex Prime Minister's funeral. She was widely hated (as well as being a plaster saint to the Daily Mail).
About social housing - in Edinburgh there's something called The Quarter Mile. It used to be a hospital, but it is prime land and it was bought by developers to make flats and offices (the hospital went out of town, a 20-minute drive away at least, with huge parking costs. But I digress).
There is a handy map on the railings showing where the different buildings are in the new development. Only one of them is designated 'Affordable' housing. So what does that make everything else???
Not blaming Thatcher for that of course.
However, in the Guardian yesterday, there were some excellent articles about her legacy. (I haven't read the thread through yet, so someone else might have referred to them. Sorry.)
Some excellent journalism here, Claig, specially for you.
The Thatcher effect: What changed and what stayed the same, by James Ball
Thatchers death has Britain peering back through time
Thatcher the politician was a nightmare. But I salute Thatcher the woman, by Deborah Orr
Claig won't click on a Guardian link
No, probablynot. Then s/he'll never know what s/he's missing ...
If there was not such outpouring of her brilliance and "girl power" people would not have protested so loudly. It is the over-complimenting of this lady that has caused such a backlash - she stands for things many find distasteful and do not want the tories to feel they can use her memory as a way of diminsiing the state too much further: local council - 2,500 jobs left , have to be cut to 250 by next year. Our services are not just down-sizing but diminishing - why let tories feel we all want this a Thatcherite policy.
I will be wearing red on Wednesday (see twitter #WearRedOnWed) as a mark of respect to all the people whose lives were made worse as a result of Thatcherism, because of all the hypocritical tripe that has been spouted by the media almost constantly about Thatcher all day and every day since she died, and because of tax payers money being used for her funeral.
Solo, yes the article about what has changed in the Guardian is a good one, and more pits were closed under Wilson in the 1960s than Thatcher in the 1970s.
I listened to Any Questions on Friday and Labour's Alan Johnson said an interesting thing - that the right to buy of council houses was first suggested by the Labour Party in its 1959 manifesto.
This is from wikipedia
'Individual local authorities have always had the ability to sell council houses to their tenants, but until the early 1970s such sales were extremely rare.
The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election which it subsequently lost. Later, the Conservative-controlled Greater London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its Chairman of Housing, to create a general sales scheme. Cutler disagreed with the concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free market approach. GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a Conservative Party policy nationally.
In the meantime, council house sales to tenants began to increase. Some 7,000 were sold to their tenants during 1970, but in two short years that figure soared to more than 45,000 in 1972.
After Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in May 1979, the legislation to implement the Right to Buy was passed in the Housing Act 1980. The sale price of a council house was based on its market valuation but also included a discount to reflect the rents paid by tenants and also to encourage take-up. The legislation gave council tenants the right to buy their council house at a discounted value, depending on how long they had been living in the house, with the proviso that if they sold their house before a minimum period had expired they would have to pay back a proportion of the discount.'
There is an interesting article by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Siunday today where he argues that Thatcher was a failure i.e. she was too soft and did not go far enough. He has a point and I agree with some of the areas where she was not Conservative enough, but Hitchens often says that the Tories are not very good because they don't go far enough, but I think he fails to take account of political realities and the fact that you can only change things fairly slowly. But he is right in saying that most of teh current Tories tried to distance themselves from Thatcher and tried to be like New Labour. That is the reason they are now losing many Tory voters to UKIP.
A very good article in the Mail that corrects some of the misleading Marxist mythology about Thatcherism and clarifies some facts.
"It has also become fashionable to blame one of her greatest triumphs the sale of council homes to tenants for todays horrendous housing crisis and long waiting lists.
Britains social housing sector was almost Soviet in size before Thatchers right-to-buy scheme was introduced, accounting for a third of all homes. Yet today, even after the sell-offs, it is a little-known fact that it remains much larger than in most other countries worth up to a fifth of the total. Thats more than Denmark, Sweden, France, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, Slovenia, Germany and Italy.
Yet these countries clearly do not all suffer from the same problems that we do. There is no reason why the State should own the homes in which it houses the poor. The UKs insufficient supply of homes is directly attributable to the fact that the Thatcherite revolution sadly left untouched the post-1945 planning system, one of Britains last bastions of socialist thinking.
We need the private sector to build more homes to make sure there are enough for everybody, at affordable prices, not hark back to a dystopian vision of the government as a super-landlord."
I abhorred her politics and had nothing good to say about her in life But I think all those 'celebrating' and 'dancing on her grave' are ridiculous. She has not suffered some ill fate like an accident or something which although still tasteless I could see true haters rejoicing in her misfortune. She was an 87 yr old woman who was unwell and died Everyone dies how can you celebrate something natural and which was in all honesty probably a kindness to her considering her health?
But I think all those 'celebrating' and 'dancing on her grave' are ridiculous.
I'm uncomfortable with the overt celebrations. The thing is that those who are objecting quite reasonably to the amount of public money being spent and who want to speak out against her to redress the balance of all the glorification going on are being tarred with the same brush.
Dancing and singing about the witch being dead isn't right but nor is spending millions in public money on her funeral. One is being encouraged by outrage as a result of the other.
I think the spending on her funeral is morally wrong considering the state of the country and how the poorest are being expected to bear the brunt,she was the queen of bloody austerity The irony!
Another irony is, that Thatcher was all about taking things away from public ownership and selling them to the private sector, but yet she's getting a publicly funded funeral.
With her political stance, surely she'd have preferred a privately funded/sponsored funeral?!
As for the funeral protests, I think providing they're peaceful, I don't think anyone has the right to complain about them. When public funds are being spent on something people disagree with, those people have the right to protest, as all of us pay into the public purse. (Even those who don't work, pay into the public purse other ways).
And of course, the news that it appears the Thatcher "family" home is owned by companies in tax havens, which means her family will avoid shelling out almost £2.5m in inheritance tax just adds fuel to the fire when she's getting a £10m funeral.
noddyholder - William Hague said we've got the £10m to pay for her funeral.
Funny that they couldn't find that £10m to save a few libraries or hospitals isn't it?!
How many hospitals would £10m save?
The funeral will be great publicity for Britain. It will be shown all over the world.
How many hospitals would £10m save?
None. We are spending £109 billion this year, £4 billion more than last year.
In that context £10m is just a rounding error
I have never voted Tory. But I find the vile and abhorrent comments distasteful.
Armchair warriors if you like. As Ms Holden says; none of you really live in the world. Bunch of women who make quilts, cupcakes and arrange bitch knits.....you would do well to really get out and find out what people really think in real life.
In that context £10m is just a rounding error
That 'rounding error' could be TAs in a lot more classrooms for a year or meaningful respite for a lot of families with children with disabilities.
I dont dispute that Goldmandra. But where do you draw the line with that line of thought? Should the government pay for nothing except welfare, health & education?
Furthermore, if you want to use that argument with the £10m, think of how many TA's you could get or meaningful respite for children with disabilities you could get with the £48 BILLION pounds we're spending on debt interest alone. That's just the interest! We're not even close to paying back the actual debt.
And what of the £3billion spent on Dept culture, media & sports? Surely having more nurses is more important than that dept yes?
My point is that sort of logic is rather flawed and whilst £10million on it's own is a lot of money, in the scale of government budgets, it's a drop in the ocean.
I'm not saying we should pay for her funeral. Frankly it really doesn't bother me either way. But people are getting all het up over peanuts. Let's put it another way, £10million is about 6p per person.
£10M 'a rounding error' - it'd pay for thousands of nurse posts that are currently under threat or being closed or not filled when a vacancy comes up, or replaced by badly-paid, unregulated HCAs. (Individual HCAs may be very good indeed but they are not qualified professionals.)
There are millions of people who would not willingly contribute a ha'penny towards her funeral. I'm sure my Mother would like the money Maggie cost her paid back, thank you very much, rather than having to pay even more.
Well there's lots of things I personally don't want to see my tax money 'wasted' on either. Unfortunately our tax money isn't a pick & mix.
And my point which you are ignoring is that there are MUCH bigger fish to fry.
Moan about it all you want but frankly it's amazing how much hatred towards Thatcher is based upon lies, myths and frankly misunderstanding. She wasn't perfect. Far from it. But I'm positive if she was a bloke the same level of hatred wouldn't have been levelled at her.
For the record, I hate Blair and Cameron just as much as I hate her.
Although i don't agree with the things being said about an old lady on fb, and find it somewhat disrespectful talking of the dead in such a way, she ruined the lifes of many and bought many changes in we are still suffering from today.
I find it somewhat disgusting on the same day they are rolling out benefits cuts and caps that they can spend such a ridiculous amount of money on a funeral.
Yes i understand the reasons behind her having a decent funeral, but 10million!!!! WHY and in a time the nhs could do with that money as could many other sectors.
How can they justify such a large chunk of money on the funeral of anyone when others get a pretty meagre send off???
Couldn't Mark spend some of the money he was saving up for his next coup attempt on his mother's funeral instead?
Apparently Maggie's estate is contributing to the funeral. Always have been planning to. Their contribution will be published after the funeral.
Plus, of course, it was Gordon Brown who first started the talk about a state funeral for Maggie. He consulted the queen about it when Maggie was in her early 80s (I think she was diagnosed with dementia then or had had her first stroke) and he went to the Queen to get her blessing for a State funeral. At that point they were also proposing a fly past! Maggie vetoed that and a state funeral - though she did agree to a ceremonial one (so would I if someone suggests it for mine!)
£10 million is an out and out insult to anyone who is suffering under this government and being told "We're all in this together."
They clearly think people are stupid.
Freedom For the record, I hate Blair and Cameron just as much as I hate her.
Me too. And I can't stand the way people respond with 'well Labour did this, Blair did that...' whenever you express an anti-Tory sentiment. Being anti-Tory doesn't necessarily make you 'pro' the opposition FFS.
London maybe, in view of the protests, it would be prudent for the Thatcher estate to let us know what their contribution will be before the funeral. It might just nip some of the protests in the bud.
Hester I completely agree with you.
twofingers, yes according to some, if you're not a fan of Maggie, that makes you a disrespectful, grave dancing Trot (i see the DM has become fond of the word Trot in recent days, horrid little rag). And moreover if you dislike the DM, that must make you a fully paid up member of the Guardianista.
Grey areas? Fuck them.
It doesn't occur to them there are other opinions and options.
twofingers - absolutely agree. You hate the Tories, so you must be Labour. Says who?!
I'm more than happy to share my voting record with people:
2001 General Election (my first GE vote) - Blair (I didn't hate him at that point obviously)
2005 General Election - Spoilt paper (I'd rather go along and spoil my paper, as opposed to not going to vote at all, as at least a spoilt ballot is me voicing my opinion that none of them were worth my vote)
2010 General Election - Independent candidate
I couldn't vote for Blair again in 2005, because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which my cousin became one of the first UK causalities of. I certainly couldn't vote Tory, it stands against everything I believe in, which shocks people as I come from a background people assume would make me a Tory. And with Charles Kennedy as leader of the Lib Dems, they weren't getting my vote!
As for 2015, who knows, but right now I could see me voting independent again (if we get an independent candidate again that year). Ed Milliband has moments of really impressing me, but then he has moments that make me think I couldn't vote for him.
I know some people think a vote for an independent candidate, or a smaller party, is a "wasted vote" but I don't think any vote is a wasted vote.
NB: I may have voted Labour in 2001, but that doesn't make me Labour, I don't affiliate with any party.
I voted for labour in 1997, as did a huge number of people who had never done before or ever done since. Since then I have voted for LibDem - it's either them or the Tories in this part of the world, and they have have represented the south west well over the years in my opinion - but after the Coalition government, I certainly won't be doing again. If there's an Independent, I'll vote for them, or maybe Green. God knows the natural world needs as much help as it can get.
That's the thing see? Someone's voting habits can change. Just because they are not one thing, doesn't make them another thing.
'That's the thing see? Someone's voting habits can change.'
Exactly. I voted Labour in 1997. I fell for the spin, just like millions of others.
But I never fell for the spin of global warming. Thatcher also changed her mind on key issues and one of them was on global warming. Initially, Thatcher fell for the frauds' spin on climate catastrophe. She never realised their game. But Thatcher was always a real thinker and she soon cottoned on to what they were all about and she changed her mind. That shows how Thatcher was no fraud and did not need to spin. It is a shame that her climate change scepticism never became news. Maybe the frauds kept it out of the media on purpose, lest it sink their plans.
Very interesting article in the Mail on how Thatcher was able to change her mind on key issues. Booker says that the ability of Thatcher to change her mind also sets her apart from many other politicians, who maintain the spin instead of recycling it in the bin. So Thatcher did make u-turns on major issues.
'Lady Thatcher had already written, under the heading Hot air and global warming, what amounted to a complete recantation of her earlier views, voicing precisely those fundamental doubts over the warming panic that were later to become familiar.
Pouring scorn on what she called the doomsters, she questioned all the main scientific assumptions that had been used to drive the scare
She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda that posed a very serious threat to human progress and prosperity.
But the fact that on these two great issues she came so radically to change her mind is yet another measure of the difference that has set her apart from all those political pygmies who have followed.'
Sorry it is A Daily Telegraph article by Christopher Booker that was linked to by a Daily Mail web page.
Such a shame Clegg was led by his ego If he had not jumped into bed with the tories the Lib Dems would have been in a different place 2014
We are not talking about "global warming" (thoroughly outdated phrase used by no one except people who like to say things like "Ha! Global warming indeed!" after a day of snow). You have made your feelings on mad made climate change perfectly clear on other threads, and also your opinions about anyone who expresses concern for the enviromment or wildlife. And no, I haven't been stalking you - it's just that you tend to post such very long, frequent posts that I remembered them.
Climate change is indeed a contentious topic (despite 90% of climatologists broadly agreeing). But you seem to know all about the life, the universe and everything.
Why do you wish to turn the subject round? Is it because there seems to have been a bit of a consensus reached with the last few posts?
Ironic typo again - man made, not mad made.
And besides, we are not talking about Thatcher herself being able to change her mind. (Hurrah for Thatcher).
The point was that just because someone doesn't vote Tory or think Maggie Thatcher deserves a £10 million funeral, it doesn't make them a vindictive Red. There a several options.
'Why do you wish to turn the subject round?'
No, I thought it was interesting that Thatcher also changed her mind and did in fact make u-turns. She was for turning when she had done some learning. She was flexible in her thought and admitted it when she had got things wrong.
'Ironic typo again - man made, not mad made.'
To me, the fact that Thatcher could schange her mind on issues as significant as Europe and as important in the sense of changing the way of life of people as climate change, makes Thatcher even greater than I thought she was.
No, just a genuine typo. If hacking my own digits off would undo it, I would
Lots of people here admit when they had got it wrong too. For example, our local MP I always thought was an honest and decent man, but I've learned things about him which means he can whistle for my vote next time. It makes me sad really.
'The point was that just because someone doesn't vote Tory or think Maggie Thatcher deserves a £10 million funeral, it doesn't make them a vindictive Red. There a several options.'
Nobody said it did. We are all of a consensus that disagreement and difference of opinions is what democracy is all about. Some of us, however, thought that those engaging in "death parties" and handing out "death cakes" and actually celebrating her death, were acting distastefully.
'Lots of people here admit when they had got it wrong too.'
I agree, we all get things wrong, and I thought it was also interesting that Thatcher herself got things wrong as well, was taken in by "experts" who sold policies to her, and eventually saw the light and did what was right.
YES INCLUDING ME AS I MADE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND AS DID ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE. God!
I mentioned my friend with the champagne in South Wales as an illustration of how strongly people feel and for what reasons. Just because he is my friend, it doesn't mean I too had champagne on ice for a decade.
In a way, it shows yet again, how Thatcher was in a sense, one of us and not one of them, or as Booker says
"she came so radically to change her mind is yet another measure of the difference that has set her apart from all those political pygmies who have followed"
Can I just ask you, do you think everyone who voted for anyone except Thatcher during the Thatcher years was misguided, for want of a better word?
Because apart from in places like Zimbabwe, very politicians return 100% of the vote.
HesterShaw, I never said you were behaving like that. I am talking about the people who had "death parties".
'Can I just ask you, do you think everyone who voted for anyone except Thatcher during the Thatcher years was misguided, for want of a better word?'
Certainly not. Everyone has to make their own choices about which issues are important and where spin lies. I look back and think that I was misguided when I fell for New Labour spin in 1997 and voted for them.
Politics is about ideas and also seeing through spin and understanding hidden agendas. Everyone understands these things differently.
I think I'm getting drawn into a bit of a personal spat with you now, claig so will withdraw.
I disagree with almost everything you write, yet respect your right to write it and all that. All the best
HesterShaw, I take nothing personally. They are all just ideas up for debate. I agree with many of the things you write, just not all things. All the best
I take things personally all the time
See you on another thread
where no doubt we'll disagree again.
No doubt we will agree again. Agree to disagree.
tb post the most interesting so far.
If I could write on Maggie's coffin tomorrow these are the words I would put:
"BSE THE MOST CYNICAL ACT OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE EVER WAGED AGAINST A CIVILIAN POPULATION BY WESTERN GOVERNMENT"
These are the words of Kevin Toolis a respectable Guardian journalist.
lets call it a day. she always was tedious
Join the discussion
Please login first.