By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Obviously didn't live through her time in power but studying politics and some economics, the choices around closing coal mines / steel works etc. was the right one. The production of these good in the UK was no longer competitive in comparison to importing elsewhere. This still continues today, it's cheaper to manufacture goods in China, India, the Philippines etc and import them. People need to move past the parochial view of its British, therfore its better. She also enabled greater home ownership etc when she was PM>
The problem is the legacy of these choices, there was no real implementation of phases that would enable more support for those affected and that did cause problems.
On balance I would say I am pro the decisions taken by her, and I'm not sure she was a bad for the country (as a whole) as some on the left would believe. Interesting fact is that when she took power in 1979, 67 per cent of the country belonged to the C2DE economic class — the so-called working class — but when she left office that had fallen to just 51 per cent.
She was also a politician who stood for what she believed in. Her, Tony Benn, etc. like them or loath them, you could understand who they were and what they believed in.
Decent analysis that, HK
Its refreshing that someone who wasn't around at the time hasn't just taken the lazy option of expressing a view based on what their parents and/or biased newspaper headlines suggest. I appreciate not everyone has the time to study the details of that period in the recent past, but then neither should those people think they have a definitive view. In fact, none of us do; even those closely involved in government at the time can't agree!
Many of the posts on here (including mine) are simply intended to counterbalance the view of her time in office that filters through from superficial headlines and bombastic media portrayals.
Unfortunately I think many people wrongly believe that Thatcher CAUSED the problems of the late 70s and early 80s. In fact most of the damage to Britain's economy had already been done thanks to the trade union battles with Ted Heath and the pathetic appeasement of them by "Sunny" Jim Callaghan. There can be little doubt that the unions were running the country and the "Winter of Discontent" in 1978 was the last straw for the majority of the population (see video). Economically, Britain hadn't moved on since the end of the war, many workers believed that having fought off Hitler, Britain "owed" them. The Trade Unions were run by openly communist leaders dedicated to the dismantling of the British way of life, law and order was an instrument of the state that they wanted to overthrow alongside democratic government. Jack Jones , General Secretary of the TGWU in 1968 was later "outed" as a lifelong communist who passed information to Russia for cash. Inflation was running at between 10-25% for most of the 70s fuelled by wage demands as unions took it in turn to demand ever higher settlements using their ability to stop working at a moments notice as their "bargaining chip". Industrial management was impossible, hiring and firing only took place if the unions allowed it to and woe betide anyone who refused to deal with a union - see Grunwick. In 1976 Britain was forced into the humiliating position of having to go cap in hand to the IMF to borrow £4 billions - the largest loan it had ever made. By the time Callaghan eventually called an election in 1979 (he had been running a minority Government with the Liberals), the rot was well and truly set-in, High inflation, unions out of control, unemployment rising, productivity on its knees. Britain was an industrial wasteland, even nationalised industries which held monopoly positions were losing money - the mining industry was subsidised to the tune of over £700m a year. Was there a price to pay to put this situation right? Of course, was the price too high? Well,what was the alternative? Without the actions taken in the early 80's Britain would now be a failed state.
I think that moments like this were what the minutes applause was invented for. Those that loved them can celebrate their life, whilst those that thought they were a bit shit can still join in with a big smile on their face and nobody is any the wiser.
Unfortunately I think many people wrongly believe that Thatcher CAUSED the problems of the late 70s and early 80s. In fact most of the damage to Britain's economy had already been done thanks to the trade union battles with Ted Heath and the pathetic appeasement of them by "Sunny" Jim Callaghan. There can be little doubt that the unions were running the country and the "Winter of Discontent" in 1978 was the last straw for the majority of the population (see video). Economically, Britain hadn't moved on since the end of the war, many workers believed that having fought off Hitler, Britain "owed" them. The Trade Unions were run by openly communist leaders dedicated to the dismantling of the British way of life, law and order was an instrument of the state that they wanted to overthrow alongside democratic government. Jack Jones , General Secretary of the TGWU in 1968 was later "outed" as a lifelong communist who passed information to Russia for cash. Inflation was running at between 10-25% for most of the 70s fuelled by wage demands as unions took it in turn to demand ever higher settlements using their ability to stop working at a moments notice as their "bargaining chip". Industrial management was impossible, hiring and firing only took place if the unions allowed it to and woe betide anyone who refused to deal with a union - see Grunwick. In 1976 Britain was forced into the humiliating position of having to go cap in hand to the IMF to borrow £4 billions - the largest loan it had ever made. By the time Callaghan eventually called an election in 1979 (he had been running a minority Government with the Liberals), the rot was well and truly set-in, High inflation, unions out of control, unemployment rising, productivity on its knees. Britain was an industrial wasteland, even nationalised industries which held monopoly positions were losing money - the mining industry was subsidised to the tune of over £700m a year. Was there a price to pay to put this situation right? Of course, was the price too high? Well,what was the alternative? Without the actions taken in the early 80's Britain would now be a failed state.
So the 1970s economic difficulties were caused solely by greedy trade unionists?
Nothing at all to do with the asinine "dash for growth" under the 1970-74 Tory government. Or even the hiking of oil prices by the OPEC cartel in 1973.
And even with those other factors, the IMF loan would probably have been unnecessary if the Treasury economists of the time, through malice or incompetence, hadn't exaggerated the scale of the problem.
And the economy was well of the way to recovery by Autumn 1978 - inflation down, unemployment reducing. Where Callaghan cocked up is not calling an election in October 1978, which he would probably have won. However he didn't - and the militants who incited the winter of discontent gave The Scum newspaper the opportunity to whip up a faux patriotic frothfest of indignation which the voters were daft enough to be influenced by.
So Thatcher gets in, inflation and unemployment rise, she's heading for defeat and then saved by the Falklands War...
Maybe you should watch this, just for balance you understand!
Some interesting perspectives here, all put with honest opinion from individual points of view. I've been in agreement with all the main political parties at different times and understand where most of you are coming from.
I''ve also done a lot of reading/research into how the world works and realised that all parties are there to divide us, set us against each other in minor squabbles and debate, when in reality, the professional politicians are working TOGETHER on behalf of their masters the bankers, to bring about a globalist agenda aiming to cow us all into submission through fear and genocide.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iran along with North Korea and others - none of them perect by any stretch of the imagination - but the one thing in common, independant banking systems where the IMF, World bank etc have/had no hold over the local economy, something the bankers' agenda simply will not allow as they move forward into the next phase of their United Nations/Crown/Washington/Vatican sponsored corruption.
I will say however that Thatchers' utilities sell-off was the greatest act of treason (after Heath taking us into the rabbit hole that is now the EU) to befall this country. The gas, water, electricity, was already OURS and yet some greedy bastards thought it a good idea to spend money on shares in the hope of a quick profit, which they got by re-selling to massive corporations. Those same corporations are now mostly foreign, lack proper infrastructure, year on year gain massive profits whilst putting prices up for you and I. And anyone that believes there is now more competition amongst the utilities lives a very naive existence!!
No doubt someone will attempt to rip this apart, good luck.
BTW only conspiracists complain of conspiracy theories!
I may have seen it already. It would have been a few years ago but I remember seeing quite a bit of Strike stuff nearer that time. If the film is typical of what I saw, then I can expect plenty of views from the striking miners, the police, some politicians and perhaps the odd political commentator. What we will get very little of (if any) is the views of the Nottinghamshire and Lancashire miners who were told in no uncertain terms what action they should take and were given no say in their own affairs. I hope I'm wrong. I recently gave a lift to a mine worker from Notts, who told me that his colleagues would have voted against a strike in '84, but they would have been out voted (because they were fewer in number than the Yorkies) and would have accepted the result of the vote and gone on strike. Radio 4 this morning (to its credit) did broadcast the words of a Derbyshire miner who said that they carried on working, not to support the government, but to support democracy. So I join you in your call for ballance. Edit: Correction : Radio 4 miner was from Derbys not Notts
Funny seeing the pictures of the "parties" held in Brixton, Liverpool, Glasgow etc last night. Smashing up local businesses and graffiti-ing your community to celebrate the death of someone you blame for ruining local businesses and their communities.
Also, every bloody one of them looks like they haven't had a good wash in years.
Its refreshing that someone who wasn't around at the time hasn't just taken the lazy option of expressing a view based on what their parents and/or biased newspaper headlines suggest. I appreciate not everyone has the time to study the details of that period in the recent past, but then neither should those people think they have a definitive view. In fact, none of us do; even those closely involved in government at the time can't agree!
Many of the posts on here (including mine) are simply intended to counterbalance the view of her time in office that filters through from superficial headlines and bombastic media portrayals.
I didnt really want to post again on this topic as I think its one that everyone will agree to disagree on. Reading this thread probably sums up her time in office to a tea, the ones who thought she was good for the country defending her whilst passing over the bad things, and those who hated her, choosing to ignore the things she did for the benifit of the country. I was not alive during most of her time in office, as you state D'Alien most people do not have the time to study the politics of the time, but this should not be a reason to look down on their opinion, those who were alive at the time will find it hard to sum up her time in office without offending some people, it seems it was just how she was.
I do admire the fact that she stood by her convictions and followed through on the decisions she made, some good and some bad, like any politician, but the country was in such a state that someone like her was needed at the time. The politicians of today are all about themselves, but she seemed to generally make the decisions she made, for the good of the nation and trying to put it back on the map.
Its as she said, that people will protest in the short term what I do, but will thank me for generations. Most of the things now we take for granted may not be in existance had she not forced through her opinions, and made enemys in the short haul.
RIP a true leader imho, who would eat most of the ones of today, for breakfast.
Unfortunately I think many people wrongly believe that Thatcher CAUSED the problems of the late 70s and early 80s. In fact most of the damage to Britain's economy had already been done thanks to the trade union battles with Ted Heath and the pathetic appeasement of them by "Sunny" Jim Callaghan. There can be little doubt that the unions were running the country and the "Winter of Discontent" in 1978 was the last straw for the majority of the population (see video). Economically, Britain hadn't moved on since the end of the war, many workers believed that having fought off Hitler, Britain "owed" them. The Trade Unions were run by openly communist leaders dedicated to the dismantling of the British way of life, law and order was an instrument of the state that they wanted to overthrow alongside democratic government. Jack Jones , General Secretary of the TGWU in 1968 was later "outed" as a lifelong communist who passed information to Russia for cash. Inflation was running at between 10-25% for most of the 70s fuelled by wage demands as unions took it in turn to demand ever higher settlements using their ability to stop working at a moments notice as their "bargaining chip". Industrial management was impossible, hiring and firing only took place if the unions allowed it to and woe betide anyone who refused to deal with a union - see Grunwick. In 1976 Britain was forced into the humiliating position of having to go cap in hand to the IMF to borrow £4 billions - the largest loan it had ever made. By the time Callaghan eventually called an election in 1979 (he had been running a minority Government with the Liberals), the rot was well and truly set-in, High inflation, unions out of control, unemployment rising, productivity on its knees. Britain was an industrial wasteland, even nationalised industries which held monopoly positions were losing money - the mining industry was subsidised to the tune of over £700m a year. Was there a price to pay to put this situation right? Of course, was the price too high? Well,what was the alternative? Without the actions taken in the early 80's Britain would now be a failed state.
You forgot to mention that shame that was British Leyland.
I didnt really want to post again on this topic as I think its one that everyone will agree to disagree on. Reading this thread probably sums up her time in office to a tea, the ones who thought she was good for the country defending her whilst passing over the bad things, and those who hated her, choosing to ignore the things she did for the benifit of the country. I was not alive during most of her time in office, as you state D'Alien most people do not have the time to study the politics of the time, but this should not be a reason to look down on their opinion, those who were alive at the time will find it hard to sum up her time in office without offending some people, it seems it was just how she was.
I do admire the fact that she stood by her convictions and followed through on the decisions she made, some good and some bad, like any politician, but the country was in such a state that someone like her was needed at the time. The politicians of today are all about themselves, but she seemed to generally make the decisions she made, for the good of the nation and trying to put it back on the map.
Its as she said, that people will protest in the short term what I do, but will thank me for generations. Most of the things now we take for granted may not be in existance had she not forced through her opinions, and made enemys in the short haul.
RIP a true leader imho, who would eat most of the ones of today, for breakfast.
Trust you to utterly misconstrue the post of mine you've responded to.
At no point have I suggested that those who weren't around at the time should have their opinion "looked down on" - rather that only those who've bothered to look further than the end of their dad's cock in forming an opinion should think they're saying anything of value. So, there's plenty of people not around at the time whose opinion I would value, such as HK's.
To all those Union bashing here ive one thing to add, you know tjose benefits at work and those great terms and conditions you get ? If it wasnt for the unions youd be still working in conditions enjoyed by those in the workhouses and mills of the early 1900's.
Trust you to utterly misconstrue the post of mine you've responded to.
At no point have I suggested that those who weren't around at the time should have their opinion "looked down on" - rather that only those who've bothered to look further than the end of their dad's cock in forming an opinion should think they're saying anything of value. So, there's plenty of people not around at the time whose opinion I would value, such as HK's.
Clear enough this time?
Au contraire, I get exactly what you were saying. I guess I just read the first sentence in your original post, that any opinion that was different to what has been given through relatives, or through biased media reports were not worth listening to. It is refreshing to hear people have a different opinion to the ones often trolled out through the media. I, like many who weren't around at the time, may have been blindsided by reports in the media, as to how good or how bad she really was.
To all those Union bashing here ive one thing to add, you know tjose benefits at work and those great terms and conditions you get ? If it wasnt for the unions youd be still working in conditions enjoyed by those in the workhouses and mills of the early 1900's.
Not union bashing 3L, but union leader bashing.
Most of them (not all) were simply pursuing a wider political agenda, and like our lads in the trenches in WW1, used the rank and file as cannon fodder.
Lions led by donkeys all over again, and look where it got them.
So the 1970s economic difficulties were caused solely by greedy trade unionists?
Nothing at all to do with the asinine "dash for growth" under the 1970-74 Tory government. Or even the hiking of oil prices by the OPEC cartel in 1973.
And even with those other factors, the IMF loan would probably have been unnecessary if the Treasury economists of the time, through malice or incompetence, hadn't exaggerated the scale of the problem.
And the economy was well of the way to recovery by Autumn 1978 - inflation down, unemployment reducing. Where Callaghan cocked up is not calling an election in October 1978, which he would probably have won. However he didn't - and the militants who incited the winter of discontent gave The Scum newspaper the opportunity to whip up a faux patriotic frothfest of indignation which the voters were daft enough to be influenced by.
So Thatcher gets in, inflation and unemployment rise, she's heading for defeat and then saved by the Falklands War...
"So the 1970s economic difficulties were caused solely by greedy trade unionists? " That's about the size of it. I am not sure why you classify the "Dash for Growth" as "asinine" It was calculated to improve British industry on entering the EEC, It offered incentives for business and greatly expanded public spending but was scuppered by OPEC and Militant Trade Unions. "And even with those other factors, the IMF loan would probably have been unnecessary if the Treasury economists of the time, through malice or incompetence, hadn't exaggerated the scale of the problem." Without the loan there would have been a run on the pound, the average increase in earnings in 1975 was over 27.6% , runaway inflation was only one stop away and the effect of it would have created a massive constitutional crisis akin to Greece today but worse, at the time,Tony Benn was suggesting a return to rationing and import quotas.
From the Cabinet Papers of the time "Hugh Scanlon, leader of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, was among those who said his union could not go along with anything which cut its members' standard of living".
And Jack Jones, from the Transport and General Workers' Union, warned that "workers' wages were already suffering through cuts in overtime and short time working". Scanlon and Jones were both Communists.
"the economy was well of the way to recovery by Autumn 1978 - inflation down, unemployment reducing" The 1978 inflation "blip" at 8% was the only occasion during the period 1974 -1980 when the inflation rate was in single figures and was probably the result of the strikes. I am not sure the unemployment figures support your argument the the economy was well on the way to recovery either as the fall was very small and only really noticeable into 1979 -80 (mind you we know what happened after that). Your final comment which equates Thatcher with rising inflation is quite incorrect, from 1979 to 1990, inflation was as follows: 10.3%, 21.9%, 11.3%, 9.5%, 3.7%, 5.1%, 2.8%, 4.1%, 4.2%, 8.3%, 9.7% in the previous 5 years of Labour, inflation was: 16%, 26.9%, 13.8%, 16.5%, 8% (the blip).
The trade unions of the 1970s did not exist to support their members, they were run by self confessed Communists with a very determined agenda to bring the UK to its knees and ultimately to turn it into a socialist state. Unfortunately until 1979 no one had been prepared to do battle with them. Ted Heath probably being the biggest culprit for not fighting hard enough in the early 70s - a mistake Thatcher was determined not to repeat.
Most of them (not all) were simply pursuing a wider political agenda, and like our lads in the trenches in WW1, used the rank and file as cannon fodder.
Lions led by donkeys all over again, and look where it got them.
Can't disagree with that. Union leaders, like their members, had differing affiliations and some were apt to accept "encouragement" to "lead" in directions not always of benefit to their members.
YOU do not have the right to give someone else permission to tell me what I can and can't do.
No. I agree to a point. Our production of stuff went downhill because it was costing too much to produce stuff here and she wouldn't spend money we didn't have subsidising wages to produce stuff that could be sourced cheaper elsewhere - coal being the most famous cause in the 1980's.
Something, somewhere did go wrong in the area you speak of. But a great many other things went right.
Although she'll be remembered more for milk and the daft Poll Tax, than she will for empowering thousands of people to buy their own council homes, helping make London the financial capital of the world, and giving people a general sense of being proud to be British!
She also took on the football hooligans, and won after (I think?) the infamous Luton v Millwall game in 1985. Younguns - google it!!! And I think she was a prime mover in getting stadiums rebuilt post Hillsborough, appointing Lord Justice Taylor etc.
Do you think the sell off of over 1 million social housing stock was a Good thing ?
The Council had to use the money from the sell of on dept none were not allowed to invest in housing stock. That why you got Housing associations buying up cheap council land for there housing developments and only had to have a quarter for Social housing . Has usual the working class was dumped on and it all favored the corporate business.
She tackled Football hooligans, What about the Hillsbough cover up we will never get the full story but find it hard to believe that the Government of the day was not aware of the full facts.
Has for financial control dont you remember the London stock market crash think There was thousands of houses being repossessed on a Daily bases.
High unemployment High crime But she managed to beat the unions wow
Do you think the sell off of over 1 million social housing stock was a Good thing ?
The Council had to use the money from the sell of on dept none were not allowed to invest in housing stock. That why you got Housing associations buying up cheap council land for there housing developments and only had to have a quarter for Social housing . Has usual the working class was dumped on and it all favored the corporate business.
She tackled Football hooligans, What about the Hillsbough cover up we will never get the full story but find it hard to believe that the Government of the day was not aware of the full facts.
Has for financial control dont you remember the London stock market crash think There was thousands of houses being repossessed on a Daily bases.
High unemployment High crime But she managed to beat the unions wow
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
I'd like to give you the courtesy of a proper reply, but I really can't make head nor tail of your post after the first question, to which my answer is yes.
There is a 'strawman' myth here that prior to 1979 inefficient industry was kept afloat by government. It simply isn't the case. De-industrialisation was just as prevalent in the 1950s, 60s and 70s as well as the 1980s - production was allowed to, and did go, overseas in the Macmillan, Wilson and Heath etc governments. State support for selective - deemed vital (important) industries did, and still does, exist and it existed in the Thatcher administrations (despite her free market rhetoric). Perhaps the big difference between the Thatcher governments and those post-war governments (with the possible exception of the Heath administration - certainly from 1970-2) prior to 1979 was that pre-Thatcher governments attempted to manage de-industrialisation via corporatist methods involving the attempted introduction of a 'modernising of production' industrial policy (usually an attempt to move to more high-tec production). Thatcher followed de-industrialistion via the policy of 'strife'. Whilst some champion this as effective as it severely weakened union power others criticise the absence of an effective industrial policy beyond a dogmatic, and rather simplistic, reverence of market forces. The outcome was an extremely unbalanced economy weighted far too heavily on financial sevices and consumption fuelled by a ballooning of individual/consumer debt. It's ironic but the biggest ever state bail out ever, and threat to the financial well-being of the state (and ultimately 'us'), was the bank bail outs of 2007-8 and their recapitalisation - including the millions in bonuses still being paid for monumental failure to the bankers. A sector Thatcher did the most to promote at the expense of inefficient industry and greedy trade union leaders.
There is a 'strawman' myth here that prior to 1979 inefficient industry was kept afloat by government. It simply isn't the case. De-industrialisation was just as prevalent in the 1950s, 60s and 70s as well as the 1980s - production was allowed to, and did go, overseas in the Macmillan, Wilson and Heath etc governments. State support for selective - deemed vital (important) industries did, and still does, exist and it existed in the Thatcher administrations (despite her free market rhetoric). Perhaps the big difference between the Thatcher governments and those post-war governments (with the possible exception of the Heath administration - certainly from 1970-2) prior to 1979 was that pre-Thatcher governments attempted to manage de-industrialisation via corporatist methods involving the attempted introduction of a 'modernising of production' industrial policy (usually an attempt to move to more high-tec production). Thatcher followed de-industrialistion via the policy of 'strife'. Whilst some champion this as effective as it severely weakened union power others criticise the absence of an effective industrial policy beyond a dogmatic, and rather simplistic, reverence of market forces. The outcome was an extremely unbalanced economy weighted far too heavily on financial sevices and consumption fuelled by a ballooning of individual/consumer debt. It's ironic but the biggest ever state bail out ever, and threat to the financial well-being of the state (and ultimately 'us'), was the bank bail outs of 2007-8 and their recapitalisation - including the millions in bonuses still being paid for monumental failure to the bankers. A sector Thatcher did the most to promote at the expense of inefficient industry and greedy trade union leaders.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
A well-argued post, but I'd have to add the obvious point that Maggie left office in 1990 - the crash came 17 years later and followed a period of 10 years of Labour administration.
Plus, the 2007 crash was a worldwide phenomenon. It was a failure of capitalism, probably due to arrogance following the end of socialism as a viable way forward. I guess Maggie was partly responsible for that too!
Anyone interested in an alternative to both should check this out:
"The difficulty with giving a comment on Margaret Thatcher's death to the British tabloids is that, no matter how calmly and measured you speak, the comment must be reported as an "outburst" or an "explosive attack" if your view is not pro-establishment.
If you reference "the Malvinas", it will be switched to "the Falklands", and your "Thatcher" will be softened to a "Maggie." This is generally how things are structured in a non-democratic society. Thatcher's name must be protected not because of all the wrong that she had done, but because the people around her allowed her to do it, and therefore any criticism of Thatcher throws a dangerously absurd light on the entire machinery of British politics.
Thatcher was not a strong or formidable leader. She simply did not give a shit about people, and this coarseness has been neatly transformed into bravery by the British press who are attempting to re-write history in order to protect patriotism. As a result, any opposing view is stifled or ridiculed, whereas we must all endure the obligatory praise for Thatcher from David Cameron without any suggestion from the BBC that his praise just might be an outburst of pro-Thatcher extremism from someone whose praise might possibly protect his own current interests.
The fact that Thatcher ignited the British public into street-riots, violent demonstrations and a social disorder previously unseen in British history is completely ignored by David Cameron in 2013. In truth, of course, no British politician has ever been more despised by the British people than Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher's funeral on Wednesday will be heavily policed for fear that the British tax-payer will want to finally express their view of Thatcher. They are certain to be tear-gassed out of sight by the police.
United Kingdom? Syria? China? What's the difference?"
If I hadn't seen such riches, I could live with being poor
On a lighter note, here's an interesting article from France about how Thatcher inspired some fantastic music - by the way you need to be able to understand French (or use a translate tool) http://www.slate.fr/story/70473/margaret-thatcher-rock-anglais
"The difficulty with giving a comment on Margaret Thatcher's death to the British tabloids is that, no matter how calmly and measured you speak, the comment must be reported as an "outburst" or an "explosive attack" if your view is not pro-establishment.
If you reference "the Malvinas", it will be switched to "the Falklands", and your "Thatcher" will be softened to a "Maggie." This is generally how things are structured in a non-democratic society. Thatcher's name must be protected not because of all the wrong that she had done, but because the people around her allowed her to do it, and therefore any criticism of Thatcher throws a dangerously absurd light on the entire machinery of British politics.
Thatcher was not a strong or formidable leader. She simply did not give a shit about people, and this coarseness has been neatly transformed into bravery by the British press who are attempting to re-write history in order to protect patriotism. As a result, any opposing view is stifled or ridiculed, whereas we must all endure the obligatory praise for Thatcher from David Cameron without any suggestion from the BBC that his praise just might be an outburst of pro-Thatcher extremism from someone whose praise might possibly protect his own current interests.
The fact that Thatcher ignited the British public into street-riots, violent demonstrations and a social disorder previously unseen in British history is completely ignored by David Cameron in 2013. In truth, of course, no British politician has ever been more despised by the British people than Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher's funeral on Wednesday will be heavily policed for fear that the British tax-payer will want to finally express their view of Thatcher. They are certain to be tear-gassed out of sight by the police.
United Kingdom? Syria? China? What's the difference?"
"The difficulty with giving a comment on Margaret Thatcher's death to the British tabloids is that, no matter how calmly and measured you speak, the comment must be reported as an "outburst" or an "explosive attack" if your view is not pro-establishment.
If you reference "the Malvinas", it will be switched to "the Falklands", and your "Thatcher" will be softened to a "Maggie." This is generally how things are structured in a non-democratic society. Thatcher's name must be protected not because of all the wrong that she had done, but because the people around her allowed her to do it, and therefore any criticism of Thatcher throws a dangerously absurd light on the entire machinery of British politics.
Thatcher was not a strong or formidable leader. She simply did not give a shit about people, and this coarseness has been neatly transformed into bravery by the British press who are attempting to re-write history in order to protect patriotism. As a result, any opposing view is stifled or ridiculed, whereas we must all endure the obligatory praise for Thatcher from David Cameron without any suggestion from the BBC that his praise just might be an outburst of pro-Thatcher extremism from someone whose praise might possibly protect his own current interests.
The fact that Thatcher ignited the British public into street-riots, violent demonstrations and a social disorder previously unseen in British history is completely ignored by David Cameron in 2013. In truth, of course, no British politician has ever been more despised by the British people than Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher's funeral on Wednesday will be heavily policed for fear that the British tax-payer will want to finally express their view of Thatcher. They are certain to be tear-gassed out of sight by the police.
United Kingdom? Syria? China? What's the difference?"
It seems to be the general consensus that she cared more about her policies than about the people, and while that inst how it is supposed to be, you need to have a middle ground, one could argue that should the policies of any politician not be their first agenda, in order to be a good leader, do you not have to make enemies. It is a stark difference to the politicians of today, where they don't care about policies or people, only about lining their own back pockets, everything she did, appeared to be with the countries best interest at heart. Most politicians in history were bent I'm sure, it is only certain media propaganda that prevents the real truth from getting out. She simply went mad with the power she was given, and felt she was un-touchable, the people who gave in to the demands she was imposing should surely carry a good chunk of the burden.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
