RIP Margaret Thatcher

Palmach

She will be missed. I expect leftist heads to explodehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

Her legacy is a good one and she was always someone who did the right thing in the end.

Kristopherus

Well, I won't be shedding any tears after her.:mad:

Lapin

The best PM Britain has seen since the war.

She dragged it out of the Winter of Discontent in the 1970s and left the place booming in the 1990s.

J Cheever Loophole

Palmach wrote: »

She will be missed. I expect leftist heads to explodehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

Her legacy is a good one and she was always someone who did the right thing in the end.

Seriously, not even the most deluded could believe that.

Happyman42

It's for British people to assess her legacy to them, as far as her legacy to Ireland, she was probably the most duplicitous and dangerous PM ever to reside at number 10. Her stubborn pigheadedness in the face of the inevitable resulted in many many deaths. She never seemed to count the cost of her policies and for that she can never be forgiven.

Palmach

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's for British people to assess her legacy to them, as far as her legacy to Ireland, she was probably the most duplicitous and dangerous PM ever to reside at number 10. Her stubborn pigheadedness in the face of the inevitable resulted in many many deaths. She never seemed to count the cost of her policies and for that she can never be forgiven.

She signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement and kept it. That was the first instance of us having a say in the 6. It is hard for someone to be rational when one side of a conflict are trying to kill them.

Happyman42

Palmach wrote: »

She signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement and kept it.

Which is the 'inevitable' I was talking about.

That was the first instance of us having a say in the 6. It is hard for someone to be rational when one side of a conflict are trying to kill them.

She 'tried' and suceeded in killing Irish men.

COYW

RIP. A truly memorable political figure.

Davidth88

As someone who grew up in the UK during the 70's I remember the Winter of discontent etc , and started work in 1980 , I remember Maggie with fondness TBH , she broke the grip of the unions in the UK thank god.

I am sure if I was born in Liverpool , or somewhere north of Watford I may feel differently.

RIP

Palmach

Happyman42 wrote: »

She 'tried' and suceeded in killing Irish men.

She never killed anyone but the IRA tried to kill her and nearly succeeded.

Rabidlamb

Can't see a minutes silence being observed too fondly in this weekends premiership fixtures.

Manach

May she RIP.
Rather mixed emotions for me on the course of her career. Politically she was a dominant figure during her era and many of her economic/social polices were influential world-wide and I'd admire her for that. However being Irish, I'd still think she choose the wrong path and was too confrontational on the Northern Ireland issue.

antoobrien

Davidth88 wrote: »

I am sure if I was born in Liverpool , or somewhere north of Watford I may feel differently.

You can say that again, her name is as reviled in Liverpool as that of the editor of a certain redtop in 1989.

FreudianSlippers

I foresee a mod warning in the very near future.

I didn't like her, but RIP nonetheless. She was a human and like us all made mistakes and decisions that she most likely thought to be the right ones at the time.

Davidth88

Rabidlamb wrote: »

Can't see a minutes silence being observed too fondly in this weekends premiership fixtures.

No , she had a particular hatred of footie , her and that horrible Colin Moynahan ( spelling ? ) tried to bring the stupid football ID card idea .

Happyman42

Palmach wrote: »

She never killed anyone but the IRA tried to kill her and nearly succeeded.

There are more ways to kill than you seem to be aware of. Would you exonerate her mate Pinochet so easily, given that he never physically killed any one individual.
'

Layinghen

RIP Margaret Thatcher. Love her or hate her to me her most impressive achievement was to be the first female British Primeminister.

aindriu80

RIP Margaret Thatcher.

I think Britain was in a bad place back then and she did some good things and some bad things but I'm not one of her admirers.

Skrynesaver

RIP British industry... sorry wrong thread, it's at moments like this that I understand the comfort faith can bring and wish I believed in eternal torment for the guilty.

I look forward with dread the the eulogies that will follow.

Ding dong the witch is dead

golfball37

Fitting that she shuffled off her mortal coil, before the man she labelled a terrorist, Nelson Mandela.

She was a groundbreaking Politician and love her or hate her she was very significant in the history of Britain.

Cody Pomeray

Not sure if this is publicly accessible but I'll post the link anyway.

Thatcher will have many obituaries. Some will be fawning, others will pour scorn. Probably the most evidence based, hopefully balanced, political obituary you will read of Thatcher is the following paper which focuses on how she made foreign policy choices. It finds fault not so much with the decisions she took, rather with the single-mindedness of her vision and her doomed inability to see the world in anything but black and white.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20445174.pdf?acceptTC=true

"Thatcher's colleagues and biographers found a tendency toward black-and-white thinking to be one of the foremost characteristics of her leadership... Francis Pym, the former Foreign Secretary found that "she likes everything to be clear-cut: absolutely in favour of one thing, abolutely against another" (Pym 1984)

...Thatcher's constant refrain when considering colleagues was "is he one of us?" (Young, 1989), meaning : could the individual in question be counted upon to carry the wishes of the Prime Minister forward with the minimum of fuss?

"In short, the Thatcher style in foreign affairs accords very closely with expectations given her lower complexity score. She divided the outside world, as well as her government colleagues and advisors, into starkly drawn categories of "friend and enemy," within a wider context of a struggle between good and evil. In internal debate, she could be tendentious, aggressive, and highly suspicious of suggestions to compromise upon what she saw as imperative policy goals (Genovese, 2003: 381 - 3). The impact of her strongly held schema upon her policies was exacerbated by a lack of international experience, and, once she bagan of necessity to see more of the world beyond Britain, her views were set so firm as to b e relatively impervious to new information. these are classic dispositions associated with the cognitive character of lower complexity decision makers."

wolfpawnat

She single handedly decimated whole towns in Northern England. Putting money over people, looked after the wealthy and spat (figuratively speaking of course) in the faces of the working class men and women trying to get by.

Not even bringing my own republican beliefs into it, she called Nelson Mandela a terrorist! :rolleyes: nothing could be further from the truth, but when you are a well off Brit sitting on your cushy seat away from any real hardship it is easy to brand a patriot as such!

FTA69

It's gas like, half the people here who will laud Thatcher were deriding Hugo Chavez as a "dictator" only a few weeks ago. Funnily enough the same heads seem to be strangely quiet on the subject of her long-lasting support and friendship with Augusto Pinochet, one of the most brutal tyrants in Latin American history.

Motley Crue

The ex-Miners near where I live have been celebrating in style, which champagne and songs

Motley Crue

It's all just hot air:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB0ZOu_EZ2M

Sponge Bob

Thatcher was the last relic of the British Empire when in power. Some of her legacy is horrific.

Large Arms deals, support of some utterly vile regimes where her chums had 'interests', the wholesale destruction of Northern England and Wales and of British Industry in favour of Mercantilism and Finance, the General Belgrano incident , shoot to kill policies etc etc.

Her style was incredibly simplistic, once she decided bull headed to follow a route the 'lady was not for turning', allegedly. Weeeelll there was the Poll Tax. She never got an electoral majority, her best electroal result was in the high 40s and she got a thumping parliamentary majority with that vote.

But she was the single largest political character in the last quarter century of the 20th century in Europe despite all that, the 20th centurys very own Bismarck. And that will be her legacy.

maccored

RIP, political tyrant.

Cody Pomeray

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Not even bringing my own republican beliefs into it, she called Nelson Mandela a terrorist! :rolleyes: nothing could be further from the truth, but when you are a well off Brit sitting on your cushy seat away from any real hardship it is easy to brand a patriot as such!

I think the called the ANC "typical terrorists", rather than Mandela himself.

But yes, she won't be lamented for her views on ending apartheid.

Iwasfrozen

wolfpawnat wrote: »

She single handedly decimated whole towns in Northern England. Putting money over people, looked after the wealthy and spat (figuratively speaking of course) in the faces of the working class men and women trying to get by.

Not even bringing my own republican beliefs into it, she called Nelson Mandela a terrorist! :rolleyes: nothing could be further from the truth, but when you are a well off Brit sitting on your cushy seat away from any real hardship it is easy to brand a patriot as such!

She did what was needed to get the economy back on track. The trade Unions had a strangle hold over the British economy and inflation was driving down growth to the point of stagnation. Thatcher had the balls (ironic phrase when applied to a woman :P) to stand up and do the right thing. And it worked. In the long run the British economy improved hugely. You may not agree but I'm willing to bet the British civil service has better qualifications in economics then you do.

wolfpawnat

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

She did what was needed to get the economy back on track. The trade Unions had a strangle hold over the British economy and inflation was driving down growth to the point of stagnation. Thatcher had the balls (ironic phrase when applied to a woman :P) to stand up and do the right thing. And it worked. In the long run the British economy improved hugely. You may not agree but I'm willing to bet the British civil service has better qualifications in economics then you do.

We live in a world where money seems to mean more than human life. Yes economies need to be strong, but why should it always be on the backs of the hardworking men and women? She wouldn't tax herself and her wealthy friends into destitution, but she would destroy whole towns.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

She did what was needed to get the economy back on track. The trade Unions had a strangle hold over the British economy and inflation was driving down growth to the point of stagnation. Thatcher had the balls (ironic phrase when applied to a woman :P) to stand up and do the right thing. And it worked. In the long run the British economy improved hugely. You may not agree but I'm willing to bet the British civil service has better qualifications in economics then you do.

The typical concensus amongst those who benefitted and where allowed stay at the trough as a result of her policies.

Red Alert

I think that Margaret Thatcher was mould-breaking: she was prepared to be clear about her beliefs and policies, and was not afraid of alienating portions of the population for the greater good. In ways, Ireland would have been better off as part of the UK, where we could have got the benefit of her strong leadership. I don't agree with all her policies, but her methods should be an example to us all.

Iwasfrozen

wolfpawnat wrote: »

We live in a world where money seems to mean more than human life. Yes economies need to be strong, but why should it always be on the backs of the hardworking men and women? She wouldn't tax herself and her wealthy friends into destitution, but she would destroy whole towns.

Because when the economy improves it improves for everyone. What's more it provides incentives for people to adapt and change. Re-educate themselves and enter a more profitable industry.

wolfpawnat

Red Alert wrote: »

I think that Margaret Thatcher was mould-breaking: she was prepared to be clear about her beliefs and policies, and was not afraid of alienating portions of the population for the greater good. In ways, Ireland would have been better off as part of the UK, where we could have got the benefit of her strong leadership. I don't agree with all her policies, but her methods should be an example to us all.

I would hate have been under her, but she wasn't afraid to be honest. If she was going to do something, she came out and said it and did not give a f*ck what people thought. You can't fault her honestly. Still glad she's gone though!

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

The typical concensus amongst those who benefitted and where allowed stay at the trough as a result of her policies.

The typical consensus of those who don't want to subsidise un-profitable industries. Or have their savings eaten away by rampant inflation.

wolfpawnat

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because when the economy improves it improves for everyone. What's more it provides incentives for people to adapt and change. Re-educate themselves and enter a more profitable industry.

What good is that to 50 something year old men in Northern England with no education to begin with, working the mines for 30 odd years with no other work areas to move into, because the shutting of the mines meant everyone in the community suffered. So the community collapsed. Whole towns unemployed. As I said, if she allowed herself and her buddies to suffer too it would be one thing, but not a hope of that happening, they continued their fancy high life!

fatherted1969

Palmach wrote: »

She signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement and kept it. That was the first instance of us having a say in the 6. It is hard for someone to be rational when one side of a conflict are trying to kill them.

"One side of a conflict are trying to kill them" don't think there'll be too many agreeing with that here.

Iwasfrozen

wolfpawnat wrote: »

What good is that to 50 something year old men in Northern England with no education to begin with, working the mines for 30 odd years with no other work areas to move into, because the shutting of the mines meant everyone in the community suffered. So the community collapsed. Whole towns unemployed. As I said, if she allowed herself and her buddies to suffer too it would be one thing, but not a hope of that happening, they continued their fancy high life!

Why can't a 50 year old man enter education? I've seen older here in ucd.

wolfpawnat

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why can't a 50 year old man enter education? I've seen older here in ucd.

When they had a family to feed and bills to pay they needed work, they couldn't afford education, they couldn't make rent for goodness sake!

Iwasfrozen

wolfpawnat wrote: »

When they had a family to feed and bills to pay they needed work, they couldn't afford education, they couldn't make rent for goodness sake!

If you can't afford education then look for another job that doesn't require any. Move away from the locale if necessary. There is no onus on society to support dead weight.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why can't a 50 year old man enter education? I've seen older here in ucd.

Im sure some 50 year old men could enter eductaion, but not all 50 year old men can. Its the same as, anybody can become rich if they just work hard enough, which is completely different to everybody can become rich if they work hard enough, the latter being untrue and totally impossible. I dislike this misleading and intentional conflation.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

.... There is no onus on society to support dead weight.

Actually there is an onus on society to support dead weight, and thank god for this! Homeless poeple, disabled, orphaned: societies, even the most dejected and backward usually provides some level of support to such vulnerable groups.

laoch na mona

good riddance

wolfpawnat

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you can't afford education then look for another job that doesn't require any. Move away from the locale if necessary. There is no onus on society to support dead weight.

Where were entire communities supposed to move to, that was the thing, she turned them into welfare towns. Large areas of Northern Wales and England were dependent on that work.

One could argue, if she and her cabinet were willing to shut down a whole area of industry, the onus should have been on her to establish re-education for those previously employed in that industry and ensure there was a safety net there for them to help them move, but no, they were given nothing to help.

The rich are so busy making sure they stay rich, they never care if the poor become poorer to do it.

Chuck Stone

Pity there isn't a hell for her to go to.

Lockstep

Skrynesaver wrote: »

Ding dong the witch is dead

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Pity there isn't a hell for her to go to.

Any more comments like these will get an infraction. Debate the woman and her legacy but crowing about her death isn't on. This thread runs a serious risk of turning into a trainwreck so keep it polite.

Cody Pomeray

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you can't afford education then look for another job that doesn't require any. Move away from the locale if necessary. There is no onus on society to support dead weight.

What makes 'dead weight' dead weight?

The fact is that a lot of people will need basic support to progress in life. When you support them, they can usually progress to a point that they 'add value' which that society respects. They may add monetary value, but it can also be defined in other terms.

Thatcher loved the principle of self-help, of course, but she chose to draw an arbitrary, random line to define the maximum aid society would endow, without resorting to a more thoughtful analysis of what society is, and what obligations it has to itself.

BluE-WinG

golfball37 wrote: »

Fitting that she shuffled off her mortal coil, before the man she labelled a terrorist, Nelson Mandela.

He was a terrorist, he orchestrated plenty of bombings of white schools in the midlands of SA resulting in many many deaths.

The day HE dies, I wont shed a tear. The western world believes him to be a 'great man', little do they know.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because when the economy improves it improves for everyone. What's more it provides incentives for people to adapt and change. Re-educate themselves and enter a more profitable industry.

She could have achieved her economic goals with less socially damaging consequences, her free market (the rich get richer) nonsense is being paid for today.
She destroyed Britain socially and almost caused a bloodbath in N.I. and ultimately sold out the Unionists to political expedience but did it in a way that caused futher unnecessary strife and death.

southsiderosie

I see Thatcher's legacy much in the same way that I see Reagan's in the US: de-regulation of the financial industry, the further erosion of manufacturing with no thought to the economic livelihoods of millions of families, and the support for odious regimes in Latin America leave little to cheer about. But Reagan, unlike Thatcher, was far more willing to negotiate with the opposition; Thatcher's "my way or the highway" approach was her own political undoing in the end.

esteve

And we wouldnt want to forget her openly strong ties to General Suharto in Indonesia, who was supported by British weaponary to invade and occupy East Timor.