RIP Margaret Thatcher

Nodin

Vivienne23 wrote: »

Thanks for that correcting lord , something I should have spotted myself ! To be honest the more I read about her I would have been pro thatcher had I been around , what it must be like to have a decisive leader , if we had the Iron Lady heading into the eu/IMF talks I'd sleep in peace at night just knowing the job would be done !

Would you have supported lifting the Arms embargo on Chile?

Would you have supported her refusal to impose sanctions on Apartheid South Africa?

Would you have agreed with her descrption of Mandela as a "grubby little terrorist"?

Would you have supported section 28?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Sad for humanity? I lived through the 80's and remember all too well what it was like.

Perhaps you'd care to cease your pathetic little sound-bytes of mundanity and offer something a little more substantial than a below par daily mail headline once in a while?

Better still, before you admonish others for their lack of humanity you might consider not thanking posts mocking desecration and vandalism of graves as it appears contradictory to the stance you appear to be taking here.

Everything she did she did for the good of the economy. Yes it resulted in short term pain but you know short term pain is acceptable for long term gain. You mention you were alive in the 80s well how did you feel when your savings were being eaten away every year by rampant inflation? How did it feel living in a country where the Unions, not the government ran the economy and people were kept in useless employment contributing nothing at your expense all because it was in the Union's best interest. Please dear God please don't accuse other's of having a lack of knowledge when you yourself seem to have a very one dimensional view.

Iwasfrozen

Weathering wrote: »

You're disgusting. Get off irish soil

The only thing disgusting in lauding the death of a fellow human being. One who did more for the economy then you ever will.

Weathering

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.

She also said signing this agreement was her biggest regret. Ah isn't she just lovely. Any Irish person that respects this woman is not Irish at all

Vivienne23

Nodin wrote: »

Would you have supported lifting the Arms embargo on Chile?

Would you have supported her refusal to impose sanctions on Apartheid South Africa?

Would you have agreed with her descrption of Mandela as a "grubby little terrorist"?

Would you have supported section 28?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

Maybe not ( ill have to inform myself better on these ) but I would like to see her go head to head with Angela Merkell , since I have realised I am completely in over my head on this ill now bow out of this thread but will read with great interest ,

Over and out !

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The only thing disgusting in lauding the death of a fellow human being. One who did more for the economy then you ever will.

"the economy"? I think you're getting your jurisdictions confused there, for starters. Not to mention some economic stance being held up as the ultimate benchmark for achievement.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

"the economy"? I think you're getting your jurisdictions confused there, for starters.

Ireland's economy is linked to Britains, when they suffer so do we.

Iwasfrozen

Vivienne23 wrote: »

Maybe not ( ill have to inform myself better on these ) but I would like to see her go head to head with Angela Merkell , since I have realised I am completely in over my head on this ill now bow out of this thread but will read with great interest ,

Over and out !

ha, Merkel wouldn't have a chance.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No the people who killed people very definitely meant people in Ireland and the UK died.

That just shows how naive you actually are tbh.

Cavehill Red

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ireland's economy is linked to Britains, when they suffer so do we.

And boy do they like to make us suffer with a b1tch like Thatcher in charge. May the Iron lady rust in pieces. Keep up your hagiography if you choose, 'I was Frozen'. You'll find a cold house for her comfort here.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everything she did she did for the good of the country. Yes it resulted in short term pain but you know short term pain is acceptable for long term gain. You mention you were alive in the 80s well how did you feel when your savings were being eaten away every year by rampant inflation? How did it feel living in a country where the Unions, not the government ran the economy and people were kept in useless employment contributing nothing at your expense all because it was in the Union's best interest. Please dear God please don't accuse other's of having a lack of knowledge when you yourself seem to have a very one dimensional view.

One dimensional? I was born into the troubles in the 70's and knew nothing but that until the 1997. Almost thirty years of it. I know no one in the North that was unaffected by it down to witnessing a man gunned down in front of me, and my fathers life being saved by the brave actions of an RUC man - it saturated into our very lives, and became almost normal as morbid as that sounds.

In fact, I would pose that it is you who has an extremely one dimensional view of things. There is an awful lot of sides who have a hell of a lot of responsibility for the Troubles lasting so long, from the Old Stormont guard, to the IRA, to Paisley and his ilk during the height of the violence and to various British administrations up to and including Thatcher who drew the whole affair out for much longer than it needed to be.

So no, I will not receive a lecture from you of all posters about having a 'one dimensional' view of things.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

That just shows how naive you actually are tbh.

Do you disagree with the statement? I thought it was self evident that people who kill people intend them to die. Or is this another form of doublethink I haven't yet encountered in Irish nationalism?

MrVoracious

Very sad to hear about Margaret
Thatcher! she was great in Mamma Mia!

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you disagree with the statement? I thought it was self evident that people who kill people intend them to die. Or is this another form of doublethink I haven't yet encountered in Irish nationalism?

Don't embarass yourself any further, the level you seem willing to stoop to in order to vainly defend members of a govenment (that has ITSELF apologised for their wrongdoing and killing) is just staggering. Have a bit of respect for yourself maybe and say nothing at all.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

One dimensional? I was born into the troubles in the 70's and knew nothing but that until the 1997. Almost thirty years of it. I know no one in the North that was unaffected by it down to witnessing a man gunned down in front of me, and my fathers life being saved by the brave actions of an RUC man - it saturated into our very lives, and became almost normal as morbid as that sounds.

In fact, I would pose that it is you who has an extremely one dimensional view of things. There is an awful lot of sides who have a hell of a lot of responsibility for the Troubles lasting so long, from the Old Stormont guard, to the IRA, to Paisley and his ilk during the height of the violence and to various British administrations up to and including Thatcher who drew the whole affair out for much longer than it needed to be.

So no, I will not receive a lecture from you of all posters about having a 'one dimensional' view of things.

As I thought, one dimensional. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way but it's hard to view a conflict with an objective point of view when you were so heavily involved in it. I expect your experiences have shaped your viewpoint and that's why you get a sadistic glee from this old woman's death.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Don't embarass yourself any further, the level you seem willing to stoop to in order to vainly defend members of a govenment (that has ITSELF apologised for their wrongdoing and killing) is just staggering. Have a bit of respect for yourself maybe and say nothing at all.

You didn't answer my question. Do you disagree with my statement?

Iwasfrozen

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And boy do they like to make us suffer with a b1tch like Thatcher in charge. May the Iron lady rust in pieces. Keep up your hagiography if you choose, 'I was Frozen'. You'll find a cold house for her comfort here.

I see a bunch of sadistic vultures. For shame.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

As I thought, one dimensional. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way but it's hard to view a conflict with an objective point of view when you were so heavily involved in it. I expect your experiences have shaped your viewpoint and that's why you get a sadistic glee from this old woman's death.

It did shape me, it turned me into a pacifist. I might like to see an All Ireland someday, but I'd rather it takes longer and it's achieved with the acquiescence of the population up here.

Not once have I posted in any thread to indicate I was taking pleasure in her death, merely that I personally would not be mourning her, you appear to be concocting that one up yourself.

As for my opinion of the woman when she was alive, yes it was a poor one, and for good reason, and I will make no apologies for that.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. Do you disagree with my statement?

You are that blinkered that you cannot see that I already dealt with it.
The people with the 'POWER' to affect change in N.I. are those who are ultimately responsible for the death and killing. As the GFA proves, create the equal and fair society you have denied to people and the killing will stop. Thatcher prolonged the conflict by her stubborn and stupid militaristic response and is therefore responsible for the chaos.
But I guess that might be a bit too complex for you to understand.

Cavehill Red

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I see a bunch of sadistic vultures. For shame.

You must be looking at the Tory party then.

Fits Morris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Everything she did she did for the good of the economy. Yes it resulted in short term pain but you know short term pain is acceptable for long term gain. You mention you were alive in the 80s well how did you feel when your savings were being eaten away every year by rampant inflation? How did it feel living in a country where the Unions, not the government ran the economy and people were kept in useless employment contributing nothing at your expense all because it was in the Union's best interest. Please dear God please don't accuse other's of having a lack of knowledge when you yourself seem to have a very one dimensional view.

The economy?

She destroyed manufacturing.
She greatly increased poverty.
She turned Britain's economy into a hollowed out, financial-services dependent wild west.
She greatly increased inequality and destroyed upward mobility and meritocracy.
She waged class warfare of the most brutal kind.

Her economic legacy is disastrous.

Scofflaw

Sigh. OK, some posters are dragging this off into a recitation of personal positions and incivility. Stop it if you don't fancy a ban.

You should know who you are, but just in case, current offenders have been given red or yellow badges to wear in memoriam. Happyman42 in particular, your contributions here have done the most to drive other posters into entrenched positions, which is almost ironic. I would suggest taking a voluntary break before an involuntary one is imposed.

We're being lenient here, because Thatcher was a particularly divisive figure, but the usual rules regarding celebration of death apply, as do those on backseat modding and incivility to other posters.

moderately,
Scofflaw

_Kaiser_

As I've said over in the AH "ranting and raving" version...

Margaret Thatcher, love her or loathe her, was one of the most influential people (forget politician) of the 20th century - a woman playing in a "man's world" who not only reshaped the UK, but was a powerful figure internationally who was instrumental in ending the Cold War

She transformed the UK from a nation that was on its knees and could well have ended up a basket case like Greece (or even "modern" Ireland?) had she not had the determination to stand up to the Unions and demand that people contribute positively to the state - it's ironic the complaining about this on this forum today considering the never-ending stream of whinging about welfare spongers, single mothers and what not.

All this bile is ridiculous given half of you were no doubt toddlers (if even around in those days - I was born in the mid-70s myself so was aware of the fall of the Berlin Wall and other key events of the 80s.. plus I've always been interested in modern history) when she was in power, and you're looking at her actions with the attitudes of a society 30 years older - rife with political correctness and more "enlightened" than the early to late 80s that we're talking about.. a time when homosexuality wasn't accepted - by anyone. A time when military action to solve disputes was deemed acceptable statecraft (the situation in NK at the moment for example would never have gotten as far as it has back then).

As for the Irish question.. ye all seem to conveniently forget that the Irish "soldiers" weren't angels either and again, military action and occupation was still deemed acceptable in those days - although as society "evolved" it's become less so, hence eventual peace talks and now the other extreme where the aforementioned NK despot is threatening the Asian/American seaboard with nuclear weapons while the International Community stands around tut-tutting about it.

She was far from perfect, but I don't think even her most loyal supporters have claimed that (certainly not in anything I've seen today), but she was what the UK - possibly the world if we consider the threat of nuclear Armageddon which was very real in those days) needed in her time and even her critics have acknowledged that .. even if they don't necessarily agree with her methods in the fullness of time.

If we had politicians with even a fraction of her steel we'd be in a much better place than the spineless corrupt servile bunch we are stuck with now.

Bottom line, she was the leader the UK needed at the time, and far too many people are judging her with attitudes from a society 30 years more "evolved" (quotation marks required there as it's debatable whether this is a positive thing in many aspects IMO). You need to review her actions and policies in the context of the environment she/we lived in and what was deemed completely acceptable and legitimate back then.

I think far too many people on this site are letting their Republican leanings/fantasies? get the best of them in the last 24 hours and the nasty, vicious comments with nothing constructive to add is proof that.

If we had leaders with her backbone and determination nowadays we might find Ireland and indeed Europe a very different place.

Happyman42

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

If we had leaders with her backbone and determination nowadays we might find Ireland and indeed Europe a very different place.

Which of her much vaunted 'policies' have worked with any long term impact?
Apartheid gone in SA,
Khmer Rouge gone,
Argentinians getting stronger in South Atlantic and Falklands still deemed a colony.
Her economic mantras have resulted in Europes economies lying in tatters.
Britain frantically trying to restore the manufacturing base she destroyed and avoid economic implosion.
Britain a tinderbox of class divide and racial sensitivities because of the hate and divisiveness her policies engendered and quite evidently still engenders.

I have deliberately stayed away from her failures in an Irish context.

excollier

I was locked out of Satellites.co.uk today for pointing out that Mrs. Thatcher wasn't all good.

Curly Judge

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which of her much vaunted 'policies' have worked with any long term impact?
Apartheid gone in SA,
Khmer Rouge gone,
Argentinians getting stronger in South Atlantic and Falklands still deemed a colony.
Her economic mantras have resulted in Europes economies lying in tatters.
Britain frantically trying to restore the manufacturing base she destroyed and avoid economic implosion.
Britain a tinderbox of class divide and racial sensitivities because of the hate and divisiveness her policies engendered and quite evidently still engenders.

I have deliberately stayed away from her failures in an Irish context.

Did Margaret Thatcher support the Khmer Rouge?

A Dub in Glasgo

Hundreds of Scots celebrate Margaret Thatcher's death with a huge party in Glasgow's George Square

LordSutch

Happyman42 wrote: »

She may not have planted any bombs but her policies vey definately meant that people died all over Ireland and the UK.

Might I suggest that it was the policies of the IRA/INLA which caused a lot of people to die.
Mrs Thatcher faced up to them and fought fire with fire, and good on her for that I say.

FTA69

I haven't read the last few pages of this thread but will make a few points on some of the more spurious statements of praise about Thatcher.

1) The Right to Buy

This is constantly held up as a positive aspect of her legacy but a cursory look at the housing situation in Britain will tell you it was a disaster for working class people today. Up to a third of the houses which were sold are now being rented out, far from creating a situation of home-ownership all it did was create a new class of landlords. The son of the housing minister at the time, Ian Gow, himself owns ninety former council properties in London alone which are rented out for premium rents. Many of these council properties are owned by rental firms who are registered in places like the Caymans etc and as such pay little or no tax. Meanwhile there are five million people on the housing waiting list and rents are through the roof.

Thatcher's housing scheme transfered a valuable public asset in the form of housing into private hands which has now been concentrated in the hands of the rich. The fact that key Tories have benefited financially is even more nauseating.

2) "Trailblazer for women"

This has to be the most ridiculous reason for praising Thatcher, more often than not made by people who seem to think woman = good without actually having a clue what she stood for. While she may have attained the position of Prime Minister she most certainly pulled the ladder up after her so to speak. She was economically liberal but when it came to social matters she was still an old school conservative Tory. Thatcher cut child benefit, she made absolutely no investment into childcare and those women who managed to pursue a career, she criticised for raising a "creche generation". She promoted ZERO women to cabinet and did nothing to address the issue of wider female representation in politics. She described feminism as "a poison."

Worked wonders for women indeed.

3) "Defender of Democracy"

When the democratic government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by a right wing coup led by Augusto Pinochet, Thatcher was one of his main international backers. So many people were seized by Pinochet's forces in the aftermath they had to contain them to a stadium where activists, politicians, journalists and musicians were systematically tortured and executed. We've had some eejits try and justify her standpoint as real-politik in the face of the Cold War, but that doesn't explain how she'd invite him for afternoon tea in London up until a few years ago.

Her support for the Chilean dictatorship is arguably one of the bigger issues of her toxic legacy, and one that her supporters have yet to address bar a few platitudes along the lines of "errah sure she made a few mistakes like."

Happyman42

LordSutch wrote: »

Might I suggest that it was the policies of the IRA/INLA which caused a lot of people to die.

Of course they where involved and responsible for deaths, but where not the sole cause of the conflict. The refusal of the responsible governments to accede to demands for equality and equal rights brought about the conflict. You only have to examine what brought about the cessation to see that.

Mrs Thatcher faced up to them and fought fire with fire, and good on her for that I say.

She tried that for a while and was then convinced (after being advised that the IRA could never be defeated) to try another way, luckily for all of us she was persuaded away from her otherwise militaristic response and progress was made. It was (as we have seen from her subsequent regret about signing the AIA) 'despite her' that that the conflict was eventually ended rather than because of her.

Godge

Vivienne23 wrote: »

Been reading this thread with great interest , also doing a bit of googling on why the Irish hate Mrs. Thatcher , ( wouldn't be the best with history) the main thing I can see is the hunger strikes and that she wouldn't give concessions to criminals ??? The concessions things like not having to work in prison , to wear your normal clothes , recreation activities ! Was it a holiday camp or a prison they thought they were in ? Unfortunately people died and this is tragic , but was she holding food from them ? Or was it personal choice for the strikers !

Also the fact that a year after she was nearly bombed out of it she signs an Anglo -Irish agreement , doesn't sound like an unreasonable lady ,

After seeing some of the posts on Facebook today I'm sickened as in the end she didn't die a leader , she died a mother, a widow , a grandmother , a frail woman suffering with a terrible disease ,

RIP Margaret

A very good summary and agree with the sentiments in the last paragraph. She had faults, she made mistakes, some of which she admitted to, but in the end she was also a mother, a grandmother and a friend and we should remember that in looking back as well as everything else.

I also agree on the point about signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement - great political and personal courage was needed to do that after the bombing. But that courage was certainly something she didn't lack. She also had integrity in that she stuck to her core beliefs - there was no chance of her being mistaken for a FF stroke gombeen politician, we could have done with someone with that same integrity of purpose instead of the Berties, Charlies and Brians of this world over the last 15 years.

At the same time, she did do great damage to certain parts of the UK and many of her economic policies were pushed too far. As some of this was only obvious in hindsight, it makes judging her legacy based on the times that she lived in difficult.

Busted Flat. wrote: »

She will have no problem meeting friends to where she is heading, Pol Pot, Botha, Pino$hit, Regan, over the Iran Contr, stretch it a bit more Hitler, Stalin. I am sure there a few more that will be sitting around the big fire. A sad and sick dictator that had no regard even for her own people.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

And boy do they like to make us suffer with a b1tch like Thatcher in charge. May the Iron lady rust in pieces. Keep up your hagiography if you choose, 'I was Frozen'. You'll find a cold house for her comfort here.

These are only a sample of posts here that seem particularly twisted. It reminds me of a well-worn saying, sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut than open it and embarrass yourself.

Speaking of which, there was nothing more nauseating on TV yesterday than the sight and sound of Gerry Adams. The only silver lining to his hateful speech is that maybe some more people will see SF for what they are.

_Kaiser_

FTA69 wrote: »

I haven't read the last few pages of this thread but will make a few points on some of the more spurious statements of praise about Thatcher.

1) The Right to Buy

This is constantly held up as a positive aspect of her legacy but a cursory look at the housing situation in Britain will tell you it was a disaster for working class people today. Up to a third of the houses which were sold are now being rented out, far from creating a situation of home-ownership all it did was create a new class of landlords. The son of the housing minister at the time, Ian Gow, himself owns ninety former council properties in London alone which are rented out for premium rents. Many of these council properties are owned by rental firms who are registered in places like the Caymans etc and as such pay little or no tax. Meanwhile there are five million people on the housing waiting list and rents are through the roof.

Thatcher's housing scheme transfered a valuable public asset in the form of housing into private hands which has now been concentrated in the hands of the rich. The fact that key Tories have benefited financially is even more nauseating.

I hope your follow-up will be how the same policy here that allowed anyone and everyone to "get on the property ladder" regardless of circumstance or ability to repay was equally nauseating.

Ditto the huge number of BTL properties owned by people who thought they too could become property magnates and landlords, and who charged tenants a fortune (and still are to some extent) in the "good times"

Let's not forget our own elite who are also landlords

Or is it different because it was Thatcher? I'd argue what she did was to create the opportunity for people to own their own home, based on a genuine belief that the people should strive to achieve and those who did should be rewarded - as opposed to the purely lax, corrupt regulation, planning and stroke politics that fueled it here.

FTA69

A very good summary and agree with the sentiments in the last paragraph. She had faults, she made mistakes, some of which she admitted to,

Faults like supporting tyrannical dictators who were rounding up musicians and journalists and torturing them to death in the national stadium? Trivialising things like that is what's really getting my goat at the moment to be honest. And the reason her supporters are skipping over it or playing it down is because it cuts straight through the nonsense argument that she was a "champion of liberty".

karma_

Godge wrote: »

These are only a sample of posts here that seem particularly twisted. It reminds me of a well-worn saying, sometimes it is better to keep your mouth shut than open it and embarrass yourself.

What's so twisted about pointing out that she backed Pol Pot, she certainly backed Pinochet and she supported, with arms, Suharto?

We have a situation on boards here, where certain posters are elevating her to almost sainthood because she was 'tough on the IRA' while they completely ignore the fact that she supported some of the most murderous and twisted regimes the world saw in the 20th Century. When asked about it these posters ignore the question, completely avoid to acknowledge it. It's a mind-bending approach to take, and not a little hypocritical.

Speaking of which, there was nothing more nauseating on TV yesterday than the sight and sound of Gerry Adams. The only silver lining to his hateful speech is that maybe some more people will see SF for what they are.

I'm guessing you missed Peter Robinson's performance? As that by far was the most cringe-inducing thing I've seen on television for about 5 years.

FTA69

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Let's not forget our own elite who are also landlords

I don't. What happened in Ireland was a disgrace. I've little time for landlordism of any variety to be perfectly honest.

Or is it different because it was Thatcher?

Typical strawmanning. Why is it that when a Republican makes any point on boards people immediately start trying to portray you as some sort of xenophobe who only hates things because they're English? Any chance you'll stick to the points at hand?

I'd argue what she did was to create the opportunity for people to own their own home, based on a genuine belief that the people should strive to achieve and those who did should be rewarded - as opposed to the purely lax, corrupt regulation, planning and stroke politics that fueled it here.

And what did her policy achieve? The concentration of former public housing into the hands of property magnates who are now making an absolute fortune. Including key Conservative Party members who have profited directly from that policy. Far from help the ordinary person gain housing it has pushed home ownership far beyond the reach of young people, especially in London where it is estimated that the deposit needed for a house in the next few years may exceed £100,000. She facilitated the transfer of public housing into the hands of the landlords, many of whom are now being paid by the state in the form of rent allowance while 5 million are on the waiting list.

You couldn't make it up.

EvanCornwallis

LordSutch wrote: »

Might I suggest that it was the policies of the IRA/INLA which caused a lot of people to die.
Mrs Thatcher faced up to them and fought fire with fire, and good on her for that I say.

At the end of the day , the IRA went away for a period. Had we treated Catholics like human beings or even close, they might never have come back. We handled the situation very badly and to be frank acted (not for the first or last timd)and worked with utter thugs and that lead to some terrible wrongs on both sides. There was obviously a need for the IRA, people getting assaulted , killed and burned from their homes. What did we expect ? They would just take it, that would be our legendary arrogance at its finest. We went around the world and nearly owned the place for a period , but people can only take so much before they push back. The only positive is that it has lead to some decent movies, pity we lose a lot

We are making a lot of mistakes in the middle east the last number of years and once again it's leading to wrongs and deaths on both sides. it has gone away a little , but friends and people had been very nervous on the underground , buses and flights. That fear is smaller at the moment , but I believe it's still at the back of our heads.

World will never be even close to perfect or peaceful , but that doesn't make watching coffins being flown back to England any easier and I have never even been personally affected. Being in Belfast for a period many years back , was unsettling even though we didn't see or get caught up in much. Really made me and my colleagues at the time think. No matter how or why , it's just great that everything has settled down, not one hundred per cent sadly ,but great progress none the less.

walshb

Thatcher's lack of decency and sympathy for people created a fantastic demand for the IRA.

LordSutch

walshb wrote: »

Thatcher's lack of decency and sympathy for people created a fantastic demand for the IRA.

But there was no fantastic demand for the IRA, they were small fry in comparisson to what would have been, had the Nationalist people as a whole risen up. Yes Mrs Thatchers language didn't help matters, but remember that the SDLP were the big Nationalist movement during the troubles, (and SF were the little guys), until that is they gave up the Armalite & the Semtex and fully embraced the political path . . . . .

Lockstep

Annoyed I have to say this again but crowing over her death is not on. I've deleted and infracted a few posters already. If this keeps going, bans will be handed out.
By all means, criticise her legacy but this forum isn't a schoolyard. Going on about how she should have died years ago or laughing at her in hell or whatever isn't allowed here.

El Inho

In the words of my lecturer.

Hitler was more popular than thatcher

Ps just saw that warning. Hope this is ok because it's actually factual.

Madd Finn

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'd argue what she did was to create the opportunity for people to own theirown home, based on a genuine belief that the people should strive to achieveand those who did should be rewarded - as opposed to the purely lax, corruptregulation, planning and stroke politics that fueled it here.

That's all very laudable but she did it by rigging the market. While at thesame time being strident about the need for "sound money" andcautioning against distortions in markets caused by government intervention.Double standards?
The selling off of council houses, at very generous terms to long-standingtenants, was fuelled by deregulation of financial markets and all sorts ofjiggery pokery with the tax system which had a number of effects which Isuspect a good God-fearing family oriented person like herself would haveregretted.

Endowment mortgages, double NIRAS tax relief, I remember all these goodthings from my time there. They turned on the flow of credit to those eager tobuy council houses which she sold off to their longstanding tenants at rockbottom prices. The deal was they had to stay in them for at least three years.
Then, and this is crucial, her government were ideologically reluctant toreinvest the profits in building new council houses. Essentially what she did wasboost demand while constricting supply. You don't even need Junior Certeconomics to know that the short term effect of that is to send pricesskyrocketing.

Far from creating the nirvana of proud local property owning communities inwhich people with a stake in their homes would ensure that their localenvironment would be protected and thrive, this created a frenzy ofspeculation. Especially from the mid 1980s on when the council tenants wereable to sell on their cheaply bought houses.

Momentum and confidence are turbo chargers for the property industry. As weknow from our own experience. In the late 80s, early 90s poorly handled changesto the tax regime, which caused panic buying in late 88 (I think) and a rapidrise in interest rates caused by Tory-party infighting over the single Europeancurrency meant that a spiral of negative equity and house repossessions took hold.These took years to unravel.

Coupled with stock market crashes in the 90s (dot bomb) and in the recentfinancial meltdown, a lot of those poor saps who bought their houses in thelate 80s early 90s are now coming to the end of their mortgage terms to findthat after 25 years, they still owe nearly half the borrowed amount on their proprerty.Another year older and deeper in debt.

What is the right way to approach the property market? Good question, butthose that deliberately engineer speculation frenzies deserve a special placein hell.

snaps

Reading some of these posts on here is astounding. I'm actually wondering if some of these horrific posts are being written by people old enough to have lived under her reign of pm in the UK? A lot of people who I hear here in mayo rant on about the ira and troubles up the north are only youngsters themselves and never experienced what life was like during the height of the troubles. I was born in the late 60s. I was brought up in the UK during the 70s and 80s. I know what it was like. Anyhow, keeping my views to myself.
She's gone now, simple as that.

Also how did she affect the lives of the normal Irish citizen living here in the republic?

jmayo

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.

What is her legacy ?
Her biggest legacy has been to make Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems basically the same.

Yes she defeated the unions, particularly those in coal and steel, which had a strangle hold on Britain for decades.
That was good, but what did she do for any of the people affected ?
SFA.
She left huge swaths of particularly Northern England and Wales as sad pathetic relics where the chances of work were often slim.

She presided over the governments that made sure that Britain divested itself of having any semblance of a manufacturing industrial economy and decided that the City and finance was the way to go.

Compare the current industrial output of other European states with that of the UK.
German, Belgian, Italian and French workers are unionised yet those countries still have a manufacturing industrial sector.
What has the birthplace of the industrial revolution got today ?
The country that gave us the mini, the landrover has AFAIK today only one indigenous car company, Morgan.

Did the right thing in the end ?
For every right thing she did and for every just fight she took on, there were equally blinkered, stubborn and often disastrous decisions which often made the lives of ordinary decent people much worse.

FTA69 wrote: »

I haven't read the last few pages of this thread but will make a few points on some of the more spurious statements of praise about Thatcher.

2) "Trailblazer for women"

This has to be the most ridiculous reason for praising Thatcher, more often than not made by people who seem to think woman = good without actually having a clue what she stood for. While she may have attained the position of Prime Minister she most certainly pulled the ladder up after her so to speak. She was economically liberal but when it came to social matters she was still an old school conservative Tory. Thatcher cut child benefit, she made absolutely no investment into childcare and those women who managed to pursue a career, she criticised for raising a "creche generation". She promoted ZERO women to cabinet and did nothing to address the issue of wider female representation in politics. She described feminism as "a poison."

Worked wonders for women indeed.

This is very true and it appears she was one of those women who having achieved it all, wanted to make sure no other woman would do likewise.

jank

A lot of posters letting themselves down badly in this thread. I think it shows utterly how some people think we should be relying on the state rather than ourselves and as a proponent of free market economics I am saddened that we have not moved more towards liberal economies.

We could do with her like in the Dail for a few years. Break the unions, cut the quangos, balance the books, cut taxes. Ireland would be much better off in the long run.

Suryavarman

jank wrote: »

We could do with her like in the Dail for a few years. Break the unions, cut the quangos, balance the books, cut taxes. Ireland would be much better off in the long run.

I'm not entirely sure someone like Margaret Thatcher is what we need. She doubled the VAT rate, introduced the poll tax and she never came close to balancing the budget.

While she deserves credit for large scale privatisation. Both she and her counterpart Ronald Reagan did a huge amount of damage to free market ideas without truly applying them.

jank

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure someone like Margaret Thatcher is what we need. She doubled the VAT rate, introduced the poll tax and she never came close to balancing the budget.

While she deserves credit for large scale privatisation. Both she and her counterpart Ronald Reagan did a huge amount of damage to free market ideas without truly applying them.

Oh, I agree in part but one must remember what see was up against, powerful unions that literary ran the country. It must have taken huge effort to do that. I cant think of anyone else who would have done that. Can you imagine Cameron doing that?

pgmcpq

jank wrote: »

....as a proponent of free market economics I am saddened that we have not moved more towards liberal economies.

The privatised BT I worked for had a 'buy British policy' all the way down from Lord Tebbit. I remember this as I remember a lot of bad language working with ICL kit. But free market ... only in the speeches.

Godge

jmayo wrote: »

What is her legacy ?
Her biggest legacy has been to make Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems basically the same.

Yes she defeated the unions, particularly those in coal and steel, which had a strangle hold on Britain for decades.
That was good, but what did she do for any of the people affected ?
SFA.
She left huge swaths of particularly Northern England and Wales as sad pathetic relics where the chances of work were often slim.

She presided over the governments that made sure that Britain divested itself of having any semblance of a manufacturing industrial economy and decided that the City and finance was the way to go.

Compare the current industrial output of other European states with that of the UK.
German, Belgian, Italian and French workers are unionised yet those countries still have a manufacturing industrial sector.
What has the birthplace of the industrial revolution got today ?
The country that gave us the mini, the landrover has AFAIK today only one indigenous car company, Morgan.

Did the right thing in the end ?
For every right thing she did and for every just fight she took on, there were equally blinkered, stubborn and often disastrous decisions which often made the lives of ordinary decent people much worse.



This is very true and it appears she was one of those women who having achieved it all, wanted to make sure no other woman would do likewise.

A number of posts have alluded to the decline of UK manufacturing.

http://www.pwc.co.uk/assets/pdf/ukmanufacturing-300309.pdf

A read of the linked report suggests that while manufacturing has been in relative decline it has also seen absolute growth. The picture is not so clear-cut.

maccored

snaps wrote: »

Reading some of these posts on here is astounding. I'm actually wondering if some of these horrific posts are being written by people old enough to have lived under her reign of pm in the UK? A lot of people who I hear here in mayo rant on about the ira and troubles up the north are only youngsters themselves and never experienced what life was like during the height of the troubles. I was born in the late 60s. I was brought up in the UK during the 70s and 80s. I know what it was like. Anyhow, keeping my views to myself.
She's gone now, simple as that.

Also how did she affect the lives of the normal Irish citizen living here in the republic?

I find here in Carlow that its many of those same normal Irish citizen(s) living here in the republic that tell me how we could do with a politician like her in the Dail. I was born in the late 60s and lived under Maggies reign both in the north and in England and theres no way I'd agree with the general consensus that we could do with another Thatcher. No thank you sir.

r3nu4l

To my mind Thatcher's biggest mistake was the manner in which she smashed the unions and closed the colliery's.

When she came to power Britain was in strike paralysis. Something needed to be done to destroy the power of the unions and I've no problem with that.

However instead of doing what she did Maggie should have put her considerable willpower and iron will into attracting more modern industry to the regions where the colliery's were. She should have put in place schemes to retrain miners who wanted to join these new industries and schemes for young people to enter into these new industries and prevent them from becoming miners. Announcing phased pit wind down and closure while also announcing jobs in newer companies would have meant that entire regions would not have been decimated the way they were.

Now there may well have been many impracticalities involved in doing this but remember the will and brute force of Margaret Thatcher could have pushed almost anything through. The simple reality is however that she had no interest in protecting these people or helping them transition. It was a power game to show ALL the unions that things had changed and that she would destroy anyone who stood in her way.

For that reason, never mind anything to do with Ireland or Northern Ireland, I would not like to see another Maggie, in Britain or Ireland.