RIP Margaret Thatcher

Nodin

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

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



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.
.....

They weren't viewed as "completely acceptable and legitamate back then". Far from it.

djpbarry

r3nu4l wrote: »

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.

I think that’s a fair assessment. I don’t think even her most ardent critic could argue that the UK was not in a poor state when she took power and something had to change. A lot of what she did should have been begun years before.

But, she implemented change far, far too quickly and we’re now left with a situation in which the British economy is perilously dependent on London. Of course, it’s possible things could have gotten a lot worse in her absence, with successive governments bowing to populism and refusing to make difficult decisions - the transition could have been far slower and potentially a lot more painful. But, that doesn’t mean change could not have been better managed.

r3nu4l wrote: »

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.

I’m not sure I quite agree there – I think she simply had a dogmatic belief in small government. She frequently spoke in terms of administering unpalatable “medicine” – removing the stranglehold of the unions and, subsequently, inefficient state industry, would allow the private economy to grow organically and people to prosper. Of course, this didn’t happen, or at least not nearly as quickly as she thought it would.

r3nu4l wrote: »

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.

In many ways, I respect her for having little time for opinion polls – she did what she thought was the right thing to do, what she thought was best for the country, regardless of what anyone thought, the electorate included. There are few politicians in Europe today who would be as blind to what the polls say and we could certainly do with a few more.

Of course, this was also her greatest weakness and was ultimately her undoing. But, for me, by far the biggest black mark against her name is the Falklands War and all that it entailed. She knew the country was in need of a morale boost and she knew a military victory, playing on British wartime nostalgia, was just what the doctor ordered.

Weathering

She called Nelson Mandella a terrorist

djpbarry

Weathering wrote: »

She called Nelson Mandella a terrorist

So did Nelson Mandella.

Suryavarman

jank wrote: »

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?

While she undoubtedly deserves a huge amount of credit for facing down the unions it's important not to overstate her achievements.

And no I don't imagine too many political leaders around now would have the steel to do what she did.

I must also correct my original post where I stated that she never ran a surplus, she did in fact have 2.

Weathering

djpbarry wrote: »

So did Nelson Mandella.

What?

Cody Pomeray

r3nu4l wrote: »

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.

Indeed, and that had already been the cross-party political consensus: to decrease the role of coal in a multi fuel economy in a phased manner.

Lots of people think that the decline of coal started with Thatcher. In fact, it was well underway from the late 1950s onwards and the coal industry's erosion in importance was being met with substantial job losses right up until Thatcher's arrival on the scene about 1980. Successive Governments had previously been meeting job losses in the mines with new industry. Admittedly these new industries were fragile FDI-manufacturing jobs, and nothing as patriotic as British Coal.

In the recessions which led up to the decision to close the coal mines, these manufacturing industries began to suffer from wider economic contraction. This only made the coal mining regions of the North and Wales even more desperate to cling to their coal mines.

So yes, Thatcher faced difficulties. But all she had to do was continue down the phasing out of coal with incentivising new industry in the North of the UK and in Wales.
Not only did she dramatically speed up the wind-downs of collieries without having a plan b for workers, she made some seriously questionable decisions on how the economic viability of collieries were determined, which probably caused completely unnecessary damage and strife.

It bothers me to hear so many people say "well she made some really tough choices". This goes back to my earlier post on Thatcher's low complexity thinking. She felt completely comfortable hacking away at the economy, happy (yet, mistaken) in the belief that market forces would soon fill any gaping wounds by themselves.

This was ideological more than rational. It did not "need to be done" in this way, she just had to persist with the phasing out of mining that was already underway and had been established by her Conservative and Labour predecessors. Her policy toward the coalmines is nothing to be celebrated.

jmayo

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.

Some of those privatisations should never have happened in the manner in which they did, much like the privatisation of our own Eircom.
The privatisation of the British Rail Network hasn't proven to be the success that it's proponents claimed and if anything Railtrack have been a bit of a disaster.
And yes I know that privatisation went through after she left office.

Likewise water was another one that proved contraverisal.

Wasn't thatcher's old buddy pinochet not a better example of the implementation of free market eocnomics what with allowing the chicago biys have free reign ?
And to most ordinary Chileans it wasn't a rip roaring success. :rolleyes:

Godge wrote: »

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.

Before the current downturn took hold, there was strong growth across a wide range of UK manufacturing segments, for example:

• Britain is a world player in aerospace, accounting for 15% of global output in 2007.
• UK automotive output was near an all-time record high in 2007, and automotive exports were at an all-time high with a total value of around £20 billion.
• The country’s production of mechanical equipment has risen steadily since 2002, outperforming the growth of the economy as a whole. Precision equipment has also done well

Perusing that article one of the points I noticed was the lauding of the fact that Britain now had such a powerful contributing automotive industry.
What they failed to mention was it is the same thing as us bryaig about what a great computer technology industry when it is all down to foreign owned multinationals.
Take Toyota, Nissan, Honda and the foreign owned Land Rover, Jag, Bentley, Leyland, Perkins, etc out of that mix and they have shag all home owned.

My point is that decades ago they had their own manufacturing multinationals whereas today they have FDI and their companies taken over by foreign multinationals.
It also applies to such things as electrical, electronics and telecoms companies (e.g Marconi) and not just automotive.

And yes I know thatcher is not at fault for all the troubles of British manufacturing industry but she sure didn't help it much.

Suryavarman

jmayo wrote: »

Some of those privatisations should never have happened in the manner in which they did, much like the privatisation of our own Eircom.
The privatisation of the British Rail Network hasn't proven to be the success that it's proponents claimed and if anything Railtrack have been a bit of a disaster.
And yes I know that privatisation went through after she left office.

Likewise water was another one that proved contraverisal.

Thatcher privatised over 50 companies. Yet you criticise only two, the water privatisation was a success. And who cares about the rail network? It's a 19th century industry that can't survive competition from cars, buses and airlines.

Wasn't thatcher's old buddy pinochet not a better example of the implementation of free market eocnomics what with allowing the chicago biys have free reign ?
And to most ordinary Chileans it wasn't a rip roaring success. :rolleyes:

Chile has the lowest poverty rate and the highest GDP per capita in South America.

Not that that excuses Pinochet's murder of thousands of innocent civilians.

Palmach

snaps wrote: »

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

The booming UK economy was an outlet for our exports including our people when our economy was in the doldrums. If Mrs. T hadn't revved up the UK economy how much worse would the situation have been in the 80s

FTA69

And who cares about the rail network? It's a 19th century industry that can't survive competition from cars, buses and airlines.

Who are you trying to cod? The railway network in Britain is vitally important, especially in the south east which is the most important region economically. If you are commuting into London the railway is the only game in town; hence why you can't even get a seat on a train at 7.00am from any sh*tpot Home County town or village within an hour's distance from Victoria, Marylebone, Paddington or Waterloo. Buses and cars simply aren't a viable means of transport for a modern city worker in London, hence why even CEOs on an absolute fortune a year find it more convenient to commute by train rather than by car. The numbers on the rails are increasing year after year, as is the profit garnered by the companies now running them. Such is the success of rail, they're even planning a new high speed link between the north and south of England. Not to mention the environmental benefits of rail over mass car use.

Rail is dead? Nonsense. Come over here and try an early morning train from Surrey if you believe that.

SoulandForm

She died on the same day that the people elected Bobby Sands their MP.

Weathering

Street parties in glasgow and london and I'm sure in a few other places too I'd love to be hungover today

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

Rail is dead? Nonsense. Come over here and try an early morning train from Surrey if you believe that.

Then try the same journey by car the next day, for the purposes of comparison.

djpbarry

Weathering wrote: »

Street parties in glasgow and london...

The people involved should be ashamed of themselves. Celebrating death is absolutely vile.

walshb

djpbarry wrote: »

The people involved should be ashamed of themselves. Celebrating death is absolutely vile.

Depends who it is. If I heard that baby ps killer died I would pop open champers. I'd just hope his death was painful.. It's a very individual thing, but yes, celebrating death in general for someone we may not like is sad. Nasty!

Weathering

djpbarry wrote: »

The people involved should be ashamed of themselves. Celebrating death is absolutely vile.

They'd beg to differ. Such is life.

Happyman42

djpbarry wrote: »

The people involved should be ashamed of themselves. Celebrating death is absolutely vile.

Ordinarily I would agree, but she was seen as somebody who personally believed that her policies would work, policies that would in a normal government have been dropped had people begun to die and suffer the way many did. She became and relished being the focal point, loving 'The Iron Lady' tag, I'm sure she would not be suprised at the reaction to her death, she insisted on her policies despite the deaths of many many people in the violence they provoked.

Solair

Like her or loath her, she certainly left an impact on British society and was an iconic leader.

She was also quite transparent in how she did politics. If you voted for Thatcher and you got Thatcherism and a fairly ruthless old-style PM.

It wasn't like Blair where you voted for centre-left labour policies and got Thatcherism and got told whatever it was his layers of spin doctors thought you wanted to hear (based on focus groups and opinion polling).

I don't think you'll see any new Thatcher types emerging from the wings in the near / medium future in the UK as the system is sliding towards the centre and pragmatic politics rather than right/left ideologies of the 1970s and early 80s.

SoulandForm

Solair wrote: »

I don't think you'll see any new Thatcher types emerging from the wings in the near / medium future in the UK as the system is sliding towards the centre and pragmatic politics rather than right/left ideologies of the 1970s and early 80s.

What do you mean?

Thatcher's greatest achievement was New Labour.

What was was centre left in the 70s UK would seem looney radical stuff now.

The very fact that you are talking about "pragmatism" rather than right or left just shows how beaten the working class has been in the class war.

Solair

SoulandForm wrote: »

What do you mean?

Thatcher's greatest achievement was New Labour.

What was was centre left in the 70s UK would seem looney radical stuff now.

The very fact that you are talking about "pragmatism" rather than right or left just shows how beaten the working class has been in the class war.

Well, to be fair Labour's moved right and the Tories have moved somewhat more centre.

So, they're all kinda landing somewhere in the middle because that's where most votes are.

Since Blair and his presidential election style of spin, politics in the UK has become less ideological and more about the cult of personality, populism and celebrity.

I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm just pointing out fact.

Kinski

djpbarry wrote: »

The people involved should be ashamed of themselves. Celebrating death is absolutely vile.

Really? I think people could feel quite entitled to celebrate the death of a Stalin, or even a Jeffrey Dahmer (especially those who suffered personal tragedy as result of their actions.)

djpbarry

Weathering wrote: »

They'd beg to differ.

I'm sure they'd be pretty upset if the death of one their relatives was celebrated with a street party.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Ordinarily I would agree, but she was seen as somebody who personally believed that her policies would work, policies that would in a normal government have been dropped had people begun to die and suffer the way many did.

So it's ok to celebrate death, so long as the deceased held a different political viewpoint to your own?

djpbarry

Kinski wrote: »

Really? I think people could feel quite entitled to celebrate the death of a Stalin...

That doesn't make it appropriate.

Kinski

djpbarry wrote: »

That doesn't make it appropriate.

I'm content to defer to people who had to live under him on what was the appropriate reaction to his passing.

NTMK

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sure they'd be pretty upset if the death of one their relatives was celebrated with a street party.

if one of my relatives actively supported the likes of Pinochet i'd hold the street party to celebrate their death

Happyman42

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sure they'd be pretty upset if the death of one their relatives was celebrated with a street party.
So it's ok to celebrate death, so long as the deceased held a different political viewpoint to your own?

To those people celebrating it is obviously more than a difference in political viewpoints. It is more than obvious that this woman and her term has provoked tremendous longlasting feelings. Only a few wold leaders have managed that. I'll let you ponder the list she is now on.

Weathering

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sure they'd be pretty upset if the death of one their relatives was celebrated with a street party.
So it's ok to celebrate death, so long as the deceased held a different political viewpoint to your own?

Yeah but their relatives didn't live the life she did. I don't think any of their relatives called Nelson mandella a terrorist for instance

K-9

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?

She was an iconic and extremely divisive figure, a world wide figure and her policy on the hunger strikes resonate even today, your post is a good example of a lack of understanding of how hunger strikes deeply effect Irish attitudes. Yes, somebody from Mayo would remember her attitude towards the hunger strikers, even 30 years later. I'm no defender of how SF treated them as political collateral either, I must add.

Godge wrote: »

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.

Hardly a great performance either and yes, all western economies are struggling with industry, the problem is she was a prime mover in the move to financial services, property and retail as prime movers in the economy. You'd think that manufacturing would have benefited from her defeating the power of the Unions, but it didn't.

Put it this way, if Scotland, N.I. and Northern England had seen some benefit from her war on the Unions, I'd say she'd be remembered a bit more fondly.

oppenheimer1

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.

When you fight fire with fire, doesn't everyone get burned? To keep the analogy, wouldn't it have been smarter if she used water - ie tried to diffuse the tensions instead of stoking them?

oppenheimer1

I've read through this thread with great interest I have to say. I think that considering its been over 20 years since she was in power and the strength of feelings being felt probably tell you everything you need to know. Anyone who thinks she was a wonderful leader must question their beliefs in her when they see numerous celebrations across the UK at her death. In fact I cannot think of the death of any democratically elected leader in a western nation where that has happened.

As for someone who considered herself to be a protector of the Union, she was the one that did it most damage. Her disastrous economic policies all but ensured that the Conservatives are unelectable in Northern England, Scotland and large parts of Wales. This has allowed nationalist parties to gain ground and its certainly possible will vote for independence. Perhaps the destruction of the union would be a fitting legacy for someone who tore the fabric of UK society apart?

K-9

Scotland and Wales doing their own thing probably is the best chance of a Tory majority! (not even majority, getting 37/8% or above of the vote)

Then it'll be just Northern against Southern England.

oppenheimer1

K-9 wrote: »

Scotland and Wales doing their own thing probably is the best chance of a Tory majority! (not even majority, getting 37/8% or above of the vote)

Then it'll be just Northern against Southern England.

If Scotland goes its own way, then the Tories (or their heirs) will govern England and Wales for the next 25 years. One would expect a major Tory split though in that case as it would be impossible to keep such a dominant party together. The future would most certainly be to the right of where the UK currently stands.

However I digress. This is for another day and another thread.

Madd Finn

djpbarry wrote: »

Then try the same journey by car the next day, for the purposes of comparison.

As a former resident of South East England I infer from this post that you haven't a rat's ass clue what you're talking about.

Driving into central London at rush hour from anywhere outside the city centre is insanity. Even if you have a car parking space the congestion on the roads is prohibitive. And that's without mentioning the daily charge one must pay just to enter the city centre in a car.

There's about a million people working in one square mile in the city FFS. Parking alone makes the notion of driving in a nonsense.

You need a public transport service in a place like that. No option.

Weathering

Australia's Foreign Minister Bob Carr has described comments made by Baroness Thatcher as "unabashedly racist".

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22087702

djpbarry

Happyman42 wrote: »

To those people celebrating it is obviously more than a difference in political viewpoints. It is more than obvious that this woman and her term has provoked tremendous longlasting feelings.

One such “celebration” took place near where I live in South London – I doubt many of those taking part had even been born when Thatcher resigned.

Weathering wrote: »

I don't think any of their relatives called Nelson mandella a terrorist for instance

I really don’t understand this obsession people have with her labelling Mandela a terrorist. Nelson Mandela is under no illusion that he engaged in terrorist activities.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Her disastrous economic policies all but ensured that the Conservatives are unelectable in Northern England, Scotland and large parts of Wales. This has allowed nationalist parties to gain ground and its certainly possible will vote for independence.

Possible, but highly unlikely. I think you’re overstating her influence somewhat.

djpbarry

Madd Finn wrote: »

Driving into central London at rush hour from anywhere outside the city centre is insanity.

Yeah, I know – that was my point?

r3nu4l

Madd Finn wrote: »

Driving into central London at rush hour from anywhere outside the city centre is insanity. Even if you have a car parking space the congestion on the roads is prohibitive. And that's without mentioning the daily charge one must pay just to enter the city centre in a car.

djpbarry wrote: »

Yeah, I know – that was my point?

It could have been taken either way but I read your point as it was intended

I've been unfortunate enough to have to drive a car into Westminster on a Monday morning, during rush hour. thankfully it was a hired automatic car. the journey went very quickly until i reached the end of the M11 and then I crawled in bumper to bumper traffic for the rest of the way. Two hours to get in and then 3 hours to get home during rush hour. I'm a former rail commuter and while you can't get a seat on the trains into London at least my commute was only 1 hr 15 minutes

Thatcher's support for rail by privatisation was a good thing in the long run despite the massive problems in the beginning and ongoing problems now.

djpbarry

r3nu4l wrote: »

It could have been taken either way but I read your point as it was intended

Ok, on re-reading I can see how it could have been misinterpreted.

Colonialboy

Madd Finn wrote: »

As a former resident of South East England I infer from this post that you haven't a rat's ass clue what you're talking about.

Driving into central London at rush hour from anywhere outside the city centre is insanity. Even if you have a car parking space the congestion on the roads is prohibitive. And that's without mentioning the daily charge one must pay just to enter the city centre in a car.

There's about a million people working in one square mile in the city FFS. Parking alone makes the notion of driving in a nonsense.

You need a public transport service in a place like that. No option.

actually you always have an option.
dont create the congestion in the first place , dont condense 1 million people into The Square mile
dont incentivise people and financial congestion .. it just leads to rack and ruin

Its a bit like the HSR, high speed rail line linking London to the North...
where are they going to start building it from .. London
wheres all the steel coming from .. the north
more wealth for London, more congestion in London.
Start the HSR from the north and you take 20,000 workers out of London and put some cash into the economy north

wont happen cos Thatcherism lives on stronger than ever.

jank

In my opinion people holding street parties to celebrate her death are a disgrace. Some of the comments I have heard from the left has made me literally laugh out loud. The veneer of compassion, humanity and empathy that are usually the core of their policies has completely slipped in this instance. The far right don't have a monopoly on hate.

RodgersLFC

I must say, some of the things written on Facebook and Twitter about someone who has just died would leave a fairly bad taste in the mouth, its a bad reflection on society that people can revel in the death of another human being. Fair enough, she was a divisive figure, and I was never particularly a fan of hers, but at the end of the day, she's someone's mother, grandmother, aunt etc, and to be out partying in the street celebrating her death is disgraceful and disgusting in my view.

junder

RodgersLFC wrote: »

I must say, some of the things written on Facebook and Twitter about someone who has just died would leave a fairly bad taste in the mouth, its a bad reflection on society that people can revel in the death of another human being. Fair enough, she was a divisive figure, and I was never particularly a fan of hers, but at the end of the day, she's someone's mother, grandmother, aunt etc, and to be out partying in the street celebrating her death is disgraceful and disgusting in my view.

Well said, I am no fan of thatcher myself, but take no pleasure in her death, or anybody else's for that matter. As you said at the end of the day she is a women with a family who are grieving moreover, while I don't believed in organized religion, I am still a go fearing person so in my view she had gone before the only judge that matters.

I see that one critizism of her was her calling Mandela a terroist and yet I was just reading an articule that said Mandela visted number 10 to personally thank her for helping secure her release. Not saying this is true or not, end of the day it's an articule in the daily mail, but atleast it gives an alternative view

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306570/Margaret-Thatcher-dead-Weaned-BBCs-hatred-wonder-young-rejoice-death.html#ixzz2Q3SNz5FS

snaps

Weathering wrote: »

Street parties in glasgow and london and I'm sure in a few other places too I'd love to be hungover today

And did you see half of them weren't even old enough to have lived under her time as prime minister. Pathetic and vile. hopefully soon Scotland will have their own independence and they won't have to worry about what's happening in Englands politics.

FTA69

r3nu4l wrote: »

Thatcher's support for rail by privatisation was a good thing in the long run despite the massive problems in the beginning and ongoing problems now.

Not a chance. Instead of the divine Free Market ensuring competitive pricing and effective transport, fares have gone up year after year with the rail companies in question making massive profits while cramming people into increasingly-overcrowded trains. Ironically, these profits are actually being utilised to fund public rail in other European countries. Rail privatisation has been a disaster for all concerned.

FTA69

As for the dancing in the street lark, it's certainly not my cup of tea but people need to realise the extent of the hatred that people rightly had toward her. This "she was a democratic politician and a mother" sentimental crap that people are coming out with is of scant consolation to someone who was battered on a picket line, or someone who was made unemployed and never worked again, or to proud communities who were thrown on the scrapheap and remain there today. Thatcher and her policies had a malign and corrosive effect on British society, the ideology she implemented resulted in real and tangible suffering both here and back in Ireland. It's the victims of her reign that I feel empathy toward,.

However, Thatcher might be dead by Thatcherism is rife today and is arguably worse than it ever was. At least Thatcher didn't touch the NHS, the current crop are trying to chip away at that as best they can. I'll dance in the streets when neo-liberal capitalism is done away with, anything else is premature.

Mindfulness

FTA69 wrote: »

Not a chance. Instead of the divine Free Market ensuring competitive pricing and effective transport, fares have gone up year after year with the rail companies in question making massive profits while cramming people into increasingly-overcrowded trains. Ironically, these profits are actually being utilised to fund public rail in other European countries. Rail privatisation has been a disaster for all concerned.

I think that without Thatcher's privitisation the industry would have completely collapsed. I don't think any government would have put in the necessary funding. Don't get me wrong, prices are extortionate and I suffered long enough going in and out to the City on a daily basis before finding work closer to home but in the long run I still feel her privatisation of rail was the better of two evils.

repsol

Glad now she survived the Brighton bombing. Had she been killed she would have been a martyr. Now she is just worm food. Forget about how she treated Ireland, she treated the miners who were British hard working citizens like dirt.

snaps

Im going to put my two pence worth in. I grew up in South East England between late 60's till mid 90's until i moved back home to Ireland. Some of the posts on here seem to be made by people that never experienced life either before thatcher, during thatcher and after thatcher. The Uk was in a terrible state, the Unions had England (I can only comment on life in England) crippled, Rubbish built up in the streets rotting away, regular power outages due to the coal miners strikes. If people think times and recession is hard now, I can tell you it was no picnic in the 80's. I was a teenager and leaving school when thatcher was in power, I didnt have many prospects to look forward too at all, but we had the YTS (Youth training scheme) for school leavers, giving us training and money in my pocket, The basic wage was 28.50£ a week if i remember but i was earning 80£ a week plus I was getting trained. Thatcher had to make some rash decisions, they weren't popular with shutting mines, but at the end of the day the mines were not making any money, so why keep it going? Did she hate the Irish? I don't know, but you have to remember that the IRA were at the peak of their campaign on the UK mainland, I remember reports of bombs near enough every day, ok some just being letter bombs. The ring of steel around london, police searching vans and cars before they were allowed entry into the city. We had the cold war too, I remember before i left school having the 4 minute warning, being taught what to do in school if it sounded, we had drills, not knowing if the sirens were real or not, that was scary, Thatcher had a huge part in the ending of the cold war, break up of the soviet union and repairing Soviet/American relations. The Falklands war, It was war, another country had invaded land belonging to England, no war is pretty, but she stood up and decided to take the islands back. Then at the end there was the poll tax, one of her worse decisions, but its no different to whats being introduced here now in the forms of the property tax, but at least in the UK that poll tax or council tax as its now called paid for bin collection, street lighting, fire service etc etc. I cant comment about Northern Ireland and her policies, as news from the North as far as I remember was censored to us living in mainland Britain. Anyhow, Her passing doesn't really mean anything to me, but what she achieved as a woman when the odds were against her needs to be acknowledged. Its just annoyed me that people have behaved with these over the top parties and celebrations over a death of someone. Yesterday a lad in his 20's was making comments about her calling her all the names under the sun, I turned to him and asked how he knows all these things when he wasn't even born when she was PM. He was very embarrassed, but thought he was being smart.
Anyhow at the end of the day, A woman has passed away, who has friends and family, that should never be forgotten, she should be allowed to be lais to rest.

Madd Finn

Let me introduce you to my friend paragraph.

snaps wrote:

Im going to put my two pence worth in.

I grew up in South East England betweenlate 60's till mid 90's until i moved back home to Ireland.

Some of the posts on here seem to be madeby people that never experienced life either before thatcher, during thatcherand after thatcher.

The Uk was in a terrible state, theUnions had England (I can only comment on life in England) crippled, Rubbishbuilt up in the streets rotting away, regular power outages due to the coalminers strikes.

If people think times and recession ishard now, I can tell you it was no picnic in the 80's.

I was a teenager and leaving school whenthatcher was in power, I didnt have many prospects to look forward too at all,but we had the YTS (Youth training scheme) for school leavers, giving ustraining and money in my pocket, The basic wage was 28.50£ a week if i rememberbut i was earning 80£ a week plus I was getting trained.

Thatcher had to make some rash decisions,they weren't popular with shutting mines, but at the end of the day the mineswere not making any money, so why keep it going? Did she hate the Irish? Idon't know, but you have to remember that the IRA were at the peak of theircampaign on the UK mainland, I remember reports of bombs near enough every day,ok some just being letter bombs.

The ring of steel around london, policesearching vans and cars before they were allowed entry into the city.

We had the cold war too, I rememberbefore i left school having the 4 minute warning, being taught what to do inschool if it sounded, we had drills, not knowing if the sirens were real ornot, that was scary, Thatcher had a huge part in the ending of the cold war,break up of the soviet union and repairing Soviet/American relations.

The Falklands war, It was war, anothercountry had invaded land belonging to England, no war is pretty, but she stoodup and decided to take the islands back.

Then at the end there was the poll tax,one of her worse decisions, but its no different to whats being introduced herenow in the forms of the property tax, but at least in the UK that poll tax orcouncil tax as its now called paid for bin collection, street lighting, fireservice etc etc.

I cant comment about Northern Ireland andher policies, as news from the North as far as I remember was censored to usliving in mainland Britain.

Anyhow, Her passing doesn't really meananything to me, but what she achieved as a woman when the odds were against herneeds to be acknowledged.

Its just annoyed me that people havebehaved with these over the top parties and celebrations over a death ofsomeone.

Yesterday a lad in his 20's was makingcomments about her calling her all the names under the sun, I turned to him andasked how he knows all these things when he wasn't even born when she was PM.

He was very embarrassed, but thought hewas being smart.
Anyhow at the end of the day, A woman has passed away, who has friends andfamily, that should never be forgotten, she should be allowed to be lais torest.

[MOD]+1 for editing skills, -1 for incivility. Don't make a habit of this kind of thing.[/MOD]