Margaret Thatcher is dead

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Thread needs Manics..,

[pErvinalia]

Yeah - Britain was doing so well before Thatcher took office in 1979.... lol

Were you here? Did you spend 3 years on the dole because there simply weren't any jobs? No. So shut up with your knee-jerk, right-wing response!

It's not -- it's just an expression of opposition to your shrill, scattershot condemnation by mere insult. My response was not right wing. It's merely rational -- if Thatcher destroyed your country, then it must have been better before she took office than after. Was it? Stats don't seem to show that.

I have to be there now? Be sure to never comment on any issue regarding the US, then, please, and never comment on any historical issue. Thanks.

No, I never spent three years on the dole. Of course not. One would have to really be rather lazy to do that. There is always something to do.

She won an election with a campaign claiming that "Labour is not working" and showing a dole queue. At the time, there were just under a million people on the dole - a few years later, under her stewardship, there were 3 million!

She sold off the nationalised gas, electric, water and TSB bank to private ownership and used the money to fund tax cuts for the wealthy. She also squandered the North Sea Oil bounty on the same cuts.

She quite literally killed whole communities.

She replaced a system where the unions held far too much power (which I freely admit) with one where they have virtually no power - what she did was necessary up to a point but she went much too far, much too fast and acted with neither compassion nor remorse.

The reason I hate her so much was her blinkered, refusal to compromise an inch in what she thought was right whatever the consequences for however many people!

She was a cunt. Now she is a dead cunt. May she rot quickly.

[pErvinalia]

So what if it was sailing away? They were at war and it was a military vessel of the instigating power. It was fair game.

The exclusion zone was not a zone wherein vessels were safe merely by being outside of it.

It was unnecessary. Following your logic of laizzez faire warfare we should have shot captured Argentinian soldiers too.

The ship wasn't captured.

If two countries are at war, they sink each other's military vessels. Subs don't have to warn the ship first, or follow them. War doesn't require that in each engagement one has to wait until the other side fires first. That's why we have subs -- to sail around the water undetected and then fire on enemy ships taking advantage of the element of surprise.

What the hell, folks? Is this news?

I don't know much about the history of this, so perhaps I am missing something, but what Coit says makes sense. Sure, it was unnecessary, but fuck, it's war. What should you expect?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Good riddance to the venomous old bitch.

[DaveD]

I think I know why a state (or ceremonial) funeral for Thatcher has been planned. After the horsemeat scandal,it's to stop her ending up here:

[Warren Dew]

I gather her economic policies were less than premium?

Here's a good debate between Thatcher and one of her opponents on her economic policies:

[Warren Dew]

I still don't get it. I didn't like Thatcher, even though I voted for her. (Once)

But I don't really blame her for anything. She's a Tory, and that's what Tories do. It's like blaming a cat, for killing your pet mouse. That's what they do.
Who I blame is the Labour Party, for giving us such a shit choice.

And the Liberals, for not taking the best from both wings, and being that.
And it's still the same today. Almost anyway. A labour leadership chosen by the Unions, and Liberals who are the pits.

I could as well say, you can't really blame old labour for this. Blaming others and refusing to take responsibility is what the left does, like cats killing mice.

[JimC]

So what if it was sailing away? They were at war and it was a military vessel of the instigating power. It was fair game.

The exclusion zone was not a zone wherein vessels were safe merely by being outside of it.

It was unnecessary. Following your logic of laizzez faire warfare we should have shot captured Argentinian soldiers too.

The ship wasn't captured.

If two countries are at war, they sink each other's military vessels. Subs don't have to warn the ship first, or follow them. War doesn't require that in each engagement one has to wait until the other side fires first. That's why we have subs -- to sail around the water undetected and then fire on enemy ships taking advantage of the element of surprise.

What the hell, folks? Is this news?

I don't know much about the history of this, so perhaps I am missing something, but what Coit says makes sense. Sure, it was unnecessary, but fuck, it's war. What should you expect?

I also agree with CES - and "unnecessary" only shows up in hindsight...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It was a righteous shoot.

[cronus]

You can't re-write the history books. She was what the country deserved and got. Germany kept it's industry. We lost ours. That is the result of having the wrong kind of people in charge. The same happening in the US today. Trading the hard work of manufacturing for a easy life of dishwashing and sat in a office.

[JimC]

You can't re-write the history books. She was what the country deserved and got. Germany kept it's industry. We lost ours. That is the result of having the wrong kind of people in charge. The same happening in the US today. Trading the hard work of manufacturing for a easy life of dishwashing and sat in a office.

British nationalised industries of the day were horrendously inefficient - they were dead men walking. And the union feather-bedding didn't help.

(I'm not against national infrastructure being run on a nationalised basis, but it simply doesn't work with manufacturing industry)

Something had to give - the real fault was that the proceeds of selling the industry should have been put into developing infrastructure and training schemes, not given as presents to the rich via tax cuts...

[cronus]

You can't re-write the history books. She was what the country deserved and got. Germany kept it's industry. We lost ours. That is the result of having the wrong kind of people in charge. The same happening in the US today. Trading the hard work of manufacturing for a easy life of dishwashing and sat in a office.

British nationalised industries of the day were horrendously inefficient - they were dead men walking. And the union feather-bedding didn't help.

(I'm not against national infrastructure being run on a nationalised basis, but it simply doesn't work with manufacturing industry)

Something had to give - the real fault was that the proceeds of selling the industry should have been put into developing infrastructure and training schemes, not given as presents to the rich via tax cuts...

The Unions were blown up in the media as a propaganda tool. Strikes only happen with the willing. High inflation in the late seventies stemming from the oil price rises of the early seventies...made people willing to strike....all part of a ongoing disaster. Still ongoing today.

[pErvinalia]

[Audley Strange]

Picture. "Quote from someone publicly recognisable"

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... anity.html

[John_fi_Skye]

"I don't really blame her for anything. She's a Tory, and that's what Tories do. It's like blaming a cat, for killing your pet mouse. That's what they do."

Correct up to a point, as long as we have the present world order - a world in which the communist experiment (an attempt at a world order based on altruism and the good of all) failed because the people in power in each country where it was tried deliberately misunderstood communism, and used it for their own selfish ends. We're a naturally selfish species, and the present world order will persist until humanity finds a way of living together in altruism, instead of in societies whose individuals are motivated by personal benefit.

And the sad thing for me is the way this present world order makes people suffer. In the 1980's, I worked in a big secondary school in the industrial heartland of Scotland, In quick succession, the town where I worked suffered the closure of an enormous car plant and then an enormous deep coal mine. The effect this had on the people within this community was devastating. Suddenly (by which I mean over two or three years), lots of people became poor, and could see no way of escaping that poverty. It was tragic.

I blame Thatcher for being the instrument of that change, and I condemn her for glorying in it. I blame Scargill and his like for being every bit as bad on the other side of what should have been regarded as a mutual problem, rather than a war. Unlike the cat, our leaders are human, and should therefore be capable of empathy.

People often suffer when there's big societal change. The Proclaimers' good song herewith draws the parallel between the Highland Clearances of the 19th century and the de-industrialisation of the 1980's. In neither case did those in power preside over the changes in such a way that the ordinary people were treated with respect; in both cases, power was abused.



So, my choice would be:

1. Let's try to find a way of building a society based on altruism.

2. Until we find it, let's at least treat people with respect.