Maggie

[thfcsteff]

She didn't support Apartheid, she refused to embargo SA because of it. I recommend reading her memoirs where she illustrates just how tough a decision that was. Anyone could see at the time that the embargoes hurt the (mostly black) poor and did nothing to stop the rich white people doing what they were doing. Any embargo would have been an empty political statement - something we've got very used to in the last 16 years.

I read them. Bought them second-hand because I didn't want her to get a royalty from me. Funny how she adopted this attitude with regards to South Africa yet single-handedly refused to even attempt dialogue with Sinn Fein. Her shelter of the likes of Pinochet speaks volumes. Your piint about sanctions is well made, but she was not an altruist (to say the least).

 

[Sheffield Spur]

ah the good old northern chip on the shoulder but with gravy not tomato sauce

when getting coal from australia is cheaper then the getting it in Yorkshire im really not sure how anyone can suggest that it was not the right move. My only problem with thatcher is that when they sold of the council houses that money was not used to build more council houses.

The north only has itself to blame but because it is weak it will never except any blame like a drug addict that does not want to get itself help. I have retrained in my life and gone out and got different jobs, it is what you do when you lose a job. Unless of course your northern or a labour voter then you expect it to be handed to you on a plate and if it is not then you can moan tat bloody souther softies bastards tin westminster.

New labour created a million extra civil service jobs mainly in the north because they wanted a new voter base, instead of doing the right thing in their 13 years and creating a new industry up there, they realised northern and labour people dont want to go out and do proper jobs they just want to live off the south. Without the south east bailing out the north they would have a similar GDP as latvia but none of the work ethic.

She did well to get rid of the coal mines what should happened is that more effort was created to promote new industry in it place. But anyone who thinks thatcher destroyed the north should look at Detroit, citys and areas fall it happens.

I believe you have a reputation for ridiculous posts. This has nothing in it to suggest otherwise.

 

[Baleforce]

I read them. Bought them second-hand because I didn't want her to get a royalty from me. Funny how she adopted this attitude with regards to South Africa yet single-handedly refused to even attempt dialogue with Sinn Fein. Her shelter of the likes of Pinochet speaks volumes. Your piint about sanctions is well made, but she was not an altruist (to say the least).

was that before or after sinn fein tried to kill her?

 

[Papercut]

If I have one critiscm...

I think they've taken off Masterchef tonight...

The bitch!

 

[thfcsteff]

I'm from Sussex, so that is where my perspective is from. If I was from the North I would probably have the same perspective as you.

Any leader's policies of any sort will have winners and losers. She won three elections, therefore I think it is fair to say her policies, at the time, benefitted more people than they hurt.

She was a clever, brilliant actually, manipulator of the public and was the first British politician to realize the power of advertising to present an image. Saatchi & Saatchi designed her (with her very strong inout of course) and their simply yet devastatingly effective LABOUR ISNT WORKING billboards were the very beginning of short-attention span theatre. The quick message. Context-be-damned. And what she did with the Falklands War was a disgrace. She KNEW it was being planned, she could've prevented any attempt of a take-over half a year earlier (Carrington, her foreign policy advisor and a very smart man, told her)...she chose to leverage that knowledge against public opinion IMO, and instead swept the country on a wave of jingoism at a time when the country was broken and she was on an enormous slide. She didn't gain that re-election via people supporting her policies, she won it with manipulation. Commonplace in politics thee days of course, and seen all over (Bliar's pathetic using of Oasis, etc, to present a 'fresh modern image)...

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

This is what makes me laugh about all this mythology surrounding Thatcher. Most of Britain's infrastructure and energy is now owned by Europe so all this Thatcher stood up to Europe nonsense just don't wash. All these conservatives are always anti-Europe yet are extremely relaxed about the French state dictating the cost of our energy. Hmm, makes real sense\o/

Thatcher wasn't a patriot she was an opportunist. She didn't give a hoot about the Falkland Islands when she approved the removal of a naval fleet and she didn't care about the fascist junta in Argentina when her Government were approving arms sales to them.

All this high horse guff about Thatcher. She despised Britain, wanted to hack off our industry and social infrastructure for short term profit and began the general slide in a nation which has nothing left but a city of London that kittens itself out in an industry making money out of thin air. Which of course can never, ever possibly go wrong\o/ Er, but it did, spectacularly.

The biggest powerhouse in Europe is Germany. Why? Because they actually make things. Britain doesn't make things anymore, doesn't produce anything and is beholden to Europe and Russia when it comes to determining the cost of basic essentials like heating a home.

Which bodes the question:-k Did we really win the cold war and why are we suspicious of Europe when Thatcher made it possible to sell off our infrastructure to half of Europe anyway.

Oh, and Saddamn's officers were trained at Sandhurst during her rein in office.

Personally i am against our energy companies being sold off to europe but we were told when it was happening that we would be able to but their companies as well. Except when it came to it the Germans and the French decided to play by different rules and not allow us to buy their companies.

Manufacturing actually decreased more under the labour government from 1997 to 2008 then it did under the 18 years of tory government that is a fact that even Labour had to admit to.

If it had not been down to Thatcher we would be paying a hell of lot more into the EU then we already are, money we can ill afford. Seeing some of the talks she gave on the EU on the news today shows just how right she was and ahead of her time. The EU was only ever about Germany having a market to sell to and doing everything to make Germany richer.

As for saying Britain does not produce anything well i see Nissan decided that the UK was the best place in europe to build its factory because of the flexability of our workforce, the car production in this country i read in the times last week is the most robust in Europe, something backed up by quotes from the cbi. Would also say that some of our pharmaceuticals are doing very well and we are starting though a bit late thanks to New labour to progress and get more profitable renewable energy companies.

I can not help but think when i see so much of what is said by the left today what they will say about the axis of evil that was brown/blair who did far worse then maggie but always seem to get no or little blame.

To many comments i have heard today(radio as i have driven about 300 miles) are along the lines of "what she did to my dads community" people are just talking about their parents rather then seeing that with hindsight she did what was right.

If the current lot in government had any balls they would be cutting the civil service in half, sure people would moan about it and perhaps one thing we could learn from thatcher is to try even harder to create jobs, though difficult when it comes to the north becuase they do not like working up there.

Anyway im sure this is an interesting debate on here and i look forward to reading more but it will have to wait till friday because i have a big week coming up.

 

[thfcsteff]

was that before or after sinn fein tried to kill her?

Sinn Fein did not try to kill her.

It was before the Brighton bombing.
Do you know the history of The Troubles?

I have no leaning either way as I see both sides, but she imposed British policing, British military and British rule in N.I. with no attempt whatsoever to balance those areas of service and she steadfastly said she would refuse to negotiate and talk with terrorists. Funny how it took John Major to gauge that discussion might lead to some form of peace...

If you want to have the discussion, I'm happy mate. In good spirit as well, not snarky.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I believe you have a reputation for ridiculous posts. This has nothing in it to suggest otherwise.

haha true labour/leftie do not engage just try to belittle the opposition, say it enough times then you can believe it to be true.

The north should help itself, go out and create new jobs but it expects it all on a plate the only way labour could increase jobs up there was to give them civil ervice jobs, might be hard for you to admit and i doubt you will your sort never do but it is the truth, just like it is a cold hard fact that manufacturing decreased at a larger rate under labour then the last tory government, go check out it out sunshine.

Nah don't bother instead just take cheap shots instead, easier that way. Very sad.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

cool was cheaper to import from australia, that is a fact it may be something people in the north do not like but that is the world we live in, what would you want us to put millions into a plastics factory in rotheram despite the fact that they could make say a plastic bin in china and ship it here for half the price? same with the coal, the country changed the north could not understand it, then instead of pulling itself up it wallowed in self pity for years.

I have never liked self pity which is why i can not stand the north or labour voters.

 

[Baleforce]

Sinn Fein did not try to kill her.

It was before the Brighton bombing.
Do you know the history of The Troubles?

I have no leaning either way as I see both sides, but she imposed British policing, British military and British rule in N.I. with no attempt whatsoever to balance those areas of service and she steadfastly said she would refuse to negotiate and talk with terrorists. Funny how it took John Major to gauge that discussion might lead to some form of peace...

If you want to have the discussion, I'm happy mate. In good spirit as well, not snarky.

not at all, i appreciate my comment came across as snarky and I apologise, but for me the only difference between sinn fein and the IRA back then was the masks

 

[thfcsteff]

not at all, i appreciate my comment came across as snarky and I apologise, but for me the only difference between sinn fein and the IRA back then was the masks

Mate, sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were big snarky at all, i wanted to be sure you knew that if we were to have a discussion it would be in good faith on my part. I heartily disagree with your assertion re: Sinn Fein/IRA, but as-is, the bottom line is at least there is some peace in the region as a result of discussions initiated by Major, Clinton and Bliar...

 

[thfcsteff]

cool was cheaper to import from australia, that is a fact it may be something people in the north do not like but that is the world we live in, what would you want us to put millions into a plastics factory in rotheram despite the fact that they could make say a plastic bin in china and ship it here for half the price? same with the coal, the country changed the north could not understand it, then instead of pulling itself up it wallowed in self pity for years.

I have never liked self pity which is why i can not stand the north or labour voters.

If you believe in supporting your own society/economy and not allowing under-cutting to rule the world, yes. It is the intrinsic issue everywhere in the west. People want everything as cheap as they can get it AND they want to moan about China, etc, taking jobs from them.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

She was a clever, brilliant actually, manipulator of the public and was the first British politician to realize the power of advertising to present an image. Saatchi & Saatchi designed her (with her very strong inout of course) and their simply yet devastatingly effective LABOUR ISNT WORKING billboards were the very beginning of short-attention span theatre. The quick message. Context-be-damned. And what she did with the Falklands War was a disgrace. She KNEW it was being planned, she could've prevented any attempt of a take-over half a year earlier (Carrington, her foreign policy advisor and a very smart man, told her)...she chose to leverage that knowledge against public opinion IMO, and instead swept the country on a wave of jingoism at a time when the country was broken and she was on an enormous slide. She didn't gain that re-election via people supporting her policies, she won it with manipulation. Commonplace in politics thee days of course, and seen all over (Bliar's pathetic using of Oasis, etc, to present a 'fresh modern image)...

Agreed that she was the first British politician to employ these marketing tactics, but do you not think they would have evolved regardless? I don't think you cab pin the blame for the "short-attention span theatre" that we have today on her.

As for the Falklands War, I completely agree that she managed it with an eye towards manipulating the public. The fact is though that we won the war with very few casualties, something that I very much doubt would have happened if Michael Foot would have been in power at the time. In this instance, I think the ends justified the means. Calling a General Election immediately afterwards was a bit sneaky though, but again, do you not think Labour would have done the same thing IF they had won the war so convincingly?

 

[thfcsteff]

Agreed that she was the first British politician to employ these marketing tactics, but do you not think they would have evolved regardless? I don't think you cab pin the blame for the "short-attention span theatre" that we have today on her.

As for the Falklands War, I completely agree that she managed it with an eye towards manipulating the public. The fact is though that we won the war with very few casualties, something that I very much doubt would have happened if Michael Foot would have been in power at the time. In this instance, I think the ends justified the means. Calling a General Election immediately afterwards was a bit sneaky though, but again, do you not think Labour would have done the same thing IF they had won the war so convincingly?

They 'might' have evolved, but she accelerated what I see as the lack of empathy and social understanding we now see rampant today. We could say the same about virtually every figure in history with regards to being the first to use specific ideals/tactics. I don't pin all the 'blame' on her, but to deny that she was the first politician to utilize these tools would be blindness.

The thing with the Falklands War is that she knew about it months and months earlier, and could've explored diplomatic channels to shut it down before getting the military involved. That's a fact. Closer to the time she was even asked by the US of all parties, to explore diplomacy first. We are talking about a relatively small island, I think diplomatic channels might have been productive. Your question about Labour (especially back then) is impossible both to fathom and answer, although my initial response is a resounding 'no', in fact, worth recognizing that had Labour harbored her instincts they might well have made a fist of the elections before and after...Bliar? Well, we can clearly see he did try that tactic in supporting an empty 'war' but that's a whole other discussion!

 

[CelticSpur]

Seems like the only ones who miss Maggie are the IRA

 

[Danners9]

'a leader who led'

'had the balls to make tough decisions'

Yeah, and without drawing direct comparisons, this is what a dictator does too. And it's what party politics has become, or maybe always was. Career politicians who end up doing what is best for them, not what is best for the country.

Congrats on praising someone who made the tough decisions and ripped the heart out of communities to save money/make money for others. There are tough decisions and there are dangerous decisions, I think the line between those two things is blurred when discussing Thatcherism.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/08/margaret-thatcher-dead-ken-livingstone-says-she-was-fundamentally-wrong_n_3036880.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Have a read. I know it's biased. But deregulating the banks caused what...? oh. Being able to buy council houses made lots of people a lot of money, the money was not used to build more.. but, where would they go anyway? we have this problem now, building on marshland in the estuary area or overpriced housing which, combined with the banking fudge up, has meant that buying a house is increasingly difficult. Lucky for some, total brick for others.

Moving people from unemployed to incapacity, and there's a benefit crisis today. Surprise. This selfish, greedy attitude was probably always there within society but her regime brought it to the fore.

No doubt Britain needed strong leadership after the 70s, but has had a lasting impact that is probably not great for the whole country. Something that benefitted the country would have been fantastic, stimulate industry and not just fudging close it across whole swathes of the country and put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. What could they retrain as? bankers? street sweepers? I was young in the 80s but what was available?

Saying 'but it was cheaper to buy from abroad... what would you do?!' is so departed, don't you see the bigger picture? manufacturing is jobs, either directly in the factory or at the coal face - so to speak - and it is transportation, it is retail, it is the service industry, it is the hospitality industry, it is foreign trade. It is everything. But fudge it, it's a few quid cheaper elsewhere so let's just GIVE them OUR money and sack off a load of Brits instead. Yeah that's a great idea, long term. Fast forward some years later and what does Britain actually do. The state sponges off its people and a lot more of its people sponge off the state.

I've seen some comments about her helping to break the glass ceiling for women. She said feminism was a poison. She wanted to play the bloke's game but not advance the role of anyone else. Was she a role model? Not sure. She was certainly an inspiration, for Spitting Image and Private Eye. David Miliband says she inspired him to join the Labour Party and showed that policies can make a difference, he was South Shields MP. An area that lost coal, steel and shipbuilding. Tell people in those THREE industries to retrain.. I bet most could work in a call centre quite happily. That's what Britain has become.

I'm a southerner, for what it's worth, from leafy Hertfordshire, but I also couldn't wait to leave the UK and with a bit of luck I won't ever have to return. My childhood was stained by Thatcher's policies.

The problem with British politics is it lurches from one to the other. Avert a disaster, patch it up, create another, then the party changes and it repeats. I don't think any leadership has got it 'right', if that concept even exists. The problems are so deep-seated now that you can only fix a few, at the expense of others. Then fix those, and others suffer, and so on. I doubt there is any grand solution, without a sudden injection of income like the gulf states found under the sea. The stupid thing is that Britain HAD the solution and closed it, sold it off. Having an industry, a route to international trade, is incredibly valuable. Not just selling arms and ammunition abroad, which, funnily enough, Maggie's son did on the sly.

 

[thfcsteff]

A great read danners...

 

[DubaiSpur]

And you live in Dubai? A country built upon by imported slaves who work and live in conditions that would not be acceptable for a dog.

Did you migrate there for the tax free lifestyle? I've never known a country projecting such extreme wealth while tourists and residents alike turn a blind eye to the slavery behind closed doors.

Thatcher may have not pleased all but her descisions were for the better of the majourity. She was strong and direct and had more guts that all those in the house of commons combined.

Only could I pray this country comes under similar leadership in the future.

I live in Mississauga. A city in Canada, part of the Greater Toronto Area. I lived in Dubai as a child, having been brought there by my parents. I had no say in the matter. I grew up, saw it for what it was, and left. Moved to the UK first and then to Canada, to pursue an education and a job that I felt I couldn't get in the UK.

My moniker remains one from my Dubai days, which I have not bothered to change because it remains a part of my online identity. But make no mistake; Dubai now is what Maggie's ideal society would have looked like. No taxes, little government intervention, a privileged life for the stratified super-classes and misery and labour for everyone else. A better life for everyone did not mean destroying the unions so comprehensively that most young people today don't know what one looks like. It did not mean decimating entire communities in the North, it did not mean alienating Scotland so compulsively that they're now on the verge of declaring independence, it did not mean abandoning vast swathes of the country to 'managed decline' while cheerily waving to more socially-oriented countries like Germany and France as they passed us by and we sunk deeper into this self-inflicted morass.

Germany had to deal with the re-unification, an event at least as difficult as figuring out what to do with the North's working population. France has such a powerful public sector and striking privileges that the sight of burning trucks on the Route Nationale is a common one whenever their people disagree with something the government does. Yet they are both doing better than we are, while providing socially-oriented policies that are rapidly looking far better than anything the Conservatives aim to provide for the UK.

The mark of a truly great leader is exercising restraint. Like I said, Maggie came to power in hard times. Inflation was running at twenty percent, and the all-powerful unions were strangling productivity. Yet she proceeded to utterly destroy the unions, British industries in the north, our steel and coal production, millions of working-class families across the country and the entire concept of 'society' being one in which we all pulled the same way together. She turned us into a de-regulated yuppy semi-paradise, and the effects of that we are still seeing today, with the financial crisis and bankers' bonuses proving amply the end results of Maggie's dream.

Today, the parties in the North are entirely justified. Over the long run, she will be judged by a far more powerful force than you or me; she will be judged by history, and we'll see what it has to say.

 

[Baleforce]

Mate, sorry, I wasn't suggesting you were big snarky at all, i wanted to be sure you knew that if we were to have a discussion it would be in good faith on my part. I heartily disagree with your assertion re: Sinn Fein/IRA, but as-is, the bottom line is at least there is some peace in the region as a result of discussions initiated by Major, Clinton and Bliar...

agree with the second part, i'm basing my sinn fein/ira opinion on what I know about McGuinness/Adams/Ferris et al, but thats obviously what i've seen in the English press

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

They 'might' have evolved, but she accelerated what I see as the lack of empathy and social understanding we now see rampant today. We could say the same about virtually every figure in history with regards to being the first to use specific ideals/tactics. I don't pin all the 'blame' on her, but to deny that she was the first politician to utilize these tools would be blindness.

The thing with the Falklands War is that she knew about it months and months earlier, and could've explored diplomatic channels to shut it down before getting the military involved. That's a fact. Closer to the time she was even asked by the US of all parties, to explore diplomacy first. We are talking about a relatively small island, I think diplomatic channels might have been productive. Your question about Labour (especially back then) is impossible both to fathom and answer, although my initial response is a resounding 'no', in fact, worth recognizing that had Labour harbored her instincts they might well have made a fist of the elections before and after...Bliar? Well, we can clearly see he did try that tactic in supporting an empty 'war' but that's a whole other discussion!

With regards to the current attention-span phenomena, she was just doing what other business enterprises were doing at the time so it's not as though she was creating the advertising genre, just using it like any other new "technology". If she was the first to adopt this method, then shame should be placed on the opposition for not being as smart. Kinda like Obama utilising social networking techniques whilst the Republicans are still watching Andy Griffith re-runs!

Back to the Falklands War...do you think that diplomacy would have brought about the same results (a complete British victory) if we had gone down that road? I fail to see how diplomacy of any kind would have ended up with the same outcome. We would have had to given something up in return for Argentina keeping their hands of our sovereign territory, and it would probably have dragged on and on and on without any definitive outcome as so many diplomatic afforts do. Again, not saying that she handled it completely "above-board", but the ends did justify the means IMO.

You know what...whilst typing that last sentence it came to me that I think a good portion of why we despise politicians so much is that we expect too much of them, when there is absolutely no justification to support our expectations. If we just assumed that they are all power-grabbing, corruptable, self-serving egotists then we would be less angry and disappointed when they do let us down, as they ultimately always will. Problem solved! :-"

If you want to criticise Maggie, then there are plenty of other areas of her legacy that are far more worthy, mate. The lack of attention span in today's society is more a product of technological advances (quick flashing images on screen from the likes of MTV, faster download speeds, more time-efficient work constraints etc) than it was because she hired an advertising company. Lack of empathy...sure she may have sowed the seeds as an unintended by-product of her economic policies but there have been four(?) Prime Ministers since then who haven't done a single thing to change this trend.