Margaret Thatcher dies aged 87

[Stevisiov]

Speaking of people I wouldn't mourn...

 

[lbsf1]

Mussolini springs to mind...

Strange this was that he was quite liked by the people until things went tits up during WW2.

Its strange with Thatcher the hate she created, she was the opposite of the people who's life she was changing, she was rich and right wing, they were poor and left wing.

 

[TheCracker]

Strange this was that he was quite liked by the people until things went tits up during WW2.

So was Hitler.

Its strange with Thatcher the hate she created, she was the opposite of the people who's life she was changing, she was rich and right wing, they were poor and left wing.

Perhaps they feel betrayed by the fact that she too was a working class northerner?

 

[Touring Mars]

Probably not an untypical picture of a 'Thatcher death party'...

... can you spot anyone over the age of 30 in this picture?

I'm 38 and Maggie was PM until I was 15. I wonder why these people feel the need to behave like this...? I remember the day she resigned as Prime Minister and there were people celebrating then - at least that was justifiable.

 

[TheCracker]

There's certainly a great deal of bandwagon-jumping going on, but i see the crux of the party/protest/rioting as a reflection of the neo-lib/Thatcherite policies she stood for which continue to affect us.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I wonder why these people feel the need to behave like this...? I remember the day she resigned as Prime Minister and there were people celebrating then - at least that was justifiable.

It's probably an attitude that they learned from their parents.

I admit I don't know too much about the British political scene, but from what I've been able to gather in the past few days, I get the impression that certain demographics felt that Thatcher's government and policies favoured the rich at the expense of the poor.

Since we inherited our political system from you, we have the exact same problem.

 

[lbsf1]

So was Hitler.

Hitler was supported right up until then end of the war, he never lost his peoples support. Mussolini lost his peoples support when the war started going badly. /off topic

Perhaps they feel betrayed by the fact that she too was a working class northerner?

Agreed, and then she completely changed her view to be the opposite of her backround.

 

[TheCracker]

I admit I don't know too much about the British political scene, but from what I've been able to gather in the past few days, I get the impression that certain demographics felt that Thatcher's government and policies favoured the rich at the expense of the poor.

It's a bit deeper than that. Large chunks of the (yes generally poor, working class) population suddenly found themselves out of work and living in parts of the country where the industries they, and generations before them, had worked almost disappeared entirely. It may well be that those industries were already in the decline and would have sooner or latter had to be scaled down, closed or invested in. But they felt that the rug had been pulled from under their feet and the government was seemingly doing nothing to help them. Eventually other industry has risen in those areas and there are now employment opportunities, but people don't forget the very hard times they or their parents had to go through.

 

[Touring Mars]

I can fully understand why some people hated Thatcher, for many reasons... but many of those who are seemingly celebrating Thatcher's death probably don't know the half of it.

As for a genuine protest at Thatcher, try this for size... a song once described as the most venomous song ever written about another person, Elvis Costello wrote this in the 1980's when Thatcher was at the peak of her powers...

​

 

[Famine]

It's a bit deeper than that. Large chunks of the (yes generally poor, working class) population suddenly found themselves out of work and living in parts of the country where the industries they, and generations before them, had worked almost disappeared entirely. It may well be that those industries were already in the decline and would have sooner or latter had to be scaled down, closed or invested in. But they felt that the rug had been pulled from under their feet and the government was seemingly doing nothing to help them.

That's because it was.

But they (we? I don't know - I don't identify with the group, but I did live in a town where coal mining occurred and there were many pits within a short drive) were victims of crossfire and it's interesting how rarely the other shooting party's responsibility for the entire mess is brought up.

Just like Hiroshima, the trigger was pulled by someone towards whom animosity is still felt today - but the responsibility for the situation rests at least equally with those who claimed to be defending the population but for their own ends. The conclusion was inevitable, but much bloodier than it ever needed to be because of it.

 

[TheCracker]

Of course. It's always six of one and half a dozen of the other. Those people should really have equal blame towards their own greedy and militant union leaders, as much as they do the Tory government at the time. But in their eyes, their unions were fighting for them.

 

[dhandeh]

Was Thatcher given any other choice than to close a large proportion of the countries mines? That were losing money, the Unions who were holding the country to ransom, being backed by Labour, who had caused this situation to reach this tipping point. She had no option than to go up against the Unions and do what was right for the country, not for a proportion. Decisions like what she took, were not done in spite, but to get Britain out of the mess it was in.
The mine aspect is just one factor, that the Labour generation like to bring up, same as the poll tax. Again not a popular act, but it worked in getting Britain on its feet again. Until Labour get in and it all goes wrong. One last thing, whose mess did Thatcher inherit?

 

[TheCracker]

Money could have been invested in the coal mines, steel works, ship yards, car plants etc etc. A country with no manufacturing base has an economy that's subject to be strongly effected by worldwide economic down turns. We still have an estimated 300 years worth of coal under us. Granted it is now expensive to mine compared to what can be open-cast mined elsewhere in the world, but investment at the time in coal mining technology could have potentially meant that we wouldn't have to rely so much on imported coal and gas and whatever prices those countries/companies decide to charge us for it.

One government will always inherit its predecessor's 'mess'. It works both ways, left to right and right to left (not that we really have a 'left' anymore).

Maggies success for getting the country back on it's feet were short sighted IMO, and have left us more economically vulnerable than other western european countries that still have a good manufacturing base.

 

[Danny]

Maggies success for getting the country back on it's feet were short sighted IMO, and have left us more economically vulnerable than other western european countries that still have a good manufacturing base.

But it was necessary at the time, whether it was right or wrong.

At the very least, she had what nigh-on all politicians these days are lacking. A backbone.

 

[dhandeh]

If the money was invested in the industries directly it may have worked or it may have made the trade unions even stronger, which would have been a whole lot worse. The Unions would want more money, because they got it before making the industries not financial viable. You're then left with a decision, give them more money or close them down and make what you gave left work.

Don't forget about the availability of similar products with better quality at a similar or cheaper prices from overseas (cars makers etc).[off topic] We would all love to have the country producing everything we could ever need, unfortunately there are other countries producing the same for less.[\off topic]

Thatcher and the decisions made, will always be a matter of varying opinions. Some agree, some don't. It is very easy to overlook the Falklands, her stance with regards to Northern Ireland, the USSR, the mid 80's economic recovery, etc. Again depending on who you speak to, they will say that the aforementioned is also the work of the Devil reincarnated.

 

[axletramp]

If you need to close down unprofitable industry then it makes perfect financial sense to do so. But where the Tories got it wrong was the manner in which they did it and the fact that they then did not re-invest in these regions to create jobs in other areas for that population. The net result of this 'every man for himself' attitude and neglect is still being felt today in those regions most effected.

 

[Famine]

Maggies success for getting the country back on it's feet were short sighted IMO, and have left us more economically vulnerable than other western european countries that still have a good manufacturing base.

It's worth noting what her master plan was at this point.

Her goal was small government. She wanted Westminster to take care of the funding for nationally vital tasks - defence and policing being the two that everyone fiscally right-leaning agree on, but she may have felt others were as vital - while other things were devolved to the regions and even to the communities.

Small government proponents don't want you paying HM Treasury to sort your local roads, hospitals, schools because they feel (and you'll probably agree) that 600+ overprivileged tosspots living and working in London aren't necessarily tapped into the grapevine of the people of Brierley. They want folk to look after each other at every level of community - your local councils take care of locally important tasks, leaking down the tiers. County/city councils take funding from county/city residents and sort things like major roads, parish and town councils take funding from town/parish residents and so on and so forth. This is, in part, the intention of what was originally Poll Tax, now Council Tax - local bodies levy taxation against local residents for local projects.

With big government, funding is centrally levied and distributed from a central body. You and your street might think that the streetlights aren't adequate, but if the council don't receive funding from the Exchequer for it, nothing will get done.


With this in mind, look at the assertion that "the government was seemingly doing nothing to help them" again. It's wholly correct - but it's the point of small government that it shouldn't. It's the job of the residents of Brierly, Barnsley and South Yorkshire to help look after each other. But here's where we encounter what you say is short-sightedness - and I agree.

Grimethorpe - and many other settlements of this kind - existed entirely because of the pit. With the pits closed, there were just two thousand houses there. No/few shops, amenities and businesses and no/little patronage because half the people there worked in the pits and the other half were their families - no employment = no money = no financial mobility. The people couldn't look after each other because there was nothing to look after themselves - and Barnsley couldn't help because Grimethorpe was far, far from the only village hit like this. And South Yorkshire couldn't either, because Barnsley wasn't the only town/city in the area that found itself up against it.

We couldn't take South Yorkshire - and South Wales, North Nottinghamshire or other areas dominated by mining - to small government because the communities were so single-industry focussed that removing that industry removed all the money from the area. The goal still stands as ideal, but the method of getting there is staged, not an overnight process.


She was so focussed on the goal of burying the corrupt unions that tried to take the UK hostage in 1974 (and the method was cold, cold genius - overproducing coal and stockpiling so there was plenty to see through a repeat prolonged strike, while changing the power generation balance of the country towards oil to coax the coal supply out even further) she didn't see this.

 

[TheCracker]

But it was necessary at the time, whether it was right or wrong.

*shrugs* There are many different ways to skin a rabbit.

At the very least, she had what nigh-on all politicians these days are lacking. A backbone.

Don't get me wrong, i have much admiration for a lot of stuff she did, not least her integrity and the fact she had balls.

Famine

Indeed. And history will likely show that this was the correct solution, even if the method was somewhat heavy handed. But for those in the here and now (or the there and then) who had to suffer for it, their glee at her death is wholly justified.

 

[Jimlaad43]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/22093181
I wasn't born when Thatcher was in power, and I do know a bit about what she did, but surely this is a bit too far. It is cruel and unnecessary for someone who did seem to do the country a lot of good.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I was around then and we used to burn an effigy of her on the 5th of November instead of Guy Fawkes.

I really don't see the point of what's happening now though. It's all water under the bridge.

 

[dhandeh]

The cool kids just have to be cool.

 

[homeforsummer]

Their glee at her death is wholly justified.

Is it though? Really? Are they really getting any deep satisfaction from it?

As I said on the last page, it's just victorious celebration at the inevitable death of someone. Her damage had already been done, and her ability to do more ceased when she left office.

I'm trying to think of a suitable analogy but I can't. It just seems representative of a mentality in the UK (or perhaps elsewhere, but I can only speak from UK experience) that people would rather flog a dead horse than find a new one. Surely the best revenge isn't celebrating her death but living well despite what she did during her life.

 

[Yukon]

I don't personally see why there's such wide-spread hatred towards her, especially in Scotland. From what I've read, she made the tough decisions because she had to. Wouldn't you rather that the one in charge of running the country chose the hard route because it was right, than the wrong route because it was easy? I wasn't alive when she was Prime Minister, so I can't say first hand, my parents, however, agree she did what she had to do.

If I was being referred to as Iron, I certainly wouldn't falter because of those who opposed me.

 

[Slash]

Oh wait now I know where I know this name.

 

[lbsf1]

So the bbc have said that they will only play a few seconds of the song "ding dong the witch his dead" during tommorows chart show and will have an explanation of why it is in the charts.

My personal opinion is that the bbc should play the whole song and say that they don't support the song however they will play the song because they don't want to show any political bias and will just play what is in the charts with no censorship, especially since they will play the 9th place song "I'm in Love With Margaret Thatcher".

I understand that they risk a huge media (daily mail) backlash if they do play the song, however I feel that by not playing the song they censoring a song that has reached the position in the chart out of popular opinion, if the song was a phone in request then I would be anti them playing it however the song has "earnt" the position to be played.

The song unlike Sex Pistols God save queen (which was also banned by the bbc) has no intrinsic offence so there is no reason in my opinion for it not to be played.

Whats your opinion??

 

[Lizard]

It wouldn't be so bad if they made a firm choice. Currently they are going to offend those who like Thatcher and disappoint those who hate her and please no one.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Whats your opinion??

Paid for by the people, they should really play the whole thing. The charts are pretty much a joke theses days anyway, so why not. At worst, the average listener will just think that whoever bought/downloaded the song is an idiot.

Also, how do impoverished, victimised miners afford music?

edit: Or a stereo to play it on.. ?

edit 2: Actually, I'd love to know how many Hipsters were downloading this via iTunes, for their iPod, and their Smartphones.. etc. etc... shyeah right, proper working class my ass... Kinnock never had an iPhone (or did he?)

 

[Hun200kmh]

It wouldn't be so bad if they made a firm choice. Currently they are going to offend those who like Thatcher and disappoint those who hate her and please no one.

Firm choices are like Mrs. Thatchers, they don't come often.


It's not a UK-specific problem, though, it's a global one, at least in European societies. We all got so "cozy" we hate YES-NO situations.

In any case, all this is amazing. I'm old enough to remember how Thatcher was nothing short of seismic and how she disturbed the general consensus all over a mainly "welfare socialist" western Europe ...

(something I'm not even sure brits realize, I suspect they think she is hated elsewhere for being anti-Europe, and the truth is very different, she is generally admired)

... I think this speech from her sums it all very nicely. Because it is true. Every word of it:

Mr. President, twelve years ago, I first stood on this platform as Leader of the Conservative Party. Now one or two things have changed since 1975. In that year, we were still groaning under Labour's so-called "social contract." People said we should never be able to govern again. Remember how we had all been lectured about political impossibility? You couldn't be a Conservative, and sound like a Conservative, and win an election, they said. And you certainly couldn't win an election and then act like a Conservative and win another election. And this was absolutely beyond dispute - you couldn't win two elections and go on behaving like a Conservative, and yet win a third election. Don't you harbour just the faintest suspicion that somewhere along the line something went wrong with that theory?

Here as she said it, from 0:55 onwards



DING DONG, indeed. She killed so many witches at so many levels I'm sure she won't mind Judy Garland on the BBC.

 

[Mic_Col]

I cant see how people can be so full of hate that they'd celebrate the death of a person who left office 20+ years ago.

The important point they're missing:

These people who have such venom and hatred for her need to remember that she was elected in a democratic process. Her rule, her choices, her policies were supported and wanted by a majority of the people. Sure that was at the time, the views of society, but it was the majority

Their hatred & venom should in fact be directed towards a large group of the people that they live in their country with.

If you want to extend the logic to such a point, that is.

 

[Nessy]

Their hatred & venom should in fact be directed towards a large group of the people that they live in their country with.

I think in a round-about-way, it is... they're targeting (the now deceased) person the majority voted for.
(Not that i support such a thing), but it does send a pretty clear message to the people that voted for her.