Thatcher changed Britain for the worse

First topic message reminder :

Through the Thatcher Major, years, millions of British people were made poor as a matter of policy, while others got rich as a matter of policy.

Blair and Brown embraced Thatcherism due to the change in the British, and now Milliband wants to change Labour again due to a changed Britain.

I personally long for a political party that sticks to it's core values, that has conviction, that does not change itself to suit a greedy selfish uncaring British populas who'se only thought is "self". In my view this "self" is mainly among the British middle classes.

Thatcher changed Britain for the worse, and now we are reaping through this dreadful coalition, what has been sown.

One of the very worst aspects of the current debates about Marmite Thatcher is that the Establishment appears to be making it almost compulsory for the nation's citizens to follow some approved programme of worship, or else be criticised for failing to bend the knee sufficiently.

The fact is that many people were badly wounded by the years in which she strutted about in a somewhat arrogant manner while making every effort to promote herself as some sort of saviour. We are told today that she had told her daughter that her 'place in history is assured'. Too right it is!

Good luck ( and sympathies ) to those who believe her to have been worthy of such affection ( that affection being proportionate to the expansion of their wallets during the relevant period, no doubt!) but perhaps they will also be sufficiently flexible to recognise that some thought her to be a rather nasty specimen, the like of whom we do not wish to see again. For the latter group it was bad enough to have to tolerate her repulsive practices during her life, without having to fawn over her when she finally dropped off the lofty perch she felt she warranted...

One of the very worst aspects of the current debates about Marmite Thatcher is that the Establishment appears to be making it almost compulsory for the nation's citizens to follow some approved programme of worship, or else be criticised for failing to bend the knee sufficiently.

Since the dear lady has been out of power for 20 years, it is a bit late in the day to suggest there has been some orchestrated attempt to quash dissent.

The women is dead and she wasn't a serial killer or mass murderer, we are all Thatcher's children, God bless her soul and cotton socks.

I have ordered a bust of her to sit alongside Ayn Rand.

The fact is that many people were badly wounded by the years in which she strutted about in a somewhat arrogant manner while making every effort to promote herself as some sort of saviour.

Some of those wounds were self inflicted and some were inflicted by the unions, it wasn't all Maggie's fault.

I want a welfare state based on contributions, if you don't contribute at all then exchange them for an immigrant.
I will exempt those medically incapable of contributing, although they must be an organ donor.

We have to stop these nutters who breed irresponsibly, offer them a few quid to get snipped, in fact never mind money, just offer them a place on X-factor.

Good luck ( and sympathies ) to those who believe her to have been worthy of such affection

I do not associate the term affection with someone I have never met nor had a close relationship with, you people are far too emotional, it clouds your reason.

Since the dear lady has been out of power for 20 years, it is a bit late in the day to suggest there has been some orchestrated attempt to quash dissent.

It isn't late - he's talking about now. Police planning pre-emptive arrests before the funeral, 700 members of the armed forces stopping protesters from getting near it, and even the BBC censoring the pop charts. And of course we're "not supposed to speak ill of the dead" - even though right-wingers did just that about Hugo Chavez last month, and many Tories did when Michael Foot died.

The women is dead and she wasn't a mass murderer

Yes she was. She sank the General Belgrano when it was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone around the Falklands and sailing away from them. It was also the night before the release of a UN peace plan, but then Thatcher wasn't interested in peace.

It isn't late - he's talking about now. Police planning pre-emptive arrests before the funeral, 700 members of the armed forces stopping protesters from getting near it, and even the BBC censoring the pop charts. And of course we're "not supposed to speak ill of the dead" - even though right-wingers did just that about Hugo Chavez last month, and many Tories did when Michael Foot died.

I live in a free country that respects funerals, if not for the deceased then their families, I do not think it is ethical to allow demonstrators to vent their feelings near the funeral proceedings.

Yes she was. She sank the General Belgrano when it was outside the 200-mile exclusion zone around the Falklands and sailing away from them. It was also the night before the release of a UN peace plan, but then Thatcher wasn't interested in peace.

I was against the Falkland Conflict but please don't start waiving rules of engagement in my face, they invaded and had a Battleship in the region, the clue is in the title " BATTLE ship ", I don't care what direction it was sailing, it can change direction, its not as if they were surrendering under a white flag.

" I have ordered a bust of her to sit alongside Ayn Rand."

I imagine that your own likeness will also be close by for the purpose of completing the 'Hall of Fame', Tosh...

I imagine that your own likeness will also be close by for the purpose of completing the 'Hall of Fame', Tosh... Very Happy

I have always modeled myself more on rationalists such as Nietzsche.

I live in a free country that respects funerals, if not for the deceased then their families

The funeral should be private and paid for by the Thatcher family, who are now worth £60 million. Had that happened, the public would have had no right to intervene. As the taxpayer is paying for most of the funeral, it is a public event, and in your so-called 'free country', protesters should be able to express their feelings.

The funeral should be private and paid for by the Thatcher family, who are now worth £60 million. Had that happened, the public would have had no right to intervene. As the taxpayer is paying for most of the funeral, it is a public event, and in your so-called 'free country', protesters should be able to express their feelings.

I hope you are reading this Christine, his full name is Ivanovitch, sounds Bolshevik to me.

O flower of Grantham
When will we see your like again
That fought and died for
Your wee bit hill and glen
And stood against him
Proud Scargill's army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again

:affraid:

Tosh Quote-- "Some of those wounds were self inflicted and some were inflicted by the unions, it wasn't all Maggie's fault."

Indeed Tosh, although of course the Witch only inflicted 99% of those wounds.
Therefore in your blinded view she is not only more or less innocent but is to be praised.

A few Italians felt the same way in such a miguided way as you do Tosh about Benito Mussolini. However he got what he deserved, meted out by the 99% majority against who realised the truth about an evil person.

O thorn of Grantham
Good riddance
That decieved and dismantled
created division and dog eat dog attitude
Go rot where you came from and belong
Burn never to return.

The myth the Tories are putting about that Maggie was a great lady and an even greater Prime Minister, is a bit worrying, they talk about her as if she was like Jesus. The way they describe her is like no women I have ever known, practically a saint. Now you all know what happened to Jesus, he was resurrected after is death and appeared amongst his disciples. I just hope that doesn't happen with Maggie Thatcher, I don't think the word could stand the second coming of Margaret.
So I am awaiting her very costly funeral, with concern, if they try and cremate her she will probably refuse it, they couldn't put her on a spit over an open fire, the woman was not for turning. So the only obvious choice is her going underground where the people she despised most worked. There are plenty old mine shaft they could chuck her down, it would take some resurrecting to get her out of one of those. A fitting resting place, with the pit head gears her monument.

Therefore in your blinded view she is not only more or less innocent but is to be praised.

She is to be praised for reducing union power, denationalizing SOME industries and selling council houses.

Like all PM's I have a list of things I objected to, the Poll Tax, the Falklands, Ulster, and the brutal way she handled denationalisation. There are probably others but whose counting.

....and your poem is rubbish.

Tosh you are putting in a lot of effort to praise the Witch mainly for dealing with the the Unions.
It seems that you were perhaps vexed by union safegurds to the workforce during your business activity in the engineering industry.
Was it the possibility that you were forced to pay decent wages to attract skilled staff away from Nationalised Union based employers and that is why you loved your Witch so much?

I always find it odd that certain working class people are happy to slag off the Unions. It seems they're happier tugging their forelocks, and doffing their caps to Bullingdon boy toffs who they clearly think were 'born to rule' and are our natural masters and betters.

The unions weren't a threat to democracy. The unions were simply trying to improve the rights and lifestyles of ordinary workers.

Was it the possibility that you were forced to pay decent wages to attract skilled staff away from Nationalised Union based employers and that is why you loved your Witch so much?

I did not love her nor loathe her, and I was not forced to pay decent wages or anything else by anyone, that is why I went into business for myself. Which part of productivity do you people not understand, its the relationship between wages and hard work that the unions screwed out of proportion, I did not, I made money and my men's jobs lasted decades longer than their nationalised counterparts. As I said skilled men take pride in the level of their skill, they laughed at the products of nationalised pampering.

Keep clutching at personal straws to evade the obvious, excessive union power was undemocratic and ruining this nation.

I always find it odd that certain working class people are happy to slag off the Unions. It seems they're happier tugging their forelocks, and doffing their caps to Bullingdon boy toffs who they clearly think were 'born to rule' and are our natural masters and betters.

I always find inverted snobbery to be the mindset of those who want to believe others think better of themselves, its a form of neurosis, maybe a remnant of serfdom.

I may set up a therapy thread to explain to those who say they are not materialistic, that in effect they are.

".... I have always modeled myself more on rationalists such as Nietzsche."

I'd have guessed Ebenezer Scrooge, rather than a philosopher, but then I'm often wrong.

I'd have guessed Ebenezer Scrooge, rather than a philosopher, but then I'm often wrong.

Your guesswork is batting zero, you are not as perceptive as your ego imagines or English is your second language.

"I'd have guessed Ebenezer Scrooge, rather than a philosopher, but then I'm often wrong"

Followers of cricket will recognise that, while the likes of, say,Jeff Thomson, could generate a bit of pace when bowling, he could be erratic and was still vulnerable to being hooked for six runs by a suitably-equipped batsman...

Tosh wrote:

I always find it odd that certain working class people are happy to slag off the Unions. It seems they're happier tugging their forelocks, and doffing their caps to Bullingdon boy toffs who they clearly think were 'born to rule' and are our natural masters and betters.

I always find inverted snobbery to be the mindset of those who want to believe others think better of themselves, its a form of neurosis, maybe a remnant of serfdom.

You do have some strange notions, Tosh.

You're completely wrong of course.

Tosh wrote:I may set up a therapy thread to explain to those who say they are not materialistic, that in effect they are.

Erm....

Followers of cricket will recognise that, while the likes of, say,Jeff Thomson, could generate a bit of pace when bowling, he could be erratic and was still vulnerable to being hooked for six runs by a suitably-equipped batsman..

"I'd have guessed Ebenezer Scrooge, rather than a philosopher, but then I'm often wrong"

Two oftenwrongs do not make a right, every cricket lover should know this.

That was my WRONG UN.

You're completely wrong of course.

OF COURSE I AM COMPLETELY WRONG, YOUR BARE ASSERTION JUST PROVED IT COMPLETELY.

Tosh wrote:-
I may set up a therapy thread to explain to those who say they are not materialistic, that in effect they are..

If Shirina and I - and the other staff who help us - were materialistic, we wouldn't work for nothing on a forum such as this. Furthermore, people don't become teachers, nurses or social workers for the money, they do it because they have a vocation and because they care about people.

It amuses me how one of the stock-in-trade Tory cliches is that "you cannot solve a problem by throwing money at it", yet it's repeated by people who go out of their way to amass personal fortunes and avoid as much tax as possible. If money is so useless, why do Tories need so much for themselves?

Getting back on the subject - which I trust you will also do - Thatcher was worth £60 million when she died, no doubt because of the dubious dealings which also made her criminal son a millionaire almost overnight. I see that her £6 million townhouse is owned by a mysterious company with links to three notorious tax havens – the British Virgin Islands, Liechtenstein and Jersey. Financial experts said it could have been a scheme which would help her estate avoid millions of pounds in inheritance tax. However, because her affairs are shrouded in secrecy, it may be impossible to find out. J.K.Rowling, who is happy to pay her taxes in this country, is far more of a patriot than that corrupt and disgusting old witch ever was.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatchers-6million-townhouse-owned-1828724

Sayings of the Famous, ©MMVIII.
Well there's no point in becoming PM unless you get to suck the lollipop!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Blair_Faith_Foundation
(allegedly)

Reading tlttf's posts I can almost believe in alternate realities - maybe we didn't live in the same version of history?

I watched a program on C4 last night - Death of a Revolutionary. that attempted to portray Thatcher as some sort of working class revolutionary.

There was an unchallenged point made about how in the 60's, 70's working class people were 'stuck' in their lifestyles with little opportunity to improve their lot - they were trapped in shitty housing with crappy cars and no way out, etc. And then, supposedly, Thatcher came along and liberated the working classes from this awful bondage!

I seem to remember that era differently. It was a time of great opportunity for social mobility, university education was affordable to all, and many people from working class backgrounds were getting on the property ladder since there was not such a disparity between property valuations and wages. It was also a time when the gap between the mega-rich and the rest was at it's lowest. We valued community, homes, families, and gave working class people greater parity of opportunity with the middle/upper classes. Now - compare all that, each of those points, to where we are now. Since '79 all that has been reversed.

I was astonished the point was not challenged in such a way in the programme - and then realised it was just part of the current ongoing propaganda to repaint history and implant the seeds into younger people's minds that old Labour was bad, everything was bleak, we were all trapped in pigeon holes, etc.....they were the bad old days. My real objection was that the point was made as though it was a 'truth' that was unquestionable and it was thus portrayed as being historical fact - since it went entirely unchallenged and was taken to be an accurate depiction of working class life then.

If Shirina and I - and the other staff who help us - were materialistic, we wouldn't work for nothing on a forum such as this. Furthermore, people don't become teachers, nurses or social workers for the money, they do it because they have a vocation and because they care about people.

Ivan, human beings are not single program computers, one can be materialistic and caring, one can be materialistic and altruistic and one can be competitive and cooperate.

You seem to reduce humans to one or the other, and that does not reflect the complexity of our species, there is nothing unique about being a social individual, most of us are.

And please don't give me that caring crap about teachers, nurses, social workers, it doesn't stop them from going on strike for more money or competing against each other for promotion, they also care about themselves, just like every other human.

I seem to remember that era differently.

Memories are very subjective.

It was a time of great opportunity for social mobility,

Miner for life, just like your dad and grandad.

university education was affordable to all,

But few took the opportunity, unlike today.

and many people from working class backgrounds were getting on the property ladder since there was not such a disparity between property valuations and wages.

The term " many " must have meant something different 40 years ago, most had to be given social housing for an affordable reason.

It was also a time when the gap between the mega-rich and the rest was at it's lowest.

The most irrelevant statistic on planet earth, globalisation creates global wealth and they employ a lot of people.

We valued community, homes, families, and gave working class people greater parity of opportunity with the middle/upper classes.

Except the working class has shrunk and the middle class has expanded, and community values exist in different forms because the environment has changed. A bi-product of our social success is people don't need each other as much as they used to, and we are far more mobile, which you deny.

Now - compare all that, each of those points, to where we are now. Since '79 all that has been reversed.

My memory differs from yours.

".... they also care about themselves ...."

What a nerve!

What a nerve!

Tell it to the commies, human nature seems to be a mystery to them.