Awol

Indeed. To demean genocide in such a way is utterly pathetic and offensive - but sadly predictable, particularly on this thread.

Just realised I dont think i know any Jews personally. Shall make a note not to have any more empathy and anger on their behalf with regards the holocaust. Perhaps first ask a Jew in their early 20's how their lives have been personally affected by the holocaust. That should make for an interesting conversation.

In summary:

The park in Burntwood is 200 metres from my Mum's house, and Stefan's Dad is right, that thing in the States is a glorified plant pot.

You say this as though it has to be accepted fact and that this 'good' has some longevity. It is like everything else on here simply opinion, but one based on direct observation. The 80's under Thatcher wasn't a diabolical time for my working class family, or our working class neighbours, my school friends (many of whom had parents who exercised the right to buy) or relatives. And you were how old at this juncture? Some of us speak from experience From my earliest memories she was our PM until I was about 14. Old enough to have understood the world around me, watch the Falklands on the news, the miners strike, the fall of the Berlin Wall and then the USSR, the Poll tax riots, the joy of friends parents at buying their council houses and remember the horror stories told by all and sundry about the Unions and the 70's. If I'd grown up somewhere else then I'd probably have a different view having had a different experience of her policies, but I didn't. Either way, we can disagree without you being so patronizing.

So it is anecdotal support by someone who was enriched by her policies? That's hardly 'direct observation' of how things panned out across the board, Jon. I haven't questioned whether she (and her government) improved things for some people - I would assuredly support the idea that she did and that is how she came to win '83 and '87 as you seem to get to win elections in this country by looking after a recognised client voter base rather than acting in the interests of the country as a whole. FWIW, my family did fine from Thatch policies directly (I was certainly directly helped by her assisted places scheme) but I (and some members of my family) still consider that the policies that she enacted and the legacy that she left far outwiegh any personal benefit we may have taken (as a result of indirect and direct observation). It is direct observation of the world I lived in as child/teen, not a claim that it was universal across the UK.. I've said it wasn't all gravy for everyone and was pointing out that accusations that Thatcher was only good for the upper class is equally wrong. Khalas, that's all.

You say this as though it has to be accepted fact and that this 'good' has some longevity. It is like everything else on here simply opinion, but one based on direct observation. The 80's under Thatcher wasn't a diabolical time for my working class family, or our working class neighbours, my school friends (many of whom had parents who exercised the right to buy) or relatives.

Except she was good for the middle classes and many of the working class who expressed that by voting for her. The left has done it's work of historical revisionism exceptionally well. there's no revisionism, she was clever enough to give to some and take from others it was a lottery, with the losing tickets often losing everything, but enough winning tickets to keep the whole thing running don't tell me there's been revisionism, I've walked through communities she closed down and put on the sick I'm not arguing that some people and communities were hit hard, but to state that Thatcher was "diabolically bad for the middle and working classes" implies that everyone without a title got screwed. It just ain't true.

You'd side with the IRA over a Tory? That says an awful lot about your moral compass. I'd have had no problem with them doing away with the evil bitch no. Well only the fact they hadn't done it years earlier. You're a charming fella.

You'd side with the IRA over a Tory? That says an awful lot about your moral compass. as opposed to siding with Pinochet? Who gave the UK considerable aid during our little dust up with his neighbours. Not a nice man but on the other hand at least she stood by those who had helped her country and didn't feel the need to apologise for it. Real Politik has never been pretty.

You'd side with the IRA over a Tory? That says an awful lot about your moral compass.

Except she was good for the middle classes and many of the working class who expressed that by voting for her. The left has done it's work of historical revisionism exceptionally well.

So basically destroying lives was OK was it? - Shows a lot of the people that supported her then and now, finding it acceptable. Reforming of the issues of that particular society at that time could have, and should have been done with more consideration to the impacts on human lives. But of course that would have been at the expense of profits and that was the driving force behind her and her supporters then (and now). Bugger to society and balls to those who get hurt along the way. Had she not defeated the Unions then Britain would have ended up as a third world economic basket case, but instead she battled and defeated them and in so doing turned the country's declining prospects around. Is it good that some people lost out as a result? No of course not, however had the Unions not fought to maintain their stranglehold on the UK economy there would have been no battle in the first place. Your entiled to your opinion - but do you honestly beleive that ? - even in times of economic downturn the UK economy & infastructure is one of the strongest in the world - and you have to look at who profited from the upturn - "Third world" was an embelishment on my part, but we were serious economic trouble and the Unions were literally strangling the country. It was an unavoidable battle, imo. Regarding the upturn, the majority of people benefited from it, despite the focus you'll find on this board on groups who did not in order to try and create a picture that is simply false. If the majority had not benefited then Mrs T would not have won crushing election victories throughout the 80's, would she?

So basically destroying lives was OK was it? - Shows a lot of the people that supported her then and now, finding it acceptable. Reforming of the issues of that particular society at that time could have, and should have been done with more consideration to the impacts on human lives. But of course that would have been at the expense of profits and that was the driving force behind her and her supporters then (and now). Bugger to society and balls to those who get hurt along the way. Had she not defeated the Unions then Britain would have ended up as a third world economic basket case, but instead she battled and defeated them and in so doing turned the country's declining prospects around. Is it good that some people lost out as a result? No of course not, however had the Unions not fought to maintain their stranglehold on the UK economy there would have been no battle in the first place.

She was what the UK needed in 1979, a focused individual who recognised the evil of the socialist ideology that had held the country to ransom via the unions throughout the previous decade. She faced it down and destroyed it, thus saving the country. The old socialists will never forgive her for that, but so what?

Would that make them 'strokers'?

RIP to one of the greatest PM's ever. Probably the last PM (we'll ever have) who, whether you agreed with her or not, had real beliefs and stood up for them.

Balls. Really? This car parking thing does seem like a rather desperate (and in some quarters quite hysterical) attempt to "get" Osborne, which given his record of consistent under-achievement as Chancellor seems slightly unnecessary.

Who is that?

There are very strong strategic arguments for keeping the nuclear deterrent but Cameron appears to be keeping up the recent Prime Ministerial tradition of talking rubbish about WMD's. Whether that is by design or a reflection of his general ignorance I don't know, neither alternative is reassuring.

Was there ever a figure on how many MP's in total pulled this trick and totally avoided any kind of censure/jail/public burning?

The flip side being China definitely not wanting to see North Korea make a successful transition from communism to democratic governance as part of a unified Korea, because it sets an unwelcome example to the folks at home... Not to mention a direct military ally of the US then being a river's width from Chinese territory. North Korea is a useful physical and ideological buffer for the PRC.

I will admit that I have, personally. Following the debate so far I've yet to be proven incorrect in my assumption. The racial motivation is stark. Well if you've read racism into my posts (which you appear to be suggesting above) then you are seeing what you want to see, not what is actually written.

My apologies for not replying promptly enough for you Drat, the carrier pidgeon bearing your post has only just arrived - one of the disadvantages of living abroad I'm afraid. Honestly I don't care in the least what parties UKIP make common cause with in the EU Parliament, when the majority of parties represented are so pro the EU then UKIP may well have to sit down with people you don't agree with to advance your own agenda. Britain made common cause with Stalin's Russia to defeat Nazi totalitarianism, and the EU is imho a nascent fascist organisation, so needs must. Italianian liga nord are never going to be up for election in the UK so who cares?

Andrew Marr isn't a journalist, he's a fluffer for Labour MP's.