tonyh29 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 She claimed £535,000 in expenses from the state between 2006 & 2011, which is baffling considering she spent most of that time in her house being ill and hypocritical considering the evil witch stopped me getting free milk when I was at school because it was too expensive. The free milk thing was Heath , quite an interesting read actually , the documents were made public a few years back under the 30 year rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 That's a pretty fair summation imo, although omitting the fact she quite literally saved the country from Unions that had been hijacked by far left Marxists with greater affinity for the Soviet Union than their own nation. She was also instrumental in bringing down the evil USSR and ending the cold war through her influence over Ronnie Regan, thereby creating the conditions for eastern Europe to liberate itself from 55 years of Communist tyranny. Not a bad effort for a grocer's daughter. Exactly , my Hungarian family are fans of hers and the part she played in the end of the Cold War Of course there are those that will say she played no part in it , such is the blind hatred they have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 She also played a part in inventing soft scoop ice cream. So it's kinda fitting that I hear there will be jelly and ice cream when she dies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 Exactly , my Hungarian family are fans of hers and the part she played in the end of the Cold War Of course there are those that will say she played no part in it , such is the blind hatred they have Oh yeah the cold war, whats the difference between then and now apart from the emergence of China? America - still has nuclear weapons but since Russia was weakened and not exactly there to keep it in check has been involved in more wars / interventions / campaigns / incursions / whatever you want to call it this week than ever before Russia - still has nuclear weapons and is still effectively run by an elected dictatorship, it just controls less countries now because it couldn't afford to keep control of them. It still wields plenty of power though, other countries now rely on its natural resources. China came along to the party and thats the main difference. Ending "the Cold War" is just propaganda. Russia was going bankrupt, it had to put an end to the ludicrous defence spending. America always loves to cut costs, what they flying f**k The Witch had to do with that apart from being nice to America's senile President of the time is beyond me. Reagan was a puppet, a dumb puppet, the power in the USA at the time was out the back pulling his strings and promising another job with the chimpanzee. Only when Reagan finished his second term and couldn't stand again did the real power actually take the throne, George H W Bush ran America for 16 successive years, he as good as did it again for 8 years, 8 years later. The idea that The Witch played a huge part in ending the Cold War by holding Reagan's hand is absolutely laughable. Ending the Cold War was a cost cutting exercise, in fact if they'd kept it up, Russia and the Communist Bloc in all likelihood would have disintegrated a little bit sooner. My dancing shoes are always ready! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 That's a pretty fair summation imo, although omitting the fact she quite literally saved the country from Unions that had been hijacked by far left Marxists with greater affinity for the Soviet Union than their own nation. She was also instrumental in bringing down the evil USSR and ending the cold war through her influence over Ronnie Regan, thereby creating the conditions for eastern Europe to liberate itself from 55 years of Communist tyranny. Not a bad effort for a grocer's daughter. 100% agree with this AWOL. It will on deaf ears with those unwilling to listen due to entrenched views though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 And don't start me on the privatisation of publicly owned utilities, she started that whole ball rolling and the country has suffered ever since, still al her Tory pals, made billions. Gas, Water, Electricity, BT, BR you name it, if we the people owned it, she wanted to sell it. Privatisation was her baby, it all started with her. The whole concept that "the free market" would mean lower bills / fares for people has been shown to be utterly shite. The Scottish pay on average about 20% less water charges than the rest of the UK, why? Because its still a nationalised Industry. She went to war with Scargill quite deliberately to set about the destruction of the mining industry in this country, she used the Police as her own private army to help her. She destroyed an entire industry to prove a point absolutely wrecked it, wrecked the country, destroyed whole communities, many of which are yet to recover and have been in the mire ever since. She also was the first one to give Murdoch the green light to dominate the British Media (another strike, more use of the private army). She **** this country up good and proper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 She went to war with Scargill quite deliberately to set about the destruction of the mining industry in this country, she used the Police as her own private army to help her. She destroyed an entire industry to prove a point absolutely wrecked it, wrecked the country, destroyed whole communities, many of which are yet to recover and have been in the mire ever since. It was about more than the mining industry. It was about trying to weaken the unions, picking the strongest to start with and deliberately engineering a strike. That led the way to the increasing casualisation of the workforce, insecurity, increasing levels of "discipline" among the workforce, and a corresponding transfer of wealth away from ordinary people and towards the already wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 100% agree with this AWOL. It will on deaf ears with those unwilling to listen due to entrenched views though. The views of those who are fans of Thatch would appear to be just as entrenched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 It was about more than the mining industry. It was about trying to weaken the unions, picking the strongest to start with and deliberately engineering a strike. That led the way to the increasing casualisation of the workforce, insecurity, increasing levels of "discipline" among the workforce, and a corresponding transfer of wealth away from ordinary people and towards the already wealthy. I wouldn't disagree at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 So it's kinda fitting that I hear there will be jelly and ice cream when she dies. For the guests at that kind of party they'd be essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The views of those who are fans of Thatch would appear to be just as entrenched. i think some are prepared to see positive and negative where as those who are not fans just seem to wish death on her and want to celebrate her death or dance on her grave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 i think some are prepared to see positive and negative where as those who are not fans just seem to wish death on her and want to celebrate her death or dance on her grave C'mon then tell us some negatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 At least you knew she was a bit of a word removed. With this current bunch, it's all back door buggery, and despite Rob's life advice, back door buggery is most unpleasant when performed by the Eton boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It's irrelevant now whether she lives or dies. The damage has been done. And much the same damage would have been done anyway by others, just without the spiteful, petty and vindictive tone that she brought to everything. As a person, she is loathsome, but as a historical factor, she was a symbol and figurehead rather than an originator of things that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) i think some are prepared to see positive and negative where as those who are not fans just seem to wish death on her and want to celebrate her death or dance on her grave It's strange that the 'reasonable' pole of the argument happens to be the one where you've stuck yourself, Richard. Edited January 1, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It's irrelevant now whether she lives or dies. The damage has been done. And much the same damage would have been done anyway by others, just without the spiteful, petty and vindictive tone that she brought to everything. As a person, she is loathsome, but as a historical factor, she was a symbol and figurehead rather than an originator of things that wouldn't have happened otherwise. What proportion of responsibility do we apportion to the people with the ideas and the figureheads who facilitate the execution of those ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It's strange that the 'reasonable' pole of the argument happens to be the one where you've stuck yourself, Richard. strange? Why so ? As I said it seems to me that thos who are not fans just seem to want death to come to the woman, in addition that they are not prepared to see any positives in her premiership at all. You suggested that those who were her fans had entrenched views, in response to a post of mine. I was, in response, merely trying to explain to you why I had made my original point about entrenched views. So of course my justification, not that is needed, is going to be showing the unreasonable side to the arguments of the non-fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 What proportion of responsibility do we apportion to the people with the ideas and the figureheads who facilitate the execution of those ideas? It's easier to tell with some premiers than others. Take Dubya for example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 1, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 1, 2013 i think some are prepared to see positive and negative where as those who are not fans just seem to wish death on her and want to celebrate her death or dance on her grave Oddly I've never heard a pro Thatcher person offer anything other than praise or defence, I can't recall a single time I've ever heard them say they can see any alternative view other than that she did a great job for this country. That includes both your posts and Tonyh's. I'm not saying you have to be critical of her, personal political views may mean that you or any other person doesn't hold any negative views on here but mate it is a little unfair for those people that are pro Thatcher people accuse those who view her in a very different light of being one eyed or lacking perspective. I know those aren't you words but that is what it amounts to. I think Thatcher was/is so divisive to society (because despite her best efforts it does exist) that anyone old enough to remember her, to properly remember her and to have been affected or seen family affected by her will have polarised views of the women. Personally I find it impossible to imagine anyone of that sort of age who holds an impartial view. Any discussion on this women is always going to be divisive and both sides will think the other equally lacking in perspective or non biased thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 What proportion of responsibility do we apportion to the people with the ideas and the figureheads who facilitate the execution of those ideas? I don't think a general answer is possible - each case depends on circumstances. In her case, the Tory party was swinging to the right, people like Keith Joseph had spent time in opposition trying to develop strategies for moving away from the old "one nation" tory approach and towards something more socially divisive. There was a move away from Keynesian demand management in western economies generally, culminating in the dominance of neoclassical ideas and financial deregulation for which we will be suffering for decades to come. She embraced these regressive social currents enthusiastically, and was delighted to be involved in making generations of people suffer, but as someone said of (was it) Bernard Ingham, she was the sewer, not the sewage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts