Margaret Thatcher dies of a stroke.

[Ingram85]

I could never think about mourning Thatchers Passing. Thats not an option. I made up my mind during my childhood and listening to my parents. The atmosphere the stories created was not brilliant and I've just got the feeling that I don't like Margaret Thatcher at all.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Ingram85

[Eames]

She was the best prime minister since Churchill and there has not been a better pm since. She took over at a time when Britain was on its knees and was begging the IMF to be bailed out. She took on morons like Scargill and won. Rest in peace.

 

 

**laughs manically and runs for  cover........

[smetrov]

At least she got to see Lowtons goal

[Stevo985]

I think she's a Stoke fan. That's what did it.

[Awol]

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?

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.

[smetrov]

 

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?

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 -

[Awol]

 

 

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?

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?

[Corcaigh]

[Brumerican]

I have no real emotions on this either way and have very little political interest whatsoever, so for me it's just the death of a well known 87 year old woman . Thousands of humans die every day and most of them are not as fortunate to reach that age, so I wil be as indifferent to this death  as I am every on other day . Saying that though it would be a nice touch if she was cremated on a big pile of British coal.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Brumerican

[mjmooney]

Pass me the Zippo.

[bickster]

"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 the way to "defeat" the unions was to destroy the industries themselves, ha that'll teach them.

How completely nose meet scissors

[tonyh29]

the papers released on the 30 year rule showed that the milk issue  was forced on her by Heath 

 

just saying like

[smetrov]

 

 

 

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?

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?

 

Perception is everything - why were Satchi & Satchi hired ? - a poor opposition, the rise of the SDP , and the Falklands played a big part in those victories.

[mjmooney]

It doesn't require majority support to win a "landslide" victory in FPTP, it just requires weakened or divided opposition parties.

[snowychap]

If the majority had not benefited then Mrs T would not have won crushing election victories throughout the 80's, would she?

That might fly, Jon, if the Tories' landslide victories in '83 and '87 were due to having a majority of the popular vote. Edited April 8, 2013 by snowychap

[tonyh29]

"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 the way to "defeat" the unions was to destroy the industries themselves, ha that'll teach them.

How completely nose meet scissors

 the demand for Coal was in decline as was the industry  , indeed weren't the coal mines already earmarked for closure under the Labour govt and tahtcher just carried the policy on   .. I've seen some figures that show  Labour closed down more coal mines than the Tory party  ?

 

Scargill has to take the lion share of the blame for the Miners plight  ..heck he even won the miners strike but was too dumb to realise and subsequently lost  !!

[Corcaigh]

Beer Promo

the papers released on the 30 year rule showed that the milk issue  was forced on her by Heath 

 

just saying like

 

To borrow an old phrase from Thatcher's 'special' friend Ron Reagan; when you're explaining, you're losing!

[tonyh29]

 

Beer Promo

the papers released on the 30 year rule showed that the milk issue  was forced on her by Heath 

 

just saying like

 

To borrow an old phrase from Thatcher's 'special' friend Ron Reagan; when you're explaining, you're losing!

how about ignorance is bliss 

[Brumerican]

I was born in 1980 so even though I technically I was alive during her reign I recall very little about it. Obviously I have heard all the stories though. The battles with the student unions , taking the lumps of coal away from nursery schools , shutting down the milk mines and invading the Falklands on the advice of Alfred Scargill. For me these were just camp fire horror stories used to keep us kids off the crack pipe. The only real story that I know about her from recent personal experience is that she used to hold brainstorming meetings at her urban retreat in Barnet with the one and only Jimmy Savile . Now I am not saying that she had any knowledge of Savile's reported wrong doings but if she did then she was a very naughty girl .

[turnbull]

 

 

 

 

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?

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?

 

Perception is everything - why were Satchi & Satchi hired ? - a poor opposition, the rise of the SDP , and the Falklands played a big part in those victories.

I'd add the fact that the most popular paper of the day, the bloody Sun, licked her ring and put an admiitedly weak Labour party down every day.