Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: On a related note, an ex-colleague said his father's proud boast was that he was the only man in the world the SAS were afraid of.
He was a major in the Royal Army Dental Corps and he did their teeth.
I'd proffer Satan himself is nice to his dentist.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I came for the mud slinging, I'm glad you haven't disappointed me dakka!
RIP Maggie T, crushing the Unions and the Argies were both good efforts. The no BS stance on the IRA was just what was needed at the time, the skills learnt then and the Tech developed and deployed then set the scene for the Provos being forced to the table a decade later. Most of all was Ronnie Rayguns and here unflincinjng front against Communism did the same on the world stage.
It was a shame to see her decline over he years and equally those dregs that celebrate such things in their own myopic way.
Blair managed to be a personality on the world stage, Thatcher was the last Great British Leader on it. Right or wrong she would stick to her guns and do what she though was needed.
I remember the Embassy SAS troop being on tv saying that she turned up in the bar at Hereford and drank a can beer with them to toast their successful action. Classy.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
notprop wrote: I remember the Embassy SAS troop being on tv saying that she turned up in the bar at Hereford and drank a can beer with them to toast their successful action. Classy.
She also sat in on one of their live fire kill house training sessions.
I'm browsing through some of the online sites of British news publications and I am actually surprised at the level of hateful vitriol. I mean, it makes the whole American "conservative vs. liberal" thing look like:
I have no issue with people disliking, hating policies and decisions enacted by Thatcher.
No issue with them articulating that either, but taking this savage glee in her death is something I do have issue with.
I would agree with this statement by Lord Mandelson
I'm not sure whether I saw her as an inspiration. I certainly saw her as a force to be reckoned with, I mean a political and electoral force that was almost overwhelming.
I think also, on reflection, to be honest, I would say that she introduced, she ushered in, a timely and necessary overhaul of the UK economy in many ways.
The problem I have with that reflection though is that I think in other ways she was too indifferent to the social consequences of the economic changes she was undertaking.
Also, comparing her to Hitler was easily one of the stupidest things I've read on dakka, and boy have I seen some doozies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/08 21:49:34
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
I'm not happy she's dead. I'll be happy when the discredited ideology which she inflicted on this world is utterly destroyed. I’ll be happy when I know that we’ve managed to climb out of the hole she’s dug for us. I’ll be happy when the ‘free market’, which she bizarrely revered, stops consuming ordinary people’s social and economic capital. She’s a long way from dead.
The only terrorist to survive the Embassy siege did so because he pretended to be a hostage and was led out with the others but quickly identified outside. They could hardly shoot him on the lawn. The rest of them were killed in the building. It wasn't a case if shooting unarmed men, their surrender couldn't be taken seriously. There have been enough occasions when terrorists 'surrender' as a distraction and are still armed with guns or grenades. Given the snap decisions that needed to be taken and the general confusion of shooting and gas everywhere it was best to shoot them dead and be sure of it. I've absolutely no problem with the conduct of the SAS that day, and anyone who does needs a reality check. It was a dangerous situation with a lot of people at risk, no point in taking unreasonable chances. The terrorists had ample opportunity to end it peacefully.
Also... for those naysayers, did she have a part of the UK's economic turnaround, or not? Kinda eye-popping isn't it?
Her 'economic miracle' relied a great deal on the discovery of North Sea oil in Scottish waters. She also deregulated the financial markets and turned the city of London into a casino. Look how that turned out.
When Margaret Thatcher came to power the United Kingdom was in the last chance saloon. Labor markets were highly unionized; the commanding heights of the economy were dominated by loss-making behemoths; marginal tax rates were eye-wateringly high; and the rich, famous and talented were fleeing overseas. Either the U.K. fixed it then or headed ever deeper into economic and social turmoil.
Some eleven years later she had put the great back into Great Britain.
COLUMN: Thatcher, Reagan defined an era
COLUMN: Thatcher and Reagan were kindred spirits
OPINIONLINE: Iron Lady leaves divisive legacy
She cut marginal tax rates such that the "fame drain" and "brain drain" stopped and went into reverse. Film star, Michael Caine, for example returned from the U.S.; she would invite him to cocktail parties on the 2nd floor of 10 Downing Street, grab his arm, and take him around the room proudly introducing him to all her other guests with the words "This is Michael – he came back!"
She returned scores of state enterprises to the private sector; these lumbering, subsidy guzzling embarrassments were transformed into nimble, profit-making, taxpaying, world-class companies so much so her privatization policy was copied around the world.
Slowly but surely she brought the labor unions back under the rule of law; bullying by extremists stopped; days lost to strikes plummeted; and ordinary members took the leadership away from the communists.
She similarly gave the staff in the newly privatized industries terrific deals on purchasing shares. Many of them did so and ownership of shares by individuals as opposed to say pension funds soared.
She had an enormous impact on the U.K.'s Labour Party. She forced her opponents into realizing they were unelectable as long as they were committed to public ownership of the means of production.
She was robust and principled on the international front. She faced down European Union bureaucrats in Brussels, Iranian Embassy hijackers, Argentinean military dictators and IRA bombers while working closely with the Pope and President Reagan to tear down that wall and defeat the evil empire without a shot being fired.
And she relentlessly taught the nation a great deal of simple economic commonsense, so simple that her detractors called it the economics of a housewife. Whatever. It transformed how the nation viewed the economy and ensured that all future U.K. governments had to be more market friendly.
Her three terms were a major turning point in history not just in the U.K. but worldwide.
So what can we learn from Margaret or Lady T as we call her?
She had a very strong moral compass; she knew the difference between good and evil and she made sure we all knew. She disciplined herself to do what was right and saw that as "the highroad to pride, self-esteem and personal satisfaction".
She cut through the guff and nonsense and used short Anglo-Saxon words to get to the point. No "at this moment in time", but rather "now."
She did lead and expected a great deal from all around her. The inside joke was that Rome would have been built in a day if she'd been the foreman on that job.
The perception was that she was as tough as nails who handbagged opponents (as in hit people over the head with her brick-lined fashion item). In reality she listened to all sides and worried more than most people realize about some of her more radical policies.
She championed policies that went with the grain of human nature such as selling public housing units at deep discounts and giving nationalized industry employees great share deals on privatization.
She used four years of leading her party in opposition (1975-1979) by promoting people on merit rather than lineage, gender, or ethnicity, thus transforming "the stupid party" into really rather a smart one.
A great deal of solid policy work was done in that time led by the Institute of Economic Affairs her favorite think tank. She knew and hugely admired Ronald Reagan with whom she only once fell out – Grenada was British and he failed to alert her to the U.S. invasion.
And she did not try to do it all at once. The unions were brought under control by a series of acts over a decade, not one big bill. Likewise the state owned industries were privatized a few a year so the markets could absorb them.
To sum up the secret of Lady T, in addition to having the right ideas you have to have a strong moral compass; you simplify your message; while leading you always listen; have policies that go with the grain of human nature; think through strategy ahead of time; build good teams; use circumstances; make great allies; prepare before you are in power; and have patience.
While we mourn we must also celebrate a remarkable woman who rose from a very modest background to be one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen.
I dont have a kind word to say about her, but revelling in some ones death is a bit over the line.
I was born and grew up in a mining village, that her Government destroyed over night by making most of the male population redundant. Once the Mine went most of the local businesses and shops followed. Then came Alcoholism, drug addiction and crime. A once brilliant and close little community utterly smashed and broken.
In my view this is not what a British prime minister does to the people they are meant to serve. To me her legacy will always be one of misery and callousness
Rest in peace Margaret Thatcher. Whose death was marked by solemn tribute across the world and by jubilation by a relative few. No matter how hard they drink and party in Brixton, Glasgow and mining towns, this is eclipsed by the calls to commemorate her role in the defeat of Communism in Europe, her redemption of our economic future on a national scale, which has been emulated globally even quietly by her successors in New Labour, not that they like to admit it.
It was Thatcher who held out the olive branch to Gorbachev, and ensured he was offered so much and no more, forcing the Soviet leader to make moves that ended in the deconstruction of the Soviet bloc.
It was Thatcher who refused the dictator Galtieri, ensuring the freedom of our own people and ending for nearly thirty years the belief that the UK was spinelessly led and could have her assets snatched..
I have no end of respect for her.
Thatchers Social legacy.
For all their crowing Blair and Brown did not a jot to reverse the policies of Thatcher that they claimed to be opposed to. Did they rejuvenate the North, no? New Labour cares no more for the poor than the tories under Thatcvher did, and might in truth care less. Conservatism warns against the excesses and self destructive nature of socialist extremism, Labour encourages it out of self interest. This is understandable because to Socialist leadership the working class is a resource to be exploited not a population base to be supported. This truth also harkens back to the times of the Trade Union leadership who were very well off and used their influence with their members to wield power at the cost of our nations ability to survive economically.
In the 1970's the National Union of Mineworkers made deliberate policy and strategy of bringing down elected Conservative governments by industrial action, with absolutely no regard to the consequences to the nartion as a whole. Either the Trade Unions were to be stopped or our nation had no future. It was Thatcher who stood in the gap between the Union leadership and the economy they were so willing to see destroyed for political ends. It is unfortunate that the working class communities duped into Socialism suffered, but had they not done so our economy and shortly after our way of life would have been destroyed utterly.
With Thatcher a heavy debt was inevitable, but I am pleased we chose a debt of gratitude at the expense of traditional industry rather than the cowards way out and a debt similar to that of Zimbabwe. Lady Thatcher, I salute you.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
For all the whining from the mining towns, I was born and raised in an area dominated by mining, My father worked in a factory making mining machinery.
Do you know who destroyed the mining industry?
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Thatcher, if anyone, it was Scargill.
The unions ground the mining industry into the ground (if you'll excuse the expression)
Endless striking and a complete and utter refusal to modernise to bring a massively loss making industry into profitability killed the mines.
Same with the car industry.
If the thought of something makes me giggle for longer than 15 seconds, I am to assume that I am not allowed to do it. item 87, skippys list
DC:70S+++G+++M+++B+++I++Pw40k86/f#-D+++++A++++/cWD86R+++++T(D)DM++
marv335 wrote: For all the whining from the mining towns, I was born and raised in an area dominated by mining, My father worked in a factory making mining machinery.
Do you know who destroyed the mining industry?
I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Thatcher, if anyone, it was Scargill.
The unions ground the mining industry into the ground (if you'll excuse the expression)
Endless striking and a complete and utter refusal to modernise to bring a massively loss making industry into profitability killed the mines.
Same with the car industry.
QFT. Thatcher wanted to close unprofitable mines, Scargill gambled on the livelihoods of all miners (and everyone else) for a chance to destroy a second Conservative government.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
RIP Iron Lady...as for executing terrorists that "surrender" I'm all for it.....no quarter given should be SOP when it comes to terrorists. It's just too bad we're trying to fight them in the most PC way possible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/09 05:54:00
Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
If opposition to Thatcher makes you insane then I come from a crazy country.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Owen Jones in the independent:
In the war led by Margaret Thatcher’s governments – against the left, the trade unions, the post-war consensus – her side was crushingly, devastatingly, humiliatingly victorious.
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician – the most divisive in modern British history – and what she represented must of course be debated. They will use the moment of her passing to batter Thatcherism into the national psyche: that she somehow saved Britain from ruin, put the “great” back into “Great Britain”, and so forth. Those who grew up in the Britain that Thatcher built will be patronised: you were still learning how to walk at the height of her power. And that is why it is crucial to separate Thatcherism from the woman who spearheaded it.
Thatcherism was a national catastrophe, and we remain trapped by its consequences. As her former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe put it: “Her real triumph was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible.”
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
A poisoned “debate” about social security rages in Cameron’s Britain. It focuses on the idea that there are large numbers of people stuck on benefits. It is certainly true that there were more people languishing in long-term unemployment last year than there were in all forms of unemployment 40 years ago. In large part, this is a consequence of Thatcherism’s emptying communities of millions of secure, skilled industrial jobs. Large swathes of Britain – mining villages, steel towns and so on – were devastated, and never really recovered. Even when Britain was supposedly booming, the old industrial heartlands had high levels of what is rather clinically described as “economic inactivity”.
Five million people now languish on social housing waiting lists, while billions of pounds of housing benefit line the pockets of private landlords charging rip-off rents. The scarcity of housing turns communities against each other, as immigrants or anyone deemed less deserving are scapegoated. But the guilt really lies with the Thatcherite policy of right-to-buy and failure to replace the stock that was sold off.
Champions of Thatcherism hail the crippling of the trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses, but has made them poorer, too. Four years before the crisis began, the income of the bottom half was stagnating, while for the bottom third it actually began to decline – even as corporations were posting record profits. With no unions to stand their corner, workers’ living standards have long been squeezed – driving large numbers to cheap credit.
We could go on. Britain was one of the most equal Western European countries before the Thatcherite project began, and is now one of the most unequal. Thatcherism is not just alive and well: it courses through the veins of British political life. The current government goes where Thatcherism did not dare in its privatisation of the NHS and sledgehammering of the welfare state.
The challenge ahead is the same as it was yesterday: to tear down the whole edifice of Thatcherism, heal Britain of the damage done, and build a country run in the interests of working people. It’s a fight we must all fight. The champagne is on ice until we win it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/04/09 07:06:11
Howard A Treesong wrote: I've absolutely no problem with the conduct of the SAS that day, and anyone who does needs a reality check. It was a dangerous situation with a lot of people at risk, no point in taking unreasonable chances. The terrorists had ample opportunity to end it peacefully.
I too am unclear what the problem is, exactly - you take hostages, fine. We negotiate and try to get what we all want. You shoot one of the hostages, and we have to send in the door kickers - at that point, negotiations have ended IMO - the surrender ship has sailed. It's no longer a police action. I'm not endorsing flat out executions, mind you, but I think that once the situation has escalated to that level; the military has considerably more leeway to determine who is hostile and who is not and I don't really have a problem with them erring on the side of caution to save as many innocent lives as possible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/09 07:08:03
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
According to some political blogs on Twitter this morning, Thatcher closed 22 pits compared to 93 closed by Harold Wilson.
The worse thing about it all is the political point scoring that inevitably follows and usually espoused by people who aren't old enough to have lived through Thatcher's era; they simply regurgitate the same old tired leftist agenda because it is trendy to bag on Thatcher and who else makes such an easy target.
You have to remember that as opposed to the people who lost jobs, Thatcher's regime also significantly improved the working and family lives of many others. She certainly is not as universally reviled as many would have you believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I should clarify that personally, I am ambivalent. I am just about old enough to remember a part of Thatcher's rule but my family is from the South, so generally speaking, we did alright out of it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/09 08:20:24
If opposition to Thatcher makes you insane then I come from a crazy country.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Owen Jones in the independent:
In the war led by Margaret Thatcher’s governments – against the left, the trade unions, the post-war consensus – her side was crushingly, devastatingly, humiliatingly victorious.
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician – the most divisive in modern British history – and what she represented must of course be debated. They will use the moment of her passing to batter Thatcherism into the national psyche: that she somehow saved Britain from ruin, put the “great” back into “Great Britain”, and so forth. Those who grew up in the Britain that Thatcher built will be patronised: you were still learning how to walk at the height of her power. And that is why it is crucial to separate Thatcherism from the woman who spearheaded it.
Thatcherism was a national catastrophe, and we remain trapped by its consequences. As her former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe put it: “Her real triumph was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible.”
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
A poisoned “debate” about social security rages in Cameron’s Britain. It focuses on the idea that there are large numbers of people stuck on benefits. It is certainly true that there were more people languishing in long-term unemployment last year than there were in all forms of unemployment 40 years ago. In large part, this is a consequence of Thatcherism’s emptying communities of millions of secure, skilled industrial jobs. Large swathes of Britain – mining villages, steel towns and so on – were devastated, and never really recovered. Even when Britain was supposedly booming, the old industrial heartlands had high levels of what is rather clinically described as “economic inactivity”.
Five million people now languish on social housing waiting lists, while billions of pounds of housing benefit line the pockets of private landlords charging rip-off rents. The scarcity of housing turns communities against each other, as immigrants or anyone deemed less deserving are scapegoated. But the guilt really lies with the Thatcherite policy of right-to-buy and failure to replace the stock that was sold off.
Champions of Thatcherism hail the crippling of the trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses, but has made them poorer, too. Four years before the crisis began, the income of the bottom half was stagnating, while for the bottom third it actually began to decline – even as corporations were posting record profits. With no unions to stand their corner, workers’ living standards have long been squeezed – driving large numbers to cheap credit.
We could go on. Britain was one of the most equal Western European countries before the Thatcherite project began, and is now one of the most unequal. Thatcherism is not just alive and well: it courses through the veins of British political life. The current government goes where Thatcherism did not dare in its privatisation of the NHS and sledgehammering of the welfare state.
The challenge ahead is the same as it was yesterday: to tear down the whole edifice of Thatcherism, heal Britain of the damage done, and build a country run in the interests of working people. It’s a fight we must all fight. The champagne is on ice until we win it.
A some what biased opion there. Don't bleat on about the great industrial manufacturing base, it had already been ravaged and gutted by the unions. Self interest motivating them at the expense of everything else.
Industrial centred economies for the most part are dying out, or are lesser developed
The right to buy social houses gave millions the opportunity to get on the property ladder for the first time. Prior to this a large number of the country lived in rent, look at the costs of private rented accomodation now, I paid more in rent than some do on mortgages.
The 'disaster' of Thatcherism lead to 14 years of unprecedented economic growth under new labour. Who I might add still ran up a crippling national debt, and sold off all the UKs gold reserves, and not only that announced when they were going to do it allowing market forces time to drive the cost down, so we received a fraction of what they were worth.
Without Thatcherism the UK would have degenerated into a 2nd rate economy, and country in the downward spiral in an economy that was crippled by corrupt unions.
Also with regards to the NHS, I am a nurse, there is an increasing population, with an increasing elderly %, with increasing technology and costs of medications. The current system is unsustainable. It needs reviewing, because it will collapse in on itself, maybe not today or tommorrow, but unless change and reform is implemented then it won't last for our children. So options are... 1) reform it, 2) cut back technology to 20, 30-40 years ago to make your money go further.
Your idea of healing Britain of the damage done, would be a blight on millions of families, economic stagnation, and collapsing infrastructure.
At this point I would say that I'm the grandson of a miner, in sheffield in the north and not some innherited wealtth of company owner.
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponents fate."
Sun Tzu
http://s1.zetaboards.com/New_Badab/index/
JOIN THE ETERNAL WAR. SAY YOU FOLLOWED MY LINK IN YOUR INTRODUCTION TO HELP TZEENTCHS CAUSE.
If opposition to Thatcher makes you insane then I come from a crazy country.
Spoiler:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Owen Jones in the independent:
In the war led by Margaret Thatcher’s governments – against the left, the trade unions, the post-war consensus – her side was crushingly, devastatingly, humiliatingly victorious.
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician – the most divisive in modern British history – and what she represented must of course be debated. They will use the moment of her passing to batter Thatcherism into the national psyche: that she somehow saved Britain from ruin, put the “great” back into “Great Britain”, and so forth. Those who grew up in the Britain that Thatcher built will be patronised: you were still learning how to walk at the height of her power. And that is why it is crucial to separate Thatcherism from the woman who spearheaded it.
Thatcherism was a national catastrophe, and we remain trapped by its consequences. As her former Chancellor Geoffrey Howe put it: “Her real triumph was to have transformed not just one party but two, so that when Labour did eventually return, the great bulk of Thatcherism was accepted as irreversible.”
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
A poisoned “debate” about social security rages in Cameron’s Britain. It focuses on the idea that there are large numbers of people stuck on benefits. It is certainly true that there were more people languishing in long-term unemployment last year than there were in all forms of unemployment 40 years ago. In large part, this is a consequence of Thatcherism’s emptying communities of millions of secure, skilled industrial jobs. Large swathes of Britain – mining villages, steel towns and so on – were devastated, and never really recovered. Even when Britain was supposedly booming, the old industrial heartlands had high levels of what is rather clinically described as “economic inactivity”.
Five million people now languish on social housing waiting lists, while billions of pounds of housing benefit line the pockets of private landlords charging rip-off rents. The scarcity of housing turns communities against each other, as immigrants or anyone deemed less deserving are scapegoated. But the guilt really lies with the Thatcherite policy of right-to-buy and failure to replace the stock that was sold off.
Champions of Thatcherism hail the crippling of the trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses, but has made them poorer, too. Four years before the crisis began, the income of the bottom half was stagnating, while for the bottom third it actually began to decline – even as corporations were posting record profits. With no unions to stand their corner, workers’ living standards have long been squeezed – driving large numbers to cheap credit.
We could go on. Britain was one of the most equal Western European countries before the Thatcherite project began, and is now one of the most unequal. Thatcherism is not just alive and well: it courses through the veins of British political life. The current government goes where Thatcherism did not dare in its privatisation of the NHS and sledgehammering of the welfare state.
The challenge ahead is the same as it was yesterday: to tear down the whole edifice of Thatcherism, heal Britain of the damage done, and build a country run in the interests of working people. It’s a fight we must all fight. The champagne is on ice until we win it.
Well that was a well balanced piece... of typlical Grundian neo-socialist middle class nonsense. Whilst not everything Thatcher did was good nor was it all bad. That completly misses and forgets the strangle hold the unions had on the UK in the 70's, and the fact that iniquality was increasing in the UK since the 1950's.
For the record I am no hard right supporter. You only need to check my past postings on workers rights to see this. However I am angered by this king of blind left wing nonsense. People ask why we do not have the same kind of blind right wing support the US dose. We do, just that it is on the left.
Lets take some important points
In the coming days, some on the right will attempt to snuff out criticism of her legacy, arguing that it is somehow disrespectful, spiteful or ghoulish. Absurd, of course: she was a politician
The "right" is not attempting to do anything of the sort, only to suggest that now is not the time to have this debate in the main stream media. An attempt to shut down any criticism right at the start.
We are in the midst of the third great economic collapse since the Second World War: all three have taken place since Thatcherism launched its great crusade. This current crisis has roots in the Thatcherite free market experiment, which wiped out much of the country’s industrial base in favour of a deregulated financial sector.
So the 1973–75 recession never happend, and New Labour had no part in the current situation at all? What wiped out the country’s industrial base was the complete and utter refusal to modernise. BL was a joke. UK manufactureing was a joke. It was a running joke that we were always on strike and would walk out at the drop of a hat. Somthing had to be done. Maybe it was the wrong thing, but so was doing nothing, but since the unions refused ANY change there was little else that could be done.
trade unions, which were battered by anti-union laws, mass unemployment, and crushing defeats of strikes, not least after the rout of the iconic miners. This has not only left workers at the mercy of their bosses,
The problem is that the unions that were battered were not interested in workers, only in there own interests. As an example, in the 84-85 miners strike not all miners went on strike. The Nottinghamshire Miners' Association chose to not strike. To this day there is bitterness and anger over this. The unions at the time had the power to hold the country to ransom, and did time and again. I do feel that companys have too much power, but this is not just a matter of Thatcherism. This was not something that Labour could not undo. They had an opportunity too fully implement the working time directive in 2000 & 2003 yet chose to opt out.
I'm not going to go on. There is a blind belief amoung some that everything she did was wrong and that Labour can do no wrong. They have a following much like the US Right that follows them no matter what that without thinking. I do not think everything she did was right, or that everything other people did was wrong. This artical is a very bias peice.
For the record I come from South Yorkshire so I have seen the damage it did to both mining and heavy industry first hand. I have relatives that worked in these industrys. I have also seen the damage unions did and the way there policys damaged UK industry. Something we are only now managing to overcome as we regrow in modern manufacturing in places like Coventry and Oxford. What the north suffers from most is not Thatcherism or the loss of heavy industry, but being too far from London.
Also with regards to the NHS, I am a nurse, there is an increasing population, with an increasing elderly %, with increasing technology and costs of medications. The current system is unsustainable. It needs reviewing, because it will collapse in on itself, maybe not today or tommorrow, but unless change and reform is implemented then it won't last for our children. So options are... 1) reform it, 2) cut back technology to 20, 30-40 years ago to make your money go further.
Your idea of healing Britain of the damage done, would be a blight on millions of families, economic stagnation, and collapsing infrastructure.
At this point I would say that I'm the grandson of a miner, in sheffield in the north and not some innherited wealtth of company owner.
Exalted.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/04/09 08:57:24
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
I'm a scot, but I'm disappointed thatcher has died. I was hoping she'd live long enough to see Scotland removed from the clutches of her party forever next year.
A cursary read of the wikipedia page will give you
After the assault concluded, the police conducted an investigation into the siege and the deaths of the two hostages and five terrorists, including the actions of the SAS. The soldiers' weapons were taken away for examination and, the following day, the soldiers themselves were interviewed at length by the police at the regiment's base in Hereford.[56] There was controversy over the deaths of two terrorists in the telex room, where the male hostages were held. Hostages later said in interviews that they had persuaded their captors to surrender and television footage appeared to show them throwing weapons out of the window and holding a white flag. The two SAS soldiers who killed the men both stated at the inquest into the terrorists' deaths that they believed the men had been reaching for weapons before they were shot. The inquest jury reached the verdict that the soldiers' actions were justifiable homicide (later known as "lawful killing").[/
This documentary features statements from those involved that outright states that the SAS went out of their way to kill the terrorists. One of the SAS says that Thatcher did her best not to explicitly say "kill them all", but it was heavily implied on numerous occasions.
The last line of that wiki entry says the inquiry found it was lawful.
If I have a gun and I take a hostage, I'd also have to accept getting shot as a possible consequence.
IMO - The fact they were all killed worked fairly well at persuading other terrorists not to try it over here. We didn't have any more seiges after that.
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
Like everything else in history, there is the myth, the reality, and somewhere in between. I'll hold my hands up and declare my left wing leanings before I start another rant and I'll also say I was in my youth during her premiership, so I'm better placed than some to comment.
Let's look at some of Thatcher's defining moments and put them in historical context.
The Falklands war: no mention that it was her government that ran down the defences beforehand that encouraged Argentina to attack in the first place.
The miners. Yeah, mining is a dirty and dangerous job, and Scargill should have had a ballot before the strike, but using MI5 to spy on union leaders, throwing thousands of people on the scrap heap, and then squandering millions of north sea oil revenues on dole money!! Sheer madness. Most of those mining towns are hotbeds of poverty and deprivation. That's her legacy.
Foreign policy: She did what every British PM has done since WW2 - danced to Washington's tune, so she was hardly radical in that sense.
Privatisation. Thanks to Thatcher, most of the UK's utilities were flogged to any foreign buyer. And yet, despite sitting on vast reserves of oil and gas, we're facing record fuel bills year after year, and paying foreign companies for the honour.
Policing: Anybody remember the inner city riots, the Hillsborough cover up, the police brutality, and the casual racism? I do. Thatcher is obviously not directly to blame for this, but she did encourage the police to adopt this culture. As long as she was winning the votes she needed, she didn't care that much for the rest of the country.
And finally, there is the poll tax, the support of apartheid South Africa, I could on.
I'm not happy to see anybody pass away, but I won't be shedding any tears for Thatcher.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Well that was a well balanced piece... of typlical Grundian neo-socialist middle class nonsense.
What did you expect? It's Owen Jones! Have you ever seen him on Question Time? The kid's a fool. He's basically a student union newsletter writer that someone's let loose on a major national newspaper. 'Independent' my arse.
My own standpoint is that she, as this countries leader, decided enough was enough and through some hard, possibly harsh, decisions and polices enabled the UK to stand tall again after some years of decline.
She gave the UK a choice - thrive or wither away.
I shall, in some way, pay my respects on the day of her funeal
Glasgow City Council urged people to stay away from the city's George Square after hundreds gathered to mark the death of Baroness Thatcher.
In a statement posted on their website, the council said it was concerned the gathering was intended to be a "party".
The event was organised by posts on social media.
It's believed the gathering took inspiration from the song George Square Thatcher Death Party by the Glasgow group Mogwai.
The council said it had become aware of plans for an event circulating on social media, and about 250 people gathered in the square outside the city chambers by early Monday evening.
The statement said: "Regardless of whether or not it's appropriate to have a party to celebrate someone dying, this event was organised without involvement or consent from the council and we have safety concerns for anyone attending.
"We urge people to stay away."
By around 22:00, the crowd was reported to have dispersed without incident.
The song that inspired it all... apparently...
Spoiler:
Compared with the impromptu royal wedding party that's a fairly paltry turn out.
