# Thatcher's Dead.



## Varcolac (Apr 8, 2013)

Ding dong.

BBC News - Ex-Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher dies

I feel very strange at the moment. Her ideology and politics disgust me, I'm convinced she bears no small responsibility (with Reagan) for the current rubbish state of the world, but she was an old woman and it feels odd to celebrate her death.

Oh well. End of an era? Probably not. The private-school Oxbridge numpties in Westminster are rather keen on parroting her agenda so her rubbish lives on.


----------



## petereanima (Apr 8, 2013)

Good riddance Maggie, rot in hell.


----------



## Genome (Apr 8, 2013)

Come on. It's not over until we have destroyed her horcruxes!


----------



## Solodini (Apr 8, 2013)

As posted by someone on Twitter: the only way I'll be involved in a minute's silence for her is if they ask for a minute's applause. If I air mail a stake down to one of you guys, can you use it to make sure?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2013)

I can't revel in anyone's death. No matter how politically clued up we think we are, it does not give us license to insult the dead. That said, I wouldn't be sincere if I said I was sad on this day and that's only due to my own limited knowledge of her influence on world politics.


----------



## petereanima (Apr 8, 2013)

Scar Symmetry said:


> No matter how politically clued up we think we are, it does not give us license to insult the dead.



I know many people think that way, but I have to disagree with this. The act of dying doesnt make any of that persons deed undone, any word unspoken. We can also talk ill about Hitler, no?


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 8, 2013)

If Hell existed it would still not be a good enough punishment for this woman.


----------



## elrrek (Apr 8, 2013)

Come on guys. Yes, she was a horror, but try to remember today a family has lost a mother and we are talking about a person who was very ill at the end.

I lived through this woman's time in power, I know what she did, I am really pissed about some of the stuff she did, but some of the words being posted on the internet today really are shocking and saddening.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 8, 2013)

If the dead wish not to be spoken ill of, they shouldn't do things worth speaking ill of while they are alive. 

I may not revel in her death...but I absolutely will call bullshit on the type of terrible person she was and her horrible politics. This was a person who called Nelson Mandela a terrorist.


----------



## Vinchester (Apr 8, 2013)

As a foreign student currently in the UK, even I know a bit of why a lot of people dislike her. 

But like all people she was a product of her time. Apart from her actions, I think it's also important to understand the circumstances that put her in power. What she did must seem to be a good idea to the majority back then? Frankly I don't have any in depth knowledge so I'm holding my tongue for now.

Shit I've just tempted myself to go wiki-frenzy while having work to do.


----------



## crg123 (Apr 8, 2013)

edit: opps

Actually I'll leave it since it shows how out of the loop I really am. Two British women name Margaret and I have no idea who either of them are. You can laugh at this American being ignorant of international politics haha



> I just googled this woman (Sorry I'm out of the loop) and this came up
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The mistake is because of Acle (from tesseract's') facebook post 

Acle Kahney "RIP margaret beckett, former queen of the united states of england"


----------



## BucketheadRules (Apr 8, 2013)

I can't be the only one reading these comments and being appalled by the lack of basic human respect...

I wasn't even born until 1995, by which time she'd been out of office for five years, so I have no idea about what it was like to live under her government... I know she had her detractors and made some fiercely unpopular decisions which were, perhaps, not in our best interests, but you could equally argue that she did a lot of good things. And it is an absolutely unarguable fact that she had more balls than all of the sorry excuses for politicians currently in the UK government put together. Anyway, however bad you think Thatcher was, Blair was worse. He is a truly repugnant man (although I won't be cheering when he eventually pops his clogs, because that's wrong).

Not many women at the time would even have considered running for prime minister, let alone got in and set about doing stuff. She actually did stuff (for better or worse), which is a damn sight more than can be said for the ineffectual wastes of space who have been calling the shots since.

Anyway, regardless of whether you liked her or not (it seems like everyone here doesn't...) she didn't end her days as a politician - she hadn't been in politics for years. She ended her days as a frail old woman with failing health. What people are doing in this thread is, basically, mocking and celebrating the death of an old woman - an old woman who leaves behind a family. I haven't any experience of her as a prime minister (in fact, how many of you do?) and so I can't express a particularly strong opinion on her either way, but I'm inclined to have at least a degree of respect for her because I can recognise that she did things which were good, as well as the oft-publicised negatives...

What some of you here are actually doing is celebrating the death of a human being. Isn't that the kind of thing that absolute cunts normally do?

Yep, you're mocking and insulting an old woman after she's died. I hope you're proud of yourselves.




EDIT:

Obviously I've been neg-repped for this, clearly the idea of basic respect for a fellow human being is less popular than I thought. I don't think time is some kind of "magic eraser" but I never claimed, either, that she was indeed "absolved" of anything. You have to look beyond the politics - she was a human being, she had a family, and latterly she was frail and old, in bad health. Despite everything she did wrong, she was a human being just like you or I, and you don't celebrate when a human being dies, whether you liked them or not. I know she wasn't perfect by any means (and never said ANYTHING to that effect) but regardless of how much you dislike her, you DO NOT rejoice in her death. It is not the done thing.


----------



## Fat-Elf (Apr 8, 2013)

I would have no idea who she is without Wikipedia articles of Iron Maiden's albums.


----------



## Varcolac (Apr 8, 2013)

BucketheadRules said:


> I can't be the only one reading these comments and being appalled by the lack of basic human respect...
> 
> I wasn't even born until 1995, by which time she'd been out of office for five years, so I have no idea about what it was like to live under her government... I know she had her detractors and made some fiercely unpopular decisions which were, perhaps, not in our best interests, *but you could equally argue that she did a lot of good things.* And it is an absolutely unarguable fact that she had more balls than all of the sorry excuses for politicians currently in the UK government put together. Anyway, however bad you think Thatcher was, Blair was worse. He is a truly repugnant man (although I won't be cheering when he eventually pops his clogs, because that's wrong).



I'd like to see you try. On almost every front her policies were abhorrent, and I can show you point-by-point how she was the catalyst for the possibility of nearly every awful thing that UK governments have done since, and a good deal of European governments' misdeeds to boot. 



BucketheadRules said:


> Not many women at the time would even have considered running for prime minister, let alone got in and set about doing stuff. *She actually did stuff *(for better or worse), which is a damn sight more than can be said for the ineffectual wastes of space who have been calling the shots since.



Starting wars with random middle eastern states and rolling back the welfare state to the point of insanity isn't "doing stuff"? Could've fooled me. The again, Thatcher did that too... Desert Storm I, privatisation...



BucketheadRules said:


> Anyway, regardless of whether you liked her or not (it seems like everyone here doesn't...) she didn't end her days as a politician - she hadn't been in politics for years. She ended her days as a frail old woman with failing health. What people are doing in this thread is, basically, mocking and celebrating the death of an old woman - an old woman who leaves behind a family. I haven't any experience of her as a prime minister (in fact, how many of you do?) and so I can't express a particularly strong opinion on her either way, but I'm inclined to have at least a degree of respect for her because I can recognise that she did things which were good, as well as the oft-publicised negatives...
> 
> What some of you here are actually doing is celebrating the death of a human being. Isn't that the kind of thing that absolute cunts normally do?
> 
> Yep, you're mocking and insulting an old woman after she's died. I hope you're proud of yourselves.



I'm mocking and despairing of an utterly awful politician's influence on modern politics. Her relentless championing of the free market and the scorn she poured upon state institutions is still a very relevant political point of view today. Just listen to Osborne and Gove for half a minute. Privatise this, cut that, bail out banks, close libraries, privatise schools, cut benefits. The litany of cuts and privatisations, and the endless scrabbling for the coins at the coat-tails of big capital goes on. Her influence is felt every day.

I'm not celebrating her death. I feel great discomfort doing that. There's a street party going on about half a mile from my front door in celebration of her passing, and I'm most definitely not going to it. However, to ignore the utterly reprehensible elements of her political career is to paint her as a saint, and that she most certainly was not. 

I won't celebrate her death, but I'm sure as hell not going to mourn her. A senile old lady who damaged the world in her prime has passed. I shed no tears, but I sing no songs of victory.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 8, 2013)

I'm surprised a thread involving a discussion on whether or not it's appropriate to celebrate someone's passing has gone this far without anyone invoking Godwin's Law.



Oops!


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Apr 8, 2013)

Thatcher = Hitler.





Amidoingitright?


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 8, 2013)

Fat-Elf said:


> I would have no idea who she is without Wikipedia articles of Iron Maiden's albums.



... what is up with the Finnish education system? That's beyond shocking.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 8, 2013)

"This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.

But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.

Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as "terrorists", something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Indonesian dictator General Suharto ("One of our very best and most valuable friends"). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, "across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted &#8211; and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown."

To demand that all of that be ignored in the face of one-sided requiems to her nobility and greatness is a bit bullying and tyrannical, not to mention warped. As David Wearing put it this morning in satirizing these speak-no-ill-of-the-deceased moralists: "People praising Thatcher's legacy should show some respect for her victims. Tasteless." Tellingly, few people have trouble understanding the need for balanced commentary when the political leaders disliked by the west pass away. Here, for instance, was what the Guardian reported upon the death last month of Hugo Chavez:

To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance."

Nobody, at least that I know of, objected to that observation on the ground that it was disrespectful to the ability of the Chavez family to mourn in peace. Any such objections would have been invalid. It was perfectly justified to note that, particularly as the Guardian also explained that "to the millions who revered him &#8211; a third of the country, according to some polls &#8211; a messiah has fallen, and their grief will be visceral." Chavez was indeed a divisive and controversial figure, and it would have been reckless to conceal that fact out of some misplaced deference to the grief of his family and supporters. He was a political and historical figure and the need to accurately portray his legacy and prevent misleading hagiography easily outweighed precepts of death etiquette that prevail when a private person dies.

Exactly the same is true of Thatcher. There's something distinctively creepy - in a Roman sort of way - about this mandated ritual that our political leaders must be heralded and consecrated as saints upon death. This is accomplished by this baseless moral precept that it is gauche or worse to balance the gushing praise for them upon death with valid criticisms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history." 


-Glenn Greenwald


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2013)

I was sat next to a Northener in the Barbers today, mid-30s. I overheard him explain to the Persian Barber about how even though she'd completely fucked over him and his family, he still couldn't comprehend the vile way people had been talking about her on the day of her death. Had a lot of respect for that guy.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 8, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> "This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure's death is not just misguided but dangerous. That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won't repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.
> 
> But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
> 
> ...



It's articulate. However, there's a lot to be said for quietly keeping one's opinions to oneself in the humble knowledge that they are only opinions, especially when death is involved. This kind of over-sensitive, pre-emptive journalism makes me wonder how someone gets paid to be so pedantic. Had the article been the last two sentences alone, I might have posted this myself.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 8, 2013)

Scar Symmetry said:


> It's articulate. However, there's a lot to be said for quietly keeping one's opinions to oneself in the humble knowledge that they are only opinions, especially when death is involved. This kind of over-sensitive, pre-emptive journalism makes me wonder how someone gets paid to be so pedantic. Had the article been the last two sentences alone, I might have posted this myself.



I wish there were more pedantic analyses of world events like this one readily available. Journalism has declined severely in the time since Thatcher's reign, and I shudder to think what more she might have done if she were facing today's spineless, largely understaffed and politically disinterested media, instead of the more solid and less corporate Fourth Estate that existed when she was in power. Besides, I don't see how keeping quiet honours her legacy at all.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 8, 2013)

Scar Symmetry said:


> ...there's a lot to be said for quietly keeping one's opinions to oneself in the humble knowledge that they are only opinions, especially when death is involved.



Here is the thing though, nobody is really asking for people to keep their "opinions" to themselves in the wake of Thatcher's death. Only those who have "negative opinions" are to keep to themselves.




Scar Symmetry said:


> This kind of over-sensitive, pre-emptive journalism makes me wonder how someone gets paid to be so pedantic. Had the article been the last two sentences alone, I might have posted this myself.



How is being over sensitive when people are demanding he and others be censored? Criticizers are being told their opinions should not be expressed in public because it might hurt someones feelings or it shows a lack of respect as if a person's death is more important then their actions, views, and legacy. When the person brought up hitler before I thought it was to illustrate this entire idea of not voicing negative opinions when a politician (or public figure) dies is completely fallacious and would be abandoned the second they were faced with a politician/person who was a monster.

Would these arguments have been consistently applied to Hitler? (EDIT: I know these arguments are not what you said I am just bring up what I saw)

You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"She ended her days as a frail old woman with failing health."

(Would it excuse Hitler if he died while his health was failing? No)


You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"[Criticizers are] mocking and celebrating the death of an old woman"

(Would it excuse Hitler if he died as an old man, or was a woman? No)


You shouldn't voice a negative opinion on Thatcher because:
"I know she had her detractors and made some fiercely unpopular decisions which were, perhaps, not in our best interests, but you could equally argue that she did a lot of good things."

(Would it excuse Hitler if we unbiasedly reviewed some of his polices and agreed with a few? No.)

None of these reasons are good enough to justify silencing negative opinions in the wake of a death as I very much doubt they would be consistently applied. In fact I think this entire debate would be non existent if someone who society was taught (or naturally came to) not to hold a positive opinion on died. 

"Even though I disagreed with the holocaust we still shouldn't be criticizing Hitler now that he is dead. He has family that are mourning, show some basic human respect." - Said no person ever


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 8, 2013)

There it is!


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 8, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> There it is!



http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3tsjvp/


----------



## Repner (Apr 8, 2013)

As I'm sure most of you guessed, no one above the border is exactly weeping over her. In fact I'm sure I heard of party's in Glasgow.


----------



## yingmin (Apr 9, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> How is being over sensitive when people are demanding he and others be censored? Criticizers are being told their opinions should not be expressed in public because it might hurt someones feelings or it shows a lack of respect as if a person's death is more important then their actions, views, and legacy. When the person brought up hitler before I thought it was to illustrate this entire idea of not voicing negative opinions when a politician (or public figure) dies is completely fallacious and would be abandoned the second they were faced with a politician/person who was a monster.
> 
> Would these arguments have been consistently applied to Hitler? (EDIT: I know these arguments are not what you said I am just bring up what I saw)
> 
> ...



First off, we're not talking about people criticizing Thatcher. What people are doing is rejoicing in the fact that she's dead, which is entirely different from "criticism". And I will say unequivocally that taking pleasure in the death of a human being, ANY human being, does make you a worse person. There have been plenty of people who have died during my lifetime whose beliefs or actions I found objectionable, but I was never HAPPY that they had died, because that is monstrous. It's spiritually poisonous. 

Second, I would argue that the Hitler analogy is symptomatic of a larger problem. It's not without reason that Hitler has become such a boogeyman to society; however, I think that the way we talk about Hitler, Nazism and fascism in general is thoroughly counterproductive, certainly to meaningful discussion of them, but also to understanding them. When you reduce Hitler to a demon, to a living embodiment of evil, it becomes impossible to understand how he was able to do what he did. I am in no way asking anybody to excuse the things Hitler did, but it's critically important to remember that Hitler was a human being, and so were those around him. He certainly didn't work alone, so if Hitler was a monster, where do you draw the line? Was everybody in his cabinet a monster as well? Every government employee? Every soldier, every concentration camp guard, every factory worker making war materiel? Everybody who voted for him? Hell, let's pull it back even farther: were the delegates at the treaty of Versailles also monsters, for putting Germany in such a shitty position that electing Hitler seemed like a good idea? These are all questions that can be discussed - although this thread is not the place for them - but my point is that however reprehensible and disgusting his actions may have been, they were the actions of humans. So yes, feel perfectly free to criticize Hitler, but give him the basic level of human decency that every human being deserves, even though he didn't do the same.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 9, 2013)

yingmin said:


> ...I will say unequivocally that taking pleasure in the death of a human being, ANY human being, does make you a worse person. There have been plenty of people who have died during my lifetime whose beliefs or actions I found objectionable, but I was never HAPPY that they had died, because that is monstrous. It's spiritually poisonous.



I do not agree, you have outlined more or less a thought crime. Anyone who does not respond to death the way you think they should is now declared a "worse person". Nevermind that people have different thoughts, feelings, and responses to death. This is just shallow moral judgment, I do not recognize any type of spirit / spiritual force. If some imaginary part of a person that has as much chance as a unicorn to exist is poisoned, that does not concern me. If you want to argue semantics and say celebrating death is psychologically harmful you will have to cite studies.



yingmin said:


> Second, I would argue that the Hitler analogy is symptomatic of a larger problem. It's not without reason that Hitler has become such a boogeyman to society; however, I think that the way we talk about Hitler, Nazism and fascism in general is thoroughly counterproductive, certainly to meaningful discussion of them, but also to understanding them. When you reduce Hitler to a demon, to a living embodiment of evil, it becomes impossible to understand how he was able to do what he did.



Sure I completely agree, I am well educated about how hitler came to power and I think anyone who lives in a democracy or cares about democracy should understand it too. Small issue though, I didn't reduce Hitler to a demon. I was merely trying to point out that many of the reasons given why people shouldn't (or should be ashamed) celebrate or insult or criticize Thatcher would not stand up if we applied them to a less debatable person. Every point I made would stand on it's own even If I did not use Hitler, and If that truly is to be called in to question I will reword the argument. 



yingmin said:


> I am in no way asking anybody to excuse the things Hitler did, but it's critically important to remember that Hitler was a human being, and so were those around him. He certainly didn't work alone, so if Hitler was a monster, where do you draw the line? Was everybody in his cabinet a monster as well? Every government employee? Every soldier, every concentration camp guard, every factory worker making war materiel? Everybody who voted for him? Hell, let's pull it back even farther: were the delegates at the treaty of Versailles also monsters, for putting Germany in such a shitty position that electing Hitler seemed like a good idea?



As a person who just argued that even the act of celebrating a death is "monstrous" and makes an individual a "worse person" you kind of shoot your slippery slope in the foot here.



yingmin said:


> These are all questions that can be discussed - although this thread is not the place for them - but my point is that however reprehensible and disgusting his actions may have been, they were the actions of humans. So yes, feel perfectly free to criticize Hitler, but give him the basic level of human decency that every human being deserves, even though he didn't do the same.



This is little more then an Argument by assertion.


----------



## Fat-Elf (Apr 9, 2013)

ArtDecade said:


> ... what is up with the Finnish education system? That's beyond shocking.



Maybe that's why it's ranked #1 because we don't concentrate on some old hag causing troubles in UK in 1980's.


----------



## petereanima (Apr 9, 2013)

Before people hang themselves up on Godwins Law and the according internet photos, simply replace the "H" name with any other, who has the blood of over thousand on hands.

Oh, and FWIW - I did not "rejoice" in her death.

But fun-fact: "Rejoice" was her choice of words when asked critically about the Falkland war and the victims.

That old lady didnt give a single fuck about thousand families, so I really don't feel the need to give a single fuck about her family's feelings or to keep my opinion about her to myself. Why should I?


----------



## elrrek (Apr 9, 2013)

It's fine holding an opinion, it's fine expressing that opinion, but the manner in which opinions have been expressed is this past day is the part that has really shocked me in this episode.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 9, 2013)

What I want to see in the discussion about Thatcher's legacy is nuance. What I am going to say would make some go knee-jerk to "lol neo-con", but then you're an idiot.

Thatcher did not have an easy task, Britain was going completely in the shitter, politicians dared not break wind before asking the labour unions, and the public sector was a hulking beast of inefficiency.
My attitude to Thatcher has been that sometimes something has to be sacrificed to save the greater majority, such is the burden of leadership. A leader has to be prepared to take uncomfortable, or unpopular decisions, and I believe that Thatcher had to. Thatcher's policies of low inflation and a decrease in public spending also gave results, by -87, the economic growth was strong (despite decreasing industrial output), the unemployment was decreasing, and that won her the third term.


We can't forget either that she was an extremely confrontational politician, and as such, she was often seen as more hostile than she possibly really was. The unions had not encountered a politician like her either, so when they did what they usually did (use the threat of a strike), she called their bluff. 
That was also a mistake that Argentina did, as they learned the hard way that Thatcher did not back down (for better or worse). People also tend to forget that the Falklands War was not a war that she started, but rather that she was attacked (and Argentina is recognized as the aggressor by the UN), and I do say that as far as a war go, it was handled pretty well. The british garrison had to be ordered to stand down to not be massacred by the Argentinians, and that order came from Thatcher.

We also had an extremely confrontational politician in Sweden, namely prime minister ("state minister", or "national minister") Olof Palme. He had the same style as Thatcher, but reversed, as he was a democratic socialist (and Palme was active before Thatcher, so technically, she had his style). 
He was shot in -86, and when he did, the socialists when into a psychosis fueled by grief (that I don't think they've completely recovered from yet), while the conservatives celebrated. Because of this, I hypothesise that the hatred/love for a politician is not based on politics, as much as it is on leadership-style. Thatcher was a confrontational person, as with Palme, and they got hated for it. Granted, they both did things that might be considered unsuitable today, but I don't think neither deserve the hate they receive.
After WWII, charismatic politicians were something that Europe was skeptical of (for obvious reasons), which made them become targets, and of course invited comparisons to Hitler and Franco (which to this thread's discredit already has happened. Come one guys...)

My final relfection is that Thatcherism seems to have worked, it wasn't pretty at all, and I'm certain someone would do it differently. What I would want however is, instead of all the "lol she-devil", is for people to suggest instead what the fuck she could have done differently. Criticism without suggestions is just reactionary, and I loathe that shit. I firmly believe that she really saw no other way of saving Britain than to throw some people under the dubble-decker to save the majority. She also helped to invent the soft-scoop ice cream, and for that I will always be grateful.

People like Morrissey who dances on her grave has not shown me in any way that they'd do a better job. I want some nuance instead of "OMG, she was Jesus" or "OMG, she was the devil", could I please have it?


... Pretty please?



petereanima said:


> But fun-fact: "Rejoice" was her choice of words when asked critically about the Falkland war and the victims.



Well, that's not really true, is it? What the question was was if Britain would declare war on Argentina, and she said to the effect that people should "rejoice over this victory, and we'll deal with the problem of Argentina when it comes up". Rejoicing over military victories is as old as war itself, and it still happens everywhere. What you also "forgot" to mention is that she also mentions the sacrifices of the British military directly afterwards.
This sort of mudslinging on Thatcher is what I am so insanely tired of, people just throw shit at her, and hopes that something will stick. Saying that people should give thanks to the soldiers and marines who died is in no way controversial, but when uttered by Thatcher, it apparently becomes someting similar to Palpatine ordering order 66 to be carried out.

The victims eh? The three Falklanders who died, or the military casualities? Then also understand that soldiers know that they might get killed, this is something they're prepared for, and they are by no means victims. Pinning the civilian casualitites on Thatcher is ridiculous, and I hope that you see why.


----------



## McKay (Apr 9, 2013)

I think Thatcher did more harm than good overall. What bothers me is that hatred for her is either misguided or misinformed.


----------



## petereanima (Apr 9, 2013)

edit, nevermind.


----------



## Friendroid (Apr 9, 2013)

Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Blake1970 (Apr 9, 2013)

Margaret Thatcher was 'barbaric' and 'a terror', says Morrissey

Margaret Thatcher was 'barbaric' and 'a terror', says Morrissey - Telegraph


----------



## ArtDecade (Apr 9, 2013)

Norway Massacre Is Nothing Compared To Actions Of KFC, say Morrissey

Morrissey says Norway massacre 'nothing compared to actions of KFC' | Metro News

(I kinda take what he says with a grain of salt)


----------



## thatguy87 (Apr 9, 2013)

BucketheadRules said:


> She ended her days as a frail old woman with failing health. What people are doing in this thread is, basically, mocking and celebrating the death of an old woman - an old woman who leaves behind a family.


 Karma cares not for you or your family.


----------



## Rook (Apr 9, 2013)

I came here basically to say what Jakke said but nowhere near that concisely. So much of this hate is by people with it indoctrinated into them when they weren't even alive (or barely) when she was in power - any one of the three terms.

All I know of Thatcher I learned for myself, as Jakke said given the hand she was dealt how many options were there. She came to power at a time where the trade unions held the country to ransom and the power would black out unexpectedly at random times during the day. 

Honestly. Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is utterly ridiculous. The ignorance I'm hearing is just abhorrent. Shameful, just shameful.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 9, 2013)

It's hard for me to rejoice in her death because A. I wasn't alive when she was in power and B. she hasn't had any political influence in some time, so her death does not change anything. 

I respect her for having the courage to do what she did in a very male-orientated profession, but I know enough about her to dislike her as a politician. So while I don't rejoice in her death I also don't exactly feel bad about it.

I don't think it is bad rejoicing the death of some people though, depending on whether it is warranted or not. If someone is a really shitty person and hurts people, like Hitler for instance, then yes I think being happy they're dead is understandable. Not sure I'd put Thatcher on that level though. However you could argue Blair...

To be honest I'm more disgusted that people have been linking to anything that Morrissey has had to say. That moron has his head so far up his own ass it's difficult to tell where he starts.


----------



## Semichastny (Apr 9, 2013)

Rook said:


> Honestly. Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is utterly ridiculous. The ignorance I'm hearing is just abhorrent. Shameful, just shameful.



Who exactly is "Comparing Thatcher to Hitler"? Neither I or the other person who brought up Hitler were actually comparing them. We were demonstrating that the idea people are trying to demand for new social norm of "not speaking ill of the dead" or "celebrating the dead" would not hold if we used someone with a less debatable life. IE, since the primary reason for this respect and silence they demand comes from the death and not the person then by their standards Hitler should be treated the same as her, which is where the real comparison between them is located. Read what I wrote and you will see how I attack the notion that they could be compared or treated the same under the social norm people are trying to push. If your not referring to this forum post, then I apologize.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Apr 9, 2013)

I did, but it was jokingly, after Tim brought up Goodwin's Law.


----------



## djentinc (Apr 9, 2013)

Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is stupid. Thatcher may have done a lot of bad things, but she was NOWHERE near as bad as Hitler. Not even close.

What Thatcher did was typical Conservative "oh, we need to save money" by closing the mines and factories. Problem was, 1. no mines and factories = unemployment in several large areas of the country and 2. some of those mines she closed would have still been economically viable today. I live in what used to be a major industrial area in South Wales and my mum's side of the family are from the north, I have seen the effects of Thatcher's policies - there is rampant unemployment and they turn to drug abuse because there is quite literally nothing else to do.

I REALLY don't like Thatcher, but seriously guys, celebrating over the death of a person is just plain stupid. Have a joke about it etc., but don't go and throw parties and get pissed just because a very controversial politician has died. There are much more important things to do, and much more important things that need fixing.


----------



## abandonist (Apr 9, 2013)

Y'all are so PC on this forum.

Fuck this horrible witch. I'm actively pleased at her death. It excites me.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Apr 9, 2013)

djentinc said:


> Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is stupid. Thatcher may have done a lot of bad things, but she was NOWHERE near as bad as Hitler. Not even close.



Dude, no one is (seriously) comparing her to Hitler.


----------



## djentinc (Apr 9, 2013)

Blake1970 said:


> Margaret Thatcher was 'barbaric' and 'a terror', says Morrissey - Telegraph



Linking Morrissey in a Margaret Thatcher thread is like linking Zeitgeist in a thread about global economics.


----------



## ZachK (Apr 9, 2013)

I found out while listening to Sanctuary by Iron Maiden. Twas erie. 

Her death doesn't much affect me, but, those celebrating it need to get checked.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 9, 2013)

I not only liked her, but I'd replace our current pretender in chief with the likes of her asap if I had my way about it.


----------



## Hollowway (Apr 9, 2013)

So, I don't know much about her, but I've been listening to the news reports and it seems she's pretty well respected from the left and the right. They said that, with respect to the union busting, it resulted in unemployment for 10% of the nation by the other 90% showed a marked increase in wages, and trade with foreign countries took off because they could count on there not being so many strikes. That all sounded good. But it sounds like everyone on here that is from the UK doesn't like her actions. Can you guys give me some stuff she did that was bad to balance the glowing rememberances I've been hearing? I was alive during her term, but just barely!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 9, 2013)

DEY TERK ER MIRLK!!!


----------



## Repner (Apr 9, 2013)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I not only liked her, but I'd replace our current pretender in chief with the likes of her asap if I had my way about it.


Oh god no. Not again. You can keep them both. Thanks.


----------



## djentinc (Apr 9, 2013)

Hollowway said:


> So, I don't know much about her, but I've been listening to the news reports and it seems she's pretty well respected from the left and the right. They said that, with respect to the union busting, it resulted in unemployment for 10% of the nation by the other 90% showed a marked increase in wages, and trade with foreign countries took off because they could count on there not being so many strikes. That all sounded good. But it sounds like everyone on here that is from the UK doesn't like her actions. Can you guys give me some stuff she did that was bad to balance the glowing rememberances I've been hearing? I was alive during her term, but just barely!



She shut down a lot of the industry in the UK (mines, factories), causing huge losses in employment, which has led to a lot of the issues we have today in places like Merthyr; the people who would have worked in the coal mines or the factories had no option but to go on the dole, and their kids are on the dole too or dealing drugs to keep financially afloat.

She also ordered the sinking of the General Belgrano during the Falklands war, which is a fairly controversial thing because the ship was outside the maritime exclusion zone that Britain had set up (basically, if you went into that zone and you were an Argentine ship, the British subs were fair game to torpedo you). BEFORE ANYONE STARTS A FALKLANDS WAR DEBATE - Argentina invaded the islands, which the majority of the islanders were very opposed to since they identified themselves as being part of the British Commonwealth and have done so for several generations (it's not as if Argentina would have gained much by taking the islands anyway, it's a barren wasteland).


----------



## Rook (Apr 9, 2013)

Semichastny said:


> Who exactly is "Comparing Thatcher to Hitler"? Neither I or the other person who brought up Hitler were actually comparing them. We were demonstrating that the idea people are trying to demand for new social norm of "not speaking ill of the dead" or "celebrating the dead" would not hold if we used someone with a less debatable life. IE, since the primary reason for this respect and silence they demand comes from the death and not the person then by their standards Hitler should be treated the same as her, which is where the real comparison between them is located. Read what I wrote and you will see how I attack the notion that they could be compared or treated the same under the social norm people are trying to push. If your not referring to this forum post, then I apologize.



I wasn't referring to you, just the general notion which, while mentioned here in jest or rhetoric, is actually popping up on my Facebook and other places.

Your point of clarification was interesting no less, certainly no need for apology regardless of my intentions.




djentinc said:


> She shut down a lot of the industry in the UK (mines, factories), causing huge losses in employment, which has led to a lot of the issues we have today in places like Merthyr; the people who would have worked in the coal mines or the factories had no option but to go on the dole, and their kids are on the dole too or dealing drugs to keep financially afloat.



Arguable wording... The trade union leaders used their influence over the country's lifeblood industries to push the government into doing what they want on threat of strike, Thatcher told em to stick it, the unions for lack of a better word collapsed. That plus higher interest rates and taxes because of the _horrendous recession the precious labour government had left the country in_, meant jobs got cut, but the same measures did curb the ridiculous 15-20% inflation and allow the economy to get back into growth.

Allowing inflation to continue like that leads recession to depression, which would have been 10 million plus unemployed, not 3m...


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 9, 2013)

I won't pretend to know about her or her politics, but what my limited understanding of her politics were is that many regarded her as the UK's version of Reagan. If there is any truth to this, then fuck her and her politics. But again, I'd rather enlighten myself on her than knee-jerk to anything. I do have one thing I've read up on her about that I draw a great deal of contention with and that is this:
LGBT community remembers Margaret Thatcher for the homophobic Section 28 law | San Diego Gay and Lesbian News

So again, if there is any truth to this (perhaps someone from that time and from the UK can explain it better to me and others) then again, fuck her and fuck her political stance on this.

Even if I had better knowledge and understanding of her and the way she rolled, I still don't celebrate her death. It's not a 'white knight' thing, just that unless she rounded up people third reich style and machine gunned them and their babies and forced everyone into labor camps, I see no real reason to have the lollipop guild come out, sing "ding dong the witch is dead", and welcome all to munchkin land.
That said, I don't exactly mourn it either. I'm just one more American that is pretty ignorant to how the governments outside our own works; I'm ashamed to admit it, but there it is. The best way I can put it is that I'm sorry for her family's loss, but I'm more or less indifferent on the issue.

But again, I'm down for any and all enlightenment before I cast the judgment of "haha! the wicked witch is dead!". So far, what little I do know is making me not like her at all.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Apr 9, 2013)

^All of this.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 9, 2013)

ghstofperdition said:


> I see no real reason to have the lollipop guild come out, sing "ding dong the witch is dead", and welcome all to munchkin land.



I dunno, man. Do we _need_ a real reason to want that to happen? The Lollipop Guild is pretty tits.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 10, 2013)

ghstofperdition said:


> I do have one thing I've read up on her about that I draw a great deal of contention with and that is this:
> LGBT community remembers Margaret Thatcher for the homophobic Section 28 law | San Diego Gay and Lesbian News



She was also one of the few conservative MP:s to vote to legalize homosexuality.

She also voted to legalize abortion. "Did nothing for women", my ass...


----------



## Rook (Apr 10, 2013)

ghstofperdition said:


> I won't pretend to know about her or her politics, but what my limited understanding of her politics were is that many regarded her as the UK's version of Reagan. If there is any truth to this, then fuck her and her politics. But again, I'd rather enlighten myself on her than knee-jerk to anything. I do have one thing I've read up on her about that I draw a great deal of contention with and that is this:
> LGBT community remembers Margaret Thatcher for the homophobic Section 28 law | San Diego Gay and Lesbian News
> 
> So again, if there is any truth to this (perhaps someone from that time and from the UK can explain it better to me and others) then again, fuck her and fuck her political stance on this.
> ...



That was one of the most biased things I think I've ever read. If you want to know about things do your own research rather than reading other people's opinions on it.


----------



## djentinc (Apr 10, 2013)

Rook said:


> Arguable wording... The trade union leaders used their influence over the country's lifeblood industries to push the government into doing what they want on threat of strike, Thatcher told em to stick it, the unions for lack of a better word collapsed. That plus higher interest rates and taxes because of the _horrendous recession the precious labour government had left the country in_, meant jobs got cut, but the same measures did curb the ridiculous 15-20% inflation and allow the economy to get back into growth.
> 
> Allowing inflation to continue like that leads recession to depression, which would have been 10 million plus unemployed, not 3m...



Fair point. She was under pressure. However, she still made decisions which we are still feeling the negative effects of very much today, because she was an incredibly strong-minded woman who wouldn't back down.

Ted Heath's government weren't exactly saints either. Not to mention we had Blair and Brown not long after Thatcher...


----------



## Jakke (Apr 10, 2013)

I think Blair's problem was mainly that he employed Thatcherism, but wasn't as good at doing it.


----------



## Rook (Apr 10, 2013)




----------



## 1000 Eyes (Apr 10, 2013)

Another situation Thatcher found herself at the center of.
1981 Irish hunger strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assassination attempt : 1984
Brighton hotel bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Apr 10, 2013)

yingmin said:


> First off, we're not talking about people criticizing Thatcher. What people are doing is rejoicing in the fact that she's dead, which is entirely different from "criticism". And I will say unequivocally that taking pleasure in the death of a human being, ANY human being, does make you a worse person. There have been plenty of people who have died during my lifetime whose beliefs or actions I found objectionable, but I was never HAPPY that they had died, because that is monstrous. It's spiritually poisonous.
> 
> Second, I would argue that the Hitler analogy is symptomatic of a larger problem. It's not without reason that Hitler has become such a boogeyman to society; however, I think that the way we talk about Hitler, Nazism and fascism in general is thoroughly counterproductive, certainly to meaningful discussion of them, but also to understanding them. When you reduce Hitler to a demon, to a living embodiment of evil, it becomes impossible to understand how he was able to do what he did. I am in no way asking anybody to excuse the things Hitler did, but it's critically important to remember that Hitler was a human being, and so were those around him. He certainly didn't work alone, so if Hitler was a monster, where do you draw the line? Was everybody in his cabinet a monster as well? Every government employee? Every soldier, every concentration camp guard, every factory worker making war materiel? Everybody who voted for him? Hell, let's pull it back even farther: were the delegates at the treaty of Versailles also monsters, for putting Germany in such a shitty position that electing Hitler seemed like a good idea? These are all questions that can be discussed - although this thread is not the place for them - but my point is that however reprehensible and disgusting his actions may have been, they were the actions of humans. So yes, feel perfectly free to criticize Hitler, but give him the basic level of human decency that every human being deserves, even though he didn't do the same.



Spot on. Everyone gets so carried away with their own limited understanding of history, they think it gives them license to speak ill of anyone they wish because someone in a different country, culture, position of influence, generation, etc did something they would NEVER do... not that they ever had the chance to do it. Demonizing anyone sets up a divide of human v human, which gets us into even messier behaviour. 

Yes, remember the actions of certain individuals but also try to understand them so we can learn from them moving forward. No-one is going to forget what happened, so why insist on bashing someone on the actual day they die? News this big sticks around for at least a week anyway, plenty of time to cash in on the guilty pleasures of being a human, if you really must.


----------



## djentinc (Apr 10, 2013)

Jakke said:


> I think Blair's problem was mainly that he employed Thatcherism, but wasn't as good at doing it.



Excellent! 



Scar Symmetry said:


> Spot on. Everyone gets so carried away with their own limited understanding of history, they think it gives them license to speak ill of anyone they wish because someone in a different country, culture, position of influence, generation, etc did something they would NEVER do... not that they ever had the chance to do it. Demonizing anyone sets up a divide of human v human, which gets us into even messier behaviour.
> 
> Yes, remember the actions of certain individuals but also try to understand them so we can learn from them moving forward. No-one is going to forget what happened, so why insist on bashing someone on the actual day they die? News this big sticks around for at least a week anyway, plenty of time to cash in on the guilty pleasures of being a human, if you really must.



Well said. If people didn't learn from the mistakes of past leaders etc. then we would be stuck in the same loop of problems over and over again.


----------



## Solodini (Apr 10, 2013)

Also, £10 FUCKING MILLION?! FOR A FUCKING FUNERAL?! Such semantics in that it's not a state funeral, apparently. Fuck's sake. Ragin'.


----------



## liamh (Apr 10, 2013)

I've noticed how the people rejoicing and reveling in her death are the same people who were so sanctimonious when it came to the Americans celebrating Osama's death.


----------



## redstone (Apr 10, 2013)

It doesn't change much, she's been dead all her life.


----------



## elrrek (Apr 10, 2013)

http://whydopeoplehatethatcher.com/all

Interesting reading ... and yes, while she did vote in support of the decriminalisation of male homosexuality she was in power when section 28 was created, which sort of negates the previous good will of the previous act!


----------



## Jakke (Apr 10, 2013)

elrrek said:


> http://whydopeoplehatethatcher.com/all
> 
> Interesting reading ... and yes, while she did vote in support of the decriminalisation of male homosexuality she was in power when section 28 was created, which sort of negates the previous good will of the previous act!



Well, there is another way of looking at it. She fought with her party her entire career (what eventually forced her to resign actually), she was never extremely popular with the Tory. As prime minister, you are often forced to follow the party line more closely, as in if the people in the party gets to pissed with you, they can throw you out. 

As she was one of the very few conservative MP:s to vote to legalize homosexuality, this suggests it was not a popular position with the Tory. Have you considered that section 28 was a way of keeping her party off her back?

I'd perhaps consider her votes as MP as more representative of her true feelings, as the party line is not towed as heavily by them.

It's just a thought, and nothing that I can prove in any way. She might have wanted to legalize homosexuality just to create a fabulous slave-race, I have no idea.


----------



## AxeHappy (Apr 10, 2013)

Jakke said:


> She might have wanted to legalize homosexuality just to create a fabulous slave-race, I have no idea.



This would seem to be more in line with the rest of her politics...


----------



## Dan (Apr 10, 2013)

There is a distinct lack of facts here. Let me just show you a small list of the things she did in power, and the reasons why people dislike her:

*
1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands 
10. The poll tax
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War
13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control
18. Section 28
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"
20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany
23. She invented Quangos
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%
31. BSE
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher
37. Black Wednesday &#8211; Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion
38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don&#8217;t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions
42. 21.9% inflation

*I saw the whole situation best worded like this:

_You shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but just because someone is dead it doesnt absolve them of what they did in life. _

Personally, i've seen first hand the effect of Thatchers reign on the north of the UK, i've lived through the Labour goverment trying to clean up the mess that was made and i'm living through the current Conservative government creating JUST as much damage. I won't say i am glad she is dead; but i will say i wish she had never come to power, and i CERTAINLY don't believe she should have a public funeral at the tax payers cost.


----------



## hairychris (Apr 11, 2013)

Urg. Lived through it all, my folks (teachers) knew what was going to happen when she won in '79. They weren't wrong.

Loathed her, and pretty much all that she stood for. Celebrated her death? Not while her policies are still very much alive - but she was a powerful symbol. With this in mind I can completely understand people celebrating as she was so divisive.

@Dan above, not all of that on the list was necessarily her or her govt's fault... but yes - the majority were her views (and views of her govt when in power) so I'm not mourning her memory.

Also New Labour (sound of spitting) continued the majority of Thatcher's economic ideas. PPI and continued privatisation, further deregulation of the banks... Fuck them too.

And her frigging son, Mark? That prick deserves his own place next to her in the hell that I don't believe in.

Slightly OT, but check out what Stewart Jackson (Con MP) has been up to on Twitter. Another clueless gimp.

Oh, and this is a laugh:



Glenda Jackson (ex-actress, current North London MP) brings the pwnage.


----------



## mcd (Apr 11, 2013)

Dan said:


> *There is a distinct lack of facts here*. Let me just show you a small list of the things she did in power, and the reasons why people dislike her:
> 
> *
> 1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
> ...



I have no opinion either way, but you are not providing any source for these facts. Just like any other political debate, it sounds like objective thoughts to me until proof is provided.


No offense intended.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 11, 2013)

mcd said:


> Just like any other political debate, it sounds like *objective *thoughts to me until proof is provided.



Methinks that's the opposite of the word you're searching for.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 11, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Methinks that's the opposite of the word you're searching for.



*Yedi gesture* This is not the word you are looking for...


----------



## khournos (Apr 11, 2013)

Am I the only one, thinking of a certain song from the "Wizard of Oz"?


----------



## Dan (Apr 11, 2013)

mcd said:


> I have no opinion either way, but you are not providing any source for these facts. Just like any other political debate, it sounds like objective thoughts to me until proof is provided.
> 
> 
> No offense intended.



Oh non taken. It's all available online, the reason I didn't add links in is because it made the post farrrrrr too long


----------



## mcd (Apr 11, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Methinks that's the opposite of the word you're searching for.



objective as in how I view it, not how the person stating views it.


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Apr 11, 2013)

.


----------



## Jakke (Apr 11, 2013)

1000 Eyes said:


> haha..Much like "nuance"...no?



Nuance | Define Nuance at Dictionary.com



Exactly the word I was looking for.


----------



## 1000 Eyes (Apr 11, 2013)

Jakke said:


> Nuance | Define Nuance at Dictionary.com
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the word I was looking for.




Yea...I know what it means but I'm still not getting the way you used it..Ive read it a few times now haha. No biggie. Your English is excellent btw.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 11, 2013)

mcd said:


> objective as in how I view it, not how the person stating views it.



Still a little off there. You want "subjective."

EDIT: ie something is _objectively_ true if it's true regardless of who's viewing it, whereas something is _subjectively_ true if its thruthiness (heh) is dependent upon the person viewing it. The person like, say, you.

More or less, anyways. I didn't feel like copypasta-ing the dictionary, haha.


----------



## Dan (Apr 11, 2013)

Can we get back on topic guys? You are as bad as the Tories when it comes to avoiding facts


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Apr 11, 2013)

I wouldn't say the ability to distinguish between objectivity and subjectivity is entirely irrelevant to the topic/tone of this thread .


----------



## djentinc (Apr 11, 2013)

Dan said:


> Can we get back on topic guys? You are as bad as the Tories when it comes to avoiding facts



NO AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU'RE A MARXIST!

Edit: you probably wouldn't have got that joke if you hadn't heard about what Michael Gove and George Osbourn said about people who opposed the education reforms...


----------



## mcd (Apr 11, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Still a little off there. You want "subjective."
> 
> EDIT: ie something is _objectively_ true if it's true regardless of who's viewing it, whereas something is _subjectively_ true if its thruthiness (heh) is dependent upon the person viewing it. The person like, say, you.
> 
> More or less, anyways. I didn't feel like copypasta-ing the dictionary, haha.



Well Ex-fucking-scuse me!


----------



## Jakke (Apr 11, 2013)

Dan said:


> There is a distinct lack of facts here. Let me just show you a small list of the things she did in power, and the reasons why people dislike her:
> 
> *
> 1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
> ...


*

1. There are many politicans who support capital punishment
2. Well, they were not making any money at the time, was she supposed to keep them as charity?
3. Yes, she was a social conservative
4. And the money saved was used to repair school buildings
5. Opinion, some would say that increased freedom is a good thing.
6. So? Wasn't she a politician? As for opening for the National Front, that's an unsupported extrapolation
7. Housing Act of 1980
8. Yes, that was because the unemployment was hidden in unprofitable industrial jobs. When she cut the money pits that this industry was, the true uneployment became visible. It should also be noted that unemployment was falling pretty powerfully by -87.
9. Evidence for this?
10. Yes, that was an unfortunate tax.
11. See my answer to nr. 2. They were not making any money, and the unions decided they were worth sacrificing to win over Thatcher.
12. Yes, we've already established that she was a politician. 
13. Opinion again, many would say that it was a good thing.
14. ^Dito 
15. ^See above, and sources that they cost more money than a state alternative?
16. Opinion
17. Not necessarily a bad thing
18. As I have suggested, this might have been a pass to the Tory, or a slave-grab...
19. She opposed sanctions because she believed that that would make the South African authorities even more heavy handed, she did however demand the end of apartheid, as the rest of the world did. I also hope that you know that Mandela co-founded "Umkhonto we Sizwe", which was a terrorist organization connected to the ANC. Their favoured method of excecution was filling an innner tube with gasoline, putting it around the neck of the victim, then lighting it. 
20. Under heavy pressure from Kissinger, does not excuse it, but explains it.
21. Same as the above, minus Kissinger.
22. I would imagine because she was afraid that the communists would take over East Germany as well.
23. This can also be considered opinion on your part.
24. So? We've got a 25% VAT.
25. And? She had still been elected.
26. I fail to see the problem, isn't her personal life her own?
27. The UK already sold arms to Saudi Arabia. The corruption was unfortunate of course, but harldy something she could be blamed for. Mark could of course have been involved, but western juridical tradition stipulates innocent until prove guilty.
28. Because Pinochet's government had been the only one from South America to stand with her in the Falklands War. It wasn't a good thing to do, but that's politics for you.
29. That is true, but social unrest is not a good way to measure the effectiveness of a government.
30. So?
31. She has said afterwards that she acted to the best of her abilities with the information she had at the time. New information surfaced later, but we can harldy blame her for that, can we?
32. See nr. 8.
33. Evidence for this?
34. Yes, that is usually how it goes. People earning more money usually gets more back in tax remissions if they are similar in size over the board.
35. Which dropped to 8,2% in -82, and continued to drop after that.*


----------



## Dan (Apr 11, 2013)

Rather than go through each numbered point individually (as we could be here all day) i will highlight a few key points from it all. Also can i applaud your counter argument(s), nice to see a healthy debate here 


Firstly, whilst the housing act of 1980 did give council tenants the right to purchase their homes from their respective local authorities, due to the high unemployment rates many simply could not afford such a luxury. Those who did in many cases took out large amounts of credit to complete such a transaction, which in turn has led to the never-ending spiral of detrimental credit use in this country. I'd also like to point out that many wealthy private individuals who had savings and excess cash bought many of these council properties and to this day charge way over the odds for tenants to live in them.
 

Contrary to popular opinion whilst the pits were "not making individuals money" they were however heating the homes of the poor at a cheaper rate and running businesses as a FAR cheaper rate than we pay today. Industries such as shipbuilding were bringing in millions of pounds and keeping people in work. We now live in a state where those lucky enough to still learn these trades can earn you up to £100,000+ a year in countries such as Dubai. Literal BILLIONS of pounds and vital intercontinental trades could have still been created today in this country had she not wiped out a vital part of our economic infrastructure. I'd also like to add if she had not flooded many of the coal mines during her term as prime minister our electricity bills would certainly be lower than they are now, and (then state owned) companies such as BP would more than likely charge a fair amount to the general public as opposed to lining the pockets of foreign investors.
 

The privatisation of state companies has dealt a massive blow to our country. Thatcher had initially hoped that UK businessmen would take over the helm and would employ more UK staff (which in an ideal world would be lovely) but the hard fact of the matter is these businessmen got to where they are through hard sell and cost cutting. If a foreign investor is willing to pay over the odds for their share in a company then they are definitely going to sell up, same applies for if work can be sent offshore at a reduced cost. Mindless privatisation is happening again in our country even today. The current government has just sold off our state funded mountain rescue service, which has been told to cut costs in order to earn more money for their investors as they have just spent a fortune on new helicopters that weren't really necessary. State companies are always better IMHO because they look after the interests of their customer base, the people, rather than making money for shareholders. Maggie didn't share this opinion, and as a result many of the jobs and trades that people would still work in today has been sent to places like India, The Philippines and China because private companies will almost always choose cost over national service.
 

If a VAT is lower then prices will be lower. Why would you want a high VAT when all that tax doesn't go back into your community?
 

Several of the points i mentioned about her having low approval rates and causing civil unrest are in relation to what we are seeing today. Why should the tax payer (most of whom don't wish to pay a penny toward the woman's funeral) fork out for her coffin to be paraded round our nation&#8217;s capital whilst people say how she was the greatest thing to ever come out of Britain? Bottom line is, many people (myself included) feel she did more harm than good, why should we pay over the odds for her funeral? I'm sure she had more than enough money to pay for it herself, and I&#8217;d rather spend that money on improving things like our NHS, our education system and our local heritage funding.
 That's all from me for tonight, i have a train to catch tomorrow  If you'd like me to reply to anything else i will monitor this thread but i may not be able to reply until Monday evening.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 11, 2013)

I feel that way about all political funerals as well. Why is it the tax payers job to pay for their funeral when it cost me 6K to do one for my relatives? The president gets a huge paycheck while in the office, gets a nice retirement plan that goes beyond ridiculous, and they release books that end up putting a large chunk of cash in their pockets. They don't need the help.

For Reagan we paid for the funeral I believe, but even if we didn't they had a day of mourning of which people got paid to not be at work (apparently it is tradition). This includes government jobs which inevitably come out of taxpayers pockets on top of everything else. Reagan would be rolling in his grave .



> But Paul Light, an expert in governmental affairs at New York University, said it was ironic that the administration closed the government for Reagan. "He was relentless in his criticism of fraud, waste and abuse in government and would have looked on a day off for his funeral as a remarkable waste of taxpayer money," Light said.



Something Thatcher can probably relate to. If she were alive organizing her own funeral she probably wouldn't have allowed for them to pay for the funeral (or maybe she's a hypocrite and totally would ).

Taxpayers Take Hit On Reagan Holiday (washingtonpost.com)


----------



## -42- (Apr 12, 2013)

When you type: "I'm glad Margaret Thatcher is dead"

I see something like: "Holy shit am I edgy or what"


----------



## zappatton2 (Apr 13, 2013)

The one good thing I can say about Thatcher (or Reagan for that matter) is that she helped galvanize a pretty awesome punk-rock counter culture. Back when youthful rebellion was about taking down the state! Ah, good times.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Apr 13, 2013)

The more I learn about her, the more I feel my previous post may have been a bit too easy on her. I'm still not going to rejoice in her death, but I'm starting to feel more understanding of those who do.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 13, 2013)

Rook said:


> That was one of the most biased things I think I've ever read. If you want to know about things do your own research rather than reading other people's opinions on it.



Fair enough, although I thought it'd be honorable to hear the viewpoints of people that actually live there and possibly during that administration. I guess I assumed incorrectly that doing so would be preferential to some hack American editorial railing against Thatcher for sole purpose of conservatism. Damn me and my open-mindedness to allow for reasonable counter-arguments. 

If that site is biased, please explain how so. I'm honestly trying to put personal opinions and feelings aside so as to get the whole truth of things and not knee-jerk reactions from both sides of the aisle. Surely that's not a bad thing, right? It would also be nice to stop the facebook rumor mongering and dead bashing if it came to light that in fact Mrs. Thatcher actually was a friend of the gay community and was bullied into making those policies.

Again, I'm trying to be the neutral party here. At least I'm not wantonly bashing the dead because the cool kids are doing it.


----------



## Rook (Apr 14, 2013)

Open mindedness and whatever has nothing to do with it. The source you post just cites quotations from people who immediately identify themselves as having an agenda. Politics, as much now as ever has been, isn't determined entirely by what individuals think and believe about things and its not about saving everyone all the time. If you want to be able to achieve something in a democratic society and you want the relevant support in order to do so you have to win favour with the supporters. Thatcher had shown in perviously non-prime ministerial policies that she wasn't 'anti-gay' and short of a quotation of her saying 'I don't like gay people' I think its unfair to label her as such.

Facts and mine or anybody else's opinions aside and to more directly address your question, that article starts with an assertion then presents other interested-vested individual's opinions that agree with that assertion. The fact that those people were around at the time or in the right place has no bearing.

Besides, it'd be idiotic not to remember that the UK (and the rest of the west) _was_ largely homophobic (how's GRID for the name of a disease?) not to mention racist. It's all context.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 14, 2013)

Man, I hope Jakke and Dan come back. I've really loved watching Crazy Mel Gibson and Sexy Burt Reynolds having a conversation at an intellectual level that I can't help but feel their real-life counterparts couldn't match. 

Closer to topic, I think Jakke's point about Thatcher being beholden to party politics is extremely relevant to any discussion of an individual politician. Here is Aus, the ruling party has a Prime Minister who previously supported gay marriage now ruling against it, a gay finance minister who says gay marriage isn't in the interest of the community (having previously supported it), and the ex-lead singer for Midnight Oil is our education minister, having been moved away from being the environmental minister because after spending thirty years singing about shitty politicians and the environment, it looked a little fishy when he had to stand at a podium and support policies that backed the logging industry.

Personally, I hate party politics. It's an easy way to run a country, but a hard way to give politicians and voters alike genuine freedom of choice in a democracy. Is it possible for us to separate Thatcher's personal views and choices from those of her party?


----------



## Xaios (Apr 15, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> Personally, I hate party politics. It's an easy way to run a country, but a hard way to give politicians and voters alike genuine freedom of choice in a democracy.



This is *very* true. It's frustrating to watch local politicians who I KNOW have personal integrity regarding certain matters being forced to tow the party line, and there's nothing they can do about it. It's true, things get done, but becomes entirely impossible for people within the same party to have a discussion. You have to rely on the opposition (who have their own agenda) to bring up points that need to be talked about, and then it all get swept under the rug in the end anyway.

I guess part of the problem is that, if it doesn't happen, things tend to devolve into regional politics. Instead of politicians fighting for the interests of the party, they're fighting for the interests of the region. While this is technically what they were elected to do, the end result is the same: nothing gets done. EG "My riding of oil tycoons and businessmen wants this pipeline to go ahead," "Well my riding of hippies and environmentalists doesn't." The same thing already happens on a party level anyway.


----------



## Dan (Apr 15, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> Man, I hope Jakke and Dan come back. I've really loved watching Crazy Mel Gibson and Sexy Burt Reynolds having a conversation at an intellectual level that I can't help but feel their real-life counterparts couldn't match.



That sentence made my evening 

I've been in London over the weekend and Jakke is busy researching some facts apparently . We do love a good debate .

In relevant news: Just to make you all aware that the police are to arrest anyone that "upsets mourners" at wednesdays funeral. The whole statement that was made in regards to who exactly should be arrested is VERY vague, and due to the fact that literally THOUSANDS of people showed up to hold a party in Trafalgar Square on saturday evening (i was not present) in the wake of Thatcher's death, it could be interesting what events actually unfold. 

A friend of mine who is a photographer was at Trafalgar on saturday, you can read his post and view his pictures here. Not surprised that none of this was shown on our national TV, even though it is highly newsworthy. But thats a bias media for you i guess 

R A D I O M O T H S

(be advised there are some NSFW pics in there)

My


----------



## Danukenator (Apr 17, 2013)

abandonist said:


> Y'all are so PC on this forum.
> 
> Fuck this horrible witch. I'm actively pleased at her death. It excites me.



Funny how people like you come off as an inarticulate moron while the people that point out the need for sympathy combined with skeptical hindsight sound articulate.


----------



## Rook (Apr 17, 2013)

Dan said:


> That sentence made my evening
> 
> I've been in London over the weekend and Jakke is busy researching some facts apparently . We do love a good debate .
> 
> ...



Police don't need to tell you a reason they might arrest people for whatever reason, that's what 'breach of the peace' is.

'Im arresting you because I don't want you here/don't like you/whatever other reason', you can be held for 24 hours without charge if you're arrested for breach of the peace.

And anyway, define upsetting. People are out to mourn the death of a human being, regardless of how you feel about them you don't have the right to actively go out with the soul wish to cause those people distress. Not in this country at least, and rightly so, otherwise we'd have our own Westboro Baptist Church having the right to storm the funerals of soldiers etc. Protest to the government, not your peers.


----------



## Dan (Apr 17, 2013)

Rook said:


> Police don't need to tell you a reason they might arrest people for whatever reason, that's what 'breach of the peace' is.
> 
> 'Im arresting you because I don't want you here/don't like you/whatever other reason', you can be held for 24 hours without charge if you're arrested for breach of the peace.
> 
> And anyway, define upsetting. People are out to mourn the death of a human being, regardless of how you feel about them you don't have the right to actively go out with the soul wish to cause those people distress. Not in this country at least, and rightly so, otherwise we'd have our own Westboro Baptist Church having the right to storm the funerals of soldiers etc. Protest to the government, not your peers.



That last sentence, "Protest to the government, not your peers": The protests across the country have been protesting to the government. Thatcher was once the head of the government and a vast number of people in this country don't believe that 10 million pounds should have been spent on the funeral of a woman who in the eyes of many destroyed much of what was great about Britains industry. 

We've just had £11.6 million "unavoidable" arts funding cuts for this year, yet we can spent £10 million on the public funeral of a woman that many people actually detested. What is fair about that?

I fully agree that causing distress at a funeral is wrong, however with such strong opinions against her i believe she should have had a private funeral, and should not have been paraded around the capital like she was the greatest thing to have ever happened to our country.

Lastly police do need to explain what they are arresting someone for, there should ALWAYS be a reason with which to arrest someone in the first place; otherwise any police officer could just arrest anyone simply because they felt like it. There is a difference between breach of the peace and freedom of speech and expression. 

If someone is arrested for turning their back on a parade to a woman they feel caused more harm than help, and it upsets people who never even knew that woman, how can it be classed as disturbing the peace? It's a peaceful protest in my opinion given the nature of the funeral. It all boils down to opinion and taste at the end of the day.


----------



## GatherTheArsenal (Apr 17, 2013)

I only just found out who this person Margaret Thatcher is only after she died, if i didn't see her name in the news i wouldn't know who she is, surprisingly, because it doesn't exactly sound like she was living under a rock or anything.

I wonder if the same thing happened to Tupac.


----------



## Rook (Apr 18, 2013)

Dan said:


> That last sentence, "Protest to the government, not your peers": The protests across the country have been protesting to the government. Thatcher was once the head of the government and a vast number of people in this country don't believe that 10 million pounds should have been spent on the funeral of a woman who in the eyes of many destroyed much of what was great about Britains industry.
> 
> We've just had £11.6 million "unavoidable" arts funding cuts for this year, yet we can spent £10 million on the public funeral of a woman that many people actually detested. What is fair about that?
> 
> ...



You're missing the point, it wasn't my opinion, 'breach of the peace' exists basically so a policeman can arrest you, or at the very least move you away from a scene purely because they want to. It _is_ their explanation.

And you argue with my point of not protesting and picketing at people who do want to mourn rather than the government like its wrong then appear to agree. I'm not sang people have been provoking mourners, my point was if those were people's intentions then they _should_ be warned/moved on/whatever else.

Many people feel just as strongly in favour of Thatcher as you do against, I'd say more people do but as ever it's the passionate negative people that shout louder. That's fine, you think whatever you want to think, I'm not here to argue that or your right to think it, but the perception of the woman's actual popularity is somewhat skewed by the more passionate people not in favour of her.

As a side, £11m in cuts is nothing, as is £10m on a funeral in this economy. The national budget deals with with figures 3, 4 even 5 orders of magnitude higher. And this is coming from someone who - despite my slightly more in-favour stance toward the woman - doesn't think the funeral was entirely appropriate.


----------



## Dan (Apr 18, 2013)

Rook said:


> You're missing the point, it wasn't my opinion, 'breach of the peace' exists basically so a policeman can arrest you, or at the very least move you away from a scene purely because they want to. It _is_ their explanation.
> 
> And you argue with my point of not protesting and picketing at people who do want to mourn rather than the government like its wrong then appear to agree. I'm not sang people have been provoking mourners, my point was if those were people's intentions then they _should_ be warned/moved on/whatever else.
> 
> ...




There has to be a reasonable explanation to use the term "breach of the peace" though. That is what i'm trying to get at. Wikipedia (and i hate to use this website as a source, but alas) states:

_"The power to arrest for a breach of the Peace is usually used to remove violent, potentially violent or provocative offenders (it is not necessary for the offender himself to be physically involved in any violence) from a scene rapidly, in Bibby V Chief Constable of Essex it was also used when a person in the opinion of a Constable was likely to be the victim of a breach of the peace or an act of violence"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace#cite_note-5_

Being annoyed and voicing your opinion on a *public* funeral that according to our current government we shouldn't physically be able to afford is in no way a breach of the peace. To remove someone based on this alone is more a gagging order. 

Put the boot on the other foot: say someone is (any many are) physically distressed at the fact that Thatcher is being paraded around London like some war hero. Is that not a breach of the peace in itself?

I am trying to be as impartial as possible about this, and certainly i believe we have conflicting viewpoints. I'm well aware that many people were in favour of Thatcher's policies and what she did for our country, but then again when you look at many of the points i brought forward in earlier posts and the response to her death you can't avoid the fact that maybe some of what she did affected people in a negative way, and they should be free to voice their feelings.

Passion like that is only brought on by actual dislike, real emotion because it has affected someone's personal everyday life, not just because she was just another prime minister. I personally don't believe more people favoured her, i simply believe a lot of people don't care because they weren't affected by her or don't know what she did. 

Out of curiosity have you ever ventured to any of the once lucrative mining. shipbuilding and industry driven towns that were affected during the Thatcher government? If not i implore you to do so, and ask those that were affected personally why they feel the way they do.

As a final note, just to make you aware, i come from an arts background, i have many friends who look to the arts council to help fund community projects and pay their wages. I can tell you for a fact that £11.6 million pounds *IS* a lot of money, regardless of what the big picture is. That money could have gone to funding someones future or livelyhood, it could have taught someone skills for life or it could have created something beautiful for potential millions to enjoy. 

How would you like it if your working wage was cut in half at least, and you we're told... "you aren't looking at the bigger picture, nothing we can do, the money is going to go towards a big funeral instead"




£11.6million pounds could have paid 9180 people for a basic rate job working 36 hours a week in this current economy.


----------



## Rook (Apr 18, 2013)

If I could get government funding and become a musician for the rest of my life you bet I would, but it's not a right it's a privilege like everything else, and instead I'm paying to become an engineer instead.

And I come from a mining family


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 20, 2013)

Rook said:


> If I could get government funding and become a musician for the rest of my life you bet I would, but it's not a right it's a privilege like everything else, and instead I'm paying to become an engineer instead.
> 
> And I come from a mining family



Well, that depends on the country and your definition of the term "right". Early political ideologists debated the balance of rights / responsibilities, and it's at the heart of every democracy that exists today. As long as you live a life that fulfils your responsibilities to the State (paying taxes, voting if bound by law, not pimping out your pets to the local weirdo, etc), then you are entitled to every right that the State is bound by Constitutional / Parliamentary law to provide, including welfare. For example, I was in the workforce for ten years, and paid a high level of tax at some jobs, so I don't feel remotely bad about receiving welfare as a student, knowing that on some days I'm just recording music at home and receiving government benefits to do so. In this sense, it's not a privilege - it's a right. And as a law-abiding, past-and-future tax paying, voting, volunteering, citizen, I've 'earned' that right through my participation in society.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 20, 2013)

Dan said:


> A friend of mine who is a photographer was at Trafalgar on saturday, you can read his post and view his pictures here. Not surprised that none of this was shown on our national TV, even though it is highly newsworthy. But thats a bias media for you i guess
> 
> R A D I O M O T H S
> 
> (be advised there are some NSFW pics in there)



It's a really interesting gallery to scroll through, but the text is, for me, almost surreal. I've never really thought about crowd interaction at a big social public event like that, having never attended anything of the sort. The descriptions of people just kind of yelling at each other, running off to Tesco for wine to bring back to the crowd, masks and signs and swearing - it gives a totally different impression than what I saw on the news. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Jakke (Apr 20, 2013)

Ok, sorry for my tardiness, and apologies to all.




Dan said:


> Rather than go through each numbered point individually (as we could be here all day) i will highlight a few key points from it all. Also can i applaud your counter argument(s), nice to see a healthy debate here
> 
> 
> Firstly, whilst the housing act of 1980 did give council tenants the right to purchase their homes from their respective local authorities, due to the high unemployment rates many simply could not afford such a luxury. Those who did in many cases took out large amounts of credit to complete such a transaction, which in turn has led to the never-ending spiral of detrimental credit use in this country. I'd also like to point out that many wealthy private individuals who had savings and excess cash bought many of these council properties and to this day charge way over the odds for tenants to live in them.


 
This is quite true, and of course regrettable for anyone who is in favour of even a slight redistribution of wealth (which is everyone minus Penn and Teller). I would however like to point you to that this overburdening of credit happened in all of Europe, which resulted in the crash in the late 90's in Sweden. Actually, this sort of crash was brought on by a financial bubble, which was particularly prevalent in nations with strong social security nets (such as GB and Sweden). To be the devil's advocate (since I am in favour of a quite strong welfare state), increased privatization might actually save-guard against a crash of that kind. It did however not help against the last one



Dan said:


> Contrary to popular opinion whilst the pits were "not making individuals money" they were however heating the homes of the poor at a cheaper rate and running businesses as a FAR cheaper rate than we pay today. Industries such as shipbuilding were bringing in millions of pounds and keeping people in work. We now live in a state where those lucky enough to still learn these trades can earn you up to £100,000+ a year in countries such as Dubai. Literal BILLIONS of pounds and vital intercontinental trades could have still been created today in this country had she not wiped out a vital part of our economic infrastructure. I'd also like to add if she had not flooded many of the coal mines during her term as prime minister our electricity bills would certainly be lower than they are now, and (then state owned) companies such as BP would more than likely charge a fair amount to the general public as opposed to lining the pockets of foreign investors.



I don't generally like to deal in what-ifs.. It's true that it might very well have turned out like you describe, but it's far from certain that it would. Yes, they were running cheaper than they do today, but today the industry that's left turns a profit, in the olden days of Thatcher, GB was losing money. So even if they did operate cheaper, it was still more expensive to keep 'em. The argument that they were heating homes is not really a valid one to me, as heating can be obtained from profitable sources (burning garbage like we do, for example. Not to honk our own horns, of course)




Dan said:


> The privatisation of state companies has dealt a massive blow to our country. Thatcher had initially hoped that UK businessmen would take over the helm and would employ more UK staff (which in an ideal world would be lovely) but the hard fact of the matter is these businessmen got to where they are through hard sell and cost cutting. If a foreign investor is willing to pay over the odds for their share in a company then they are definitely going to sell up, same applies for if work can be sent offshore at a reduced cost. Mindless privatisation is happening again in our country even today. The current government has just sold off our state funded mountain rescue service, which has been told to cut costs in order to earn more money for their investors as they have just spent a fortune on new helicopters that weren't really necessary. State companies are always better IMHO because they look after the interests of their customer base, the people, rather than making money for shareholders. Maggie didn't share this opinion, and as a result many of the jobs and trades that people would still work in today has been sent to places like India, The Philippines and China because private companies will almost always choose cost over national service.



And I agree with this, outsourcing and cost-cutting is a serious problem.



Dan said:


> If a VAT is lower then prices will be lower. Why would you want a high VAT when all that tax doesn't go back into your community?



My spontanious reaction would be "to make use of it in other places of the realm" (I think the british thing is rubbing off on me... ).




Dan said:


> Several of the points i mentioned about her having low approval rates and causing civil unrest are in relation to what we are seeing today. Why should the tax payer (most of whom don't wish to pay a penny toward the woman's funeral) fork out for her coffin to be paraded round our nation&#8217;s capital whilst people say how she was the greatest thing to ever come out of Britain? Bottom line is, many people (myself included) feel she did more harm than good, why should we pay over the odds for her funeral? I'm sure she had more than enough money to pay for it herself, and I&#8217;d rather spend that money on improving things like our NHS, our education system and our local heritage funding.



Well, the same argument can be done for any political leader. There is always going to be subsections of the population who don't want to pay for a particular leader's funeral. Because of this, I personally think that it should be afforded everyone, or no one


----------



## flint757 (Apr 20, 2013)

My vote is for no one personally.


----------



## Dan (Apr 21, 2013)

About Time Jakke , i wondered where you had wondered off to!

1. I'm more than happy for the redistribution of weath, but you first need money to make money. The average Joe can't buy a house till they have saved for a mortgage, but many people who couldn't afford to purchase their house missed out because those who were weathy could buy in bulk. Large unemployment cuts meant that people had to tighten their purse strings. To keep an economy going you have to keep spending money, it's a major reason why we are in the financial situation we are in now. The media told us that there was no money left and it pretty much ground public spending to a halt. 

2. Common misconception about industry not turning a profit. It actually was, which is why many ship building contracts were bought out by overseas and eventually made hideous amounts of profit. There are figures (which i will hunt out later for you) to support this, especially in the north of the country. I will admit that companies NEEDED to be smarter about their expenditure and DID have to cut costs in some departments, however on the whole things like flooding mines will be a really bad idea in the long run as it could potentially have been a lucrative form of obtaining fuel today.

Without sounding too left wing and opinionated my personal belief is that during this time the wealth of the nation was shifting and even out between the south and the north of the country. This won't have been to the liking of everyone. 

I agree something needed to be done in order to create further wealth for the country (such as burning rubbish as you mentioned) but people with money and shares will always be bias toward their own interests.

3. I'd really like to know where they are making use of the extra VAT. We pay tax on pretty much everything nowadays and while out cost of living and expenses rise our paychecks have been either cut or frozen. It really doesn't help that our chancellor of the exchequer is a pompus idiot who blames everyone but himself and his policies for the current "unavoidable" mess we are in (once again opinion Rook ), we need someone to look at the facts and the interests of the people.

4. I only believe that state funerals should be for someone who is genuinely loved by most/all. The Queen mother was 101 when she died, she was a real inspiration for many women in the first world war and not even she had big ben turned off for her funeral. Same with Princess Dianna. The last time was for Winston Churchill who actually _is_ a national treasure and brought the country together during the second world war rather than leaving a bitter taste in its mouth. 

I know once again that this is opinion, and i'm fully aware that many feel different about this, but its the sheer magniture of the funeral even though there was HUGE protest about it. It's over and done with now, but i'd rather the money that was spent should have gone to employing nearly 10k people for the year (as noted in my previous post). She obviously had the money to pay for such an expense herself, i mean she died in a permenant room in the Ritz for crying out loud, but then again all her wealth will be inherited won't it. Circle of wealth.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 21, 2013)

IMO State funerals shouldn't exist. Everyone you mentioned had the cash to pay for their own funeral even if they were beloved. If they needed cash to make the funeral a national phenomenon then they should take donations or something otherwise we enter very subjective territory as you don't want Thatchers funeral to be state funded yet she was in fact liked by many people.


----------



## Dan (Apr 22, 2013)

flint757 said:


> IMO State funerals shouldn't exist. Everyone you mentioned had the cash to pay for their own funeral even if they were beloved. If they needed cash to make the funeral a national phenomenon then they should take donations or something otherwise we enter very subjective territory as you don't want Thatchers funeral to be state funded yet she was in fact liked by many people.



When its worded like that i have to agree a little  There should be a clause that voids us from paying state funerals of people we don't like haha.

Also, whilst i'm not one to complain about neg rep as everyone is entitled to their own opinion of me; Whoever chose to do so on this topic please bring your counter argument on wealth distribution to the table , i'd like to hear your point of view and why you believe i am wrong. There's no need for anonymity here.


----------



## mcd (Apr 23, 2013)

Dan said:


> Also, whilst i'm not one to complain about neg rep as everyone is entitled to their own opinion of me; Whoever chose to do so on this topic please bring your counter argument on wealth distribution to the table , i'd like to hear your point of view and why you believe i am wrong. There's no need for anonymity here.



My bust dude, I usually sign my neg rep. Thought I signed yours too



Dan said:


> 1. I'm more than happy for the redistribution of weath, but you first need money to make money. The average Joe can't buy a house till they have saved for a mortgage, but many people who couldn't afford to purchase their house missed out because those who were weathy could buy in bulk. Large unemployment cuts meant that people had to tighten their purse strings. *To keep an economy going you have to keep spending money*, it's a major reason why we are in the financial situation we are in now. The media told us that there was no money left and it pretty much ground public spending to a halt.



I agree that money should be spent, and spent wisely to help stimulate economies. The problem we face here in the US is we don't spend money, we PRINT money. That's a huge aspect of why our economy is in the tube. The more we print the less its worth, and the more we owe back to the banks.

As for distribution of wealth, I do believe that the super elite and wealthy get an easier life and can afford to research the loop holes for taxation. Leaving the middle class in America holding the bag. I believe everyone should pay their fair share. However, I also believe we are taxed WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too much, so redistribution of wealth through more taxes wouldn't help. 

I also don't like the idea of redistribution due to the fact that I worked way to hard for my money, and if I want to use it to help someone that is my choice, not the governments. I'm also against a hole cornucopia of social programs.

but that's another topic


----------



## Dan (Apr 23, 2013)

No worries dude!  Pleased to see you got back to me 

I totally understand where you are coming from with your point. It's a little different in the UK as we aren't printing as much money, it's more the newspapers told everyone to stop spending as we would have no money and as a result spending took a major dip, leaving many businesses to go bust and harming out economy.

What i meant by redistribution of wealth was to give those who have a chance to make more money the abillity to do so. We don't have this in our current climate and jobs are being taken away due to privatisation rather than being created to help our national economy grow. 

What we have at the moment in the UK is the rich getting richer by buying up every state company they can get their hands on and turning a profit as quickly as possible. This has been shown already in the buying out of the NHS's maintenance and cleaning departments and our mountain rescue teams. Both areas have had job cuts and IMHO useless "management" roles implimented to save as much money for the shareholders as possible. 

This i believe is the wrong way to go about it. New areas and new jobs should be created to further boost our economy, not attempting to poorly fix what isn't broken.

I don't wish for more money to be taken from hard earning tax payers who already pay more than their share toward public and state services. I want to government to stop thinking of their own best interests and spend our hard earned tax money of creating a more stable and economocally feasible society that future generations will be able to benefit from. 

Hope thats cleared up my thought pattern


----------



## vansinn (Apr 23, 2013)

A quite interesting article about her 'inspirations', the policies she implemented and the fallouts, lasting to present day and beyond (nwo all over the place):
PressTV - Margaret Thatcher and the decline of West

Her departure is no regret for me; I just mostly wonder how on earth it can be wonderful having such an abominative career, even though a wanted one, only to fade into dement and not even be able to remember it all.
Puts a somewhat different light on the term selling one's soul to the devil in return for eternal life.
She's gone all right; lets for a change hope rebirth doesn't work in this case..


----------



## Solodini (Apr 24, 2013)

Interesting read, thanks.


----------



## Rook (Apr 24, 2013)

estabon37 said:


> Well, that depends on the country and your definition of the term "right". Early political ideologists debated the balance of rights / responsibilities, and it's at the heart of every democracy that exists today. As long as you live a life that fulfils your responsibilities to the State (paying taxes, voting if bound by law, not pimping out your pets to the local weirdo, etc), then you are entitled to every right that the State is bound by Constitutional / Parliamentary law to provide, including welfare. For example, I was in the workforce for ten years, and paid a high level of tax at some jobs, so I don't feel remotely bad about receiving welfare as a student, knowing that on some days I'm just recording music at home and receiving government benefits to do so. In this sense, it's not a privilege - it's a right. And as a law-abiding, past-and-future tax paying, voting, volunteering, citizen, I've 'earned' that right through my participation in society.



I'm not even gunna go into how many ways I disagree with you 

I'm gunna assume you were in favour of the student protests?


----------



## Dan (Apr 24, 2013)

Rook said:


> I'm not even gunna go into how many ways I disagree with you
> 
> I'm gunna assume you were in favour of the student protests?




I was , but i didn't approve of both the student response or the bias (and scarce) media coverage on it. Education should be free to all who wish to better themselves. That's an entirely different topic though .

God help us when we go for this pint Rook....


----------

