Last night we learned the sad news that Baroness
Margaret Thatcher died. Love her or loathe her
one could not ignore her. She became prime minister
of the United Kingdom in 1979. She was the first
woman to hold the post and served longer as prime
minister than any Briton of the 1900s. She was a
politician to be reckoned with.

May she Rest in Peace.

a conviction politician if their was ever one.

Yes, Dame Thatcher was a great lady.

She paved the way for many other female politicians to get up the courage to take on the boys clubs that were ( and continue to be to a certain extent) so prolific in politics around the world.

She was also a role model for how to be a really tough politician and party leader for all the male politicians too.... extremely tough!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHQLQ1Rc_Js

But I think it's a fairly safe bet that even Maggie Thatcher will turn into a top bloke after death... it seems to have started already.

Cheers,

Tony

How m any of us remember the woman.
How many lived as adults duriung her reign?
I remember the destruction of England,s working class.
The fleeing to search for jobs all over the world.
I know some giving had to be done, by unions.
But what is the purpose of an economy?
Is the quest to create wealth able to ride on the back of whole under classes.
My thoughts about the woman do not change, blind and uncaring to the impacts of her life time wish, to be not the Grocers daughter, but upper class, I continue to loath her.

Lexi, you are to be congratulated for starting this thread with compassion and balance.

That said I feel genuine shame for the way much of our media, including the ABC, our ALP politicians and trade union officials have publicly vilified, spat bile, rewritten history and attempted to destroy the legacy a genuine leader of stature.

For this, as an Australian I am deeply ashamed and offer my humble apologies to a nation that has lost its way from a nation that has now also lost its way.

I have scoured the coverage of the deaths of leaders and former leaders from across the world’s political spectrum and can find nothing as vile as the current commentary, even from opposing ideologies. Even Kim Yung Ill got a better international eulogy.

Maggie’s death appears to have presented the opportunity for many of our higher profile public figures to shed their closet socialist profiles and “come out”.

The majority of the negative commentators were not even born in that era, have never lived in the UK and know nothing of recent European political history. So what could possibly be the origins of such hatred?

My conclusions are that these commentators have simply adopted the opinions of others, it is pure ideological zealotry. This is an indication that western democracies and in particular our public institutions, have shifted by stealth much further to the left than we may have realised. Maggie was instrumental in the destruction of Soviet Socialism, she defended Britain from the excesses of the creeping UN/EU brand of socialism and won three elections in her own right from the British electorate.

Of all the world’s post WWII leaders, Maggie was the most successful against socialism. We know this because the socialists in our midst our telling us so.

The only good I see coming out of this is that the Socialism in our midst has exposed itself for all of us to observe and it is ugly. It has also converted Maggie into a symbolic icon of everything socialism despises most, democracy.

RIP Maggie

Under the Labour government, Britain was propping up the inefficient state owned, union controlled industries that were bleeding the country to death. Thatcher was the only person with the guts to make the tough decisions, and essentially stopped subsidizing these dinosaurs.

The short term pain of unemployment forced people to become entrepreneurs and Britain changed to a dynamic economic power house that was the envy of most of Europe.

Belly I have an internet mate who was a mechanic at a UK Morris dealer from just before Maggy. He tells that one of his jobs was to take the gear box out of every new car coming from the factory, to check it for nuts or bolts intentionally placed in them during production, by your working class, to sabotage the vehicle.

They wanted to cause harm to their employer, & did not give a damn who they hurt in the process. Then they had the hide to bitch when the companies closed down, & they were out of a job.

Are those people the "working class" you support?

I also have a mate who was one of the engineers who developed a new system of underground mining in Lithgow NSW. This dramatically increased the efficiency & productivity of those mines, extending their lives by at least 35 years. This kept miners in jobs, & Lithgow a prosperous working town, for an extra 35 years.

The mine managers in the UK, in their nationalized loss making mines, contracted for the Lithgow engineers to introduce their system to some mines in the UK to extend their lives, & reduce their crippling losses.

He found the inefficiency & feather bedding so bad that the coal was costing 4 times its sale price to produce. The unions refused to cooperate, & simply went on strike, for months.

These idiots & their decedents are still bitching that Maggy closed the mines. It was cheaper to keep these bludgers on welfare, than try to keep their industry going against their continued obstruction. Don't blame Maggy, blame the union leadership who promoted the stupidity.

As I said elsewhere, god don't we need a Maggie in Oz today.

Here's a point of view.

http://www.alternet.org/world/singer-morrisseys-scathing-letter-public-about-margaret-thatcher-terror-without-atom-humanity

One with which I pretty much concur.

We all are fated to die, and everyone's death diminishes us all. We are all connected to one another, and another human is no more. Margaret Thatcher was a compelling woman who didn't want to recognise our connection to other human beings. I remember her saying, "There is no such thing as society." There is such a thing, and I hope that most people will not deny our connection to others.

blind and uncaring to the impacts of her life time wish..
Belly,
It'll be interesting to see what you'll write when it's big Goaf's turn.

It is a measure of some that they are so self-indulgent and selfish in their hate to vie to be the first to launch disgraceful attacks before undertaker can prepare the body for burial.

They would give carrion eaters a bad name.

This was another human being. She had people who loved her too. She served as she best could.

At least a massive stroke was a more merciful end for this purposeful leader of a proud democracy.

Spindoc! what a truly good name for you.
You however should know better.
Your thread targets the very right, consider it!
To an opinion other than yours.
And BLACKENS such as me.
Death does not change us, the product of unwed parents remains that even after death.
I along with millions around the world, continue to know of the acts against a whole class, to understand the refugees from her Briton, just to get work.
While at home their skilled construction jobs went to under paid unskilled Laborers.
I CELEBRATE her former conservative party members, for seeing the damage of the poll tax, and dumping the unpleasant woman, and shed no tiers for her today.

A compelling article on the Thatcher era by Russell Brand:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher

Save it, onthebeach......If the woman had had an ounce of true humanity, I would repay it in kind.....

She didn't.

Ah yes Poirot, Morrissey?

You seem to forget that some of us might just have lived in the UK when Steven Morrissey was around.

“His forthright and often contrarian opinions also attracted media attention for his advocacy of vegetarianism and animal rights”. Why didn’t you get a reference from the Argentineans, it would have been slightly more valid.

A talented musician, an opinionated activist adopted by the activist media and despised within the music industry. I met him once at a gig at the old “Spinning Wheel” in Manchester. A more obnoxious cretin you could not wish to meet.

I wonder sometimes Poirot, if you ever think about the links you post or are you also a vegetarian, contrarian animal rights activist whose opinion of Maggie is based upon an adopted opinion? Your perception is contrary to three election victories delivered by the British electorate. I guess you can always try to tell the British they were also wrong.

No? Thought not.

I really do worry about you sometimes. Well perhaps not sometimes but often, well OK, to tell you the truth, not at all. It’s just that sometimes I think someone close to you should worry

Yada, yada, yada, spindoc.....

So was Morrissey the only person to ever raise anti-Thatcher views?

I thought his closing line summed it up well - although Russell Brand's article is far more thoughtful and pertinent.

Mate, I think you'd have cause to worry about me if I was more like Thatcher, resplendent in a sterile barren-hearted view of human community.

It's hard to quantify a person like her....but over the proceeding few weeks, I'm sure many will try.

The prize for truly bad form would have to go to human headline Bob Carr, who as Australia's Foreign Minister couldn't wait to play the racism card, sinking his boot into the warm corpse.

Now is the time for bereavement and respect for the liong serving ex-leader of Britain.

PM Julia Gillard would once again have been embarrassed by Bob Carr.

<Australia's first female prime minister Julia Gillard says Margaret Thatcher created history in the United Kingdom with her stronger leadership.

Baroness Thatcher, 87, died following a stroke on Monday.

She was British prime minister from 1979 to 1990.

"Her service as the first female prime minister of the United Kingdom was a history-making achievement," Ms Gillard said in a statement from China on Monday.

"Her strength of conviction was recognised by her closest supporters and her strongest opponents.

"I extend my sincere condolences and those of my fellow Australians to her family and friends.">

Some here could take their lead from Julia Gillard. It is not the time for spiteful abuse. There are years later to play politics.

My only comment on the shopkeeps daughter...
Negus from dragon slayer to slain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3fFCucvf40

the socialist and trade union apologist simply hate that they can't produce a competent leader let alone woman leader. Look at the long list of corrupt or failed trade unionist who suck the public purse and have given nothing back to society. How that hate a woman who stood up to the rotton socialist and called a spade a spade. The vile prostitute on Q & A slagging off at Thatcher just shows how self righteous yet putried their brand is.

Hugo Young, Margaret Thatcher's biographer
wrote:

"Thatcher is remembered for her achievements, but
more than that, for a presence - she became a
phenomenon. A supremely self-confident leader -
she cared little if people liked her. She wanted
to win - but didn't put much faith in the quick
smile. This is a political style that has
disappeared from view..."

"Respected, viewed with awe, a conviction politician.
Her unforgettable presence - her policy achievements -
she was prepared to take risks ... she had a severity
of will."

As the old adage states:

"To practice what you preach and to maintain your
integrity you need to have strong convictions in your
beliefs and ideas."

Baroness Margaret Thatcher had that in spades.

Rest In Peace.

Poirot,

<<So was Morrissey the only person to ever raise anti-Thatcher views?>

No, there were many other contrarian celebrity opinionates who also attracted media attention for their advocacy of vegetarianism and animal rights” who publicly voiced their opinions of Maggie. What has that to do with your adopted opinion from Morrissey versus the British public?

The issues you fail to address is why, in your opinion, should we accept the views of a few such celebrity cretins against the overwhelming views of the British electorate over three elections?

You can yada, yada, yada as much as you like but sixth form juvenile adoption of a “Pop Stars” political view cuts no mustard with the British electorate.

What would you actually like to say to the British? Let me know as I can send a letter to the editor in the UK newspapers and see what sort of response your views get from them.

I'm sorry I asked that question because we all know on OLO that you won't answer the issues you have raised.But hey! Who cares about OLO when you are POIROT?

spindoc,

I don't really care.

I didn't like Thatcher's style and I've said so.

So what?

There are myriad pubic personalities in this world. Some appeal to me and some don't.

She's one who didn't.

No big deal - just an opinion and a couple of links.

It's a bit hypocritical for the same people who continually slag off at Gillard to complain about spiteful remarks made about Thatcher.

Of course, that should be "public".

You really think so Wobbley?

Thacher saved & rebuilt a country, not destroyed a country & sent it broke.

If Thacher said I will do something, you had better believe it was about to be done, & done properly.

She kept her promises.

Yes Poirot, I do understand.

I understand that you are walking backwards so fast you are about to go over the cliff.

You did not know Maggie, you knew nothing of her policies, what she was trying to fix, what was happening in Europe or how the British were feeling about things, which is wildly contradictory to your perspective.

But that’s OK because no cognitive skills are required to adopt someone else’s ideological hissy fits.

Can you please go back to your little book of “mean comments from other people of everyone you are supposed to hate”, and find the next sentence you are required to utter.

You will find some interesting stuff in the section headed, “Thoughts from the Great Political Minds of the Drug Induced Paranoia of the 1980’s Pop Group Intelligencia”

Many thanks in anticipation and please let us know when you become capable of original thought.

I know, I know, somebody really does love you.

Hi there LEXI...

Thank you for your evocative words on this most worthy topic of yours. As usual, you have such a lovely turn of phrase that, that personally I find it difficult to follow up with anything nearly as elegant as your words.

BELLY ol' chap, I hope you're well ? Your comments relating to the many workers losing their jobs, as a consequence of the policies of Mrs Thatcher. Her main protagonists were the Mining Unions NOT the miners themselves. The head honcho of that particular union, a gentleman by the name of Arthur Scarsdale, was both a dedicated thug and a standover man, who occasioned some dreadful 'punishments' to those he determined as 'scabs' all in the name of union unity.

These punishments were so diabolical in their execution, both police and even the military had to spread the word to 'ease up' or else ? After all, it was just an Industrial Dispute, not a IRA attack ?

How do I know I you may well ask ? You recall me speaking sometime ago BELLY, of training I did with the RUC, Ulster ? Well back then, it also involved personnel deployed from 21 Sqn, SAS Hereford. Several of them had recounted to me, directions they'd received to interdict the activities of unions with their threats of violence, and actual violence.

For some political expediency, apparently it had been determined it should be removed from the usual purview of the various county constabularies, and was subsequently allocated as an additional remit for the Army to undertake ?

So serious and protracted was the miners strike, it was perceived as an actual threat to the fiscal stability of the United Kingdom. Many striking miners, wished to return to work, but the hard core executive and Scarsdale said no ! Many miner and his family were virtually staving, but NOT the union executive ? By all accounts this Arthur Scarsdale was a real piece of work !

to understand the refugees from her Briton, just to get work.
Belly,
You mean workers like those at Holden right here in Australia ? The ones who believed their unions would help them get better conditions ??

Wobbles>> It's a bit hypocritical for the same people who continually slag off at Gillard to complain about spiteful remarks made about Thatcher<<

Exactly right Wobbs.

Wobbles, >> It's a bit hypocritical for the same people who continually slag off at Gillard to complain about spiteful remarks made about Thatcher<<

What does lack principle is to deliberately misquote, making things up as you have done. That is to lie.

If you go back to my post you will see that I criticised two things:

- first, those who are falling over themselves to say disgusting things while the family and nation is so recently bereaved and in mourning. Good taste alone should preclude that tacky behaviour; and

- Secondly, Foreign Minister Carr, who who fell over his own feet and contradicted what his own PM was saying in his indecent haste to play the racism card while the body was still warm. Carr is a loose cannon.

Now what about answering those points instead of making up your own as a scurrilous Strawman argument to score a point?

Yes, RIP Maggie.

spindoc,

What is your problem?

You're the one having a hissy fit and throwing personal insults because I had the temerity to criticise Mrs Thatcher.

My opinion - so what?

Get over it, mate, there are plenty of Maggie Thatcher fans on this thread to soothe your fevered brow.

It's not as if you don't cast aspersions like confetti yourself whenever the mood takes you.

.

spindoc,

If you are curious as to my aversion to Thatcher's policies and her legacy - then this might help.

https://theconversation.com/thatcher-pinochet-and-the-legacy-of-class-warfare-13342

See you on another thread.

Hey Spindoc,

You’re rather harsh on Poirot there.

Sorry, Moz is different from the others. He voted England’s Number Two living Icon afterall (ahead of Paul McCartney). And what other group besides the Smiths ever had a symposium done on them? Why do they call Los Angeles “Moz Angeles”. He particularly has a huge following among the Hispanics.

He is the only artist (not really celeb) that speaks his mind and couldn’t give a furk about the consequences. He hates careerists. Please name any others that couldn’t give a toss about their precious career and actually speak out on issues? He has loads of credibility and there are loads of people who actually need this man.
And Morrissey never does drugs. Got that!

Moz being such a sensitive soul, he must have picked something up from you at the “Spinning Wheel”. I’ve read other stories that differ to the reaction he gave to you. The latest was helping an elderly woman in a New York bookstore. He totally connects with people, as you know.

The English just seem to love BULLIES, just like Oliver Cromwell who was apparently voted in the top 3 of England’s favorite heroes. I’d say with two people of Irish heritage in the top three Living Icons there is poetic justice going on.

“There is no such thing as society” as Maggie said. Yes, she had conviction for sure and was no promoter of world peace.

Here’s a couple of articles on Argentina's reaction:
The ARA General Belgrano was an Argentine Navy cruiser which was controversially sunk by a British submarine during the 1982 Falklands War as she sailed away from the conflict zone. 323 people died, mainly young sea cadets.
http://news.sky.com/story/1075585/argentines-welcome-odious-thatchers-death
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/10/argentine-lawmakers-criticize-lady-thatcher-over-the-belgrano-and-for-promoting-economic-neo-liberalism

Poirot – at least we can agree on some things.

Maggie Thatcher was indeed a memorable figure.

For those who were among the 25% of the manufacturing jobs that were lost in her first term I would wager the memories are not the most forgiving.

But I do find interesting comments like those of Hasbeen “She kept her promises.”, in other words comparisons to Gillard are without foundation.

Before the 1979 general election Thatcher denied any intention to raise the VAT (their GST) which was at 8%. Within months this regressive tax was hiked to 15%. Documents later showed this was planned nearly a full year before the election.

Whatever else you might eulogise the epitaph that “She kept her promises.” does not stand up to scrutiny.

Yes, Constance - it seems we can....

csteeleBefore the 1979 general election Thatcher denied any intention to raise the VAT (their GST) which was at 8%. Within months this regressive tax was hiked to 15%. Documents later showed this was planned nearly a full year before the election.<<

Csteele, why does that have a recent familiar ring to it? Gillard perhaps?

Promise made, promise breached, and a prior knowledge that if a Green seat was needed the Carbon tax was on….but you are right, Thatcher did it first.

It is estimated 153,781 people died on 8th April 2013, add Thatcher to the list.

A truth worth visiting.
It is easy to lie.
We even joke about faking sincerity.
And yes we lie,wait until the person we just kissed on the check leaves before saying we can not stand them!
I like Bob Carr this morning, will not, the woman was as I said, and remains so.

love the way lefties revise history in order to vent hatred. I am sure it must be part of their arts degrees.

Whatever you think Maggie’s record basic human decency should record her passing with respect.

It is malicious and odious to fabricate and promulgate untruths in order to vent ones ideological hatred.

Living in the UK through the 1970's was not fun with 3 day weeks, power cuts, rampant inflation and a country brought to its knees by a cabal of communist inspired trade union leaders. The winter of discontent in 1979 with coffins stacked up at Liverpool's crematoria awaiting a decent burial, bags of rubbish lying around the streets etc had nothing to do with Maggie - it was out of control militant trade unionism that was the root cause

Labor had the opportunity when Barbara Castle brought out her "in place of strife" legislation which would have curbed the unions but Labor again bottled it.

One of the lie’s that gets promulgated is "Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher" - it was Harold Wilson's Labor government in 1968 that abolished free milk in secondary schools (who remembers that) with Ted Heath adding in primary schools in the early 70's Yet Maggie gets the blame for the policy.

As highlighted by Brendan O’Neill in the Australian today, “Far more coal mines were shut by Harold Wilson's Labor government in the 1960s than by Thatcher. Under Wilson, 406 mines were closed, leading to 315,000 job losses, compared with the closure of 146 mines and the loss of 173,000 jobs under Thatcher. Yet it's Thatcher who's remembered as destroyer of the mining way of life.

Labor government of the late 70s, which fulminated against trade union "vandalism" and tried to put tight screws on workers' wages while the number in unemployment rose to 1.5 million.

How about war? Thatcher fought the Argies in 1982 and joined George HW Bush's war on Iraq in 1990. But her imperial ambitions, not to mention death toll, pale into insignificance when compared with Labour prime minister Tony Blair's bloody ventures in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. While Blair is proving belatedly unpopular among his former fawners, he isn't loathed with the same demented fury as Thatcher”.

SOG,

From my research (limited though it might be) I can find no indication that Thatcher promised not to raise VAT. In fact the only reference to her election promises was that she avoided making any specific promises, instead running on Labour's obvious incompetence and inability to control the unions. (sound familiar) Actually Thatcher's word could be counted on.

Gillard's word is by comparison not worth the paper it is printed on, and will be kept only if it is convenient at the time.

Constance,

Another piece of rewriting history in order to sustain your rage.

<< The ARA General Belgrano was an Argentine Navy cruiser which was controversially sunk by a British submarine during the 1982 Falklands War as she sailed away from the conflict zone. 323 people died, mainly young sea cadets>>

The General Belgrano left a northern port after re-supplying and was shadowed by HMS Conqueror, a nuclear powered Trafalgar Class fleet submarine. The General Belgrano entered a southern port to board 600 “Primeros”, Argentinean Special Forces Troops and definitely not cadets.

Immediately on the exit of the General Belgrano from port with a three destroyer escorts, Conqueror launched a remote wire operated torpedo, nicknamed the Umbilical Torpedo; otherwise know by its then code name, the “Tiger fish”.

The Tiger Fish was held on station under the Belgrano until just before she was sunk some days later.

The General Belgrano was warned by British Admiralty and by Conqueror on numerous occasions that if she continued to proceed on her current course and heading she would be sunk. The British Admiralty acquired from the Americans, the design and hull specifications of the General Belgrano (she was formally and American Light Cruiser USS Phoenix).

After final instructions to alter course, the decision was made to withdraw the Tiger Fish which would have broken her back and sunk her very quickly, and to sink her with Type 34 WWII torpedo’s fore and aft in order to cripple her and sink her slowly to save the ships compliment and the Primeros Marines.

Having a normal ships compliment of approximately 600 officers and crew plus the added Primeros the extra time was needed for the escorts to evacuate the ship. On advice that the Belgrano attack was imminent, the Argentinean escorts abandoned the Belgrano and lost contact with her.

It was the British and Americans that provided the Argentinean Navy with the location.

It is sickening that you should promote Argentinean propaganda and to ignore military history to make your salacious case against anyone you like. You are a sick little puppy

Dear Spindoc,

If all was above board why did the Admiralty feel the need to 'disappear' HMS Conqueror's log book?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1984/nov/07/hms-conqueror-log-book

I've just finished reading an article in the UK's
the Guardian newspaper. Margaret Thatcher's overall
assessment taken from a poll on the afternoon of
her death shows that half of all respondents (i.e.
50%) look back on her overall contribution as positive.
This is 16 points more than the 34% who say that she
was bad for the country.

Also 62% believe that her example played an important
part in changing attitudes about the role in society
that women can play.

Therefore the overall reaction in the UK is a positive one.
Which is only fitting concerning the longest serving
PM than any Briton of the 1900s - and the first woman to
hold that post.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/thatcher-flagship-policies-guardian-icm-poll

Yes, Lexi, it's interesting.

But aside from the plaudits for "longest serving this" and "first female that"....or that some of us are focusing on her policies and legacies above and beyond her worldly demise - and being admonished for it.

I tend to agree with these wise words.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5710&page=0#159287

I'm not one to tease out "the good bits" in an era of odium....albeit it is the template for whatever we've got - and whatever may come (perhaps).

An interesting and unavoidable fact.
Those demanding respect for the old bird, will not give it at the death of so very many from my side of politics.
Old Thatcher was and remains the best reason we should become a republic.
A woman born, at best of the middle class she wanted to be upper class.
And while achieving much she also sent tradesmen away from their home country to find work.
While unskilled imported non trades took their job.
Her own party turned on her after she tried to tax the very poor.
A Tory of the worst kind had she the power I have no doubt she would have broken the back of every working class aid.
I will open a bottle of white tonight to say good by and good riddance.

csteele,

I did not state or imply that all was “above board”. It was War. Argentina committed an act of war on the British territories by invading and occupying the Falkland Islands and South Georgia.

War is always full of political and military skullduggery, not to mention lots of killing. The sinking of the General Belgrano was acknowledged by the Argentineans as a “legitimate act of war”. It was and remains a stain on the Argentinean Navy for the acts of incompetence and cowardice inflicted on their own fellow seamen.

The Belgrano was engaged in the constant probing of the 200 mile total exclusion zone, she was told to piss off and was sunk when she failed to desist.

After the attack on the Belgrano the entire Argentinean Navy returned to Port and never re-engaged the British. Job done.

It did leave the Argentinean Navy with the same reputation as the Italian military in WWII though, cowards.

As for the missing HMS Courageous Con Room running log, wouldn’t have a clue, what’s your point? She went to back base in Scotland for refit shortly after, you wouldn’t believe the things that “get lifted” in the dockyard. I’ve seen two ton AR88 radar units disappear!

The contents of the running log are a subset of the Captains Log and the Ships Log, no information was ever lost nor was it ever alleged there was, just a bit of political mileage from the Labor opposition. See what happens when you pick up the wrong end of the stick?

My whole point is that there are so many on OLO prepared to present half a story, distort events or try to create a mystery or conspiracy theory because they are too lazy or too silly to think for themselves.

So if you have a point please make it, I’ll do my best to answer it, otherwise you will naturally slide into the category of conspiracy theorist.

And all this to besmirch a dead Lady who can’t defend herself, gutless cretins.

spindoc,

"...gutless cretins..."

Well, deary me! What happened to this sentiment?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5710&page=0#159002

I'm intrigued that you and others are carrying on as if Margaret Thatcher represents nothing more than a frail old lady who has succumbed.

Of course, her deeds and legacy are going to be discussed in the wake of her death. If she'd been a no-one, there wouldn't have been a thread put up

Why shouldn't we have recourse to discuss her policies without being labelled "gutless cretins"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax

(Inventing "Total Exclusion Zones" outside the usual provisions of maritime law, and torpedoing a ship outside that "zone" who didn't "piss off" when requested is more the action of gutless cretins, imo....)

The memory of any major
political figure on their death, and in this case, such a
controversial one as Margaret Thatcher, will in most
cases exemplify the arguments of those who insist that
there is no such thing as "objective history."

In discussing her, one camp may glorify her, another,
may prefer to remember her achievements,
whilst others will point out the flaws. The historian can
establish that an act took place on a certain day, but this
by historical standards constitutes only chronology. The moment
that a historian begins to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other such considerations,
the product becomes unacceptable for one or another camp
of readers.

Explanations seem tantamount to sympathizing and excusing.
This can often result to a complete breakdown of
communication - especially if people are reluctant to
modify their judgements.

History will judge this controversial lady.
And of course I do not have a problem with anyone expressing
their opinion of her on this thread.

My reason for starting this thread - was simple.
To simply acknowledge the end of an era, and the passing
of one of the most forceful Prime Minister's that the
UK ever had. A politician to be recknoned with, as I stated
in my opening post. Love her or loath her - but ignore her
nobody could.

May she rest in peace.

Belly,

I’ve read all your posts on this thread and have come to a number of conclusions.

<< Those demanding respect for the old bird >>

I disagree; in fact I can’t find anyone on this thread demanding respect for her. What I do find is that many people like me suggesting that whatever you think of Maggie’s record, basic human decency should record her passing with respect. Surely you can be gracious enough to those who loved her and those who respected her?

No one is demanding that you love or respect her but what sort of person launches into ideological vilification because they don’t agree with their politics after they are dead?

Secondly, many on this thread have pointed to the fallacies from the Maggie haters upon which such hatred has been based, most of it as evidenced is simply not true, just imagined. The mantra comes from those who feed out the bile; surely you have a bigger heart than that.

Thirdly, it is obvious that you know little of the person, the politics or the challenges faced by the British people. For three elections, the British were so appalled by what the trade union movement was doing to them and their country, they voted for Maggie in her own right. You can take it or leave it, but the majority of British people disagree with you totally.

Your comments give you away, they are based upon an ideological position that Maggie held the trade unions to account with the majority support of the British people. Maybe you don’t like that but who are you to tell them they were wrong?

I think you have the terrors that this will happen in Australia. A new government coming will have a Royal Commission into the Trade Unions and expose them for what they are. Thomson, Williams, Wilson and Gillard are about to destroy any remaining public confidence in your movement.

You see only your ideological foundations, you are out of ammo and you have become sour, mean, nasty, bitter and lacking grace. How sad

Dear Poirot,

I'm sorry that my thread has caused you to
be attacked simply for stating your opinions.

The only excuse I can offer is that - the death
of a famous figure, is an emotive issue
and can bring out huge passions
in people.

It will pass and you certainly are entitled
to your opinion.

Take care.

one thing the post has demonstrated is that it is impossible from all sides of politics to look at history with no presuppositions. Only God who has already written out the beginning and end of this world is capable of that.

Lexi,

Has anyone said that Poirot is not entitled to her opinion?

On the other hand, hate politics before the person is buried, or even placed in a casket and the family and Britain are grieving, is hardly a class act.

Then there is the gutless Carr, who conveniently remembers an alleged racist comment to slur the memory of Britain's first woman PM. As if someone like Thatcher who carefully chose her words would say something so obviously inflammatory to Leftie Carr and allegedly with his Asian wife so close nearby (but of course!). Carr was a pipeline for the US for years. So why trust his sudden memory of events he oddly has not taken advantage of before? It looks like a stitch-up.

Just more hate politics that could easily have been left until after the funeral.

Who cares what people say? But surely they could have the common decency to show some respect for the grieving family, friends and the nation and leave the politics to later. This death was unexpected and a shock to those who loved and respected her. Their pain is real.

Britain was lucky to have got Thatcher. We got stuck with a drunk. But then Russia got stuck with a drunk as well so I guess the joke wasn't on us only.

I doubt very much that Thatcher's family are scanning online opinion or any news outlet to see what people are saying about her. Once a person becomes a public figure they become fair game for any unfavourable or favourable comments whether they are alive or dead. She herself is dead and beyond caring about anything. Suffering from dementia she was out of things long before she died. It is a bit of ego for those on the list to imagine their comments about her are important. My comments on the other comments aren't important either. Guess I will go and prepare the veggies for supper.

Grow up, onthebeach.

Thatcher's legacy is being discussed up and down the internet, the airwaves and the print media.....apparently to do likewise on OLO classifies one as a gutless cretin.

The way you're carrying on, I've been caught posting a critical spiel addressed specifically to Thatcher's immediate family.

Margaret Thatcher was a public figure. I'm one of millions venting an opinion in the wake of her death.

Perhaps instead of acting all precious over the pre-burial critque, you could say what you really mean....that us lefties should keep our criticisms of the Thatcher era to ourselves - not just for now, but always.

Dear onthebeach,

I can't presume to speak for Poirot.
However there was an unflattering reference
to people on this thread who were simply
stating their opinion. As I stated previously
- it is an emotive issue - particularly
when someone so controversial dies.

The emotions ensuing the death of a controversial
figure are often mixed and varied. However people are entitled
to express their emotions especially when it concerns
a political figure.

I prefer to allow history to make the
judgements

Just because a person is a politician or celebrity that does not mean they or their family should not be accorded some sensitivity, empathy, consideration, space and goodness, even some privacy when calamities befall them or their loved ones.

Plenty of time when the funeral is over to talk ill of the dead.

Dear spindoc,

I have offered little in the way of direct comment on Margaret Thatcher rather I have reacted to positions taken on her 'sainthood'.

What I have taken exception to was your pomposity and your denigration of other with words like 'sick puppy' and 'gutless cretins'. If you think you have the right to spew that bile on a public forum without being challenged then think again.

I invite you to reread your post and understand just how contradictory and nonsensical it was.

You went from “I did not state or imply that all was “above board”. And “War is always full of political and military skullduggery” to then laying out how everything was really above board and anyone who thinks it wasn't is engaging in conspiracy theories.

A little consistency would be refreshing.

My understanding is the decision to use conventional torpedoes instead of the Tiger fish was because of doubt about its reliability. You are attempting to claim it was done to give a chance for the crew to escape. What evidence do you have to support this?

As to the legacy of a booming economy the figures were not as pretty as some would have us believe. The previous Labour government had steered the UK's balance of trade from the red into the black and while Thatcher was able to push those figures higher for a time by the end of her term they were at record levels in the red. Actually levels the likes of which have not been seen since.

All relatively predictable if ones manufacturing sector is savaged.

I think we were ultimately fortunate to have the Hawke/Keating team modernising our labour relations and markets. Just as it took Howard to move on guns often it is the other side of politics who manages reform best when it involves their base. Compassion seems to play a bigger part of the process.

Dear onthebeach,

I have not offered an opinion on Mrs Thatcher's character, to do so would of course be in poor taste at this moment, but addressing her legacy is not.

csteele,

Thanks for your comment. You are right, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

The web has brought a nastiness that goes beyond hate politics. We are seeing the growth of a new savage, violent culture where bile, personal denigration and abuse is the order of the day and even accepted by some as a way of dealing with others. It is the anonymity of the web, but more. A new troll culture of internet isolates? It is astounding and horrifying that there are people who need to unload their bile and take every opportunity to do so.

onthebeach,

"What does lack principle is to deliberately misquote, making things up as you have done. That is to lie".?
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are referring to.

hasbeen

"Thatcher saved & rebuilt a country, not destroyed a country & sent it broke".
That's an interesting interpretation of history. A pity the facts don't back it up.

What amazes me is that many of the people on TV either publicly celebrating or mourning Thatcher are not old enough to have even lived through those days. Their opinions would be second-hand at best.

I think they are jumping onto various bandwagons to push their own contemporary views - whether they are hardline neo-conservatives or from the far left.

What's more is they easily dismiss the views of those who had that first-hand experience as though they don't know what they are talking about.

To be a successful politician one must be thick-skinned enough to take with equanimity whatever is thrown at you. Maggie Thatcher was an extremely successful politician. I don't think she particularly cared what was said about her when she was alive, and I am sure she doesn't care what is said about her now. My impression of her that she was caring about those she was close to, and the rest of the world could go to hell for all she cared as long as she got her agenda through. I am a dual citizen of the US and Australia. I would hope that any president of the US or prime minister of Australia would do exactly as she did in the Falklands if Australian or American territory were invaded by a foreign power.

Thatcher had no problem ordering the sinking of the old WWII cruiser General Belgrano with the loss of 323 Argentine sailors. A decision taken for political reason, with no military significance what so ever.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/argentina/9233976/Thirty-years-on-Argentine-survivors-of-the-Belgrano-sinking-recall-the-moment-Falklands-war-erupted-around-them.html

I've been following this thread and keep asking myself if any of you have ever studied history. Has anyone here actually got a qualification in history? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

Paul,

I struggle to understand you. First you say the sinking of the Belgrano was a political decision with no military significance, then link to an article that proves the opposite.

You would like us to believe that an Argentinian battle group moving in and out of the exclusion zone was no threat to the British battle group? That the Argentinian navy was effectively confined to port for the remainder of the conflict was for political reasons?

Puleez!

Wobbles.

"Thatcher saved & rebuilt a country, not destroyed a country & sent it broke".

Actually the facts do back it up.

"Margaret Thatcher said this: Pennies don't fall from heaven. They have to be earned here on Earth. That was a good summary of a conservative philosophy that would see Thatcher lead her country through its most dramatic economic and social changes in generations. Her Thatcherite revolution is credited with laying the groundwork for Britain's economic revival in the 1980s."

Look! its Mr Opinion,the Albert Einstein of our generation.
And here he is, hopefully one day we mere mortals may be half as smart as our fellow poster.
click the link below to catch a happy snap of Mr O enjoying his 21st birthday.
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3742030-1x1-940x940.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-23/albert-einstein-sticks-out-his-tongue-at-photographers/3847552&h=940&w=940&sz=177&tbnid=5N2zuGTyKGYa8M:&tbnh=93&tbnw=93&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dalbert%2Beinstein%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=albert+einstein&usg=__AT-KtHHiLpovQBY9u5nJd-MzPoE=&docid=SVt3s06TKiBbWM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uSlnUeaaHsvCkQXamICQCA&sqi=2&ved=0CIwBEP4dMAw

Mr opinion why? what is your point.
Paul while sharing my thoughts about the vinegary old girl, does so for different reasons.
Old girl actually did very well in that war and in sinking that ship.
Poor old lefty/communist Paul is unaware how many British ships sunk.
And the totally evil right wing lunatics who even stole children and dropped such as Paul from air planes out at sea.

csteele,

You seem to think that wars are fought based on your imagined rules, you pick away at stuff from Wikipedia and use it to sustain your case that the British in general and Maggie Thatcher specifically were in some way guilty of offending the rules you imagine.

I’m trying to demonstrate that the basis for your claims is simply wrong, but I doubt you care much about being wrong when you have a link that tells you that the British didn’t use a particular weapons system because it was “unreliable”. But I guess it helps your case to believe this rubbish.

The Argentine naval units were all ordered all to seek out the British task force around the Falklands and attack the following day. The Belgrano was to the north and ordered south. The signal was intercepted by British Intelligence and the defence tactics were changed immediately to protect the British fleet.

Some reports suggest that the Belgrano was the biggest threat to the British fleet, it wasn’t. The real threat was from three Exocet missile armed frigates. Actually they were not Exocet at all, they were Gabrielle missiles, bought from the French and modified for longer range by the South Africans.

From the link provided by Paul1405;

“But Argentine naval chiefs have subsequently revealed that the cruiser was indeed part of an operation that did threaten the task force. It had pursued a jagged path, weaving in and out of the exclusion zone, but in any case both sides regarded the entire South Atlantic as an operational theatre”.

Of the total losses about 270 were killed in the aft sections from the second torpedo strike, thanks to the US and British satellite tracking, the Argentine escorts were directed back to the Belgrano and abandon ship losses were about 50. A remarkable maritime rescue from a capital ship with well over 1,000 compliment. No thanks to the “Argies” though.

A couple of clicks of the mouse and the world appears exactly how you want it hey?

Dear Belly,

I agree with you that Thatcher did a good thing in ridding Argentina of the generals who were running a terrorist state. However, disagreeing as Paul did does not make him a communist.

Two websites from the BBC that may add further
perspectives:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22076886

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22080553

Lexi,

As your links mention, Hawke and Keating were Thatcher fans through copying her policies,

<From floating the Australian dollar to selling off the state-owned Commonwealth Bank, from financial deregulation to liberalising trade policy, Hawke and Keating pursued free market reforms that resembled Thatcherism>

What is going on here is that two sides of partisans throwing the proverbial at one another.

Better to let this remarkable woman be buried with full ceremony, respecting the woman, the Office she occupied for so long and the bereavement of family and nation. Later, calmer minds might prevail with some economic and social analysis based on that period of history.

No-one can dispute that she was a commitment politician and a world class political leader, who shook the tree in more ways than one.

Dear onthebeach,

I fully agree.

All this talk about whether the Belgrano was sailing to or from the Exclusion Zone, about whether the closing of the mines was good bad or indifferent entirely misses the point. Thatcher's legacy is much greater than these mere details.

Thatcher will be remembered for two things:

1 She was part of a team of conviction politicians and leaders who were instrumental in causing the final collapse of the Soviet Union and western communism. Not only did this free the west from the threat of that expansionist ideology but it gave millions of people in the captive nations of eastern Europe their freedom back.

2. She breathed new life into the decaying carcass that was the British state. In 1979 Britain and its welfare state were in such a mess that most politicians saw their job as merely finding ways to manage the inevitable decline. Thatcher didn't buy that and, almost single-handedly, salvaged hope and prosperity from despair.

For these reasons alone she deserves all the accolades in death that Britain and the world can muster. We will not see her like again, I fear.

Sure there are the naysayers but these are mere hyenas yapping around the lioness.

Shadow Minister,

In the 31 years before Thatcher came to office their economy grew by about 150%. In the 31 years since, it's grown by little more than 100%.

Inflation was 10% when she came in and still 10% when she left.

Despite the political turnaround of the Falklands, Thatcher's plunging popularity was mainly due to economic reasons. Her destruction of industry, combined with financial deregulation and the "Big Bang", began a decline of saving and accumulation of private- and public-sector debt and the economy was only sustained by luck - an oil bonanza just as she took office. The “Big Bang” deregulation was one of the factors behind the GFC.

During her time in office, government oil receipts amounted to 16% of GDP, but instead of using this windfall to boost investment for longer-term prosperity, it was used for tax cuts. (Sounds familiar and was twice as much as our own mining boom).

Her economic legacy was really an investment slump plus the destruction of manufacturing and jobs (3 million unemployed) where production was replaced by Banking .

Somehow she is given credit for things that happened years after she left and after some of her policies had been reversed. (Something else that sounds familiar).

She wasn’t a Tory Conservative in the pure sense – she was the first true Neo-Conservative that embraced the Chicago School of Economics theory that had just been road tested in Chile and then adopted by Reagan and whose policies also ultimately led to the GFC. (That's why she was so fond of Pinochet).

The only real Tory part of her was the belief that the end justifies the means, just as Stalin turned Russia from a backward vulnerable economy into a Superpower within a few decades, but at a considerable social cost.

I have no problem with acknowledging achievements but they should be tempered with some sense of perspective.

Dear spindoc (actually a wildly appropriate name),

I asked you the following;

“My understanding is the decision to use conventional torpedoes instead of the Tiger fish was because of doubt about its reliability. You are attempting to claim it was done to give a chance for the crew to escape. What evidence do you have to support this?”

You proceed to flap around like a headless chook.

From here it looks like you are dodging the question.

If you have nothing then just say so or as the adage goes; put up or put a sock in it.

Spindoc no two poster here are usually so far apart.
But have you noticed.
The truth left, of reality, side with any one to try to change truth.
Once you could admire their zeal, commitment to better for the underdog.
Not now.
Look first at the invasion, at the treatment of ordinary people.
Look at the nature and acts, of the products of unwed parents ruling Argentina.
Csteele and Paul never will, like the middle east, the very left use lies and refuse to even glimpse at truth.
If that little fat fool in North Korea, a country of brain washed slaves who die of hunger.
Starts a war, the very left will idolize him.

Dear Paul1405,

Like you, also Einstein did not know any history. His qualifications were in science.

Dear Belly, my point is that if you are going to claim that you have the answers than you better be able to back it up with knowledge gained from dedicated study and research. There are too many would-bes-if-they-could-bes in this world.

Another general comment I would like to make is that people should keep their comments short and to the point. Have a look at the load of nonsensicle drivel that is uploaded onto this site. We should all keep in mind what Karl Popper said: A man with little knowledge takes a long time to tell you what little he knows.

Belly,

Am I right in supposing that you believe that anyone who criticizes the extreme right-wing neo-liberal policies and deeds of the likes of Margaret Thatcher and her government, that they are in effect displaying support for ding-bat regimes like that in North Korea?

Any views on Thatcher's chum, Pinochet?

Belly,

I agree with you. The world has become so strange. Previous positive ideals of man have become totally corrupted.

Poirot,

You don't seem to understand Belly and what he is saying. Look up "Nick Cohen"(ex Leftist) as I have previously cited under another topic.

The Left has lost it's way and have now become traitors.

constance,

I do understand what Belly is saying.

He's inferring that if one "protesteth" against neo-liberal actions and policy, that one must be a raving communist and supporter of dictators and rancid regimes such as that in North Korea.

I find a modicum of hypocrisy in rightly demonising Argentine Generals who disappeared people in a reign of terror, while seemingly excusing Thatcher's and Britain's relationship with fellow neo-loberal, Pinochet, who disappeared people also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet

Also 62% believe that her example played an important
part in changing attitudes
Lexi,
that's a clear indication why there is now another conservative Government.

Just a brief addendum to Thatcher's "miracle" transformation of Britain.

As we all know, North Sea Oil was Thatcherism's rabbit-in-the-hat. Far from being an example of prudent economic principle, all was do-able because of that particular bonanza.

Here's little on the subject:

http://openoil.net/2013/04/10/margaret-thatcher-and-the-north-sea-oil-bonanza/

"But two things are clear about the North Sea Oil dividend: the first is that Thatcherism would not have been possible without it; and the second is that the way it was managed is about as far away from fiscal prudence as could be imagined....Famously, Britain didn't save any of the 200 billion pounds it has earned in total from the North Sea, in stark contrast to the Norwegians who now have 100,000 euros for every man, woman and child in the country in a Future Generations Fund....Britain's laissez-faire approach to the North Sea has been, in fact, spendthrift, trustafarian and inept."

csteele,

I think you are over cooking your pursuit in the level of detail to support your conspiracy theory about the role Maggie Thatcher played in offending your concept of war and about the attack on the Belgrano. Whilst I think it’s a diversion and bordering on OT, I did say ask the question and I’ll do my best to answer.

There are two sets of rules of engagement. Theatre Rules are those set by government. In this case when the threat to the British Navy escalated the government changed the Theater ROE to defend their assets and ordered the attack on the Belgrano.

The second set of ROE is essentially operational. These are different for each country and for each type of military and are enforced by the commanding officers.

ROE are built to comply with a wide range of international conventions, for example, Rules for the Use of Force (RUF), NATO ROE Manual MC 362-1, The International Institute of Humanitarian Law and the San Remo Rules of Engagement Handbook (the San Remo Rules are I think, the only ROE manual in the public domain, the rest are all classified documents)

On British Navy vessels these are so voluminous they are kept on microfiche, on-line and volumes of manuals.

In some nations, ROE have the status of guidance to military forces, while in other nations, ROE are lawful commands. Rules of Engagement do not normally dictate how a result is to be achieved but will indicate what measures may be unacceptable.

Rules of Engagement (ROE) define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied. They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities, choice of weapons.

Cont’d

Cont’d

The CO must take into account such issues as, Economy of Force, Self protect, Proportionality, Threat Level, Enemy Weapons, are they present? What types? A show of force/threat of force that is greater than the force threatened by the opposing force and the use of the minimum force necessary to accomplish the mission.

It is the last two issues to which I draw your attention. Threat of greater force. This was accomplished by threatening the Argentine Navy with the deployment of wire guided remote weapons which were capable of inflicting massive and perhaps unnecessary loss of life.

The second point is the CO’s duty to use only the minimum force necessary to accomplish the mission.

Putting the two together against the assertions you make. The Belgrano and her escorts were threatened with and advised of, the deployment of greater force in the form of advanced torpedo technology. It matters not if you have read somewhere that these were “unreliable”, they were deployed and they were potentially devastating, hence the rapid departure of the escorts.

The next decision for the CO was what was the minimum force required to accomplish the mission, his choice, taking into account the difference in potential loss of life as he is required to do, was just two conventional 21 inch, WWII type torpedoes, fore and aft at the Belgrano and a third at one of the escorts.

It might suit your assertions to believe that any Navy Commander would inflict unnecessary loss of life on opposition forces, but is contrary to all the ROE conventions and the mutual traditions of maritime compassion.

What you really want is for me to provide some sort of link to classified archives in order to substantiate my assertions; you know full well that is not possible of course, there isn’t one. However, I hope this goes some way to clarify your concerns.

You can always do some research yourself or accept my research. If not I guess I’ll just have to take your advice and put a sock in it?

Struth, reading some of the entries here you'd think that everything was honky-dory in Britain in the 1970's and that Thatcher's revolution was unnecessary and out of the blue. All sorts of statistics are dragged out and tortured to reveal a wonderful picture of Britain prior to the assaults of the evil lady.

This couldn't be further from the truth. By the late 70's, inflation was rampant, GDP in free fall, unemployment on the rise, the pound crashing. Things were so bad that the Labour Government was forced to go cap-in-hand to the IMF for a loan to try to stabilise things. (think Cypress on steroids!). To get the loan they needed to put in place spending cuts and reduce inflation via wage restraint. There was war between the government and the unions long before Thatcher got into power. But in fact the war was between the unions and economic reality. And Thatcher was the spokes-woman for economic reality. Unfortunately many on the left and in the unions were unfamiliar with the notion of the real world.

We have people here going on as though everything after her coming to power was her fault. But unemployment was on the rise before she came to power and, apart from her plans, no one had any idea how to stop it. Sure things got worse initially but in the end, by the end of her reign, she had stabilised the UK economy and set it on the path to recovery. This is why, despite the attempts of the irrational ideologues to rewrite history, she was constantly re-elected by a grateful people.

Its easy to whine that things weren't universally great in the 80s. But, unless you are prepared to look at the disaster that was the UK economy in the 70s, you'll completely miss the point and be left scratching your head as to why she was re-elected again and again

I know its a little off-topic but I couldn't let this pass....

Wobbles wrote:"The only real Tory part of her was the belief that the end justifies the means, just as Stalin turned Russia from a backward vulnerable economy into a Superpower within a few decades, but at a considerable social cost."

20 million killed. Millions more enslaved in unspeakable conditions in the Siberian gulags. Entire nations uprooted and relocated. Families ripped apart. Men forced to sign false confessions while they watched their daughters raped. Summary executions on a massive scale. Entire nations conquered and enslaved.
And this was a "considerable social cost"(!!), broadly comparable with what Thatcher did to the UK.

Wow, the ability of those of a particular leaning to downplay the atrocities of its heroes and exaggerate the supposed failings of it enemies is astounding.

Just astounding.

spindoc & mhaze

You are exactly the sort of people Karl Popper was referring to!

The Forum chorus: "Karl who?"

mhaze,

No-one is claiming that the parlous state of Britain's economy didn't need addressing when Thatcher came to power.

But let's not pretend that the "turnaround" was all realised by throwing people out of work (have you got a figure for Britain's modern day coal imports?)and making it easier for council tenants to become "house owners".

Thatcherism rode on the back of the North Sea Oil boom, which allowed her to implement her neo-liberal agenda with such gusto.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/social-landlords-reflect-on-thatcher%E2%80%99s-legacy/6526486.article

Interesting graph on Thatcher's housing record and its wash-up in the modern era....housing crisis anyone?

Notwithstanding the pic at the top of the article - (which I don't necessarily support) - here's an article about the call for compassion and respect for the "conviction" of a woman (and her government) who made a habit of not practicing that particular virtue when at the height their powers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/mark-steel-you-cant-just-shut-us-up-now-that-margaret-thatchers-dead-8568785.html

Poirot,

But who the *bleep* is 'socialhousing.uk'? Could be anyone.

You need not go to the UK to find an example of the privatisation of welfare housing when Australia is arguably one of the world's best examples.

Both sides of government are responsible but the Hawke and Keating Labor government kicked it off and Gillard's Labor government continues merrily on the path of expecting the private sector to provide welfare housing. Some do well though, an example being those who arrive are paying a people smuggler. They get priority. As do indigenous, who can afford to trash theirs. Plenty more millions where those came from, Bro.

What adds a very sharp edge to housing in Australia are two things:

first, there has been unrelenting pressure on home prices from the demand caused by over-exuberant immigration. Australia has had record immigration numbers for decades and federal governments boast of it as though it is a virtue! A 'Big Australia' anyone?

second, because the demand for housing constantly outstrips the supply of properly trained building trades and building supplies, the costs of building (and the corner-cutting producing defective buildings) escalate even more; and

thirdly, prime small crops and dairy lands on creek and river floodplains are being drained and used for housing for the overflow from cities, decreasing the availability of food and requiring irrigation elsewhere.

Since the victim industries and multiculturalism got going under Whitlam, the federal government never has enough money for those services it used to supply.

However it is also true that government finds welfare housing too awkward and expensive for it to manage, so government is intent of passing the buck anyhow.

Make that three things...

Back to organising subbies. Only women can multi-task. Or at least only women make no errors while multi-tasking. LOL

"If you want something said, ask a man;
if you want something done,
ask a woman."
(Margaret Thatcher).

"If you want something said, ask a man;
if you want something done,
ask a woman."
(Margaret Thatcher).

Both men and women can be sexist and make sexist remarks.

I have enjoyed the thread.
And it seems rather like the real life debate about her death.
Some think far differently than me, yet that song, ding dong the witch is dead is number 3 in England.
May I remind the sentimental folk, that is a term some use, to describe Gillard.
And with that I leave, content to be rubbished for just being me.

Dear David F.,

Of course that goes without saying.

However as I'm sure Maggie would attest:

"Men who think they know it all are a
pain in the neck to we women who really do."

Dear Lexi,

An object of a preposition should be in the objective case. Your sexist remark indicates a lack of grammatical knowledge. It should be:

"Men who think they know it all are a
pain in the neck to us women who really do."

Dear David F.,

I did cite the quote correctly - not for its
grammar but for its meaning.

It seems that the author's preference was for
"We" women, not "Us" women.
Subjective, not accusatory.

Dear Lexi,

You are correct in not editing a quote with incorrect grammar. However, is such a quote worth citing? Anyhow, to me you're out of cite.

Dear David F.,

I may be out of cite, but hopefully
I'm not out of mind. ;-)

Anyway, as Karl R. Popper stated:

"In our infinite ignorance
we are all equal."

Now back on topic.

The following link may be of interest:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/reaction-to-the-death-of-margaret-thatcher-20130408-2hhqw.html

Dear Spindoc,

Sigh.

You are always just that little too easy to be fun.

I just needed you to dig your hole a little deeper which you obliged with the following;

“The next decision for the CO was what was the minimum force required to accomplish the mission, his choice, taking into account the difference in potential loss of life as he is required to do, was just two conventional 21 inch, WWII type torpedoes, fore and aft at the Belgrano and a third at one of the escorts.”

You really do just make this up as you go don't you.

Here are the words from the CO of the Conqueror;

“The intention was to close to an 'ideal' firing position on the side of the BELGRANO away from the escorting destroyers. A salvo of MK 8 Mod 4's were considered better than a Mk 24 Mod 1, because of the BELGRANO's thick armour plating and anti torpedo bulges.”

The Mk 24 Mod 1 is the Tigerfish.

This was a purely operational decision.

Much of what you have written about this incident so completely fails any scrutiny.

So the question remains what on earth have you been so intent on concocting a completely different scenario? Did Maggie Thatcher hold a special place in your heart? Or is your distaste of those you consider on the 'left' so great that you felt you needed to attack regardless of facts or evidence?

Whatever the reason the result is the same, how can any of us ever believe anything you post on these forums without seeing external evidence?

I'm will admit to being a little stunned by what you have done here.

Mr Opinion offered you Popper's quote; “A man with little knowledge takes a long time to tell you what little he knows.” You took 640 words to do the same. Yup you should have put a sock in it.

One is known by the company one keeps. Maggie chose to pal around with Augusto Pinochet. She left a few better off and many worse off. She could also lie.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/304516.stm

Maggie said of A P:

"I'm also very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile, you set up a constitution suitable for democracy, you put it into effect, elections were held, and then, in accordance with the result, you stepped down."

Since Pinochet was instrumental in getting rid of a democratically elected leader and instituting a reign of terror she was good at rewriting history.

An insightful commentary on Thatcher's legacy from Killarney in the Article's section:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14898&page=0#256877

and here...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14898&page=0#256902

It may be interesting to read the views of
people from three generations in the UK
have to say about Margaret Thatcher:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/13/margaret-thatcher-three-generations-views

Then there's also a selection of the best writing on
margaret thatcher's legacy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2013/apr/11/margaret-thatcher-legacy-best-writing

csteele,

I can’t find your source for this. Curious because it contradicts other information as shown below, can you provide the source?

“The intention was to close to an 'ideal' firing position on the side of the BELGRANO away from the escorting destroyers. A salvo of MK 8 Mod 4's were considered better than a Mk 24 Mod 1, because of the BELGRANO's thick armour plating and anti torpedo bulges.”

“Mod 2 passed sea trials in 1978 and was issued the following year. When HMS Conqueror sank the ARA General Belgrano during the 1982 Falklands war she used the "point and shoot" 21" Mark VIII torpedoes rather than her Tigerfish”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_24_Tigerfish (Mod 2)

As a former employee of one of the Marconi subcontractors I can confirm this. But I cannot explain your reference. Please supply and I’ll follow it up.

Dear Spindoc,

I wrote,

“What I have taken exception to was your pomposity and your denigration of other with words like 'sick puppy' and 'gutless cretins'.”

That elevated you to 'special project' status my friend.

However it was not all that difficult to find you were talking through your hat.

You wrote;

“What you really want is for me to provide some sort of link to classified archives in order to substantiate my assertions; you know full well that is not possible of course, there isn’t one.”

Well actually there is and it wasn't that hard to find. Declassified last year the Report of Proceedings of HMS Conqueror in Operation Corporate can be found here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hms-conqueror-op-corporate-report-of-proceedings

Go to Part 2, page 148 and read the Commanding Officers End of Event Summary and you will see the words I quoted. Further reading will show there was no intent to target one of the escorts as you have asserted. It was just that the 'first weapon missed astern'.

You also asserted that;

“Immediately on the exit of the General Belgrano from port with a three destroyer escorts, Conqueror launched a remote wire operated torpedo, nicknamed the Umbilical Torpedo; otherwise know by its then code name, the “Tiger fish”. The Tiger Fish was held on station under the Belgrano until just before she was sunk some days later.”

All complete rot.

Page 135 shows the HMS Conqueror did not make contact with the group proper until the afternoon of the day before the attack.

Now my dear friend you have a choice. Pull your pants up, apologise for calling people here gutless cretins and sick puppies, and retreat. If you do so I promise not to raise this matter on any other thread. If not it is probably worth finding another nickname because you will never hear the end of it.

A bit harsh? Probably, but I feel I'm channelling the Baroness. A very small tribute in the scheme of things I know, but one does what one can.

Dear Spindoc,

Belay that.

Maggie has now left me and on reflection bellicose threats should go with her.

How about this, you are who you are but I think it would be a good idea if in the future you attempt to temper your denigration of others and check your facts a little more thoroughly.

csteele,

There were a few other mistakes I made that I can fez up to. The Courageous was a Churchill class sub and not a Trafalgar class, the conventional torpedoes were MK 8 and not Type 34 and it was not Courageous that shadowed the Belgrano TG until contact on May 1. So I’ll keep my pants at half mast with just a bit of the plumbers crack showing.

You stated, <<My understanding is the decision to use conventional torpedoes instead of the Tiger fish was because of doubt about its reliability>>

I challenged that by showing that Courageous was equipped with certified and not unreliable systems, upgraded 1979. (Mark 24-Mod-2 for ASW and ASV use. The Marconi upgrade).

Then from your link you asserted; <<This was a purely operational decision>>. Correct but I’ve added all the considerations of conventions and ROE that cover operational decisions, they are huge and constantly changing.

From the transcript you provided, my assertions are confirmed by the constant ROE changes and the readiness of weapons choices.

The weapons choice was not because of unreliability and the operational issues did embrace all the ROE factors I outlined and many more.

<< I have ROE to attack. Aim now is to close TG 79.3 and then work into firing position.

Preferred weapon is MK 8 Mod 4. If a good attacking position cannot be achieved because of the escorts, then I shall use a Mk 24.

“Thursday April 22

1412 Received COR 093 (3 and 4 tubes preferred Mk 24)
C/D 425 Starting torpedo shuffle to put Mk 24’s up 3 and 4 tubes

April 23

My ROE now changed. Only Argentinean submarines may be attacked. In theory I should withdraw my MK 8 torpedoes – in practice I won’t

May 1 2359 – Ready to conduct Tigerfish attack should TG 79.3 head north into TEZ>>

Some are lazy and vindictive to hide behind CT links without facts and launch them to make salacious and unsubstantiated claims, I’ll check my facts, they can provide some.

Since you’ve offered an olive branch, I accept. Aye!

It looks like this thread has now run its course.
I would like to Thank everyone who has contributed
to it. Margaret Thatcher remains controversial in
death as she was in life.

"Eternal rest grant to them, O Lord
And let perpetual light shine on them
May they rest in peace
Amen."

She must have had something going because Blair continued her policies.

One thing that irritated in all of the crude sensationalism and melodrama was the Left's, and notably some of the big swinging knobs of the feminist commentariat's, insulting negative stereotyping of Thatcher as an iron maiden, a witch and worse. The Left and feminists are sexists. No problems employing the nasty stereotypes against women where it suits their purpose.

Thatcher was a truly remarkable person and more so because she was a women. It is typical of the Left and feminists that they would choke to death before they recognise that. For instance, Thatcher challenged the class system. That was for all of the right (as in positive) reasons and didn't throw any babies out with the bath water. It was achieved gradually, largely through her own example and without the abuse and spite of the Left.

Honestly, most of the criticism of Thatcher is ill-founded and by people who were not even alive at the time and haven't bothered to research. Still, the print and electronic media tabloids managed the (serially) incensed mob to increase their audience for a few days, and the midgets who bite at the ankles of giants had their day in the sun as well.

There seem to be so many people who need an adrenalin boost through angry outbursts (at students or footballers next?), or is that just because of their own jealousy? As Thatcher might have said, you can all do it too if you are prepared to work for it and don't always expect a free handout. Blair was right to agree with that.

Forget the 'love her or loathe her' sensationalist, trivial bunk of the media, Thatcher was a great leader. If feminists and the Left were genuine they would build a statue to her.

Belly said "If that little fat fool in North Korea, a country of brain washed slaves who die of hunger.
Starts a war, the very left will idolize him."
Firstly I do believe that comrade Kim speaks highly of you, and was most distressed to hear your disparaging remarks about him, he will have you know he has joined Jenny Craig and the weight will soon be just falling off. LOL
Can I assume that now you have lost dear old Thatcher to idealise you will now turn your sycophantic lust towards someone like Marie Krarup.
The right wing Danish MP, who on a recent visit to Aotearoa, saw fit to insult the Maori people.

Seems Marie Krarup was a great admirer of Thatcher and her politics.

Good morning Paul, are you related?
A detestable thing to say, her/him not you.
But admit it, not unlike a thing Thatcher would say, her rush to be upper class has ended, unless she is buried on a hill it failed.
Still plenty of folk willing to get down on their knees.
Kim whats his name keeps millions in slavery and starvation.
Thought you might stick with his victims but as in the Argentina thing you stuck with extreme right wing fascist you baffle me with your support of a left wing one.
Greens seem uninterested in ordinary folk.

I thought that this thread had run its
course but obviously some still have a
lot to say.

I came across a site on the web that asked
the question, "Is it too much to ask that
history judges her impartially?"

And I quote:

"The truth is never as simple as it seems -
invariably the way we colour the world will
be from our own agendas, our own unique view
and that is rarely black and white...
So regardless of how we feel about her
personallly, she's far too important to ignore..."

The author ends on the note that,
"We can only hope that history judges her
impartially."

Only time will tell, I guess.

I don't know what a woman MP visiting NZ has to do with Thatcher.

However, having had a little to do with NZ navy personnel in foreign ports let me assure all that they would be more than happy if the Haka had reduced this visiting woman big knob to a quivering shocked and vulnerable gel. The Haka is supposed to be frightening, right? Otherwise why perform at footy matches - which are far more important to NZ than diplomatic relations with a minor politician from, er, where was that again?

However the truth once again is rather boring. This is yet another tabloid media eggbeat where some hate mailers took the opportunity to take multicultural slight at a article written by the said politician.

The woman was trying to be mildly entertaining in an article she wrote, as she says here (video interview),

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Mis-translation-to-blame-for-offensive-article-says-Danish-MP-Marie-Krarup/tabid/506/articleID/34589/Default.aspx

I could go on to discuss how male bodies have become shocking and offensive through feminism. No-one is surprised that a visiting woman politician from uber-feminist Denmark could be shocked by men's bare chests and legs. Oh and there were those Marae, "decorated with God-figures with angry faces and large erect penises". Many a NZ sailor in a foreign port would give their eye teeth to be assessed the same. LOL

Oh dear, that should be 'his' not 'theirs' in the final sentence. Must be the tears in my eyes that I missed it. Tears of self-righteous shock and outrage of course, not tears from laughter.

Comrade Belly, comrade Kim The Eel, very upset with you, he want to know, where his white card invite to the Thatcher send off is? Kim say like PM Thatcher he want the peace loving people of the Democratic Republic of North Korea to join with the peace loving people of Great Britain to make big war to win back British empire which was stolen by warmonger Americans and Japans and South, undemocratic, Koreans. He want to have big meeting with supreme leader of Great Britain people, Prince Phil, as to when their peace loving peoples should make big war on those not peace loving people and invade America and capture George Washington, so British get empire back! can you help?

Paul once more with intent.
Can I be a mate?
Bloke you achieved much in the post above mine!
You fronted up and took on the hard yards.
And delivered positive evidence.
Only the letter T separates a Witt from a TWITT.
Well done!
Let us all hope this mornings murders in Boston was not the fat idiots work.

onthebeach you ask "I don't know what a woman MP visiting NZ has to do with Thatcher." The answer is very simple, A LOT! Firstly they are both women, secondly they are both politicians, thirdly at least one of them visited New Zealand, and fourthly, if you can have a fourthly, they were both once married to a man named Roger, So there.... cop that!
p/s Sorry, I couldn't think of a fourthly, so I made up Roger.

Hi Belly, you know I like a bit of laugh and I don't take this forum too seriously as some do. As the saying goes; Laugh and the world laughs with you, cry and you cry alone."

Dear Paul,

Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Cry, and your beer is diluted.

Laugh and the world laughs with you.
Cry and they pay to watch.

I think it appropriate to now include the full version
of the poem "Solitude," by Ella Wheeler Wilcox.

"Laugh and the world laughs with you
Weep and you weep alone
For the sad old earth must borrow its mirth
But has trouble enough of its own
Sing and the hills will answer
Sigh it is lost on the air
The echoes bound to a joyful sound
But shrink from voicing care

Rejoice and men will seek you
Grieve and they turn and go
They want full measure of all your pleasure
But they do not need your woe
Be glad and your friends are many
But sad and you lose them all
There are none to decline your nectared wine
But alone you must drink life's gall

Feast and your halls are crowded
Fast and the world goes by
Succeed and give and it helps you live
But no man can help you die
There is room in the halls of pleasure
For a long and lordly train
But one by one we must all file on
Through the narrow aisles of pain."

Rest in Peace Margaret Thatcher.

The vainglory at the sinking of the Belgrano reminded me of:

The War-song of Dinas Vawr
By Thomas Love Peacock 1785–1866

The mountain sheep are sweeter,
But the valley sheep are fatter;
We therefore deemed it meeter
To carry off the latter.
We made an expedition;
We met a host, and quelled it;
We forced a strong position,
And killed the men who held it.

On Dyfed's richest valley,
Where herds of kine were browsing,
We made a mighty sally,
To furnish our carousing.
Fierce warriors rushed to meet us;
We met them, and o'erthrew them:
They struggled hard to beat us;
But we conquered them, and slew them.

As we drove our prize at leisure,
The king marched forth to catch us:
His rage surpassed all measure,
But his people could not match us.
He fled to his hall-pillars;
And, ere our force we led off,
Some sacked his house and cellars,
While others cut his head off.

We there, in strife bewild'ring,
Spilt blood enough to swim in:
We orphaned many children,
And widowed many women.
The eagles and the ravens
We glutted with our foemen;
The heroes and the cravens,
The spearmen and the bowmen.

We brought away from battle,
And much their land bemoaned them,
Two thousand head of cattle,
And the head of him who owned them:
Ednyfed, king of Dyfed,
His head was borne before us;
His wine and beasts supplied our feasts,
And his overthrow, our chorus.

Lexi,

It would be the rare person, woman or man, who could re-tread her footsteps to survive politically, gain popular support and bring in changes that are continued even by her political opponents. Her policies were copied by Australia, first by Labor and then by the LNP.

The present Oz Labor government itself has taken Thatcherism to its heart when it suits it. Although Thatcher would never have supported the class war waged by Gillard. Thatcher sought to empower through individual freedom from interfering government and encouragement of those who prefer dependence on government -which was mainly industry and mining for her- to stand on their own feet.

Dear David F.,

Thank You for your poem in memory of the sinking
of the Belgrano.

John Dryden said it equally well when in,
"Alexander's Feast," he wrote:

"War, he sung, is toil and trouble;
Honour but an empty bubble.
Never ending, still beginning,
Fighting still, and still destroying,
If all the world be worth the winning,
Think, oh think, it worth enjoying."

And this:

From Stephen Vincent Benet's prophecy:

"Oh where are you coming from soldier, gaunt soldier
With weapons beyond any reach of my mind
With weapons so deadly the world must grow older
And die in its tracks if it does not turn kind."

And this:

From Christopher Marlowe's -
"Tamburlaine the Great." Act 2, Sc.iv.

"Accursed be he that first invented war,
They knew not, ah, they knew not simple men,
How those were hit by pelting cannon shot,
Stand staggering like a quivering aspen leaf."

There's lessons to be learned from history.
We need new ways of thinking to cope with
the nuclear age. Our world has become so
obsessed with the problems of hatred and
aggression that it will allow peace and love to
be regarded as soft and weak. Yet our survival
depends on their dominance.

Dear onthebeach,

Thank You for your contribution to this
discussion.

You may be interested to know (or you
possibly already know) that Margaret
Thatcher's funeral will be screened
Tomorrow evening (Wednesday - 17th April 2013),
on ABC24. Not sure of the time though.

Hi Lexi,

It is good to separate the woman, mother, leader and statesman from the other political dross.

Dear onthebeach,

Politics is not for the faint hearted.
That's for sure.

As someone once wrote:

"Dirty politics
dirty wars
and dirty money
make the dirt
in my garden
seem so clean ..."

See you on another discussion.

Might be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/16/3738495.htm

Maggie Thatcher stood for individualism, opposition to any sort of collectivism and a neo-liberal economy. Such a philosophy puts everything on a cost benefit basis. One weighs the alternatives and chooses what costs the least.

It would have been much cheaper to let the Argentines keep the Falklands. Those individuals in the Falklands could have left to face their own destiny. The wishes and future of the collectivity that is Great Britain could have been ignored.

The Falklands War did not make economic sense and did not meet the neo-liberal logic of Thatcherism. Yet she in that instance represented the collective and the feelings of her society.

Too bad she could not have realised the barrenness of her philosophy in other areas. She was the baroness of barrenness.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for that link.

It was very interesting.

And Thank You for your contribution to this discussion.

Dear David F.,

I watched the live coverage of Margaret Thatcher's
funeral this evening on ABC24. I was impressed
that despite all the protests during the week on
the day of her the people acted with great civility.
The funeral was not disrupted. The funeral service
itself was - was not a Memorial Service.
This was at the request of Mrs Thatcher. There were no
summations of her achievements, no glorification
of her, et cetera. It was a religious service -
and quite moving, ending with the words:

"Eternal Rest grant to her, O Lord
And let the light perpetual shine on her."

On her coffin amongst the white roses was the card
that had the words - "Beloved Mother - Always in
our hearts."

Thank You for your contribution to this discussion.

See you all on another thread.