Off Topic Messages

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:31 pm

daylon wrote:She may have done some good things for the country ??? but during her terms, she presided over the highest unemployment rate ever seen in the UK(12% and the rate never dropped much during her terms), she also presided over 2 MAJOR recessions(the worst since the 30's). Interest rates reached an all time high during her terms (17%,) Imagine trying to pay a mortgage with that rate now!!. The economy wasn't much better than it is now.

I can't understand why people consider her a "great Prime Minister or great leader...what did she do that made her so great; is record high unemployment or taking the country into recession twice a barometer of her greatness?

She was by far the worst PM this country has ever had. She ruined the manufacturing industry and decimated the heavy engineering industry, steel works, mines etc and put millions out of work, with no hope or future for the majority of these people and it is disgraceful that we are paying for her send off(£10million or so). As one Scottish politician has said "that BT should step up to pay for the funeral" adding that it would be "symbolic and beautifully approppriate" ..she was vociferous on cutting public spending during her terms, probably apt that one of the businesses she privatised should pay.


I think there are issues here in that we remember, in part, what we want to remember. The country was a mess before she took over, and alot of what happened with regards to interest rates etc might have happened anyway -things were certainly heading that way when she took over. Again, I'm not a supporter of her, but it's easy to see things as black and white, when in reality that is rarely, if ever, the case. This article from the BBC website is really quite interesting in this respect. I've emboldened the sections which relate to what I was saying:

Viewpoint: What if Margaret Thatcher had never been?

Privatisation, finance boom, manufacturing decline, home ownership, union laws. The UK changed hugely in the 1980s. But how much of that would have happened if Margaret Thatcher had never taken office, asks historian Dominic Sandbrook.

In the summer of 1970, a week after their local MP had joined the cabinet for the first time, the Finchley Press sent a journalist to interview her.

Did she, he wondered, fancy a crack at becoming Britain's first woman prime minister? "No," Margaret Thatcher said emphatically. "There will not be a woman prime minister in my lifetime - the male population is too prejudiced."

We know now, of course, how wrong she was.

Indeed, the thought of Britain without Margaret Thatcher seems unimaginable today, especially for people of my generation. I was not yet five when she first walked into Downing Street as prime minister, and had just turned 16 when she resigned.

For my generation, whether you loved or loathed her, she was always there, a fact of life. But she was not merely the dominant political personality of her generation - she was a transcendent cultural figure who inspired more songs, books, plays and films than any other British leader since Oliver Cromwell.

As her biographer John Campbell astutely remarked, if you want to see her legacy, just look around.

Yet what was that legacy? Even now, more than 20 years after her tearful exit from No 10, Britain cannot agree. It is often said that she was the most divisive leader of the last century, which is almost certainly true.

Yet her impact was much more complicated, even contradictory, than we often think. Margaret Thatcher called herself a conservative, but she led the most radical government in living memory.

She promised to restore law and order, yet she presided over the worst urban riots Britain had ever seen. She talked of bringing back Victorian values, yet her decade in office saw divorce, abortion, illegitimacy and drug-taking reach unprecedented heights.

She extolled thrift, hated profligacy and even paid for her own Downing Street ironing board, yet she presided over a gigantic credit boom and unleashed the power of casino capitalism. And although she talked of rolling back the frontiers of the state, the stark fact is that, in real terms, public spending rose in all but two of her years in office.

In the future, when historians look back at the Thatcher years, the familiar landmarks will surely loom largest - the savage battle over the economy in the early 1980s, the stunning victory in the Falklands in 1982, the bitter struggle with the miners in 1984-85, the deregulation of the City in 1986, the disastrous introduction of the poll tax, and the high drama of her resignation in 1990.

Yet none of this makes sense without a bit of context. For when Margaret Thatcher won power in May 1979, it was against the backdrop of perhaps the gloomiest decade in modern British history.

Shorn of its empire, Britain now cut a very miserable figure on the world stage. For at least two decades we had been falling behind our rivals, and now the contrast was painful to see.

Britain's average inflation rate for the 1970s was 13%. West Germany's was just 5%. Our unemployment rate was 4%. Theirs was only 2%. Our major cities seemed shabby and seedy, our newspapers were full of strikes and walkouts, almost every week seemed to bring some new atrocity in Northern Ireland.

Over the course of the 1970s, two Prime Ministers, Edward Heath and James Callaghan, had been broken by the trade unions, while a third, Harold Wilson, descended into paranoia. Foreign papers talked of Britain as the Sick Man of Europe. Callaghan himself told his Labour colleagues: "If I were a young man, I would emigrate."

Margaret Thatcher's achievement, as many of her opponents now admit, was to blow away the stale winds of decline. At first, with unemployment soaring and the inner cities ablaze, she seemed certain to go down as a one-term fluke. But victory in the Falklands in 1982, when she risked her entire career on a desperate gamble to retake the islands from Argentina, changed her political image.

The lame duck had suddenly become Britannia incarnate - military success had won her the time she needed. And by the time she left office, Britain was unquestionably a more open, dynamic, entrepreneurial and colourful society than it had been in the 1970s.

Taxes were lower, strikes were down, productivity growth was much improved and far from fleeing Britain, as they had once threatened to do, foreign investors were now queuing to get in - a trend symbolised above all by Nissan's groundbreaking investment in the North East of England.

There is no getting away, though, from the fact that this came at a very heavy cost. During the early 1980s, unemployment reached a record 3.6 million, though some estimates suggest that the real figure was much higher.

The real question, though, is whether this could realistically have been avoided. It is a myth that Thatcher single-handedly ended the era of full employment - in fact, unemployment had already hit 1.5 million under Callaghan.

In truth, Britain in the 1980s was always facing an immensely painful transition, partly because so many difficult decisions had been postponed for so long, but also because the stark reality of globalisation meant that major industries - notably carmaking, shipbuilding and coal-mining - were doomed even before she took power.

As a strident and often abrasive woman, Thatcher became the convenient scapegoat. But though her shock therapy never produced the nationwide renaissance for which she had hoped, she did not deserve all the blame.

Indeed, whether you see it a land of opportunity or a selfish society, Thatcher's Britain was as much our creation as it was hers. Her supporters laud her as the woman who saved her country, her critics damn her as the woman who destroyed it. But historians will surely reach a more nuanced verdict.

Even if she had never been prime minister, many of the changes she came to represent, from privatisation and deregulation to the death of heavy industry and the rise in unemployment, would almost certainly have happened anyway, only more slowly.

With her characteristic blend of high principle, tactical opportunism and populist rhetoric, Thatcher came to embody the trends that transformed British life. Yet the old working-class world of busy factories, crowded pubs and cobbled streets was already dying, while a new Britain, more ambitious, more materialistic and more individualistic, was already emerging.

If she had fallen under a bus in 1978, would Britain today be so different? Her champions and her critics would answer with a firm yes. But I doubt it.

In the end, you are left with the woman herself. Indeed, the very fact that she was a woman may well have been the most remarkable thing about her.

It is astonishing to think that when Margaret Thatcher first joined the cabinet in 1970, the Wimpy hamburger chain still banned women from coming in late on their own on the bizarre grounds that only prostitutes would be out at that time of night.

Indeed, there is a supreme irony in the fact that Thatcher, who loathed feminism, came to embody the extraordinary expansion in the horizons of Britain's women, which was arguably the single biggest social change of the 20th Century.

And in several centuries' time, when the minutiae of the Falklands War or the poll tax have been forgotten, I suspect that what Britain will remember about Margaret Thatcher is the simple fact of her femininity.

Thatcher herself might not agree, but in the end, the interesting thing about the Iron Lady was not that she was made of iron. It was that she was a lady.


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

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Wed Apr 10, 2013 4:50 pm

Yeah some clown even said she was the best Prime Minister of the 20th century ! the great winston churchill must be turning in his grave !!!

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:27 pm

There is absolutely no doubt the UK had to change and improve by the end of the 70's .

But Thatcher came in far too heavy handed without a thought or any help whatsoever to the people whose lives that she ruined for years to come. She came across as uncaring and her actions proved that she was. Her term produced unemployment rates ranging from 3.6% in 1979 to 12% within 4 years of her coming to power. The rate never went below 10% for 6 years of her terms . That showed how ruthless and uncaring she was. In her first 4 years over 1.5 million lost their job with her policies. No government should ever allow that to happen. Interestingly the areas where most of the jobs were lost were not tory seats..she wouldn't have done it there . They were predominately in the North of the UK.

As I said in an earlier post, if she had offered help and support to the areas affected, she would have been thought more highly of..she didn't, not one iota of help .

Almost 25 years since she left and their is still a lot of hatred for what she did. They can't all be wrong. I'm not a hater but I despise what she did. In speaking to other people in my area, there is still animosity towards her. Of course in middle England and other tory strongholds, she will be regarded as the best PM ever..no doubt. But they weren't affected by her policies. Out of sight out of mind, they didn't see the heartache and misery it caused families or the ghost towns that followed. They were doing alright, in a steady well paid job with good prospects, maybe even buying their council house-becoming a homeowner. What was happening elsewhere wasn't their concern, they were ok.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:42 pm

daylon wrote:There is absolutely no doubt the UK had to change and improve by the end of the 70's .

But Thatcher came in far too heavy handed without a thought or any help whatsoever to the people whose lives that she ruined for years to come. She came across as uncaring and her actions proved that she was. Her term produced unemployment rates ranging from 3.6% in 1979 to 12% within 4 years of her coming to power. The rate never went below 10% for 6 years of her terms . That showed how ruthless and uncaring she was. In her first 4 years over 1.5 million lost their job with her policies. No government should ever allow that to happen. Interestingly the areas where most of the jobs were lost were not tory seats..she wouldn't have done it there . They were predominately in the North of the UK.

As I said in an earlier post, if she had offered help and support to the areas affected, she would have been thought more highly of..she didn't, not one iota of help .

Almost 25 years since she left and their is still a lot of hatred for what she did. They can't all be wrong. I'm not a hater but I despise what she did. In speaking to other people in my area, there is still animosity towards her. Of course in middle England and other tory strongholds, she will be regarded as the best PM ever..no doubt. But they weren't affected by her policies. Out of sight out of mind, they didn't see the heartache and misery it caused families or the ghost towns that followed. They were doing alright, in a steady well paid job with good prospects, maybe even buying their council house-becoming a homeowner. What was happening elsewhere wasn't their concern, they were ok.


If you are going to close mines, they are never going to be in Tory seats because they're not situated there. However, they had to be closed because they were losing the country money, running at a loss. But, as you say quite rightly, the money saved should have been poured back into the affected areas but wasn't. In the same way that the money raised from selling council houses should have been used for building new ones.

And no, the rest of the country didn't care - which links into my earlier point about the fact that it was society in Britain that is as much to blame - ie, people didn't care about each other, just themselves - hence why she got in again and again. But that's exactly the same today with regards to what Cameron is doing with regards to benefits. It's all very well the government claiming how much benefits are costing the country, and that this is due to the unemployed not wanting to work. But only 2% of the benefits bill goes to the unemployed anyway!

As I said elsewhere, I think much of the reason why people in other areas didn't care about the miners was because of their leader. He didn't put a kind, human face on their struggles, but came across as simply angry, uncompromising and generally belligerant. And it's thought that the fact that Scargill wouldn't compromise at all meant that more people lost their jobs than was necessary - as it's likely that Thatcher would have moved her position slightly had the miners been willing to move theirs too. But a stand-off with neither side willing to move is no good to anyone.

Again, I'm not defending her, I'm just saying that the situation is more nuanced than perhaps we are led to believe because both sides of the argument tend to ignore the valid points that each other makes.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:02 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
If you are going to close mines, they are never going to be in Tory seats because they're not situated there. However, they had to be closed because they were losing the country money, running at a loss. But, as you say quite rightly, the money saved should have been poured back into the affected areas but wasn't. In the same way that the money raised from selling council houses should have been used for building new ones.


at a loss...yes...but what you dont produce you have to import right?...currently I believe we import around £2Billion pounds worth of coal a year, thats money that no longer is in the UK economy every year, not only that but the loss of the mines meant losses in other industries and businesses that relied on mining...she knew full well that would be the case and she let half of the country rot while the other half basked in glory trading the nationalised industries...those industries that every single person's money was built upon, sold them off, and the rich people who invested in shares got richer while those that lost their jobs in these industries got poorer, double whammy.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:12 pm

memphisto wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
If you are going to close mines, they are never going to be in Tory seats because they're not situated there. However, they had to be closed because they were losing the country money, running at a loss. But, as you say quite rightly, the money saved should have been poured back into the affected areas but wasn't. In the same way that the money raised from selling council houses should have been used for building new ones.


at a loss...yes...but what you dont produce you have to import right?...currently I believe we import around £2Billion pounds worth of coal a year, thats money that no longer is in the UK economy every year, not only that but the loss of the mines meant losses in other industries and businesses that relied on mining...she knew full well that would be the case and she let half of the country rot while the other half basked in glory trading the nationalised industries...those industries that every single person's money was built upon, sold them off, and the rich people who invested in shares got richer while those that lost their jobs in these industries got poorer, double whammy.


All true - but blame the people for voting her in. She didn't hide what she was going to do - without the backing of much of the country she couldn't have done any of it. It's not all about one woman, but about 80s culture in britain in general.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:50 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
daylon wrote:There is absolutely no doubt the UK had to change and improve by the end of the 70's .

But Thatcher came in far too heavy handed without a thought or any help whatsoever to the people whose lives that she ruined for years to come. She came across as uncaring and her actions proved that she was. Her term produced unemployment rates ranging from 3.6% in 1979 to 12% within 4 years of her coming to power. The rate never went below 10% for 6 years of her terms . That showed how ruthless and uncaring she was. In her first 4 years over 1.5 million lost their job with her policies. No government should ever allow that to happen. Interestingly the areas where most of the jobs were lost were not tory seats..she wouldn't have done it there . They were predominately in the North of the UK.

As I said in an earlier post, if she had offered help and support to the areas affected, she would have been thought more highly of..she didn't, not one iota of help .

Almost 25 years since she left and their is still a lot of hatred for what she did. They can't all be wrong. I'm not a hater but I despise what she did. In speaking to other people in my area, there is still animosity towards her. Of course in middle England and other tory strongholds, she will be regarded as the best PM ever..no doubt. But they weren't affected by her policies. Out of sight out of mind, they didn't see the heartache and misery it caused families or the ghost towns that followed. They were doing alright, in a steady well paid job with good prospects, maybe even buying their council house-becoming a homeowner. What was happening elsewhere wasn't their concern, they were ok.


If you are going to close mines, they are never going to be in Tory seats because they're not situated there. However, they had to be closed because they were losing the country money, running at a loss. But, as you say quite rightly, the money saved should have been poured back into the affected areas but wasn't. In the same way that the money raised from selling council houses should have been used for building new ones.

And no, the rest of the country didn't care - which links into my earlier point about the fact that it was society in Britain that is as much to blame - ie, people didn't care about each other, just themselves - hence why she got in again and again. But that's exactly the same today with regards to what Cameron is doing with regards to benefits. It's all very well the government claiming how much benefits are costing the country, and that this is due to the unemployed not wanting to work. But only 2% of the benefits bill goes to the unemployed anyway!

As I said elsewhere, I think much of the reason why people in other areas didn't care about the miners was because of their leader. He didn't put a kind, human face on their struggles, but came across as simply angry, uncompromising and generally belligerant. And it's thought that the fact that Scargill wouldn't compromise at all meant that more people lost their jobs than was necessary - as it's likely that Thatcher would have moved her position slightly had the miners been willing to move theirs too. But a stand-off with neither side willing to move is no good to anyone.

Again, I'm not defending her, I'm just saying that the situation is more nuanced than perhaps we are led to believe because both sides of the argument tend to ignore the valid points that each other makes.


The mines were only a small part of her attacks and the unprofitable pits had to go but it should have been handled better. There was a columnist writing in the Sun newspaper(of all papers) about her yesterday, remembering the industries that were in Paisley just outside Glasgow, before she came to power..car plants, mills, factories etc, they were employing around 30,000 workers all in. Within a few short months/years of the beginning of her term, they were all gone. 30,000 unemployed in a very short space of time. Again no help or support provided. This was typical of her callous behaviour towards people. That is why she is disliked as much today. Regardless what others say, they cannot disagree with the fact that she decimated entire communities very very quickly, with no regard for their well being. Even the most hardened blue tinted spectacled tory cannot disagree. I'm pretty sure if it came to helping a business survive in middle England employing a few hundred workers as opposed to saving one in Liverpool with better prospects....It's obvious what one she would have supported and helped. Certainly not Liverpool..not many Thatcher supporters there, that's for sure.

Scargill was even disliked by his own members, thats why many split from the NUM during the strike. He didn't speak for all the miners, there were a few other unions involved during the miners strike.
There were many of the pits that were marked for closure, making a profit and had done for years. Alongside the fact that the demand for coal was still strong but Thatcher thought she could get it cheaper importing it, which she did. Same thing again a few years later when the Major government wanted to close more than half the remaining pits, within 6 months, some by the end of that week of the announcement. The majority were profitable but it was pre privatisation and they wanted to trim the industry down, before they sold it off. Nuclear power was the big thing for the tories. It was a huge lossmaker for the government yet they subsidised it heavily for many years . Yet would bring in millions of tonnes of coal from abroad at the expense of miners jobs from pits that were making money. It is happening again to smaller extent, the price of coal has dropped by quite a bit hence the majority of UK mines that are left are being mothballed or closed. Not sure about the rest of the UK but Scotland stands to lose 650 jobs. Shale gas being at the moment very cheap(from the USA) and being used in preference to UK coal alongside imported coal.

As I said miners were only a small part. Probably more people lost their jobs in manufacturing and engineering than the mines. She didn't really care where, as long as her tory constituencies weren't hit.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:33 am

memphisto wrote:
rocknroller wrote:
ColinB wrote:From today's Independent:


LOL good one colin ! looks about right too me !!!


I like that there are rats following behind...and that its heading to a coal mine...


And today's front page:

Maggie Thatcher [Independent].JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Thu Apr 11, 2013 6:22 am

poormadpeter wrote:
MaryAnn wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
MaryAnn wrote:I always liked her, but then I'm an American and all I knew what was I read in the papers.

I didn't vote for her, didn't live in the UK under her administration, don't have a true grasp of all the conditions that led up to her time in power, what she accomplished (or hoped to accomplish), or the aftermath. Our cultures, while simpatico, are not the same. Therefore, I really don't feel I can comment. Perhaps, something we should all keep in mind as we approach each others' politics.


Not strictly true - it is much easier in 2013 to follow another country's political situation and the social effects of it because we have access to each other's newsstations, internet sites, newspapers...and can interact with other human beings via the internet (and forums such as this). Our opinions of other people's situations are a million times more informed than thirty years ago.


I thought about that before posting, PMP. There's something about a country's history, the land, the culture, the blood -- that can't be easily assimilated no matter what the technology. It's in the psyche. We need to be careful.


That's true to a certain extent - but it also means that people from other countries can see things that those within that country cannot.


Maybe. Yet, those that LIVE in a country and vote to put a person into office have a more immediate vested interest in the result and live daily with the aftermath.

Several posters here have pointed out the novelty of the UK voting in the FIRST woman Prime Minister and the fact that her gender may have been her main claim to fame. (As an American woman, I'll admit I thought it was FANTASTIC!)

I have a new perspective on the situation now as we have elected our first African-American president and saw the world-wide rejoicing.

Now that we've gotten these "firsts" out of the way, I hope we can all grow up and get back to the serious business of voting for the BEST leaders for our countries -- as we have the wisdom to discern them.

Voting for someone solely because they are of a certain gender or race, is just as wrong as voting against someone solely because they are of a certain gender or race.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:01 am

poormadpeter wrote:
memphisto wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
If you are going to close mines, they are never going to be in Tory seats because they're not situated there. However, they had to be closed because they were losing the country money, running at a loss. But, as you say quite rightly, the money saved should have been poured back into the affected areas but wasn't. In the same way that the money raised from selling council houses should have been used for building new ones.


at a loss...yes...but what you dont produce you have to import right?...currently I believe we import around £2Billion pounds worth of coal a year, thats money that no longer is in the UK economy every year, not only that but the loss of the mines meant losses in other industries and businesses that relied on mining...she knew full well that would be the case and she let half of the country rot while the other half basked in glory trading the nationalised industries...those industries that every single person's money was built upon, sold them off, and the rich people who invested in shares got richer while those that lost their jobs in these industries got poorer, double whammy.


All true - but blame the people for voting her in. She didn't hide what she was going to do - without the backing of much of the country she couldn't have done any of it. It's not all about one woman, but about 80s culture in britain in general.


Not just in Britain. In this age of globalization, she had a partner.

And many people who now voted for the current president here, were then "Reagan Democrats."

There are many reasons for this, and for thoughtful Britains to be Tories snd Royalists, and it has more to do with culture and a sense of national belonging, than the issues.

It's not something I can totally understand, but it's quite real.

rjm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:18 am

Pete Dube wrote:
rjm wrote:
iplayastrat wrote:Wow.

Different countries altogether, but if former President Jimmy Carter
had died and Republicans were celebrating the way some of you are,
I'd be ashamed.

RIP Margaret Thatcher


You are joking, right? If you believe, as is the customary belief, that he was a well-meaning screw-up who put human rights before electoral concerns, fine. But c'mon! Maybe he was a failure, but he failed trying to do right! He is about peace. Nobody's perfect in that way, and he has stumbled, but c'mon! Thatcher?

I said "God rest her soul."

rjm
P.S. -- He's not only alive, but on Jon Stewart: now. He just dissed @prezbillyjeff, regarding Korea. He's like 88 and kickin' butt for peace. (And ending Guinea Worm Disease.)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2




Guinea Worm Disease? I thought the Italians were healthy folks given all the pasta, garlic and red wine they consume.


Tee-hee.

But seriously . . .

Here ya go, Pete. It ain't pretty!

http://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/mini_site/facts.html

rjm

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Thu Apr 11, 2013 4:03 pm

MaryAnn wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
MaryAnn wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
MaryAnn wrote:I always liked her, but then I'm an American and all I knew what was I read in the papers.

I didn't vote for her, didn't live in the UK under her administration, don't have a true grasp of all the conditions that led up to her time in power, what she accomplished (or hoped to accomplish), or the aftermath. Our cultures, while simpatico, are not the same. Therefore, I really don't feel I can comment. Perhaps, something we should all keep in mind as we approach each others' politics.


Not strictly true - it is much easier in 2013 to follow another country's political situation and the social effects of it because we have access to each other's newsstations, internet sites, newspapers...and can interact with other human beings via the internet (and forums such as this). Our opinions of other people's situations are a million times more informed than thirty years ago.


I thought about that before posting, PMP. There's something about a country's history, the land, the culture, the blood -- that can't be easily assimilated no matter what the technology. It's in the psyche. We need to be careful.


That's true to a certain extent - but it also means that people from other countries can see things that those within that country cannot.


Maybe. Yet, those that LIVE in a country and vote to put a person into office have a more immediate vested interest in the result and live daily with the aftermath.

Several posters here have pointed out the novelty of the UK voting in the FIRST woman Prime Minister and the fact that her gender may have been her main claim to fame. (As an American woman, I'll admit I thought it was FANTASTIC!)

I have a new perspective on the situation now as we have elected our first African-American president and saw the world-wide rejoicing.

Now that we've gotten these "firsts" out of the way, I hope we can all grow up and get back to the serious business of voting for the BEST leaders for our countries -- as we have the wisdom to discern them.

Voting for someone solely because they are of a certain gender or race, is just as wrong as voting against someone solely because they are of a certain gender or race.


I would imagine that the reason for women voting for Thatcher or African-American's voting for Obama is because they thought they were the best person to represent their views. While the former could theoretically have won the election for Thatcher, I think the situation is different for Obama. During the election campaign many Americans on here were talking about "voting for the lesser of two evils", and it's those swing voters that won Obama the election - if you're not sure who is better for you, you vote for the nice guy who comes over as calm, measured and personable.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:43 am

This column from the Independent by Mark Steel sums it all up pretty nicely:

A Mark Steel Column.JPG


To summarise [even further]: If someone does bad things, they aren't automatically forgiven simply because they've died !
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sat Apr 13, 2013 8:54 pm

I have lots of family in corby,my grandad moved there from glasgow in the early 40s to work in the steel works my mum was born there but moved back to glasgow when she turned 18.my uncles were hit bad when the steel works closed and it was the death of corby in many ways but my family stuck it out down there and got jobs although it took them along time.corby has picked up over the last few years and has a much Brighter Future,that said i would never live there but i do enjoy visiting family !!! cheers for the post colin :smt023

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:28 pm

I think much of my issue (or, now, boredom) with the let's-knock-Thatcher peeps on facebook, twitter and forums etc, is that they seem pefectly happy to get in a rage about something that happened thirty years ago, but not get in a rage about what's happening RIGHT NOW in the country. I'm not sure whether people think they are somehow safer to speak their mind when someone's dead? Will we see parties in thirty years time because Cameron has died, and people will celebrate it because it was he who sent people into poverty, destroyed the NHS and the welfare system? That would be typical, it seems, of what is going on. With the internet, people have the chance they never had to make their views known, which they seem to be doing about Thatcher this week - but just take what is happening now as par for the course!

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:05 pm

It was in working class towns like Corby and many others throughout the UK that Mrs T thought the locals drank out of puddles !! :wink:

I've also read this week(which is in the article supplied by colin b) from a few supporters of hers that she helped end apartheid in SA; she bloody supported De Klerk and his regime and branded Mandela a terrorist.

Good Article.

PMP
The Tories are going to ruin this country but I believe if Labour could get their act together they could remove them at the next election. I don't believe there is a great deal of support for the tories but the big problem; the Labour leader is weak(have you ever heard him really challenge them). The tory press have already labelled him Red Ed. He's seen as a leftie. If he's still in charge by the next election, the tories will win outright and the tories will show their teeth even more . The NHS will be the first casualty, with privatisation.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:14 pm

daylon wrote:It was in working class towns like Corby and many others throughout the UK that Mrs T thought the locals drank out of puddles !! :wink:

I've also read this week(which is in the article supplied by colin b) from a few supporters of hers that she helped end apartheid in SA; she bloody supported De Klerk and his regime and branded Mandela a terrorist.

Good Article.

PMP
The Tories are going to ruin this country but I believe if Labour could get their act together they could remove them at the next election. I don't believe there is a great deal of support for the tories but the big problem; the Labour leader is weak(have you ever heard him really challenge them). The tory press have already labelled him Red Ed. He's seen as a leftie. If he's still in charge by the next election, the tories will win outright and the tories will show their teeth even more . The NHS will be the first casualty, with privatisation.



Thats why if we get Independence we will never have to worry about the torys again !!!

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:05 pm

daylon wrote:It was in working class towns like Corby and many others throughout the UK that Mrs T thought the locals drank out of puddles !! :wink:

I've also read this week(which is in the article supplied by colin b) from a few supporters of hers that she helped end apartheid in SA; she bloody supported De Klerk and his regime and branded Mandela a terrorist.

Good Article.

PMP
The Tories are going to ruin this country but I believe if Labour could get their act together they could remove them at the next election. I don't believe there is a great deal of support for the tories but the big problem; the Labour leader is weak(have you ever heard him really challenge them). The tory press have already labelled him Red Ed. He's seen as a leftie. If he's still in charge by the next election, the tories will win outright and the tories will show their teeth even more . The NHS will be the first casualty, with privatisation.


i think you're right. But while the population wants a decent opposition, it doesn't attempt to provide opposition itself - which it can do these days. We seem to take everything lying down now rather than making a fuss about it. That said, I'll repeat my prediction that if we have a long hot summer this year there will be more riots. That's not the way forward, but eventually things snap.

I'm not sure the Tory's will get a majority next time. The traditional Lib Dem voters (students) will move their alliance to labour after the fiasco over fees, for example. And I'm sure many who thought "let's give Cameron a chance" (or the floating voter, if you like) will also go elsewhere - but WHERE they go (UKIP or labour) will make the difference I think.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:24 am

poormadpeter wrote:...I'm not sure the Tory's will get a majority next time.
The traditional Lib Dem voters (students) will move their alliance to labour after the fiasco over fees, for example.
And I'm sure many who thought "let's give Cameron a chance" (or the floating voter, if you like) will also go elsewhere -
but WHERE they go (UKIP or labour) will make the difference I think.


I reckon Labour will swing it.

The UKIP resurgence is due to a temporary 'protest' vote.

Ed Milliband, as something of a new-kid-on-the-block, is comparatively free of old baggage.

The electorate will give him his chance.

The big danger is Scottish independence !

Without those Labour voters from north-of-the-border, the rest of the UK will too easily fall into Tory hands !

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sun Apr 14, 2013 2:45 am

rocknroller wrote:
daylon wrote:It was in working class towns like Corby and many others throughout the UK that Mrs T thought the locals drank out of puddles !! :wink:

I've also read this week(which is in the article supplied by colin b) from a few supporters of hers that she helped end apartheid in SA; she bloody supported De Klerk and his regime and branded Mandela a terrorist.

Good Article.

PMP
The Tories are going to ruin this country but I believe if Labour could get their act together they could remove them at the next election. I don't believe there is a great deal of support for the tories but the big problem; the Labour leader is weak(have you ever heard him really challenge them). The tory press have already labelled him Red Ed. He's seen as a leftie. If he's still in charge by the next election, the tories will win outright and the tories will show their teeth even more . The NHS will be the first casualty, with privatisation.



Thats why if we get Independence we will never have to worry about the torys again !!!


Yeah, cool, but that would be like NY and California leaving the Union, so as not to have to deal with the Republicans "ever again."

But the rest of the country is Scrooged! You really can't under the circumstances, as pointed out in the previous post.

rjm

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:11 am

ColinB wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:...I'm not sure the Tory's will get a majority next time.
The traditional Lib Dem voters (students) will move their alliance to labour after the fiasco over fees, for example.
And I'm sure many who thought "let's give Cameron a chance" (or the floating voter, if you like) will also go elsewhere -
but WHERE they go (UKIP or labour) will make the difference I think.


I reckon Labour will swing it.

The UKIP resurgence is due to a temporary 'protest' vote.

Ed Milliband, as something of a new-kid-on-the-block, is comparatively free of old baggage.

The electorate will give him his chance.

The big danger is Scottish independence !

Without those Labour voters from north-of-the-border, the rest of the UK will too easily fall into Tory hands !


I think the chances of Scottish independence is actually quite slim. While many are making their voices heard now, the chances are that the undecided voters will get to the polling station and go with the devil they know rather than the devil they don't. Recent polls show only between 30-40% in favour of independence, so I doubt that a gain of 10-20% will be made to make it even a close contest. For which I, personally, am glad - if only for extremely personal reasons...but I wouldn't let my Scottish friends know my thoughts or they'll try to behead me next time I see them!

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sun Apr 14, 2013 12:35 pm

poormadpeter wrote:
ColinB wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:...I'm not sure the Tory's will get a majority next time.
The traditional Lib Dem voters (students) will move their alliance to labour after the fiasco over fees, for example.
And I'm sure many who thought "let's give Cameron a chance" (or the floating voter, if you like) will also go elsewhere -
but WHERE they go (UKIP or labour) will make the difference I think.


I reckon Labour will swing it.

The UKIP resurgence is due to a temporary 'protest' vote.

Ed Milliband, as something of a new-kid-on-the-block, is comparatively free of old baggage.

The electorate will give him his chance.

The big danger is Scottish independence !

Without those Labour voters from north-of-the-border, the rest of the UK will too easily fall into Tory hands !


I think the chances of Scottish independence is actually quite slim. While many are making their voices heard now, the chances are that the undecided voters will get to the polling station and go with the devil they know rather than the devil they don't. Recent polls show only between 30-40% in favour of independence, so I doubt that a gain of 10-20% will be made to make it even a close contest. For which I, personally, am glad - if only for extremely personal reasons...but I wouldn't let my Scottish friends know my thoughts or they'll try to behead me next time I see them!


I wouldn't be so sure about that PMP. It is going to be close. I voted Labour in the UK election and SNP in the Scottish election where the SNP won a landslide victory up here....We have PR as a voting system in Scotland. Which usually means that no party should have an overall majority(in Scotland). The SNP won an overall majority..... it wasn't predicted in any of the polls leading up to that election, it came as a complete surprise.

Alex Salmond is a very clever man, he's head and shoulders above the majority of UK politicians, even Rupert Murdoch described him as the "most brilliant politician in the UK". Salmonds current ratings are good according to the Scottish opinion polls.

At the moment I am undecided but veering towards a YES vote. Salmond is trusted by the electorate up here and for the most part has done a very good job. He will present a good case, that is for sure.
What could happen though, is people will vote for independence if they think there is any possibility of a tory return 6 months later in the UK election. Not the right way to decide on such a major issue but it is a very real possibility. The Scottish independence vote is September 2014 and the UK election will be no later than May 2015.
Interestingly the Scottish edition of the Sun newspaper are going to remain neutral in the independence vote. They usually back the party that looks likely to win . This to me shows how close it will be.

Also in the summer of 2014, Glasgow hosts the Commonwealth games and it is also the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn and there is also Homecoming Scotland events..(.people with Scottish descent are meant to come visit their ancestral home..something like that) . Salmond will play on all of this, building up on Scottish patriotism for a vote a few weeks later. Patrotism are not the right reasons to vote yes but some will.

Rocknroller is right, if we get independence, we would no longer need to worry about the tories. I think that will be a factor.(right or wrong)

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:38 pm

daylon wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:
ColinB wrote:
poormadpeter wrote:...I'm not sure the Tory's will get a majority next time.
The traditional Lib Dem voters (students) will move their alliance to labour after the fiasco over fees, for example.
And I'm sure many who thought "let's give Cameron a chance" (or the floating voter, if you like) will also go elsewhere -
but WHERE they go (UKIP or labour) will make the difference I think.


I reckon Labour will swing it.

The UKIP resurgence is due to a temporary 'protest' vote.

Ed Milliband, as something of a new-kid-on-the-block, is comparatively free of old baggage.

The electorate will give him his chance.

The big danger is Scottish independence !

Without those Labour voters from north-of-the-border, the rest of the UK will too easily fall into Tory hands !


I think the chances of Scottish independence is actually quite slim. While many are making their voices heard now, the chances are that the undecided voters will get to the polling station and go with the devil they know rather than the devil they don't. Recent polls show only between 30-40% in favour of independence, so I doubt that a gain of 10-20% will be made to make it even a close contest. For which I, personally, am glad - if only for extremely personal reasons...but I wouldn't let my Scottish friends know my thoughts or they'll try to behead me next time I see them!


I wouldn't be so sure about that PMP. It is going to be close. I voted Labour in the UK election and SNP in the Scottish election where the SNP won a landslide victory up here....We have PR as a voting system in Scotland. Which usually means that no party should have an overall majority(in Scotland). The SNP won an overall majority..... it wasn't predicted in any of the polls leading up to that election, it came as a complete surprise.

Alex Salmond is a very clever man, he's head and shoulders above the majority of UK politicians, even Rupert Murdoch described him as the "most brilliant politician in the UK". Salmonds current ratings are good according to the Scottish opinion polls.

At the moment I am undecided but veering towards a YES vote. Salmond is trusted by the electorate up here and for the most part has done a very good job. He will present a good case, that is for sure.
What could happen though, is people will vote for independence if they think there is any possibility of a tory return 6 months later in the UK election. Not the right way to decide on such a major issue but it is a very real possibility. The Scottish independence vote is September 2014 and the UK election will be no later than May 2015.
Interestingly the Scottish edition of the Sun newspaper are going to remain neutral in the independence vote. They usually back the party that looks likely to win . This to me shows how close it will be.

Also in the summer of 2014, Glasgow hosts the Commonwealth games and it is also the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn and there is also Homecoming Scotland events..(.people with Scottish descent are meant to come visit their ancestral home..something like that) . Salmond will play on all of this, building up on Scottish patriotism for a vote a few weeks later. Patrotism are not the right reasons to vote yes but some will.

Rocknroller is right, if we get independence, we would no longer need to worry about the tories. I think that will be a factor.(right or wrong)



Salmond might be clever and a good politician, but I don't think this is about winning votes, this is an issue about gut feeling. In most cases, people already know how they feel on the subject and are unlikely to be swayed by one argument or the other.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:59 pm

I doubt the celebrations would last long but here's hoping that people in Scotland do vote in favour of independence. Long over due imo.

Re: Margaret Thatcher, Former UK PM, Dead At 87

Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:09 pm

Sounds about right !!!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.