NationStates Jolt Archive

inspired by another thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410437&page=1&pp=15), i wanted to find out what people thought of Thatcher, her policies, her legacy, etc?
for those who don't know, Thatcher was the British Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990 for the Tory party. info (http://www.britannia.com/gov/primes/prime56.html)


my opinion is that she was the antithesis of what this country should be heading towards. she undermined the welfare state, her policies created an underclass of citizens who still continue to cause problems today, she used the Falklands War to further her own career, created a wholly unpleasant business atmosphere, was a proponent of trickle down economics (which does not work), increased the rich/poor divide, and destroyed our economy through boom & bust economics.
the one good thing she did do was free up the labour market, meaning Britian today is more competative in that respect than our continental European partners.


taken from the other thread: (yes, i'm lazy ;))

don't forget starting the utterly pointless Falklands War, which could have been easily avoided through diplomatic channels, to stir up patriotism and further her political ends - so she used the lives of british soldiers just to stay in power. evil.

lets not also forget that through her massive cuts to state education and the business & social climate she created, she effectivley created an underclass of people. generation X - undereducated, unmotivated, and now they are bringing up their children with the same values, compounding the problem. the townies/chavs/whatever you want to call them are this new generation - the children of Thatcher's legacy. they are the ones who are causing such problems with crime, teenage pregnancy, etc... if it wasn't for Maggie creating her underclass Britian would be a better place today (imho) with less tax needed to fund the police and welfare programs these people soak up, and less tax needed to sort out the problems these people create in general.

lets not also forget (again) that trickle-down economics does not work.


been trying to find data/graphs to back up the economic statements i've made, but haven't found anything yet. i'll keep looking tho :)


poll coming

i second everything pure metal said, plus...

3 million unemployed (my mum and dad being two of them)
the miners strike.
her love of wars and stuff.

i second everything pure metal said, plus...

3 million unemployed (my mum and dad being two of them)
the miners strike.
her love of wars and stuff.
yep, shouldn't have left out the unemployment :headbang:
plus, 20%+ inflation :eek:


i'm glad "evil" is winning :)


edit: :eek: awwww i missed my 3000th post :(

Didn't Black Wednesday happen while Margaret Thatcher was PM?

Thatcher the milk-snatcher, dentists blame her policies for a generation growing up with such appaling teeth. Plus it was her government that sold-off school catering to private firms. No wonder it's so sh*t today and Jamie Oliver has to come in and sort it all out.

No return to a failed Tory past, stick with labour. That's what I say.

Nice change of history.

Argentina started the Falkland Wars in reality. Britain declared war on Argentina in response. Besides, Thatcher was one of the greatest PM in British History. Up there with Winston Churchill.

She was a defender of the free world.

Thatcher the milk-snatcher, dentists blame her policies for a generation growing up with such appaling teeth. Plus it was her government that sold-off school catering to private firms. No wonder it's so sh*t today and Jamie Oliver has to come in and sort it all out.

No return to a failed Tory past, stick with labour. That's what I say.

It is indeed a sad day, when a sad twat like Jamie Oliver becomes the political saviour of childrens school meals.

It is indeed a sad day, when a sad twat like Jamie Oliver becomes the political saviour of childrens school meals.

Thats a good show Lol.

Didn't Black Wednesday happen while Margaret Thatcher was PM?

Nope. Major.

i second everything pure metal said, plus...

3 million unemployed (my mum and dad being two of them)
the miners strike.
her love of wars and stuff.
You know... replace the "her" with him and change a couple of the numbers and you've got current American stats! :D

And yes, she sounds evil. ^_^

Nice change of history.

Argentina started the Falkland Wars in reality. Britain declared war on Argentina in response. Besides, Thatcher was one of the greatest PM in British History. Up there with Winston Churchill.

She was a defender of the free world.
could have been resolved peacefully through diplomacy. the war was unnecessary


i also disagree with her privatisation of nationalised industries (was British Rail privatised under her or Major?)

could have been resolved peacefully through diplomacy. the war was unnecessary

"Galtieri aimed to counterbalance public concern over economic and human rights issues with a speedy nationalist 'win' over the Falklands. Pressure was exerted in the UN with a subtle hint of invasion raised. The British missed this threat and continued to waste time (it is worth noting that British positions are not expressed centrally but rather emerge from the operations of special interests and departments without always being consistent; this has often misled outside observers). The Argentines interpreted the British position as disengagement, being willing to back away if the islands were invaded - a viewpoint encouraged by the planned withdrawal of the last Royal Navy presence in 1981 (together with a general down-sizing of the fleet) and the British Nationality Act of 1981 which withdrew full citizenship rights from the Falkland Islanders. The British also helped by being unwilling to believe that the Argentines would invade."

Thanks wikipedia! That sorts that one out ;)

could have been resolved peacefully through diplomacy. the war was unnecessary


i also disagree with her privatisation of nationalised industries (was British Rail privatised under her or Major?)

They tried diplomacy Pure Metal! I suggest you read up on it. They tried and Argentina rebuffed thus Britain declared war.

Failed diplomacy
From the time of the breaking of formal diplomatic relations, Peru represented Argentine diplomatic interests in the United Kingdom and Switzerland represented UK interests in Argentina. Argentine diplomats in London were credentialed as Peruvian diplomats of Argentine nationality and the UK diplomats in Buenos Aires were credentialed as Swiss diplomats of British nationality. Despite this civility, and although Peru and Switzerland exerted great diplomatic effort to avoid war, they were unable to head off the conflict; a peace plan proposed by Fernando Belaunde Terry was not accepted

i still say more could have been done to avert war. fuck, if it were my decision Argentina could have kept the islands :rolleyes:


edit: i will, however, admit that i was misinformed about this issue. i still stand by what i say though

i still say more could have been done to avert war. fuck, if it were my decision Argentina could have kept the islands :rolleyes:

I think that was my point - Argentina invaded because Britain had pretty much given the impression that they wouldn't mind too much, Britain sunk the Belgrano despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations involving Peru and Switzerland. This hardened the Argentine resolve and made re-election for Thatcher a certainty. I still think we should extradite her to stand trial for war crimes...

I think that was my point - Argentina invaded because Britain had pretty much given the impression that they wouldn't mind too much, Britain sunk the Belgrano despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations involving Peru and Switzerland. This hardened the Argentine resolve and made re-election for Thatcher a certainty. I still think we should extradite her to stand trial for war crimes...

Care to tell me what war crimes she committed?

edit: i will, however, admit that i was misinformed about this issue. i still stand by what i say though

Standing by what you said when proven false is foolhardy.

Care to tell me what war crimes she committed?

It's the age old Belgrano (http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/belgrano.htm) argument. To be honest, it probably wasn't a war crime on Thatcher's part but it'd be worth it to get rid of the mad old bag...

Nice change of history.

Argentina started the Falkland Wars in reality. Britain declared war on Argentina in response. Besides, Thatcher was one of the greatest PM in British History. Up there with Winston Churchill.

She was a defender of the free world.

Argentina decided that it would take 'back' the Falkland islands because the Tory Goverment had made so many defence cuts that the one single official visit by a naval vessel could not be done.
Basically Britain 'told' the Argentinians that we didn't give a toss about them.

Margaret Thatcher and her government caused untold damage to this country.
She closed mines that had at least 20 - 30 years worth of coal left in them, just because she wanted to show the unions who was boss. She decimated communities and laid waste to generations of families, splitting them up for ever. (I am a miners daughter from the North East, my parents still live there, my younger brother about 40 miles away, I live in Norfolk, my sister in Gloucester and older brother almost became nomadic in his never ending search for work)

She was no defender of the free world, she was the most ignorant and bigotted woman in history, she pandered to the middle classes and allowed everything that this country had built, turn to a pile of crap and all for a quick profit.

*Phew* Thats better, haven't had a rant like that for ages!

I think that was my point - Argentina invaded because Britain had pretty much given the impression that they wouldn't mind too much, Britain sunk the Belgrano despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations involving Peru and Switzerland. This hardened the Argentine resolve and made re-election for Thatcher a certainty. I still think we should extradite her to stand trial for war crimes...
now there's an idea!
sorry i didn't get your point before - i'm suffering from the end of a hangover & my head is still fuzzy :D

hehe my mum just (very kindly) brought me breakfast... at 5pm :p

Standing by what you said when proven false is foolhardy.
call it what you want, but i still think the war was unnecessary and Thatcher used it (whether or not she engineered it) to further her political career

she allowed everything that this country had built, to turn to a pile of crap and all for a quick profit.
a most excellent summary of Thatcher's ideals

Do none of you remember the years before thatcher?
They were frightening times, All out on strike for no real reason was so common it and the UK were a standing joke.
Inflation reached the levels it did due to the ineffective controls on the union claims, these caused companies to raise their prices and that caused the unions to push for higher claims = inflation.
Your comments on the chavs etc, they were not brought up under Thatcher.
Stop putting current problems on previous PM's and look to those in power now to solve the problem, if they haven't made improvements in one term then they are responsible for the problem continuing.
It takes 18 months for economic reforms to filter through, the current government has had a lot longer.

Oh yes I remember the years before Thatcher and the folklore of the strikes for softer bog rolls.
As I have said, a daughter of a miner I remember it from the pointy end.

As an American I only know a very little about the Thatcher, but I know she partook of the crackdown on the Soviets at the end of the Cold war. I have no idea about her domestic policies. So I put OK.

Cause the soviet union blew.

Argentina decided that it would take 'back' the Falkland islands because the Tory Goverment had made so many defence cuts that the one single official visit by a naval vessel could not be done.
Basically Britain 'told' the Argentinians that we didn't give a toss about them.

Margaret Thatcher and her government caused untold damage to this country.
She closed mines that had at least 20 - 30 years worth of coal left in them, just because she wanted to show the unions who was boss. She decimated communities and laid waste to generations of families, splitting them up for ever. (I am a miners daughter from the North East, my parents still live there, my younger brother about 40 miles away, I live in Norfolk, my sister in Gloucester and older brother almost became nomadic in his never ending search for work)

She was no defender of the free world, she was the most ignorant and bigotted woman in history, she pandered to the middle classes and allowed everything that this country had built, turn to a pile of crap and all for a quick profit.

*Phew* Thats better, haven't had a rant like that for ages!

Nice Rant

Oh yes I remember the years before Thatcher and the folklore of the strikes for softer bog rolls.
As I have said, a daughter of a miner I remember it from the pointy end.

I have sympathy for your position.

But, i have a question.
If these mines were so profitable, why did they close?
Was it not that it was bad situation that had been subsidised beyond a sustainable position that had to end. Unfortunatley the ending was the way it was.

It was my thread you got this idea from and I stand by my views, she was a good woman.

call it what you want, but i still think the war was unnecessary and Thatcher used it (whether or not she engineered it) to further her political career

Sometimes things are thrust upon people that are not of their choosing. When they occur, people can't help but remember what their leaders did during that time point. Wether she used it to further her own political career or not is really irrelevent.

Do none of you remember the years before thatcher?
They were frightening times, All out on strike for no real reason was so common it and the UK were a standing joke.
Inflation reached the levels it did due to the ineffective controls on the union claims, these caused companies to raise their prices and that caused the unions to push for higher claims = inflation.
Your comments on the chavs etc, they were not brought up under Thatcher.
Stop putting current problems on previous PM's and look to those in power now to solve the problem, if they haven't made improvements in one term then they are responsible for the problem continuing.
It takes 18 months for economic reforms to filter through, the current government has had a lot longer.
yes, the 70s were awful times but really only because of the severe economic hardship Britain went through. that's economic hardship that we can/did recover from. wheras Thatcher's reforms and policies are still influencing us today - the chavs aren't caused directly by Thatcher, but they are the children of Thatcher's generation, brought up with the views of their parents & thus Thatcher too. it is as much, if not more, the social influence and problems Thatcher caused as the economic side of her reign that i dislike so much.
as for her economics, 11 years of Thatcher and 18 years of constant Tory rule caused such massive underfunding of public services that it will take many many terms of office (of Labour) to put things right again. basically things got so bad under the tories that the task of repairing the welfare state is too massive a task for the government to acheive since 1997.
don't forget the excessive privatisation - still causing problems today; and for what? a quick fix in the 80s?

the 70s were bad, but recoverable. Thatcher's legacy is much more long-lasting because she quite simply changed the country so much. and in ways that are still hurting us today.

not everything she did was bad, just nearly everything

It was my thread you got this idea from and I stand by my views, she was a good woman.

Though I"m not a brit, I did study what she did. I agree 100%

Good old Maggy! Between her and Reagan, if they were still in power, the world would be the safest place and most brilliant place in the universe!

The mines closed because without them there would be no miners union, one of if not the most powerful union in the country.
The reason they become unprofitable was because they were flooded with new and un needed machinery that sat in the pit yards rotting for a while before the pit was declared un economic.
Then the new machinery was either buried with the pit or carted off to appear on anothers books for the same reason.
The colliery that my family had worked in for generations was closed with at least 30 years worth of prime coal left in it, those in the area were the same.

Good old Maggy! Between her and Reagan, if they were still in power, the world would be the safest place and most brilliant place in the universe!

I couldn't agree more. May Reagan rest in peace.

yes, the 70s were awful times but really only because of the severe economic hardship Britain went through. that's economic hardship that we can/did recover from. wheras Thatcher's reforms and policies are still influencing us today - the chavs aren't caused directly by Thatcher, but they are the children of Thatcher's generation, brought up with the views of their parents & thus Thatcher too. it is as much, if not more, the social influence and problems Thatcher caused as the economic side of her reign that i dislike so much.
as for her economics, 11 years of Thatcher and 18 years of constant Tory rule caused such massive underfunding of public services that it will take many many terms of office (of Labour) to put things right again. basically things got so bad under the tories that the task of repairing the welfare state is too massive a task for the government to acheive since 1997.
don't forget the excessive privatisation - still causing problems today; and for what? a quick fix in the 80s?

the 70s were bad, but recoverable. Thatcher's legacy is much more long-lasting because she quite simply changed the country so much. and in ways that are still hurting us today.

not everything she did was bad, just nearly everything


By your definition, My parents being children during the second world war, are responsible for my dress sense? Your parents were children of thatcher but you are not affected?
You are putting your head in the sand if you think that all the ills of the UK are down to one PM.

At what point does it become nessersary to live withing your means? Is this the legacy of the following labour rule? Borrow and don't worry, the economic indicators show we are in more debt now than ever, the UK going Bankrupt is not a problem?

Margaret Thatcher and her government caused untold damage to this country.
She closed mines that had at least 20 - 30 years worth of coal left in them, just because she wanted to show the unions who was boss. She decimated communities and laid waste to generations of families, splitting them up for ever. (I am a miners daughter from the North East, my parents still live there, my younger brother about 40 miles away, I live in Norfolk, my sister in Gloucester and older brother almost became nomadic in his never ending search for work)


Rubbish, a lot of miners voted to take redundancy many pits, (though I admit not all). but the NUM, wouldn't allow any closings (even in massively unprofitable pits where the miners chose redundancy), regardless of the miners feelings in particular pits. (Thank you Arthur Scargil). That's why the srtike was so acrimonious, and that's why the NUM split.

The NUM fucked itself. Anyway, no-one really wanted to be a miner by the late 80s. (Well not enough people to make it worthwhile).

But don't worry, if you think that there is lots of coal left, the government is more than willing to sell you a used colliery, and you can open it and mine it yourself. (There are several of those in Wales). So, you know; just get to it.

BTW, Norfolk is hardly the North East.

And remember, she didn't just shaft the miners, she did the same to the civil service, the steel workers, and the ship builders. All of them basically deserved it however.

The mines closed because without them there would be no miners union, one of if not the most powerful union in the country.
The reason they become unprofitable was because they were flooded with new and un needed machinery that sat in the pit yards rotting for a while before the pit was declared un economic.
Then the new machinery was either buried with the pit or carted off to appear on anothers books for the same reason.
The colliery that my family had worked in for generations was closed with at least 30 years worth of prime coal left in it, those in the area were the same.

I love this. I have some sympathy for your plight, believe me I do but to blame it all on thatcher for closing them is rather disingenious of you. This is why I really don't like unions, blame everybody but themselves.

The colliery that my family had worked in for generations was closed with at least 30 years worth of prime coal left in it, those in the area were the same.

There is no prime coal in Norfolk. All the really good coal is in Wales.

By the gods in heaven, why don't you all read before you jump on the bandwagon?
I NOW live in Norfolk
I come from County Durham the North east coast where the highest proprtion of high quality coal came from out under the north sea!

By your definition, My parents being children during the second world war, are responsible for my dress sense? Your parents were children of thatcher but you are not affected?
You are putting your head in the sand if you think that all the ills of the UK are down to one PM.

At what point does it become nessersary to live withing your means? Is this the legacy of the following labour rule? Borrow and don't worry, the economic indicators show we are in more debt now than ever, the UK going Bankrupt is not a problem?
i'm wasn't saying anything about Labour, but slow, steady & sustainable growth is by far preferable to Thatcher's boom & bust cycles. the culture of borrowing is a cultural/sociological issue, and is not caused by the government. the government needs to step in and do something to help alleviate this growing (& potentially, in the future, damaging) problem. regulation of credit card firms is the first thing that springs to mind. prevent people from borrowing more than they can afford through regulation - something that Thatcher would not do out of principle, favouring laizes faire markets. raising interest rates would also help discourage this culture of borrowing but that isn't the government's responsibility, the rate is controlled by the MPC of the Bank Of England.

back to Thatcher. no my parents were not children of Thatcher - they were born in the 50s and i was born in 1985. to clarify, Thatcher's ruined generation were the ones going through school during the 1980s. they were undereducated due to Thatcher's cuts in public spending, and have since had kids of their own. that generation is the one with the "chavs." of course, not every single kid from those two generations are problematic, but the (very large) element of chav culture certainly is - causing crime and a drain on the welfare state system (for a start). just yesterday there was a gang of chavs beating the shit out of some guy, in broad daylight, in the middle of my local high-street of shops. if it wasn't for Thatcher producing this underclass generation, this current generation of chavs may not even exist. drive round the UK and you'll see them everywhere. on my recent trip through continental Europe (through France, Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany) chavs simply don't seem to exist (or at least no way near as much as here).
i don't blame all the problems of this country on her, but Thatcher has caused much more than her fair share of them.

By the gods in heaven, why don't you all read before you jump on the bandwagon?
I NOW live in Norfolk
I come from County Durham the North east coast where the highest proprtion of high quality coal came from out under the north sea!

Ah, sorry, I misread. I know South Durham Coalfield.

Which pit did your dad work at? We might be related.

you were born in 1985? OK now I understand.
Nuff said goodbye.

you were born in 1985? OK now I understand.
Nuff said goodbye.
goodbye? :confused: how does that change anything? :confused:
aww i was enjoying this debate and everything :(

Eagerly awaiting her death so that I may dance on her grave.

Ah, sorry, I misread. I know South Durham Coalfield.

Which pit did your dad work at? We might be related.

Horden colliery.

Then my brother went to Dawden and on to (bugger can't remember it's name) the one just outside Sunderland.

She was totally evil and the worst prime minister Britain has ever had. Her policies ruined the UK and turned it into a country run only in the interests of private profit and nothing else. She reduced the top tax rate from 83% to 40%, attacked the rights of working people, destroyed the British manufacturing industry, cut welfare benefits for the poorest within society, privatised publicly owned industries and services and turned Britain from being the most equal country in Europe to one of the most unequal. Unfortunately Blair however is not much better and he has continued the failed neoliberal economic policies of Thatcher while taking the UK into an imperialist war in the interests of US corporations. I just hope that once he has gone Labour can again become a genuinely leftist party which will restore the progressive policies which the party was founded on and which made Britain such a prosperous country before 1979.

Unfortunately Blair however is not much better and he has continued the failed neoliberal economic policies of Thatcher while taking the UK into an imperialist war in the interests of US corporations.
While I thought Maggie was really rather good (more for NI-specific reasons, rather than general UK policy), I agree with this. Bliar ought to stop copy-catting her and find his own style of government. Since that's not likely to happen, we can only hope he fucks off sometime soon...But I can't see that being this May, more's the pity.

Damn, i'm now reminded of how bad her policies were. I voted "bad" but now I wish I had voted "evil". How many British soldiers died and were injured in the Falklands War?

Damn, i'm now reminded of how bad her policies were. I voted "bad" but now I wish I had voted "evil". How many British soldiers died and were injured in the Falklands War?

Less than in World War I and World War II!

She was totally evil and the worst prime minister Britain has ever had. Her policies ruined the UK and turned it into a country run only in the interests of private profit and nothing else. She reduced the top tax rate from 83% to 40%, attacked the rights of working people, destroyed the British manufacturing industry, cut welfare benefits for the poorest within society, privatised publicly owned industries and services and turned Britain from being the most equal country in Europe to one of the most unequal. Unfortunately Blair however is not much better and he has continued the failed neoliberal economic policies of Thatcher while taking the UK into an imperialist war in the interests of US corporations. I just hope that once he has gone Labour can again become a genuinely leftist party which will restore the progressive policies which the party was founded on and which made Britain such a prosperous country before 1979.

I'm not sure if this was a joke or not. That last line does look a bit like a punchline. Britain before 1979 was one of the least prosperous countries in Europe. We were far behind Germany, France, Italy and so on in terms of GDP, quality of life and so on. Equality is useless if it means that everyone is poor. There was horrendous inflation that wiped out everyone's savings (more poverty, huzzah), and strikes meant that the country only had enough power to work for three days a week (less produced means less earned, so yet more poverty, huzzah). Corpses piled up in morgues as there was no one to bury them - they were on strike.

Britain in the 1970s was a hideous mess. You don't have to agree with everything that Thatcher did to realise that she must have done something right. Under the reforms brought in by her, and improved and continued under Labour, Britain is now the most prosperous of all the large European countries. So what if most of that increase has gone to the rich (or rather, to the hard-working - most of the people who make their fortunes as entrepreneurs weren't all that wealthy to begin with)? The poor are better off too. More people than ever are middle-class, and what that means is that lots of people are up off the floor.

I'm not interested in individual cases of people having to be laid off. If mining was viable then private companies would be doing it. No one is stopping them. The idea that there was loads of viable coal there is just part of the myth. It may be that the Unions themselves had an impact on making them unviable - if you ask for 40% wage increases then no company is going to be able to continue.

The high unemployment of the early 1980s was not Thatcher's legacy. She'd been left with a turgid economy with moderately high unemployment but also high inflation. Reagan had the same problem. The only way that economists know to get out of a situation like that is to raise interest rates and kill the inflation first (which will increase unemployment for a couple of years), and then build the economy. I challenge anyone to find an academic economist who says otherwise. It's painful, which is why it takes political guts to do it. Thatcher did it. Well done her.

On the Falklands issue, I think it was regrettable, but ultimately the right decision. The people on the Falklands were British, and had been invaded against our will. It was clearly our duty to protect them from foreign rule. It's sad that it ended up in a war, but it had to be resolved with the same result. Anything else would have been utterly heartless towards those that lived there.

What I didn't like about Thatcher were her authoritarian conservative social tendencies. I also think that she did indeed, as others have alleged, chronically underfund public services.

Black Monday (not Wednesday, that was under Major) happened in 1987, but that was a global phenomenon and as such probably not Thatcher's fault.

I'm not interested in individual cases of people having to be laid off. If mining was viable then private companies would be doing it. No one is stopping them. The idea that there was loads of viable coal there is just part of the myth. It may be that the Unions themselves had an impact on making them unviable - if you ask for 40% wage increases then no company is going to be able to continue.


Invividual?
Oh dear, you call over 15,000 in one small area individual?
And the knock on effect of shops and supporting industries having to close as well isn't counted in that figure.
Have a wander into one of those mining areas affected at that time, go there now, ghost towns still, no schools, no community, no heart.
Oh how I wish it were a myth.........

And to answer another point as to why the coal is no longer a viable proposition for private enterprise to get, because as soon as a 'wet' mine is closed and the air and water pumps are switched off, they collapse and will never be re-opened.

She was totally evil and the worst prime minister Britain has ever had. Her policies ruined the UK and turned it into a country run only in the interests of private profit and nothing else. She reduced the top tax rate from 83% to 40%, attacked the rights of working people, destroyed the British manufacturing industry, cut welfare benefits for the poorest within society, privatised publicly owned industries and services and turned Britain from being the most equal country in Europe to one of the most unequal. Unfortunately Blair however is not much better and he has continued the failed neoliberal economic policies of Thatcher while taking the UK into an imperialist war in the interests of US corporations. I just hope that once he has gone Labour can again become a genuinely leftist party which will restore the progressive policies which the party was founded on and which made Britain such a prosperous country before 1979.

This has to be either total sarcasm or I have vastly underestimated the European propaganda machine. 0.o

Horden colliery.

Then my brother went to Dawden and on to (bugger can't remember it's name) the one just outside Sunderland.

My family comes from Croxdale/Tudhoe. (Well the non-american part).

Damn, i'm now reminded of how bad her policies were. I voted "bad" but now I wish I had voted "evil". How many British soldiers died and were injured in the Falklands War?

about 250 i think, and 650 argentinians. terrible waste of life for gain in the popularity polls.

about 250 i think, and 650 argentinians. terrible waste of life for gain in the popularity polls.
precisely

about 250 i think, and 650 argentinians. terrible waste of life for gain in the popularity polls.

I believe that they were defending British Territory weren't they? So how is the loss of 250 people in defense of your territory a terrible waste of life?

My family comes from Croxdale/Tudhoe. (Well the non-american part).

I take it you're in the states?

Croxdale is just a little further north than we are actually, but I know the area quite well, near Ferryhill amd Spennymoor

I've just dug out a link to the Durham mining museum.

http://www.dmm.org.uk/mindex.htm

It has a lot of interesting stuff on it about the mines, the industry and the people. Your family may find it interesting?

I believe that they were defending British Territory weren't they? So how is the loss of 250 people in defense of your territory a terrible waste of life?

Apparently there are people who value lives over government territory. Crazy, I know.

P.S. Argentinians died as well. ;)

Apparently there are people who value lives over government territory. Crazy, I know.

P.S. Argentinians died as well. ;)

Yes I know they did but I'm not argueing with Argentinians. I am arguing with Britons!

Yes I know they did but I'm not argueing with Argentinians. I am arguing with Britons!

It certainly mattered to the families who lost them and their friends.
(I lost four friends in that war and had my brother in law and fiance' there at the same time, but of course no-ones interested in personal loss.)

Ironicaly I was working with a lad at the time who confided in me that he was Argentinian and I was the only one he trusted enough to tell......

Yes I know they did but I'm not argueing with Argentinians. I am arguing with Britons!

So?

It matters to me and I'm not Argentinian.

It certainly mattered to the families who lost them and their friends.
(I lost four friends in that war and had my brother in law and fiance' there at the same time, but of course no-ones interested in personal loss.)

Don't get me started on the military Children. I have relatives in my nation's own armed forces and my father lost more friends in combat than you can shake a stick at. It is important to the survivors and if I was argueing with Argentinians, I would be asking them the same question and telling them the samething.

As for personal loss, I've seen what a loss of a friend can do to a person. I see it on my dad's face all the time.

Ironicaly I was working with a lad at the time who confided in me that he was Argentinian and I was the only one he trusted enough to tell......

Good for you. I'm glad he trusted you enough to be trusted.

So?

It matters to me and I'm not Argentinian.

Matters to me too. I don't like it when anyone's military is placed in harms way but when they are, I pray for all sides safety and pray for those that die knowing that they are someone's mother/father/sister/brother/aunt/uncle/Son/daughter/grandchild.

So if it mattered why just disgard the figure as you have just done?

I hated the fact that either side lost lives over such a pointless fight.

Still we are straying off topic here, we were talking about how wonderful Magaret Thatcher was..........
(I nearly threw eggs at her I was so close, but my flat mate wouldn't let me at the time, we were on the dole and they were part of our weekly shop)

Bitch Whore Goddess.

Fucked over the miners and Steelworkers, and then our economy crashed into the ground any way, thank you very fucking much tory econmics.

Oh but when its gets to the farmers, lets all jump through flaming hoops, becuase we woulnt have an economy without them.

TORY'S LEAD BY THAT BITCH KILLED THE ONLY INDUSTRY WE HAD


Save a tree, shoot a tory mp.
thats what i say

I would say "Don't know", but the fact that all the pacifist/atheist/socialist people here are calling her "evil" leads me to believe that she was one of the best PMs the UK ever had. :)

Bitch Whore Goddess.

Fucked over the miners and Steelworkers, and then our economy crashed into the ground any way, thank you very fucking much tory econmics.

Oh but when its gets to the farmers, lets all jump through flaming hoops, becuase we woulnt have an economy without them.

TORY'S LEAD BY THAT BITCH KILLED THE ONLY INDUSTRY WE HAD


Save a tree, shoot a tory mp.
thats what i say

I've now got tears in my eyes from laughing..........
Funnily enough, I live in a rural area in a farming community.....so much in such a short life! *ROFLO*

The miners were bringing the country to a halt with their senseless, greedy and selfish strike. They deserved to be crushed. Trade unionism is nothing more than an attempt for radical, grass roots socialism to pressure the government into changing policy which no one other than the government as a right to do. Thatcher showed some spine and showed that she would not be bullied by yobs and miners into removing government policy which was attempting to inject some life into a dying and profitless industry.

Her action in the Falklands once again shows tremendous backbone, something most socialists like Blair don't. She knew that Britain should not be pushed around by second class powers like Argetnina. Those islands are British and the people wanted wholeheartedly to remain under British rule. Diplomacy was attempted but as usual, when deployed against corrupt dictators, diplomacy failed and so it was necessary to defend British citizens from becoming part of the murderous and brutal regime that was in control in Argentina.

I can only hope a Conservative government is in power when she dies so she can be given the state funeral she richly deserves as the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill.

I would say "Don't know", but the fact that all the pacifist/atheist/socialist people here are calling her "evil" leads me to believe that she was one of the best PMs the UK ever had. :)

Who you calling pacafist/athiest/socialist?
(Well pacafist anyway)
Thats fighting talk where I come from! ;)

New British Glory
I have a funny feeling that I may have met you outside the NF Headquarters down in brick lane sometime or another........

The miners were bringing the country to a halt with their senseless, greedy and selfish strike. They deserved to be crushed. Trade unionism is nothing more than an attempt for radical, grass roots socialism to pressure the government into changing policy which no one other than the government as a right to do. Thatcher showed some spine and showed that she would not be bullied by yobs and miners into removing government policy which was attempting to inject some life into a dying and profitless industry.

Her action in the Falklands once again shows tremendous backbone, something most socialists like Blair don't. She knew that Britain should not be pushed around by second class powers like Argetnina. Those islands are British and the people wanted wholeheartedly to remain under British rule. Diplomacy was attempted but as usual, when deployed against corrupt dictators, diplomacy failed and so it was necessary to defend British citizens from becoming part of the murderous and brutal regime that was in control in Argentina.

I can only hope a Conservative government is in power when she dies so she can be given the state funeral she richly deserves as the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill.

To anser your question

Shut up!

New British Glory
I have a funny feeling that I may have met you outside the NF Headquarters down in brick lane sometime or another........

Oh so because I like Margaret Thatcher and am a member of the Conservative Party, I belong to the National Front, a racist organisation whose chant is :

"There ain't no black in the Union Jack"

Go home child and come back to me with a proper argument that isn't just trolling flamebait. If you can which I doubt.

To anser your question

Shut up!

Dont think I will

I believe that they were defending British Territory weren't they? So how is the loss of 250 people in defense of your territory a terrible waste of life?

its not my territory. i say they belong to argentina. but, although the argentinians were very cheeky i dont think thats what the war was about. isnt it funny that just before the war, thatcher was doing terribly in the polls? (sorry i dont have evidence for this, but its something i remember from a documentary i saw) so we win the war, and thatcher gets another term, mainly because everyone loves a war. in another documentary ive seen about the falklands war, a double-hard marine broke down over what he called (not exact quote) 'terrible waste'. the general said that when the surrender was signed, he didnt think, 'oh good now the falklands are back in our hands', he thought 'at least now the killing can stop'.

Who you calling pacafist/athiest/socialist?
(Well pacafist anyway)
Thats fighting talk where I come from! ;)


If Argentina took over any US territory, we wouldn't have stopped at just retaking it. :)
But some people here say the UK shouldn't have attacked at all...I call that "appeasment". That comes from pacifism. ;)

Bitch Whore Goddess.

Fucked over the miners and Steelworkers, and then our economy crashed into the ground any way, thank you very fucking much tory econmics.

Oh but when its gets to the farmers, lets all jump through flaming hoops, becuase we woulnt have an economy without them.

TORY'S LEAD BY THAT BITCH KILLED THE ONLY INDUSTRY WE HAD


Save a tree, shoot a tory mp.
thats what i say

Another uninformed post from someone who believes union propaganda :headbang:

its not my territory. i say they belong to argentina. but, although the argentinians were very cheeky i dont think thats what the war was about. isnt it funny that just before the war, thatcher was doing terribly in the polls? (sorry i dont have evidence for this, but its something i remember from a documentary i saw) so we win the war, and thatcher gets another term, mainly because everyone loves a war. in another documentary ive seen about the falklands war, a double-hard marine broke down over what he called (not exact quote) 'terrible waste'. the general said that when the surrender was signed, he didnt think, 'oh good now the falklands are back in our hands', he thought 'at least now the killing can stop'.

Are you aware that the citizens of the Falklands have and always have wanted to be British just like the people in Gibraltar have and always wanted to be British, not Spanish? Several referndums have always proved this to be the case. So yes, 250 lives was worth defending British citizens from the undemocratic invasion of tyrants.

I would say "Don't know", but the fact that all the pacifist/atheist/socialist people here are calling her "evil" leads me to believe that she was one of the best PMs the UK ever had. :)

And you should believe that she was one of the best ones you've had.

Another uninformed post from someone who believes union propaganda :headbang:

I've reported that particular post to the mods (not yours but that the flaming, trolling, rude one you quoted)

Beh, would a proper socialist like Clement Attlee , have let the fascists invade the falklands, i think not especially after the royal marines on the island put up a fight and prime ministers would have invaded.

Margaret Thatcter = fascist whore, i will dance on her grave.

So if it mattered why just disgard the figure as you have just done?

If your talking to me, what number have I discarded? I discarded no number but asked why someone thought that the lose of 250 Britons in defense of British territory was a waste of life!

I hated the fact that either side lost lives over such a pointless fight.

I agree it was pointless! Most wars are pointless but some aren't. Hard to tell between the two.

Still we are straying off topic here, we were talking about how wonderful Magaret Thatcher was..........
(I nearly threw eggs at her I was so close, but my flat mate wouldn't let me at the time, we were on the dole and they were part of our weekly shop)

And she was wonderful. Just because the unions (:headbang: ) didn't like her doesn't mean crap. She was one of the best PMs that Britian had.

its not my territory. i say they belong to argentina. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the war to comment in detail, but to the best of my knowledge, at that point, Argentina predominantly wished to remain British. At this stage, a majority (albeit a declining majority) in Northern Ireland wish to remain British, so I presume you support our leaving the United Kingdom despite the wishes of our people.

Doesn't sound like a terribly democratic idea.

If your talking to me, what number have I discarded? I discarded no number but asked why someone thought that the lose of 250 Britons in defense of British territory was a waste of life!



I agree it was pointless! Most wars are pointless but some aren't. Hard to tell between the two.



And she was wonderful. Just because the unions (:headbang: ) didn't like her doesn't mean crap. She was one of the best PMs that Britian had.

She is the best PM since Churchill. Unions just have a hard time accepting they can't bully Tories like they can bully Labour. Unions are the bane of this country and every PM that stomps on them deserves a state funeral.

The miners were bringing the country to a halt with their senseless, greedy and selfish strike. They deserved to be crushed. Trade unionism is nothing more than an attempt for radical, grass roots socialism to pressure the government into changing policy which no one other than the government as a right to do. Thatcher showed some spine and showed that she would not be bullied by yobs and miners into removing government policy which was attempting to inject some life into a dying and profitless industry.

Much like what Reagan did with the Air Traffic Controllers strike. They failed to heed the warnings of return to work or be canned and those that didn't go back were canned. Of course, they were federal employees and thus couldn't strike!

Her action in the Falklands once again shows tremendous backbone, something most socialists like Blair don't. She knew that Britain should not be pushed around by second class powers like Argetnina. Those islands are British and the people wanted wholeheartedly to remain under British rule. Diplomacy was attempted but as usual, when deployed against corrupt dictators, diplomacy failed and so it was necessary to defend British citizens from becoming part of the murderous and brutal regime that was in control in Argentina.

I agree!

I can only hope a Conservative government is in power when she dies so she can be given the state funeral she richly deserves as the greatest Prime Minister since Churchill.

Here here!

I don't know enough about the intricacies of the war to comment in detail, but to the best of my knowledge, at that point, Argentina predominantly wished to remain British. At this stage, a majority (albeit a declining majority) in Northern Ireland wish to remain British, so I presume you support our leaving the United Kingdom despite the wishes of our people.

Doesn't sound like a terribly democratic idea.

No it isnt but socialists like to dismantle any trace of Empire, even if the people want to stay British.

Are you aware that the citizens of the Falklands have and always have wanted to be British just like the people in Gibraltar have and always wanted to be British, not Spanish? Several referndums have always proved this to be the case. So yes, 250 lives was worth defending British citizens from the undemocratic invasion of tyrants.

yes thanks, i am aware, but as i said, fighting to regain the falklands was not for these people, it was for thatcher. if they wanted to live in a british colony, why couldnt we have given them west falkland? its a big place. no, she wanted a war to make her popular. lucky for her they didnt beat us.

its not my territory. i say they belong to argentina. but, although the argentinians were very cheeky i dont think thats what the war was about. isnt it funny that just before the war, thatcher was doing terribly in the polls? (sorry i dont have evidence for this, but its something i remember from a documentary i saw) so we win the war, and thatcher gets another term, mainly because everyone loves a war. in another documentary ive seen about the falklands war, a double-hard marine broke down over what he called (not exact quote) 'terrible waste'. the general said that when the surrender was signed, he didnt think, 'oh good now the falklands are back in our hands', he thought 'at least now the killing can stop'.

Everyone wants the killing to stop. Talk to any soldier in any military engaged in combat. Yes they want the killing to stop but they also know that it won't stop till the mission is done. Sometimes not even then (looks at WWII: Eastern Front)

If Argentina took over any US territory, we wouldn't have stopped at just retaking it. :)
But some people here say the UK shouldn't have attacked at all...I call that "appeasment". That comes from pacifism. ;)


The war was started because brits were being invaded in the falklands. It sparked nationalist sentiments back home, and Thatcher rode the rising tide of those sentiments.

It isn't appeasment to fear nationalist sentiments. I'm not a pacifist, in fact, I am an extremely violent revolutionary whom often fantasizes about severing the Shrub's head with a katana (but is not stupid enough to try), I still don't like what happened in the Falklands. That conflict was unwarranted. If local britons had been executed, then the war would have had some legitimacy.

yes thanks, i am aware, but as i said, fighting to regain the falklands was not for these people, it was for thatcher. if they wanted to live in a british colony, why couldnt we have given them west falkland? its a big place. no, she wanted a war to make her popular. lucky for her they didnt beat us.

Surrender the west of the Falklands? What a foolish and completely absurd idea. One may as have said to Hitler:

"Please leave us alone and you can have Scotland!"

Do you really believed they would have stopped at having just a bit of the island. They would have pushed for more and more. Its a good thing taht most British people have more spine than you do.

If Argentina took over any US territory, we wouldn't have stopped at just retaking it. :)
But some people here say the UK shouldn't have attacked at all...I call that "appeasment". That comes from pacifism. ;)

And the cause of WWII!

Unions are the bane of this country and every PM that stomps on them deserves a state funeral.

You must be an especially barmy and right-wing Tory if you believe the basic right for workers to organise should be stopped. I've come across Conservative party members who are also trade union members and they don't see too much contradiction in their position.

I've reported that particular post to the mods (not yours but that the flaming, trolling, rude one you quoted)

Thanks for the clarification! Frankly, that is one reason I don't like unions. My Uncle Paul in NY believes everything the Union tells him. Then he ran across me and destroyed most of his union propaganda in short order. Needless to say, we don't talk politics when he's around anymore.

Beh, would a proper socialist like Clement Attlee , have let the fascists invade the falklands, i think not especially after the royal marines on the island put up a fight and prime ministers would have invaded.

When your forces are shot at, you retaliate!

Margaret Thatcter = fascist whore, i will dance on her grave.

How very immature.

She is the best PM since Churchill. Unions just have a hard time accepting they can't bully Tories like they can bully Labour. Unions are the bane of this country and every PM that stomps on them deserves a state funeral.

Just like the Unions here in America can't understand why the democrats are losing elections. Same reason. People are fed up with Unions and those that support them. Granted, unions have done good but lately, they have been doing more wrong than good.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of the war to comment in detail, but to the best of my knowledge, at that point, Argentina predominantly wished to remain British. At this stage, a majority (albeit a declining majority) in Northern Ireland wish to remain British, so I presume you support our leaving the United Kingdom despite the wishes of our people.

Doesn't sound like a terribly democratic idea.

i meant physically. there is absolutely no way we can have any claim over the falklands except politically, so therefore they are part of the south american mainland. the argetinians have a much stronger claim than we do. that said, your point about the population (which im pretty sure was around 2000) is a good one, but i still dont think that it was A) worth it and B) about that.

Everyone wants the killing to stop. Talk to any soldier in any military engaged in combat. Yes they want the killing to stop but they also know that it won't stop till the mission is done. Sometimes not even then (looks at WWII: Eastern Front)


i meant that the soldiers thought that it was about politics, not about any noble cause.

You must be an especially barmy and right-wing Tory if you believe the basic right for workers to organise should be stopped. I've come across Conservative party members who are also trade union members and they don't see too much contradiction in their position.

I just dont think trade unions deserve the position of prestige they get and I dont believe that emergency/essential government workers (the police, teachers, the fire service, the NHS) should be allowed to strike because their work is far too important and it is incredibly selfish of them to strike considering the services that they do. Unions presume they have a right to attempt to change government policy - well they are wrong. Government policy is only changeable by the government and unions should not use their virtually para-military tactics to try and influence changes.

i meant that the soldiers thought that it was about politics, not about any noble cause.

War is about politics! That is all that war is. Why do you think certian battles are fought and others aren't? Because of Politics.

Did Margaret Thatcher die?

Surrender the west of the Falklands? What a foolish and completely absurd idea. One may as have said to Hitler:

"Please leave us alone and you can have Scotland!"

Do you really believed they would have stopped at having just a bit of the island. They would have pushed for more and more. Its a good thing taht most British people have more spine than you do.

that is a bit of an exaggeration. maybe, or they might have stopped, especially as the US was trying to stop us fighting. i think the US would have put pressure on them to accept our offer, and i dont think they would have disobeyed them.

did you just call me a coward? you are scared of change.

i meant physically. there is absolutely no way we can have any claim over the falklands except politically, so therefore they are part of the south american mainland. the argetinians have a much stronger claim than we do. that said, your point about the population (which im pretty sure was around 2000) is a good one, but i still dont think that it was A) worth it and B) about that.

They were our citizens and have as much right to be protected from the attacks of tyrants as people in the British mainland do. The population whole heartedly wants to remain British and that land has been our territory for a very long time. There were probably some political motives in the defence thats true but I think that we would have gone to protect them even had Thatcher been soaring in the polls. I think if the situation were to occur today, we would still go and protect them. In the end political advantage had little to do with the declaration of war and all to do with protecting British citizens from invasion and tyranny.

War is about politics! That is all that war is. Why do you think certian battles are fought and others aren't? Because of Politics.

and that is why i am against wars.

When your forces are shot at, you retaliate!



How very immature.

I was saying any prime Minster would have retaliated, the idea that only Margaret Thatcher would have is a pile of crap.

How is that immature, ask a lot of ex miners and steel workers in there 40's and 50's they'd be more than happy to join me.

Perhaps you don’t understand, she total screw an entire generation of hard working people over in the name of classicist economics, then 5 years later the whole British economy went into a MASSIVE recession any way, while she was still in power.

that is a bit of an exaggeration. maybe, or they might have stopped, especially as the US was trying to stop us fighting. i think the US would have put pressure on them to accept our offer, and i dont think they would have disobeyed them.

did you just call me a coward? you are scared of change.

You are aware that the US did virtually nothing when Thatcher actually implored them to intervene?

Tell me if any country is threatened, do you just give away bits of land and hope that it will persaude the attackers to leave you alone? No, that's appeasement and we all know what a failure that is. Such means that giving away even bits of the Falkland Isles would have been a spineless decision.

They were our citizens and have as much right to be protected from the attacks of tyrants as people in the British mainland do. The population whole heartedly wants to remain British and that land has been our territory for a very long time. There were probably some political motives in the defence thats true but I think that we would have gone to protect them even had Thatcher been soaring in the polls. I think if the situation were to occur today, we would still go and protect them. In the end political advantage had little to do with the declaration of war and all to do with protecting British citizens from invasion and tyranny.

So it isn't a problem that they were endangered in the first place? Were you forgetting about the diplomatic debacle that led the Argentinians to believe that Britain had withdrawn support for it's citizens?

They were our citizens and have as much right to be protected from the attacks of tyrants as people in the British mainland do. The population whole heartedly wants to remain British and that land has been our territory for a very long time. There were probably some political motives in the defence thats true but I think that we would have gone to protect them even had Thatcher been soaring in the polls. I think if the situation were to occur today, we would still go and protect them. In the end political advantage had little to do with the declaration of war and all to do with protecting British citizens from invasion and tyranny.

i disagree, it was all about political gain. but yes if the people wanted to be british then they should have been protected, but not through war.

I just dont think trade unions deserve the position of prestige they get and I dont believe that emergency/essential government workers (the police, teachers, the fire service, the NHS) should be allowed to strike because their work is far too important and it is incredibly selfish of them to strike considering the services that they do. Unions presume they have a right to attempt to change government policy - well they are wrong. Government policy is only changeable by the government and unions should not use their virtually para-military tactics to try and influence changes.

Well, I hope you argue that the CBI has no right to attempt to change government policy either.

The way I see it if we're going to accept the dominance of a capitalist economic system the workers who keep that system running have a right to organise themselves and make their voices heard.

I don't think unions do presume they have a right to attempt to change government policy. I don't know how old you are, maybe you're stuck in the 1970s when the unions were indeed overpowerful and irresponsible. And I have to admit a Labour government could never have brought the unions back under control like Thatcher did - so she did the country a service in that respect. But by trying to go on and destory the unions she revealed herself to be as ideologically dogmatic as any of the militant union leaders had been. Her absolute hatred of socialism blinded her to the fact that the right to join a trade union is a basic human right.

So it isn't a problem that they were endangered in the first place? Were you forgetting about the diplomatic debacle that led the Argentinians to believe that Britain had withdrawn support for it's citizens?

So because there were no troops stationed or any battle ships in the area, that gives the Argentinians the right to invade and deny the native populace their choice of ruler? I must remember that. So when I next see a house empty with no alarms and the doors open, I shall remember your quote and stroll in as it is my right to steal from them because they have taken no measures actually preventing me from stealing?

Your argument is laughable at best. At worst, it should be in the toilet where it belongs.

Well, I hope you argue that the CBI has no right to attempt to change government policy either.

The way I see it if we're going to accept the dominance of a capitalist economic system the workers who keep that system running have a right to organise themselves and make their voices heard.

I don't think unions do presume they have a right to attempt to change government policy. I don't know how old you are, maybe you're stuck in the 1970s when the unions were indeed overpowerful and irresponsible. And I have to admit a Labour government could never have brought the unions back under control like Thatcher did - so she did the country a service in that respect. But by trying to go on and destory the unions she revealed herself to be as ideologically dogmatic as any of the militant union leaders had been. Her absolute hatred of socialism blinded her to the fact that the right to join a trade union is a basic human right.

The CBI doesn't have any right to change government policy, you are indeed correct. Do you presume because I am anti union that I am some sort of ultra capitalist? Well I am not.

I quite emphasise with her - there is a lot to hate about socialism.

She was good.

i disagree, it was all about political gain. but yes if the people wanted to be british then they should have been protected, but not through war.

So how then? Diplomacy was tried and it failed. Appeasement never works. The US weren't rushing to their swords to help us. So how would you have defended them if not through war?

You are aware that the US did virtually nothing when Thatcher actually implored them to intervene?

Tell me if any country is threatened, do you just give away bits of land and hope that it will persaude the attackers to leave you alone? No, that's appeasement and we all know what a failure that is. Such means that giving away even bits of the Falkland Isles would have been a spineless decision.

i was under the impression that the US were frantically trying to avoid a war between two of their greatest allies, but when they asked the two leaders, they said no. this is because thatcher was set on war as much as the argentinian guy whose name ive forgotten was.
i really do not think that our country was threatened by the argentinians invading the falkland islands. bad luck for the people who want to live there, of course, but still.
i dont think it would, giving them the falklands would, in my opinion, have been the right thing to do, as the only claim we can possibly have to them is that it supports 2000 people and their tiny sheep farming industry.

So how then? Diplomacy was tried and it failed. Appeasement never works. The US weren't rushing to their swords to help us. So how would you have defended them if not through war?

move them all to britain. dont laugh, that what i would have done.

I quite emphasise with her - there is a lot to hate about socialism.

what exactly is there to hate about socialism? i await your answer with baited breath.

I have mixed feelings about her. Then again, the mere mention of her name does tend to make communists foam at the mouth like rabid dogs, so she can't be too bad.

The CBI doesn't have any right to change government policy, you are indeed correct. Do you presume because I am anti union that I am some sort of ultra capitalist? Well I am not.

I quite emphasise with her - there is a lot to hate about socialism.

Good, well I wish the rest of the Tory party would listen to you. IMO the government should listen to both the views of the unions and the CBI to reach consensus between the employees and the employers. And then we can all live in happy world.

Ok, you don't like socialism, but she deliberately slashed funding of our public services to try to run them down. She privatised industries just to make more middle-class Tory-voting property owners. She oversaw huge inflation and unemployment in an effort to destory the organised working-class. I really think she was on the verge of fundamentalism, letting her hatred of socialism lead her into causing a huge amount of suffering and misery

what exactly is there to hate about socialism? i await your answer with baited breath.

I dislike it because I consider it subversive and only two steps away from Communism and Stalinism. Its dangerous and in reality only aims to help the working class whereas something like liberalism aims to help all layers of society.

The CBI doesn't have any right to change government policy, you are indeed correct. Do you presume because I am anti union that I am some sort of ultra capitalist? Well I am not.

I quite emphasise with her - there is a lot to hate about socialism.


Like liveable wages, the weekend, holidays, the 40 hour workweek, mandatory vacation time, unemployment protection, the right to have a workplace democracy?

You assume that worker's unions don't care about the destruction of their industries, as if jobs will simply grow off of trees. No worker's union has ever wanted to put a group of people out of work. If a company has the ability to survive an increase in worker's benefits, then by all means it must. Fordism is the idea that created the American and British middle classes, not to mention the prosperity that Americans saw during the 1920's. Give your workers a high wage, and they will be able to buy the products that you produce. The economy will be stimulated the more benefits you give, demand will increase, creating an expanded industrial sector and more jobs. Worker's unions are the last people to adhere to this value of fordism and try to act upon it. It works, and it works very well.

And don't fear socialism. Democratic socialism gives you (the worker) the right to make democratic decisions in your workplace, rather than having some corporate board prick make all the decisions for you. It is more democratic, it works better for everyone but the CEO.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Other than questioning how they managed to put Pope John Paul II on the left (and THAT far left) and Arafat and Mugabe, the chart near the bottom is close to what most of those people's positions are/were/could be.

Notice no Hobbesian state-of-nature politicians that are right-libertarian.

I have mixed feelings about her. Then again, the mere mention of her name does tend to make communists foam at the mouth like rabid dogs, so she can't be too bad.

One day I am going to go into a Union bar and say her name, just to see if I can escape without getting any of my limbs broken or my teeth knocked out.

oops... click on "Analysis" on the left.

New British Glory
I have a funny feeling that I may have met you outside the NF Headquarters down in brick lane sometime or another........

If this is what you are talking about as flaming, it was meant to mean that his views were "left wing" and not that he was in the National Front.
It was meant to be sarcasm, however I forgot that typed words can't express tones of voice or the way in which they are said.
I apologise if it was taken the wrong way, infact looking at it, the way it sounded.

I dislike it because I consider it subversive and only two steps away from Communism and Stalinism. Its dangerous and in reality only aims to help the working class whereas something like liberalism aims to help all layers of society.

well done, a more intelligent answer than i had expected. yes it is subversive, and as a conservative i would expect you to dislike it. what you said next is crucial. im glad you seperated the two, stalinism is all too often assumed to be communism. stalinism is a corrupted, mutated, unworkable version of communism. communism is a system where everything is fair. in the current climate, it will not come about. but when the gap between rich and poor is so wide, we will be FORCED to have communism or risk having the rich people killed in a violent revolution.
yes, communism helps the poor at the expense of the rich, but is this a bad thing? im middle class, and i have a fantastic life. rich people do not need their money. poor people need money. if anyone disagrees with this i see them as somewhat inhumane.

I dislike it because I consider it subversive and only two steps away from Communism and Stalinism. Its dangerous and in reality only aims to help the working class whereas something like liberalism aims to help all layers of society.

No that's wrong and grossly unfair. Like all great philosophies and economic theories socialism has its mixture of moderates and fanatics, surely you can understand that?

Didn't Black Wednesday happen while Margaret Thatcher was PM?

No it happened when John Major was Prime Minister.

(I nearly threw eggs at her I was so close, but my flat mate wouldn't let me at the time, we were on the dole and they were part of our weekly shop)

As long as you threw the eggs in spirit, comrade...

Hmmm...Margaret Thatcher, what can I say.
Bitch-queen from hell comes to mind (personal opinion).

Ok, as far as the Falklands go, they are a British Terriotry and wish to remain so. It would have been nice if more diplomatic channels had been successful, but the lack of US support didn't help in the matter (they weren't going to be dictated to by the British as they thought we wouldn't retaliate, and we, nee Thatcher, certainly weren't going to listen to some Johnny Foreigner!) though to say they did nothing would be unfair.

It's in her economic and social policies I disagree with her. The Unions did require being brought back into line, but not "crushing" which left the workers open to abuse from management.
The privatisation of key British public services was also a disaster. I believe that two industries have survived and make a profit whilst providing the public with an...acceptable provision (BT and BA). The privatisation of the water and bus networks have been shown to have ben an unmitigated disaster. Bus services are awful, and now with the privatisation of the railways have made public transport ever worse for higher prices. Water rates go in one direction only, thats up...steeply.
Within the few public owned indstries that were maintained, at least during her time in office, she would close down factories that were in staunch Labour areas and transfer their work to marginal constituencies (I take in point the closure of the BREL wagon works in Shildon, which was the most efficient and cost effective works in the Country at the time, and transfered the work to Swindon which, at that time, was below par with a lack of work and comparatively shoddy work).

I don't like her. I won't stop people from liking her, but I just disagree with her policies!

inspired by another thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410437&page=1&pp=15), i wanted to find out what people thought of Thatcher, her policies, her legacy, etc?
for those who don't know, Thatcher was the British Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990 for the Tory party. info (http://www.britannia.com/gov/primes/prime56.html)


my opinion is that she was the antithesis of what this country should be heading towards. she undermined the welfare state, her policies created an underclass of citizens who still continue to cause problems today, she used the Falklands War to further her own career, created a wholly unpleasant business atmosphere, was a proponent of trickle down economics (which does not work), increased the rich/poor divide, and destroyed our economy through boom & bust economics.
the one good thing she did do was free up the labour market, meaning Britian today is more competative in that respect than our continental European partners.


taken from the other thread: (yes, i'm lazy ;))




been trying to find data/graphs to back up the economic statements i've made, but haven't found anything yet. i'll keep looking tho :)


poll coming
I don't think you need any graphs to back up what you said. The evidence was in the communities she and her cronies devasted. What about the uprisings in Brixton, Toxteth and St Pauls, which she and her lot were responsible for. What about the underclass she created, who are still with us today.

I'm just curious, during Thacthers time there were alot of riots, like the Southall riots etc. What has happened?.... is everyone, well....really that happy? :/

Don't make me out to be an anarcist its just well when I was growing up you couldn't turn on the news without a 'RIOT IN BLAH BLAH SUCH A PLACE' now I turn on the tele and rarely hear about riots..if ever.

Not that I'm complaining of course. :)

although im not a huge fan of nu labour, i think they are hugely preferable to the tories.