Should Maggie Thatcher get a State funeral.

[ellal]

Funnily enough, the present banking woes can be partly attributed to her...

The whole 'sub-prime' approach in the US (and here) was based on her 'right to buy' policies...(and deregulation of business)

lend to all (regardless of ability to pay back), resultant jacked-up prices leading to an economy based on borrowing.

Sell off the assets at knockdown prices, so a few make a 'killing', and the majority end up paying for the follies...

 

[Shytalkz]

I'm not saying she was perfect. What I find puzzling is the amount of opprobrium that she attracts - and I suspect that this longstanding hatred of her is due to chronic nationwide male insecurities about a woman with and in power.

If this thread had been titled should Bliar have a state funeral, it would not have attracted comments about dancing on graves, silver bullets and suchlike.

 

[ellal]

It's precisely that their own political agendas are at the forefront that they wouldn't make such a decision. It was callous, but it was necessary: who knows what the toll of lives - on both sides - would have been, without it? A lot, lot more, for sure.

And you know that for sure?...

Unfortunately the facts show that a ship sailing AWAY from a conflict (and a ship that would have been no threat to more modern warfare) was no threat...

It was not necessary, it was a political decision!

Erm, I think that you'll find that Scargill and his cronies did precisely that.

Ah, silly me - it was scargill closing the pits then, not saint maggie?...

Classic "defence", so beloved of politicians, on either side of the fence. All the good things are our ideas; all the rubbishy ones are theirs, or were started by them. Liabour have squandered the nation's wealth, it's as simple as that.

No, just the truth...and the 'wealth' squandered was actually just 'borrowed money', given the fact that the real wealth was sold off in the eighties...

Funny how easily some forget...

 

[ellal]

I'm not saying she was perfect. What I find puzzling is the amount of opprobrium that she attracts - and I suspect that this longstanding hatred of her is due to chronic nationwide male insecurities about a woman with and in power.

B*llocks - it's nothing to do with her being a woman, it's her actions....you suspect wrong IMO!

If this thread had been titled should Bliar have a state funeral, it would not have attracted comments about dancing on graves, silver bullets and suchlike.

Not so sure about that...

I'd be calling for him to be dragged to the Hague, amongst other things!

 

[Shytalkz]

And you know that for sure?...

Recent performances by the present incumbents is a fair indication of how they would have reacted: hopping from one foot to the other, chewing their fingernails, scratching their balls. And more lives lost while they procastinate.

Unfortunately the facts show that a ship sailing AWAY from a conflict (and a ship that would have been no threat to more modern warfare) was no threat...

It in itself might not have been a direct threat at that time, but the rest of the Argie Navy was and had the potential to remain so. After the Belgrano got nobbed, they then stayed well out of the way. I would say that that was a major tactical success.

It was not necessary, it was a political decision!

I disagree: see above.

Ah, silly me - it was scargill closing the pits then, not saint maggie?...

It was uneconomic to keep them open. That's how business works. Scargill was a knob, thought he could bully her into submission, keep alive loads of pointless jobs at the taxpayers' expense and himself with the power to which he'd become accustomed. He lost. Shame.

No, just the truth...and the 'wealth' squandered was actually just 'borrowed money', given the fact that the real wealth was sold off in the eighties...

Funny how easily some forget...

Funny how some only go back a sufficient time to justify their stance as well

 

[Shytalkz]

B*llocks - it's nothing to do with her being a woman, it's her actions....you suspect wrong IMO!

If that's the case, then why don't those before or since attract such vitriol, then? Because they were male.

I'd be calling for him to be dragged to the Hague, amongst other things!

But not Maggie, though?

 

[ellal]

It in itself might not have been a direct threat at that time, but the rest of the Argie Navy was and had the potential to remain so. After the Belgrano got nobbed, they then stayed well out of the way. I would say that that was a major tactical success.

Please...if you're trying to put forward an argument, get the facts straight...

The rest of their navy was already out of range (indeed many in port) before the belgrano was sunk...

It was uneconomic to keep them open. That's how business works. Scargill was a knob, thought he could bully her into submission, keep alive loads of pointless jobs at the taxpayers' expense and himself with the power to which he'd become accustomed. He lost. Shame.

Unfortunately, He also pointed out the economics of not keeping them active - something we are now realising!

still, I'm sure there's another country out there that has abandoned hundreds of years of resources because their leader wanted to make her mark...

If that's the case, then why don't those before or since attract such vitriol, then? Because they were male.

or maybe that she 'went further' than others, regardless of gender!

she fundamentally changed this country like no other, and as such attracts loathing and praise like no other - saying it's because she's a woman shows ignorance of that fact!

Funny how some only go back a sufficient time to justify their stance as well

You can of course point to all those privatisations before the eighties?

 

[JohnD]

Over three million unemployed (had been about three quarters of a million)

VAT doubled

Mortgage rates at 15/16/17%

Public services crushed

Poll tax pushed through

Flogged off all the national assets that were nailed down, at knock-down prices, and by accounting jiggery-pokery claimed the proceeds as government spending efficiency gains

Any PM pushing the same today would be equally unpopular, man, woman or hermaphrodite.

The fact that she untruthfuly claimed the Argentinian floating museum had been inside the exclusion zone, or sailing towards it (when in fact it was outside and scuttling home) isn't why she's unpopular. Nobody minds a few thousand sailors being drowned when they're foreigners. And UK Nuclear Submarine logs holding vital evidence get lost all the time, don't they? Surely no cover-up? The Argie's wouldn't have tried it on if her govt hadn't cut the UK forces presence in the area first.

 

[joe-90]

And without it New Labour would never have been born.

 

[megawatt]

New Labour = New Conservative = No Difference = No hope.

MW

 

[joe-90]

Why do you vote Conservative then Mega?

 

[Shytalkz]

Please...if you're trying to put forward an argument, get the facts straight...

I am. That action put paid to the Argie Navy coming out to play.

The rest of their navy was already out of range (indeed many in port) before the belgrano was sunk...

And kept out of the way; which would have been unlikely, if the Belgrano hadn't got tonked.

Unfortunately, He also pointed out the economics of not keeping them active - something we are now realising!

So....we keep the pits open, uneconomically, for 24 years, just so that they, only now are becoming -apparently - economic, and that due solely to economic conditions and environmental considerations that no one could have predicted back then? Okaaaay....

still, I'm sure there's another country out there that has abandoned hundreds of years of resources because their leader wanted to make her mark...

You'd have willingly paid 30+% tax just to keep those pits open at that time, would you?

or maybe that she 'went further' than others, regardless of gender!

she fundamentally changed this country like no other, and as such attracts loathing and praise like no other - saying it's because she's a woman shows ignorance of that fact!

Nap, a bloke would not have been subjected to it. But that's academic, because with one notable exception none have and I doubt that any ever will.

You can of course point to all those privatisations before the eighties?

I can point out all those nationalised industries that died on their feet.

 

[ellal]

I am. That action put paid to the Argie Navy coming out to play.

And kept out of the way; which would have been unlikely, if the Belgrano hadn't got tonked.

Hang on a minute, first you say after the belgrano was sunk they stayed away, and now agree they were never in the way in the first place!
Like I say, you don't know your facts - you are just using guesswork...

So....we keep the pits open, uneconomically, for 24 years, just so that they, only now are becoming -apparently - economic, and that due solely to economic conditions and environmental considerations that no one could have predicted back then? Okaaaay....

Actually (facts again I'm afraid) the pits would have been economical for much of that time, and the subsidies would have been very small compared to the decommissioning subsidies for nuclear power plants!

And now we would have a very profitable industry, instead of a flooded one!

You'd have willingly paid 30+% tax just to keep those pits open at that time, would you?

Facts for this claim please..!

Nap, a bloke would not have been subjected to it.

Pure guesswork again...

I don't read the ragtops myself, but I'll get a copy of the daily mirror if they publish their promised headline on the glorious day....'Good Riddance'!

 

[joe-90]

As I understand it the customer for coal declined. No customer - no industry.

 

[mark vincent]

Over three million unemployed (had been about three quarters of a million)

VAT doubled

Mortgage rates at 15/16/17%

Public services crushed

Poll tax pushed through

Flogged off all the national assets that were nailed down, at knock-down prices, and by accounting jiggery-pokery claimed the proceeds as government spending efficiency gains

Any PM pushing the same today would be equally unpopular, man, woman or hermaphrodite.

The fact that she untruthfuly claimed the Argentinian floating museum had been inside the exclusion zone, or sailing towards it (when in fact it was outside and scuttling home) isn't why she's unpopular. Nobody minds a few thousand sailors being drowned when they're foreigners. And UK Nuclear Submarine logs holding vital evidence get lost all the time, don't they? Surely no cover-up? The Argie's wouldn't have tried it on if her govt hadn't cut the UK forces presence in the area first.

You forgot to include CJD, she deregulated the animal feedstuffs industry.