jump to last post 1-40 of 40 discussions (365 posts)

Thatcher is Dead

  1. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    Heard the news this morning that Thatcher is dead.

    There will be much partying on the streets of what she left of the UK tonight

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Socialist underachievers will always hate Thatcher.

      The woman is dead, i can see why some hate her and some loved her but to say what is happening to the country now is all her fault is absolute rubbish.
      If the UK had a strong leader now we wouldn't be in the mess we are, i doubt if Thatcher would have turned away from the challenges of the expenses debacle, the European Union debacle, the immigration debacle, the banking debacle and the rubbish that went on over Iraq and Afghanistan and many many other things that are crippling our country today.

      I care not if she is alive or dead but i wont celebrate the fact she is.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        She's equally hated by socialist over achievers and some conservatives.

        She changed the country from an industrial based economy into a financial services depot so yes, we can put the state of the country now firmly at her door..

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          She rid us of petty communistic union control, over burdoned state interference, the drain of nationalised industries. Tony Blair did much worse and the current crop of incumbents are totally rubbish.
          The country needed to be sorted and would not have lasted as an economic industrialised nation as it was. Only those who did not take advantage of the opportunities available are uncomfortable with Thatchers times.
          I doubt as I have said the country would have been in such a position if Labour were in power all those years and for sure it would be a region of one of the European powerhouses by now.
          As I said not really a fan of hers but I still think she was one of the best leaders this country has ever had.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Rid us of over burdened state control! Good heavens man, what country do you live in? She increased the power of central government beyond all belief taking many powers of local government into central government.

            She increased the powers of the police, turning them into a para military force!

            I'm speechless, next you'll be telling me she gave all school kids free milk!

            1. Clint Ward profile image60
              Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              She was elected 3 times, somebody obviously liked her.

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                As SimeyC pointed out, a lot of people vote the way their fathers voted without thinking of the consequences.
                Such is the parliamentary system inn the UK that a party can be elected into power with a minority of votes, that does not make their selection a proper reflection of the feelings of the whole country.

                BTW, a little story going back into the mid 1970s, an elderly neighbour was gushing with gratitude for the help she received from the local council and bemoaned the day when and if the Conservatives lost power to the labour party. At the time there wasn't a single conservative councillor in the city and hadn't been for some years.

              2. duffsmom profile image60
                duffsmomposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                @ Clint Ward - that is an excellent point.

    2. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Looking at YouTube, the Britons are celebrating............with parties!   Can YOU imagine?! Totally disrespectful indeed......

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know, I am not British but maybe they have good reason, it certainly must take some really terrible policies and harm to make people hate you THAT much.

    3. Martin-ddp profile image81
      Martin-ddpposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Funny how now she is dead and still causing trouble

    4. Lateral3 profile image60
      Lateral3posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      We have a particularly foetid left wing in Great Britain.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Ding dong, the witch is dead!"

        Last Updated, 6:13 p.m. The BBC on Friday rejected loud calls to ban the song “Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead” from its airwaves after the apparent success of a Facebook campaign to celebrate the death of Margaret Thatcher, the divisive former prime minister, by driving sales of the tune from “The Wizard of Oz” up the British singles chart.

        http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/0 … ?ref=world

        1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
          prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It is difficult and hard to say something nice of what she did smile

          She will always be a lesson on what a leader should not do!

  2. WriteAngled profile image91
    WriteAngledposted 3 years ago

    As the (insert epithet of your choice) herself said: "Just rejoice at that news"

  3. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    No matter how much I disagree with a person's politics and influence, I will not rejoice at their death.

    1. SimeyC profile image89
      SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

      1. innerspin profile image87
        innerspinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

    2. pagesvoice profile image83
      pagesvoiceposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is an old saying..."Do not speak ill of the dead." I will not partake in this as I liken it to the stoning of someone who can no longer speak up. I despise those who take liberties of kicking the dead down the road. Who died and left you people God?

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, I felt the same way when Chavez died and people were rejoicing.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Agreed.

          --------------------------------------------------------

          I do not rejoice at the death of an old woman but I do rejoice at the death of a despot and tyrant.
          That isn't the same as wishing somebody dead.

          Unfortunately the damage she did lives on.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
            Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Of course, ask me tomorrow what I thought of her and the gloves will be off smile

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              lol

            2. Will Apse profile image90
              Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That sounds fair to me.

        2. Marquis profile image59
          Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ok to be fair here, when Adolf Hitler was declared dead, how many Jews do you think celebrated his death?

          When Bull Connor died in 1973 in Alabama, how many Blacks do you think rejoiced at his death?

          1. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Millions; however, for many Jews who survived the holocaust,  it was a bittersweet celebration as many were the remnants of their families.   Of course, many Blacks in the South celebrated wildly when Bull Connor died.

    3. Uninvited Writer profile image82
      Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. There was a time when I might have, but not now... too many years have gone by. Of course, I did not live in the UK under her reign...

  4. Joy56 profile image61
    Joy56posted 3 years ago

    Oh dear was she hated so much..... I remember her being in power, and being called the iron lady, but it is never nice to hear of anyone dying.   Somebody kept voting for her.....

    1. SimeyC profile image89
      SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      She was loved by 50% of the people and hated by 50% of the people.

      I lived in Wales at the time and most hated her - in fact many commented they were disappointed she wasn't killed in the Brighton bombing. I never understood this type of hatred and never will. I may disagree with people's views and opinions but I'd never wish them harm for having these views....

      1. Patty Inglish, MS profile image88
        Patty Inglish, MSposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not true, even at her highest share of the vote, she never achieved 50% and she was voted in with as little as 35% of the vote. 
        She did not represent the people.

        If you had been alive during WWII would you have wished Hitler dead or that he had a long life?

        1. SimeyC profile image89
          SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't say she recieved 50% of the vote - my experience was that love and hatred for her were split evenly. It's a subjective comment...and there are not many British governments that get 50%+ of the vote - that's the way it works. She was given a mandate under the law by have the 'majority' of seats....

          As for Hitler - I would have wanted him brought to justice - whether that meant death or life in prison would be down to the international courts. Comparing MT to Hitler is a little unfair though - she caused a lot of heart-ache for many I am sure (me included I was unemployed for several years) - but she didn't kill millions of innocent people.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'd certainly challenge your claim that she was loved by 50%! Many of those who voted for her party could not abide the women.

            1. SimeyC profile image89
              SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just my experience - I knew a lot of conservatives who were very passionate about her. I also knew lots f Welsh people who passionately hated her.....it's very hard to give an objective figure 20 years or so after...


              ...and I'm sure that some who loved her when she first was voted in hated her when she finished her career - it's a very fluid thing...

        2. Clint Ward profile image60
          Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You compare Thatcher to Hitler?

          1. gmwilliams profile image86
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Concur, it is analogous to comparing a lion to an inland taipan.  I have volunteered John to write a hub on Ms. Thatcher to get his eyeview on the subject at hand.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think plenty of UK citizens have expressed what happened to them and their families during her governance, they lost their jobs, their unions were destroyed, the could not find work, their communities impoverished and if they protested they were brutally beaten by the police.

              1. Clint Ward profile image60
                Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Does that mean you agree with the comparison?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I am not really qualified to comment, I don't know enough about the issue and I did not live there, the comparison seems extremist to me but that is an amateur opinion at best.

                  1. Clint Ward profile image60
                    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ok, sensible answer. Have you ever heard that Thatcher had over 6 million people put to death? That seems the bar one would have to hurdle to be compared to Hitler, IMHO.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Comparing Thatcher to Hitler is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps you are only thinking about what Hitler did to the Jews, but Hitler also decimated many parts of England with his bombs. Ever heard of the blitz? And that is EXACTLY what Thatcher did to many parts of the UK, decimated it.

                  After the second world war the communities were rebuilt, not so after Thatcherism. Three decades later there are entire communities that are STILL suffering because of her policies.

                  1. SimeyC profile image89
                    SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    "STILL suffering because of her policies." - and the policies of all the other governments after her. You can't blame her for the fact that the policies are still being used - the labor governments that followed her had ample opportunity to remove every Thatcher policy - so the blame goes squarely on them not Thatcher....

                  2. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    So we can also place Blair in the Hitler catagory then, the effects of his premiership will be felt for generations to come, that's if the UK survives of course.

                  3. EmpressFelicity profile image84
                    EmpressFelicityposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Sorry, but comparing Thatcher to Hitler just doesn't fly, no matter how much you disagree with her policies. AFAICT, she didn't (a) try to invade several European countries, or (b) send six million people to their deaths in the gas chambers.

                    And I also agree with Simey and Izzy amongst others - I just can't condone the cheering/celebrating at her death. Someone would have to be really, really evil for me to even consider doing that - and even then I'd do it in private.

                  4. Clint Ward profile image60
                    Clint Wardposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The only reasonable comparisons to Hitler would be Stalin and Pol Pot. Anything else is just hysterical rantings.

                  5. Will Apse profile image90
                    Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The comparison to Hitler is incomprehensible.

                    If I was going to compare Thatcher to anyone it would be to any of the many Social Democratic leaders in Europe who managed to preserve their world class industries and the essential decency of their welfare systems throughout the turmoil of the seventies and early eighties.

                    Thatcher did neither.

            2. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I did my hub on Thatcher several years ago, it won't get changed in the light of her death.

          2. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, I asked a straight forward question, not a comparison.

  5. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Regardless of what I think of her, she got elected and had a democratic mandate.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      35% of the vote is a democratic mandate?

  6. CASE1WORKER profile image84
    CASE1WORKERposted 3 years ago

    John has a rather strong view of Mrs Thatcher which he is perfectly entitled to....

    I think that most people would be saddened by the death of anyone.

    Just remember she was Prime Minister for an awfully long time and people voted her into power

  7. 0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    What a very sad thing. God bless her family and her passing.

  8. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 3 years ago

    Margaret Thatcher does it her way.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jY5fYjV-U

    1. aa lite profile image91
      aa liteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ha ha, actually I prefer this one:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyU8qmzGsEg

      A bit unclear about whether she's getting a state funeral or not.  However if so, I definitely think it should be privatised!  I am sure she would approve.

      1. SimeyC profile image89
        SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        big_smile She actually requested not to have a state funeral - so it's definitely a 'privatized' ceremony!

        1. aa lite profile image91
          aa liteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The funeral is apparently going to be in St. Paul's cathedral and there will be military honours, so that sounds like a state funeral.

          At her request the public will not be allowed to look at her corpse lying in the coffin.  I have the word for that at the tip of my tongue, but it's refusing to come forward to my mind.

      2. Will Apse profile image90
        Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        OK, I lolled but I thought it was distinctly unfair. I quite liked John Major. At least he wouldn't scare you if you met him in a dark alley. And he was relaxed enough to enjoy a day's cricket.

        To put it in the language of the time, Thatcher was like the Death Star. Major was more like c3po.

  9. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 3 years ago

    Thatcher was one huge reason England was a good nation. Since she has been gone, England has been pathetic.

    If England can get more people like her at the helm, well then there is hope after all for that dismal nation.

    1. Judi Bee profile image86
      Judi Beeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      She had no effect on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland during her time as PM of the United Kingdom then?

      1. SimeyC profile image89
        SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Like any leader Mrs. Thatcher did some good things and some bad things. From a Welsh, Scottish, Northern Ireland perspective it did seem that she didn't do anything good - especially with the destruction of the coal mines - but this wasn't necessarily simply against these countries, it was also bad for the North of England. Back in 'those' days there was a huge divide between the North and South and you'll find just as much hatred in Yorkshire as there was in Wales, Scotland etc.

        If you look objectively at what happened during her 'reign', Britain as a whole did pretty well economically - sadly the 'wealth' was not spread equally. There are also some that argue that the destruction of the unions was a good thing - I partially agree with that as the unions had too much power - but to destroy them so totally and to do it at the expense of the miners was wrong.

        I always find it difficult when any leader (Labor, Conservative, Democrat, Republican) are judged in any way that is 'black and white' - there are simply too many variables....

        BTW I'm an Northern English Lad who lived in South Wales for thirty years - my father worked for the coal board and I was adversely effected by the Thatcher government by being unemployed for several years and having to go on a Job Training Scheme for little pay!!

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You know, I don't understand you. I would never have put you down as one in favour of big government, an authoritarian leader who was divisive and who increased the power of government hugely!

      Just shows how wrong I can be. Oh, and the reason why we are such a pathetic nation these days? Well she died yesterday.

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You need strong leaders like Thatcher.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Maybe you do but we don't.
          We sat at the top of the tree for thirty or so years after WWII with consensus government, virtually full employment and low taxes until Thatcher came along and blew that out of the water. Keep your strong leaders to yourself please.

  10. alancaster149 profile image85
    alancaster149posted 3 years ago

    She didn't endear herself to those at the centre, certainly not to left of centre, with her idea of politics. As for heroically defending the Falklanders' rights to self-determination, if she hadn't made public her decision to stand down the defences in the South Atlantic - such as they were, an unarmed survey vessel and a handful of Royal Marines for the whole of the Falklands and South Georgia region - and only a few marines based at Port Stanley, General Galtieri might not have envisaged landing his army there. All she did was recoup her position.
    Settling the miners' dispute was done at the cost of many jobs in the industry, now considered a risky line of work with safety standards gone to the dogs. Both Arthur Scargill and Maggie share the blame, namely Maggie for taking attacks on her political stance 'King Arthur' too personally and Arthur for successfully alienating many NUM members, enough to establish the breakaway UDM (a repeat of the 1920's miners' strike fiasco broken by Winston Churchill).
    It was the 'Poll Tax' that did for her in 1990. Edging her out of No.10 in a vote of no confidence John Major (our one-and-only secondary modern-educated PM!) took the helm and rescinded her legislation, introducing the much fairer 'banded' council tax. With the 'Poll Tax' every member of a household over the age of 16 had to pay or be paid for, seeing many unemployed under-18's out of their homes because the council bill was too high. There was also the additional embarrassment of recently deceased people being billed for the tax period beginning April until their deaths, leading to bills going out to, e.g.: 'Mr Tom Watson, dec.'  That wasn't necessarily down to her, but it was 'on her watch'. Still you know what they say, "Sh** sticks!"
    Nor were tears and tantrums the best way to leave Downing Street. It was one thing modelling yourself on the likes of Winston Churchill, something else falling back on a woman's emotions when things went wrong for her.
    You can't have it both ways, Maggie, but rest in peace. We can't back at you now.

  11. WriteAngled profile image91
    WriteAngledposted 3 years ago

    I note that a petition has been submitted to the official government petitions site calling for any plans for a state funeral to be stopped
    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45966

    One suggestion is that those who lined their purses as a result of her policies can contribute to footing the bill instead.

    Further than that, a call has been put out over social media for mass action to disrupt the state funeral if it does take place.

    In my nearly 60 years of life, I have never seen a reaction like this before. People in the UK might have secretly been glad when a hated politician or member of the royal family died, but there was never such a reaction. It reflects the amazingly high level of hatred this person generated by her contemptible policies.

    Thatcher was totally without compassion, racist and a little-Englander. She ruined many communities with her vicious policies. Before she became Prime Minister, she was  best known by the epithet "Maggie Thatcher, milk snatcher" because in her role as Minister for Education she destroyed the policy of free milk for school children, which played an important part in ensuring nutritional support. Being universal, it meant children from poor homes were not subject to the humiliation of being singled out. The cost was miniscule compared to the cost of Thatcher's later warmongering in Las Malvinas.

    Someone from Ireland, whom I know, made the point that MT was the best recruitment campaign ever for the IRA. New memberships were at a peak during her reign.

    As for my beloved Wales, the land which adopted me and gave me a home; it comes among the regions that suffered the most from the policies of this woman.

    Here is a response from the wonderful song "Yma o hyd", written in 1981 by Dafydd Iwan, which has more or less become a second anthem for Cymru Cymraeg (Welsh-speaking Wales)

    Cofiwn I Facsen Wledig
    Adael ein gwlad yn un darn
    A bloeddiwn gerbron y gwledydd
    'Mi fyddwn yma tan Ddydd y Farn! '
    Er gwaetha pob Dic Sion Dafydd,
    Er gwaetha 'rhen Fagi a'I chriw
    Byddwn yma hyd ddiwedd amser
    A bydd yr iaith Gymraeg yn fyw!

    We remember Magnus Maximus,
    who left the land as a whole unit,
    and we cry out to all other nations
    "We will be here until the Day of Judgement!"
    Despite every "Dic Sion Dafydd"
    Despite old Maggie (Thatcher) and her gang
    We will remain until the end of time
    and the Welsh language will live!

    References:
    Magnus Maximus: Roman general, who was seen as founding father of several dynasties of Welsh kingdoms.
    Dic Sion Dafydd: Thiis is a reference to a satirical poem written in the 19th century by John Jones, better known by his bardic name of Jac Glan-y-gors, about Welsh people who moved to London and hoped to become more upwardly mobile by renouncing the Welsh language

    For those who are interested, here is a more recent version of Yma o Hyd sung by Dafydd Iwan. Maggie ('rhen Fagi) has been changed to "old enemy" since she was not longer relevant, and some new words have been added at the start. It makes me cry. One day, I hope my adopted land will be free of English domination. I will be among the first banging on the doors asking for citizenship of beautiful Wales.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WooUv0QttKs

    1. Judi Bee profile image86
      Judi Beeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      She won't have a state funeral - she'll get a public funeral with military honours.  Presumably the army will be necessary to hold back the celebrating crowds.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Or to make sure she is really dead!

    2. SimeyC profile image89
      SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Out of interest, would you sign a petition to stop Tony Blair from getting a state funeral when he dies? or any other Prime Minister who has abused his or her power? If you want to be objective, no prime minister deserves a state funeral, every one of them has had some detrimental impact to some region of Britain - the North of England have been treated very badly by many Prime Ministers as has Cornwall, as has....etc. etc.

      1. IzzyM profile image85
        IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know you didn't direct this question to me, but no I don't think any prime minister should get a state funeral except those currently in office (if they die that is, obviously).

        1. SimeyC profile image89
          SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't disagree - but they do - so it shouldn't be changes simply because someone wasn't a great Prime Minister - you either abolish it for all or keep it for all - there should be no in-between!

      2. WriteAngled profile image91
        WriteAngledposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely, I would!

        Blair is one of the greatest sleazeballs ever to exist, and he learned his sleaze from Thatcher, for whom he has openly declared admiration on many occasions. He is a total opportunist. He joined the Labour Party, because he considered he would do best there. He then directed huge efforts at destroying what that party used to be.

        At one time, I used to campaign for Labour during elections. The day Blair got elected, I vowed never to vote Labour again. For many years, I did not vote at all either in national or in local elections. Currently, I am lucky enough to live in an area where I can support an honest party with a leader, whom I admire hugely, so I have become politically active once again.

        1. SimeyC profile image89
          SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          OK - then I absolutely respect your view - it's not my view but you have every right to feel the way you do! Not that you needed my permission!!!

        2. IzzyM profile image85
          IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          +100

  12. WriteAngled profile image91
    WriteAngledposted 3 years ago
    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I thought the conclusion sound -

      " There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history."

  13. WriteAngled profile image91
    WriteAngledposted 3 years ago

    The petition to deny this woman a state funeral, posted at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/45966
    has passed 20,000 as of now

  14. Judi Bee profile image86
    Judi Beeposted 3 years ago

    I know it's probably pedantic, but she really isn't going to get a state funeral.  That's been announced.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 … t-thatcher

    She'll get a ceremonial funeral.  Only a small distinction (no vote in the Houses of Parliament, no sailors pulling the gun carriage) but no point in agitating to stop a state funeral when it's already been announced that it's not going to happen.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It still sends a message.

      1. Judi Bee profile image86
        Judi Beeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I signed up for that message a long time ago big_smile

        I'll happily sign up for the "bury her at her family's expense" petition - just can't bring myself to sign up for something that's already been decided - see, I'm pedantic.

  15. Peter Geekie profile image82
    Peter Geekieposted 3 years ago

    I'm sure that you and others like you would not worry her one jot. One of her greatest achievements was to neuter minority agitators and relegate them to the lowest level. One day, when you all grow up, perhaps you will learn that just because someone holds a political view opposite to yours does not entitle you to disrespect them or their memory.
    Peter

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      One of her greatest achievements was to neuter the UK.
      You do realise that one of the minorities that she neutered actually had more supporters than she did?

    2. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "When someone holds a political view opposite to yours"??

      Most people do, LOL, but they are not in power to do anything about it.

      I am sorry Maggie has died, because she was a helpless old woman at the end up, and a threat to no-one.

      But she destroyed the Scottish heavy industries and confined a generation to the scrap heap.

      Not just in Scotland, of course, but to the North of England and Wales too.

      And let's not forget she brought in the Poll Tax, a year ahead of the rest of the UK. I was one of those who went out marching against it. I was also among those who prevented sheriff officers from taking goods from the houses of those who wouldn't or couldn't pay it.

      He policies were divisive - the rich got richer and the poor became poorer.

      Even worse, she is the cause of the birth of 'New Labour' who under Tory Blair were even more right-wing than she was. they are ones who stopped student grants and brought in loans. They took her vision a step further towards denying further education to students from poorer backgrounds.

      She also destroyed the Scottish Conservative Party. I think by her final year they were down to just 2 MP's out of 65.

      1. SimeyC profile image89
        SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder why she was the most hated though - she's not the first English Prime Minister, nor the last Prime Minisiter who will do damage to Wales, NI, Scotland, North of England, Cornwall etc.

        Why was there no call for any other PM to not have a state funeral. I'm a proud Britsh man who was born in England and lived in Wales most of my life - I like many was touched by Margaret Thatcher - my dad worked for the coal board and I was without a job for many years  - but I do not understan this type of hatred - she was one woman who had a cabinet - who was voted in several times - so someone must think she did right.

        Do I agree with everything she did? No - I'd say that perhaps 30% of what she did was good - while the majority put Britain back - but I still respect the office and feel that if a petition manages to change something like this, then Britain is worse off.

        1. aa lite profile image91
          aa liteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think state funerals are the norm for former prime ministers.  I believe only Churchill had that honour (and that presumably was because of WW2).  This is why the Thatcher's potential State funeral (which is not really a State funeral, but is a funeral+) is such an issue.

          1. SimeyC profile image89
            SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ahhh fair enough - I made a bad assumption. I did read that Thatcher specifically stated she didn't want one - so why would her wishes be ignored anyway?

            Just found this on wikipedia:
            Several other notable people and former prime ministers have been awarded a full state funeral:

            Sir Philip Sidney (1586)
            Admiral Robert Blake (1657)
            Sir Isaac Newton (1727)[3]
            The Viscount Nelson (1806)
            The Duke of Wellington (1852)
            The Viscount Palmerston (1865)
            Lord Napier of Magdala (1890)
            The Rt Hon William Gladstone (1898)
            The Earl Roberts of Kandahar (1914)
            The Earl Haig (1928)
            The Lord Carson (1935)
            The Rt Hon Sir Winston Churchill (1965)
            Benjamin Disraeli was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it in his will. The famous nurse and statistician Florence Nightingale was also offered a state funeral, but her family opted for a private ceremony. Charles Darwin (died 1882) was honoured by a major funeral in Westminster Abbey, attended by state representatives, but this does not seem to have been a state funeral in the formal sense.

            The most recent state funeral for someone outside the royal family was that of Churchill in 1965. His was the largest in world history, with representatives from 112 nations.[4]The only difference between his state funeral and that of the sovereign was the gun salute: prime ministers get a 19-gun salute as a head of government; the sovereign receives the full 21-gun salute, as head of state.

            Despite initial speculation that Margaret Thatcher would be accorded a state funeral, after her death in 2013, the government indicated that she would not receive a state funeral "in accordance with her own wishes".[5] Instead, she was to be accorded a ceremonial funeral with full military honours at St Paul's Cathedral, as authorized by Queen Elizabeth II.[6]

        2. alancaster149 profile image85
          alancaster149posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As I wrote (above) it was her 'Poll Tax' and the handling of the miners' dispute. The smoke screen she threw up around Galtieri's invasion of the Falkland Is. has to be seen as nothing short of opportunistic. It was her publicising of her aim to stand down defences in the South Atlantic that drew the Argies in. The gi-normous expense of sending in a task force need not have been met if she'd 'kept the wraps on' until the plan was either ratified or rejected. By that time Galtieri would have gone and their own smoke screen would have been blown away by the succeeding government. Maggie was no Poker player!

    3. aa lite profile image91
      aa liteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is just too funny!  "just because someone holds a political view opposite to yours does not entitle you to disrespect them", in close proximity to "One day, when you all grow up".

      And just because somebody doesn't agree with your views, doesn't make them "minority agitators" relegated to the lowest level.

      1. IzzyM profile image85
        IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thatcher would have been proud of his views!

  16. jimmythejock profile image81
    jimmythejockposted 3 years ago

    Ding Dong the witch is dead, party time in Scotland. Scotland never voted for Thatcher in any of her 3 election wins and she brought us to our knees.
    Thatcher did not understand the common working man and stamped down on them hard as the rich got even richer and the poor were wiped off the sole of her shoe like dog poop.
    She destroyed the mines, the dock yards and the steel industry and didn't even pause for a breath.
    Yes I admire her for what she achieved for herself and other women through her hard work but what she did with all of that power Britain will never forget.
    The Argentinian Ship The General Belgrano was sailing away from the Falkland isles back to Argentina when she sent the order to blow it out of the water Starting the Falklands war.
    I celebrate the death of Maggie Thatcher and pray that there will never be another leader of her ilk again.
    Come to Scotland and join the party in George Square, Glasgow the champagne is flowing.....jimmy

    1. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Say it like it is, Jimmy! lol

      I will not celebrate her death simply because my own father died just a month and 2 days ago, and I am devastated.

      Regardless of whether she will be remembered as a cause for Good or Evil, her own family are now mourning a much-loved family member.

      Off-topic a little, but my new (incomer) neighbour shared with me a wonderful story she heard about Dad, through friends of hers.

      A farmer had an accident, leaving him with a broken back and neck.

      My Dad, when he was still working as a GP, attended, but there was no neck brace for the man.

      Ever the engineer (he'd have made a great engineer), he fashioned a neck- brace out of discarded items he found around the farmyard.

      The man was later flown away to hospital where the surgeon later told him my Dad had saved his life.

      I'd never heard that story before, but I think it is lovely.

    2. SimeyC profile image89
      SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You have every right to your opinion and I agree with 99.99% of it - I just can't celebrate the death of anyone regardless of any damage they have done to me. I do however respect your right to feel the way you feel and 'protest' or 'celebrate' the way you want to!

      1. jimmythejock profile image81
        jimmythejockposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        To be totally honest with you Simey, when it came on the news this morning my initial reaction said it all I jumped out of my chair and cheered like a loony just like i would do if my favorite football team had just scored the winning goal of the cup final. I did not think that I could react like that on hearing about the death of anyone but it was a gut reaction.

        1. SimeyC profile image89
          SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Fair enough - when someone is responsible for so much devistation it is understandable - and if I had been older when I was unemployed and could not get a job at all then I probably would be far more bitter..

        2. aa lite profile image91
          aa liteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thatcher might be dead but her legacy lives on.  I see no reason for celebration.

          1. IzzyM profile image85
            IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I get what you are saying, but will be more interested when the whole country wakes up and realises that there is room for improvement in the current system.
            I don't know how you feel, but I can't get the MPs expenses scandal out of my mind. Kudos to those who exposed it.
            I long suspected it, but had no evidence.
            Every party was involved. Not all MPs but a sizeable proportion.

            I do not trust politicians now, even those within my own Party. Those who want a seat in Parliament are suspect.

            1. aa lite profile image91
              aa liteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yep, I always think of the expenses scandal whenever politicians pontificate about the "entitlement" culture, etc. etc. 

              Then there is the disgusting Grant Shapps aka "Michael Green, the internet guru" and his traffic paymaster business  selling scraping and spinning software.  Or the odious Tony Blair, amassing a personal fortunate, and not paying taxes on it......I could go on.  It's the disgusting hypocrisy that really gets me.

              But, I don't have much hope of the country waking up to anything.  I think it is very telling that Labour only won after they (almost) became to the right of the Tories.  I don't know what it is about people!  Turkeys voting for Christmas.

    3. WriteAngled profile image91
      WriteAngledposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wish I could, Jimmy! Have a double of a decent malt for me!

      I don't think she did anything for women in general, to be honest. I think she regarded herself as an honorary male.

      1. IzzyM profile image85
        IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is how I see it too. If anything, she set the women's movement back. Who would want another woman prime minister after her?

        1. SimeyC profile image89
          SimeyCposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's funny - I would guess that a majority of men would say she helped women because she was so strong and stood up to the male oriented establishment. However, it's interesting to see the point from a woman's perspective and see that many think she was just setting herself up as a pseudo man...

  17. 0
    Dan Bristolposted 3 years ago

    Thatcher was a greater human being than any 10 liberals.

    1. IzzyM profile image85
      IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And you would know this, how?

    2. WriteAngled profile image91
      WriteAngledposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well that is not what people in the UK think.

      Here is a report on some of the celebrations that broke out when people heard the news:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 … on-glasgow

  18. IzzyM profile image85
    IzzyMposted 3 years ago

    I would go so far as suggesting the whole country needs a good slap as a wake-up call.

    What is the problem - is there too much inter-breeding? If the Jeremy Kyle show is anything to go on, the working class masses need to be shot. Or given a shot of something.

    These people can't see past their next benefit cheque.

    They are certainly not capable of being in charge of a vote.

    But they are not the typical 'working class' this country was built on. What has gone wrong, and where?

  19. Comrade Joe profile image87
    Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago

    She was a murdering tyrant, an imperialist racist and destroyer of communities.  Her death has been widely celebrated in my home city of Glasgow and in working class communities all over the country.  The celebrations will continue.  But the important thing is to take the battle to her ideological heirs who are currently pillaging the country today.

    1. Marquis profile image59
      Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      She was neither. You are mad because she was not a disgusting Commie. Communism is trash, get it?

  20. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Let's celebrate the death of a tyrant. I've never understood how a woman could be proud of being called the iron lady.

    1. gmwilliams profile image86
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Women have long been thought of as weak and nice by patriarchal society.   In order for women to be successful, they have to be TOUGH, BITCHY,  and UNRELENTING.    Nice women do not advance to the top of the corporate echelon and/or to the top of anything else.  Let's us get real here.   Margaret Thatcher was a STRONG woman, an iron lady.   There is NO SHAME in that.   Yes, Margaret Thatcher is an IRON LADY so are many female politicians, both liberal and conservative.

  21. Will Apse profile image90
    Will Apseposted 3 years ago

    Rugby, my home town was once famous for engineering. The first turbo jet engine was built and tested there. Now it is notable for warehousing.

    She allowed industry to die in order to kill the unions, so now, almost the entire economy rests on the financial sector (that hasn't worked out so well). She killed public housing to buy votes. Now housing is just about the most expensive in the world. She made London very, very wealthy by financial liberalisation for a brief period but everywhere else is a distribution point for imported goods.

    On the other hand, Labour was pitiful, the unions were led by donkeys and the rich had already demonstrated their commitment to the country by leaving for low tax regimes  after the oil crises.

    So, it would be easy to say the country got what it deserved.

  22. GA Anderson profile image87
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    As a non-Brit, or any of the other regions, I of course have no footing to say what she was or wasn't.

    So I won't, but it is certainly your prerogative to do so.

    However, I will say this, as a person;

    Of those commenters that are celebrating her death ...

    I am sadly disappointed by some of the familiar names I see here, that I would never had expected to hold such a ghastly position as to be glad someone they disagreed with is dead.

    Merely a one-time statement. If you want to address it for the benefit of yourselves - go for it. I will not be revisiting the invective of this thread. I want no part it, or association with those that express it.

    Unfortunately for me, I feel the loss of those associations is mine, for I have enjoyed past forum conversations with many of you.

    I have no doubt those of whom I speak could give a whit. As expected.

    GA

    1. Will Apse profile image90
      Will Apseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The extreme left in the UK is just as unpleasant and irrational as the extreme right in the US. They both celebrate the deaths of their 'enemies'.

      Having said that, Thatcher really did preside over the destruction of hundreds of communities up and down the country. Some of that destruction was inevitable after the oil crises. Enterprises that had survived in an era of very, very cheap oil were not going to survive after the arrival of OPEC. Some of that destruction, though, was driven by ideology. Many people had their lives ruined for no good reason, so the hatred is understandable if undesirable.

      1. gmwilliams profile image86
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Someone should write a hub describing their experience under Ms. Thatcher.   John, would YOU like to do this?   It would be greatly appreciated.   Now, let me return to watch some more History Channel documentaries on youtube.   Perhaps I should watch THE DARK AGES, sounds interesting.

      2. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The Extreme Left in the U.S. are nothing but fanatical fascists.

  23. Cody Hodge5 profile image81
    Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago

    So...

    I get the feeling that Thatcher was to England what the second George Bush is to America?

  24. Marquis profile image59
    Marquisposted 3 years ago

    England would be better with strong leaders like Thatcher.

  25. Peter Geekie profile image82
    Peter Geekieposted 3 years ago

    At first glance you would think what a lot of people didn't have a good word to say about Prime Minister Thatcher- until you realise it is the same 4 or 5 all ranting about something they know absolutely nothing about. What we have is some nauseous back slapping contest.
    Time to grow up kiddies and learn on which side your bread is buttered as you collect your social security hand-outs.
    Peter

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      About 95% of posters disliked her.

      And if you guys are anything like the US you'll find the poor collecting social security are majority conservative, the left is 7% wealthier here on average.

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who cares? 95% of the posters are not the total population of the UK.

    2. WriteAngled profile image91
      WriteAngledposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I do not, and never have, collected social security in nearly 60 years of life. I do not intend to apply for it in future either.

    3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Sorry, but just trying to follow your logic- people who disagreed with Thatcher and all that she stood for are obviously kiddies who were not around at the time and ultimately welfare dependent?

      Just out of interest, how did you reach this conclusion?

      1. Marquis profile image59
        Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It is self evident. People who are on welfare more than likely hate any politician who is not pro big government.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It might be "self evident to you" but statistically it's untrue.

          1. Marquis profile image59
            Marquisposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You may be one of those people.

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It might be self evident to those who are on welfare- but I'm not on welfare, neither is WA or John. Nor can I see the deduction when it comes to our age and not being around at the time. Again, skewed logic.

    4. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And how many have to rely on social security "hand-outs" precisely because Thatcher permanently destroyed so many jobs?

      You accuse me of not knowing anything about Thatcher! Where were you in the eighties? Did you see your home town razed to the ground and replaced with nothing? Did you see unemployment shoot up to 75% leaving only those in menial low paid jobs in work? How many people did you know who killed themselves out of despair?

      1. Peter Geekie profile image82
        Peter Geekieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        John - in the 1980s I was attending meetings with fat cat union bosses in South London attempting to free supplies of medical drugs and equipment the pickets were preventing from reaching patients in hospitals - I was trying to get bodies off mortuary slabs where they had lain for weeks because the unions would not allow the bodies to be buried or cremated and so and so on. Quite frankly if you think unemployment reached 75% then you are living in a real Walter Mitty world. Don't waste my time in replying you have nothing to add.
        Peter

        1. IzzyM profile image85
          IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Quite frankly if you read the post you responded to, he specifically said unemployment in his area rose to 75%.
          As it did in many areas throughout the industrial belts in the UK.

          The same happened in my area and the blame can be laid firmly at Maggie's door.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Apparently only Peter's views and experiences of Thatcher and her policies are valid!

          2. Peter Geekie profile image82
            Peter Geekieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            IzzyM - That was not what he said- read it again
            Peter

            Hollie - substantiate your wild accusations with a few facts - or on the other hand don't bother as you obviously live in the same fantasy world as izzyM and John
            Peter

            1. Peter Geekie profile image82
              Peter Geekieposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As far as I am concerned this subject is now closed
              Peter

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Which claims, exactly, would you like me to substantiate peter? And can I ask why you feel the need to resort to name calling, ask a question and then, in the same breath, dictate that we are not to answer it?

                I asked you to explain your reasoning, that is not a claim it is a question!

            2. IzzyM profile image85
              IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              John said "Did you see your home town razed to the ground and replaced with nothing? Did you see unemployment shoot up to 75% leaving only those in menial low paid jobs in work? "

              Specifically note the words "your home town".

              This sets the pace for his later sentences. He was talking about his home town.

            3. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It would have been obvious to anybody who could see straight that I was referring to unemployment in my home town, not the privileged south east.

              ETA sorry  Izzy, didn't spot your post until after I had posted.

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So by your own admission you have no idea how the rest of the country was being screwed into the ground by Thatcher!

          1. IzzyM profile image85
            IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And this is typical of Tory voters, especially during the Thatcher years.

            We became a nation of haves and have-nots, with the haves believing that the have-nots deserved everything coming to them as they were all work-shy working-class wasters.

            Maggie polarized Britain and brought out the worst in people.

            I still have no time for anyone who worshipped her. It says more about them than anything.

            It is painful to listen to the news bulletins now, with all the media apparently taking the "Maggie was the greatest prime minister ever" stance.

            Re-calling Parliament just to allow the MP's to rave about her was pitiful. They all got £3,750 plus expenses just for turning up.

            And that gem of information came from the Daily Mail who are as right-wing as you can get.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I read about that too. Which is a bit rich to say the least. I do feel that the media is stoking the flames though Izzy. Do they want a riot, and if so why??

              1. IzzyM profile image85
                IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You know, it never occurred to me that they could be stirring things. That's a scarey thought! My immediate thought on the hearing they were getting paid expenses was "pigs in the trough again", and maybe even right wing newspapers are pissed off with that.

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                  Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think there's an element of that though, the pigs in the trough. But I also think there's so much bad blood, not just when t comes to Thatcher but because of the things that are happening at present with all the other changes to NHS, welfare etc.. It's a weird time- the media are not getting their own way and the right wing press, because in the main it is them, are really peeved with the new proposals for press regulation and such.

                  Protests against the bedroom tax etc were planned for this Saturday before the news of Thatcher's death- it was always going to be a tense occasion- but now- feels like their stoking the flames. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's as if the perfect storm is brewing.

                  1. IzzyM profile image85
                    IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ahhh, the bedroom tax.

                    The only person I have discussed that with is my right wing lazy good for nothing nephew, who after spending 10 years at university only to pick up a degree he could have got in 3 years, promptly made himself bankrupt to avoid paying back his massive student debts.

                    He seemingly not only thinks Thatcher's death is enough to send him into a state of mourning (which is really strange considering he was only born the year she came to power), he thinks the bedroom tax is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

                    Anyway, he did not reply to the points I made, although some of his right-wing pals did until I shot them down.

                    The people likely to be most affected by the bedroom tax are those who already suffered greatly under Thatcher.

                    They had their family-sized local authority homes, and after they got laid off, their rents were paid for them by the Social Security.

                    Being workers at heart, even although they could not obtain new work, they put their heart and souls into their homes, turning them into mini-palaces.

                    They lovingly tended their gardens, and probably grew their own vegetables and fruit.

                    Now, all these years later, their families have flown the nest and they risk being turfed out onto the streets if they cannot find the extra money being asked for.

                    Who else is likely to have a council house with more bedrooms than required, but this generation?

                    The only people likely to gain from this move are single irresponsible parents, who will not take care of said property and certainly won't have time to look after the garden unless they could grow weed.

            2. Uninvited Writer profile image82
              Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Was it really a 7 hour tribute to her in the House of Commons?

              1. IzzyM profile image85
                IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know. Probably. The news was full of it, anyway, giving us snippets of what this, that, and the other said about her.

                I dunno, 7 hours at X amount an hour, could be some politicians did very well financially out of this.

                Plus their £3,750 of course.

                No wonder this country is nearly bankrupt!

            3. aa lite profile image91
              aa liteposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I think Glenda Jackson did a good job with her speech.  "“The basis to Thatcherism - was that everything I had been taught to regard as a vice - and I still regard them as vices - under Thatcherism was in fact a virtue: greed, selfishness, no care for the weaker, sharp elbows, sharp knees. They were the way forward".

              http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ma … da-1822905

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Great stuff... smile

              2. IzzyM profile image85
                IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                None of Glenda's speech was reported in the BBC or ITV news. That is very telling, don't you think?

                What a fantastic speech!

                She brings it all back.

                I remember the mental hospitals being closed, and people who had been in-patients for 40 years or more being thrown out into the community.

                These people had been institutionalised, and there was no half-way house.

                A lot of flats went on fire and a lot of people (neighbours) were injured or killed after that little debacle. Care in the Community was a huge failure.

                The selling off of council houses meant not only a huge housing shortage, but the unfairness of people being able to buy a cut-price house, when I and many others had never even been on the waiting list for one, because as workers we could afford housing - as those people could, but hey a 90% reduction on a house price is fabulous!

                It was such a bad move. Great for some, but bad overall.

                My kids went to school in the 80s. There were never enough school books to go round, and there was always fundraising events.

                And yes, people died on trolleys in hospital corridors waiting for beds to become available.

                Of course, now they can't find a hospital open to give them emergency care.

                This will be the 'Great' put back in Britain that Maggie is being praised for.

                Makes me sick!

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'd forgotten about "care" in the community!

                  One day in the 80's a group of two or three of us were walking down a street in Manchester when we heard a terrible screaming and crashing of furniture coming from an attic flat. Convinced that somebody was being murdered we started to try to break into the house.
                  An old chap came out from next door and said "it's OK , she's not being murdered. She's on her own - care in the community! She'll calm down in a few hours and then be all right till the next time.

                  1. IzzyM profile image85
                    IzzyMposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I was a nurse at the time, and know for a fact that the majority of Care in the Community people were victims twice over.
                    They were admitted to mental institutions because they were pregnant and unmarried or similar stupid reasons dating back to the 20s.
                    There, they were doped up to the eyeballs on mind-numbing drugs, and subjected to cruel and unnecessary 'treatments' like lobotomies or electro-convulsive therapy (I witnessed someone undergoing this treatment in the late 70s).
                    After all that, they became institutionalised and pliant.

                    It is heart-breaking to think that someone may have spent most of their adult lives in such a place.

                    The one day, they were papped out. Under Thatcher, their 'home' was closed.

                    With absolutely no social skills, these people were expected to live in the community with back-up help from 'carers' who they did not know.

                    There was no period of preparation, not that it would have worked anyway.

                    While these people should not have been put away in the first place, finally dumping them into the community wasn't good for them either.

                    There were fires. There were frequent fires and many lives were put at risk/and-or lost.

                    In many respects, putting these people into the community on their own was like handing matches to a 4 year old.

                    Thanks Maggie! You made Britain great again! or should that be 'grate'?

              3. Marisa Wright profile image93
                Marisa Wrightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's it in a nutshell.

                I was living in Africa during some of the Thatcher years and came back to find Central Scotland in the grip of utter misery.   The coal mines had all been closed down and some towns in my area had almost 100% unemployment.  The young men were running wild because they had all expected to follow their dads into the pits, and suddenly their future had evaporated.  Small businesses were all collapsing because their customers were all unemployed and had no money to spare.   It was an awful time and the main reason I hightailed it to Australia.

              4. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I saw that earlier- superb and so very, very accurate.

  26. prettydarkhorse profile image62
    prettydarkhorseposted 3 years ago

    "As education secretary—prior to becoming prime minister—she cut school milk for elementary school children and won her first nickname, "Thatcher the milk snatcher."

    lifted from http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04 … death-obit

    For me as an outsider that is significant to assess her true character.

    She also supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, that is interesting. She even called Nelson Mandela a "terrorist".

    She supported dictatorship, but I don't really think she is on a level with Hitler. History will not be kind to her just because we as a society is becoming liberal minded.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe not on a level, Pretty Dark Horse, but in some respects comparable.

  27. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    I used to work with adults with learning difficulties around the time and after when I was at university, all kicked out into the community. It was a bloody nightmare, that's all I can say.

  28. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    I hope they drove a stake through Thatcher's evil heart.

  29. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    Ralph,

    Wow, she must have been pretty bad.  I certainly despise President Obama's politics, but I wouldn't celebrate his death or wish it upon him.  What did she do to make you hate her so much?

    I guess I should have read the entire thread before posting, but your statement caught my attention.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What I can't understand is why so many Americans who supposedly love small government and personal freedom love her so much.

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm a bit confused.  How did she grow the government?  I'm not really debating you here, only learning.  You live in the UK, and I do not.  Your perspective is interesting to me.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's not actually a perspective, it's what happened!
          She took a lot of the powers vested in local government and gave them to central government. She increased laws impinging on freedom - at one stage the police were stopping people going about their business and not letting them travel in certain parts of the country.

          There is more but I'm off out in a minute, so more later.

          1. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That would violate many conservative beliefs.  Why is she so well regarded by conservatives then?  I know she and Reagan generally, but not always, seemed to get along quite well.  What did she do to endear herself to conservatives?  I must be missing something.

            1. Comrade Joe profile image87
              Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              She's regarded well by conservatives for attacking trade union rights, redistributing wealth from poor to rich, tax breaks for the rich, shutting down nationalized and unionized workplaces and her aggressive nationalism in Ireland and the Malvinas, anticommunism, among other things.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sounds like a precursor of our Tea Partiers.

              2. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Conservatives do not believe in taking money from the poor to give to the rich.  That's your bias, spin, and belief.  As a conservative, I have no desire to take money away from a class of people who are suffering.  That's simply not what conservatives believe.  You may think that's what we believe, but then again, isn't that what you believe about capitalists in general? 

                Conservatives do not just believe in tax breaks for the rich.  They believe in tax breaks for everybody.  Liberals and socialists just want to focus on the fact that we do not want to tax rich people into oblivion or redistribute wealth.  The truth is that we don't want to tax anybody into oblivion, rich or not. We want to help poor people up but not with perpetual handouts.  We want to help poor people out of poverty, and this is not accomplished by taxing the rich to give to the poor.  It's accomplished by promoting job growth, the kinds of jobs that help poor people out of poverty.  Taxing people into oblivion doesn't result in a whole lot of job growth.

                Yes, generally speaking, we are not big union supporters.

                I don't know what Thatcher was or wasn't for.  As for me, I liked her for one reason.  She seemed very supportive of America's foreign policy.  I wish I could say that I know more about what she did in the UK.  I can't claim that.  I suspect that most Americans who like her feel that way for the same reason; she seemed to be a good ally for America.  Beyond that, I must admit my ignorance about her policies.  I will say, however, that your understanding of conservative ideals is highly skewed and incorrect.

                1. Comrade Joe profile image87
                  Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You can argue all you want that conservatives don't support a redistribution of wealth, but the proof is in the pudding, when conservatives are in power, the rich invariably get richer and the poor get poorer.  When policy is to close down industry, attack collective bargaining, push people into low paid jobs and create mass unemployment the effect is to impoverish people.  You may say that is not the intention, but it is the inevitable result. It has been the thrust of every Conservative Party leader in this country since Thatcher. Your denial would be akin to you claiming communists support nationalisation and me arguing that we really believe in direct collective ownership, which completely ignores that nationalisation is a precursor to and an aspect of the process of direct collective ownership.

                  But I do agree, that when it comes to her admiration from American conservatives, this is largely because of the other things i mentioned, her anti-communism (which is indicative of her anti working class and anti poor agenda), her imperialism in Ireland and support of the likes of Pinochet, apartheid South Africa and what would become the Taliban, which aligned her with the United States in the marching against history, in the imperialist camp. It's also important to note that her dismantling of the British economy was meant as an attack on 'old' industry which was to be replaced with 'new' industry which meant opening up the economy to American business interests, thereby giving the US ruling class new markets to exploit.

                  1. 85
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    First off, I find it interesting that so many self-proclaimed socialists and communists support democrats but never once republicans.  It’s an interesting observation.

                    I think we all know how the poor do under socialists.  How are the poor doing in North Korea?  How about China?

                    There are some statistics that favor democrat presidents, when it comes to how well off poor people are under their administrations.  I won't deny that.  However, I do not consider George Bush a fiscal conservative any more than I consider JFK a fiscal liberal.  The water is pretty muddy when it comes to comparing all democrats versus all republicans in this area.  Still, your statement is false.  Poor people do not, under either party, get poorer.  That's statistically incorrect. As for UK politics, I can't say.  I never have professed to know enough about UK politics to speak intelligently about it.

                2. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  |You must remember that we can only view conservatives by their actions in our country. The fact that they may be just and fair in another country is absolutely no consolation to those who suffer at the hands of conservatives in this country.
                  The new post 1979 conservatives in the UK have no compunction about taking from those already suffering, even adding to the numbers suffering, and giving to the wealthy. Remember Thatcher's creed that those with plenty need more to motivate them while those with little needed less to motivate them!



                  The conservative party in the UK will shout that they are the party of low taxation whilst quietly increasing taxes. When Thatcher came to power tax collected was 38% of GDP. Within a few years it had risen to 42% and yet many rich had had their taxes cut. Where did this near 10% increase in tax collected come from?
                  Within days of getting into power Thatcher increased VAT from 8% to 15%. This latest Conservative government has increased it to 20%
                  Every Conservative government since 1979 has seen a massive rise in unemployment coupled with rises in taxation to pay for this unemployment.
                  As for helping poor people out of poverty, this current Thatcherite government has reduced benefits (many of the recipients are actually employed!) whilst cutting taxes on the wealthy.



                  The understanding of conservative ideals is spot on for the UK.  Thatcher was supportive of US foreign policy to the detriment of her own country.

            2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Many natural Conservatives fled to other parties or abstained when it came to voting. Fascists loved her though, are they natural conservatives?

              1. Lateral3 profile image60
                Lateral3posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Hitler was a fascist of course.  He was also a socialist, being a member of the socialist workers party.  Neither fascist, communists or Hitler believe or believed in democracy.  The incumbent regime in Britain; the Lib Lab Cons are more akin to fascism than any we have had in our history being reluctant to ask the electorate their views on the future as they pursue their own agenda.  Interestingly; thirty years ago, the Conservative Party satisfied 8 of the ten points of Marxism.

                Anyway; legacy. Maggie saved Britain from economic ruin.  Blair engineered it.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Then why was Hitler incarcerating and killing socialists before he even started on the Jewish people?
                  Ignorance of history is a dangerous thing.

                  And how exactly did Blair engineer Britain's economic ruin?  He embraced and continued Thatcher's policies.

                  1. Lateral3 profile image60
                    Lateral3posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Hitler was a member of the socialist workers party. Fact.

                    Blair and Brown spent all the money that Maggie had accrued; the nations coffers had never been fuller since Elizabeth 1st pinched the gold that the Spaniards had pinched from the Incas.  They spent the lot; borrowed more and spent that as well.  They borrowed so much that our great grand children will still be paying it off;  AND; they committed all future governments to continued expenditure to fund their insane socialist policies by use of Private Finance Initiatives (PFI's) which have a maturation period of 125 YEARS.

                    Take off your rose tinted John Holden.  Socialism is a crime against humanity.  100,million dead trying to give the world a left wing make over during the twentieth century proves it.

                    Ignorance of history is indeed a dangerous thing.

  30. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    I was actually going to say that I'd been taught something. Whoa! China and N. Korea were socialist countries and not communist countries, but then, thought I'd be met with the very boring *socialism leads to communism* argument, and couldn't be bothered. Thought it might be better to put the debate on the footing of the things that Thatcher did, they weren't positive.

  31. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago

    LOL. Have you seen this? Thatcher's legacy: https://twitter.com/KarmaUnc/status/323 … 48/photo/1

  32. duffsmom profile image60
    duffsmomposted 3 years ago

    How sad to celebrate the death of a human being. She was a wife, mother, daughter, sister.  Whatever her politics, at her age, she was no longer a threat to the people who hated her politics.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But her politics and policies live on!

  33. Comrade Joe profile image87
    Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago

    I'm not able to reply directly to "It's not really mining when it's on the surface.  This is your response?", so here goes.

    What you have done is pick a comment out of context, and chose to ignore the sentences that followed.  For while I did say relatively poor, i also gave examples of being made literally poorer under Thatcher and Cameron, but you chose to ignore that.  As for your point on imperialism, I'm not even sure what the point is you are trying to make.  I said the Democrat leaders have been both imperialist and right wing, it's hardly controversial.

    1. 85
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You say the same things over and over.  You must use the word "imperialist" at least every twentieth word. 

      No response is necessary.  You've said enough.  Anybody can go look at what you said about North Korea.  That, too, speaks volumes.

      1. Comrade Joe profile image87
        Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So your point is you have no point.  Got it.

        1. 85
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My point is that you do not know what you are talking about.  Would you like to start discussing North Korea again?  I've asked four times now.  If not, that's your point. . .run away when you know you have lost.

          1. Comrade Joe profile image87
            Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What does North Korea have to do with Maggie Thatcher, seriously. And you talk about running away.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not saying the two are connected, though they are connected when you look at Thatcher's stance against both socialism and communism.  I want to know why you won't return to the North Korea forum.  Seems like you are avoiding the issue.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Or her stance on the Apartheid government and Pinochet who was convicted of mass exterminations and genocide. As in supporting them.
                Frankly it seems a good reason to like any governmental system she did not.

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Frankly, it does not seem like a good idea to like any government she did not like.  She didn't support the Soviet Union either.  Shall we talk about its crimes against humanity?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Nearly all civilized, democratic countries opposed apartheid and Pinochet who became president as a result of a coup condoned by the CIA and assisted by IT&T.

                  2. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Seeing as how this is a thread about Thatcher, why don't we talk about her crimes against humanity. If you like we could expand it to cover her friends, like Pinochet and Pol Pot, but if that makes you too uncomfortable we can stick with Thatcher.

              2. Comrade Joe profile image87
                Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am avoiding the issue?  That seems a bit rich when you are attempting to turn what had become a discussion about conservative beliefs and how I showed conservatives make the poor poorer, into a discussion about North Korea.  All of this emerged out of your picking out one or two words from my comments and ignoring the rest.  Clearly then, it is not me avoiding the issue.

  34. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    “Socialism is simply Communism for people without the testosterone to man the barricades."

    Gary North - Economic Historian


    “Socialism is the same as Communism, only better English”

    George Bernard Shaw - Playwright and Co-Founder of the London School of Economics

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That is so offensive to all the socialists who've died fighting fascists across the world.



      Is that the best you can do? A rather eccentric Irish play-write who died more than half a century ago!

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        LOL

        There's no shortage in quotes.  What would be the point?  By the way, he wasn't just a playwright.  A little research might help you make intelligent comments.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And a little research would enable you to make intelligent comments about socialism. Touché.

          I suspect I know far more about GB Shaw than you have ever known.

          1. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            This is getting a bit pretentious.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        His quotations are quite dated.

    2. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      BTW, would that be the same Gary North who famously predicted global melt down when Y2K  hit and had to furiously back pedal when any thing failed to happen?

      I'm sure the rest of his knowledge is just as accurate.

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ah, you did a little research.

        . . .or was it the same one who warned us and provided enough response time to make sure it didn't happen?  There was no meltdown.  Billions were spent to make sure that wouldn't happen.  You can't say that it wouldn't have happened had we not spent the money to upgrade our computers and prepare for this potential.  You can only say it didn't happen.  We'll never really know what would have happened had there not been an investment to prepare for the potential collapse.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Funny, we've never heard of him in the UK but still we had scares all over.
          I didn't spend one penny upgrading my computer but the date still clicked over at midnight and my computer kept working.
          The software house that I was associated with were totally unconcerned as well.
          And if he really was the saviour of the world why was he so quick to remove all traces of his comments from his site?

          None of this changes the offensiveness of his comments one bit.

          1. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Do you want to try to disprove credibility on all my sources?  If that's your tactic, good luck.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No, only the sources with no credibility. You quoted a man saying essentially that socialists had no fight in them. Even a little knowledge would show this to be absurd.
              If you really don't believe me google Franco and socialists and learn about all  the socialists who weren't Spanish and yet went to Spain, and died, to fight fascism.

  35. weavesandbraids profile image73
    weavesandbraidsposted 3 years ago

    I appreciate Thatcher irrespective of her politics.

    We need more decisive democratic leaders. The politics of the affluent democracies are so polarized that most leaders come across as wimps, unwilling or unable to move policies.

    I look back at Thatcher with nostalgia.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There was nothing democratic about Thatchers rule.

  36. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    John,

    You’re right.  I can do better.

    “To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.”

    Margaret Thatcher

    “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

    Winston Churchill

    "To tax the community for the advantage of a class is not protection, it is plunder."

    Benjamin Disraeli

    I could keep going, but what's the point?  I do like the Thatcher quote, and now I know why you hate her so much; she didn't like your ilk, socialists.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What is the point in a string of quotes from avowed anti - socialists?
      Other than to perhaps prove that if they did understand socialism, it scared the what's its out of them, fearing that they would lose the opportunity to keep screwing the workers!

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        That's the problem.  You assume people don't understand it just because they don't agree with it.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, I assume nothing. The fact is that by their words they show that they don't understand socialism.

  37. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    It seems to me that people love to hate a civic reformer ! And that reformer pulled England from the brink of following eastern Europe down the tubes .  And yet ..........here it is today being slowly flushed ! Good luck to the P.C. liberal crowd !  Bye , Bye   .

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, and it's another conservative who is helping us on our way down the tubes.

      1. ahorseback profile image46
        ahorsebackposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        John I would sooner think your culture is headed down hill because  of those who would rather promote socialistic entitlements . Not the one who was at least slowing that pace ! But hey you've  won the race , now who's gonna pay for your entitlements ?

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What entitlements would they be? The insurance we pay to protect us from hardship (that's a laugh) universal health care, the privilege of not being wanted by an employer?

          What entitlements do you mean?

          And how is putting more and more people out of work slowing the pace?

        2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          ahorseback, if we're getting back to the topic of this thread, it's about Thatcher and why her death is celebrated in some sectors. None of this is about entitlements. This woman asset stripped the UK, she created untold misery for people who just wanted to work, support their families and live a reasonable life- she stripped many ordinary people of those opportunities, and their families.

          In the UK, I know, I know, this is a scenario which is more difficult for you to relate to because you weren't there and didn't experience the things that we did- she professed that she was of the small government sort, yet proceeded to expand govt (such as the police, security services and their powers) whilst raping the tax payer of their rights to the services which they'd payed for. And I don't mean benefits.

          If we look back to the Miners' strike, you'll see that the slogan was 'Coal, not dole' The miners, steelworkers, dockers and more were not fighting for benefits, they were not fighting for a pay rise, or more entitlements, but just their jobs. Thatcher's response was "unemployment is a price worth paying"

          Do some research, it was Thatcher that was pro-entitlements. She believed that skilled men and woman should be unemployed whilst she enriched her neo-liberal friends. Ordinary people fought the benefit culture, Thatcher endorsed it.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And there was me thinking that millions of people were so happy to have Thatcher in power that they voluntarily gave up their jobs and went on the dole!

  38. Comrade Joe profile image87
    Comrade Joeposted 3 years ago

    "Why? It still won't be crimes against humanity."

    Then it is evident you do not know what the term means, the belgrano = a war crime, the hunger strikers were victim of torture and internment meant people were arrested indefinitely without trial, and lets add in the arming and training of loyalist death squads which made religous and ethnic based murder campaigns, yet another crime against humanity.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If Thatcher had been the head of a supposedly socialist/communist country we would never hear the end of the howls of outrage but being "one of them" they will steadfastly refuse to see any wrong in her actions.
      Forget that she aligned herself with some of the worlds worst tyrants, that doesn't count.

    2. 85
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Comrade Joe,

      This is bordering on insanity.  You have the nerve to adamantly defent North Korea and say it doesn't mistreat its people in one forum and then turn around and attack Thatcher in another.  Whether or not Thatcher was horrible, you have no credibility when it comes to discussing regimes that have crimes against humanity.

      NONE.

  39. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 3 years ago

    Why do liberals find it so hard to understand the irony of any goverment "saving us " by creating
    " paper jobs" , More government  created jobs are like a balloon with a hole on both ends ! You cant fill it and it leaks more  cost than it generates revenue {income ]....It is the capitolists created jobs that creat successful economies . AND there there are too few vibrant economies to support the rest !

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      ahorseback, if they don't create jobs they are creating welfare. I thought you were opposed to welfare? Did I get this wrong, are you in favour of welfare and entitlements, after all?

  40. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    By American standards, would Thatcher have been a liberal?  I'm doing my research, and I have to say that it doesn't seem that her ideals, in many different areas, are those of what would be considered conservative here in America.  It's just an observation.  I don't claim to know all the intricacies of UK politics, but as an American, I wouldn't consider Thatcher to be a conservative based on what I'm seeing.

    It seems some would agree.


    "The most interesting review of Thatcher's reign -- other than yours, Ramesh! -- came, surprisingly, from Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC. By prevailing American standards, O'Donnell noted, Thatcher was a raging leftie, with a tax rate of 60 percent for most of her term, her belief in universal health care, and her embrace of evolution and global warming. What's more, she told her citizens that to avert climate change, those in developed countries were just going to have to pay more than those in undeveloped countries."

    This isn't conservative by American standards.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-1 … ative.html

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The only problem with that is that few had a tax rate of anything like 60%, and they where the ones least likely to afford it. Her belief in universal health care was that it should be privatised, she just realised that to do that openly would be political suicide both for her and the conservative party.

      Her opinion of global warming was that it was a leftist plot to take over the world, hersupposed support for it was a tool with which to beat the British miners.

      This is not opinion, this is fact.

      1. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Here's a very solid piece that seems to agree with both of us.  On one hand, it says Thatcher wasn't a conservative or at least a successful conservative.  On the other, it says she had some serious policy issues.  I know you won't like the tone, because it is a conservative site.  Still, if you read the article, I think you might find it interesting.

        "I still cannot resist the feeling that her reputation is not just inflated but damaging to the conservative cause."

        http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ … -thatcher/

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for that EA, I found it a generally balanced article with little bias or prejudice showing through. 

          I was particularly taken by a comment in our local paper today - "A great leader unites, not divides"

 
working