jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (123 posts)

Margaret Thatcher

  1. gmwilliams profile image87
    gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago

    Margaret Thatcher has died.  What postive contributions did Ms. Thatcer make to Great Britain and how do YOU remember her?
    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7891568.jpg

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I remember her as a selfish and self centred woman who looked after just enough people to make sure that she was re-elected and let the rest of us go to hell.

      I can think of no positive contributions she made to the UK, only negative, high unemployment, high taxes, a lack of hope, and an underclass of wasted lives.

      That on top of selling off the UK to the lowest bidder.

      1. my_girl_sara profile image85
        my_girl_saraposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        She actually SAVED GB from utter ruin from high taxes and social programs that would have bankrupted their government. Don't worry, they are right back to where they were before. Won't be long before they are completely broke and have bled their citizens dry.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Don't worry, they are right back to where they were before. Won't be long before they are completely broke and have bled their citizens dry.

          Exactly, but this govt are Thatcherites, just in case you missed that tiny detail.

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          One of her first moves, within days of getting into power was to almost double value added tax from 8% to 15%. When she took power tax was about 38% of GDP within three or four years it had jumped to about 42% of GDP.  Thatcher lowered taxes! Don't make me laugh.

          Rather than cutting social programmes she put, at a conservative estimate, another three million people on the dole. That whacked public spending right up. The only savings she made were to make some of her victims ineligible for any sort of help- many did their bit by dying.

          Please don't come on these forums and denigrate people who suffered at first hand whilst you probably weren't even born at the time of Thatcher and almost certainly did not live in the UK..

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            +1

            1. profile image74
              Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              . . .so she wasn't a conservative and you hate her?  I'm still confused.  Are you a conservative who is angry because Thatcher was too liberal, or are you a liberal who is just looking for any reason to hate Thatcher?  I'm not quite sure.  Please enlighten me.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative. And as I've explained previously, I dislike Thatcher immensely because of her policies, and the complete and utter lack of regard she she showed for the people whom she'd hurt. To many of us, who had to suffer under her governance, she was a tyrant and a monster. I do however appreciate that this might be difficult for you to understand, as you didn't experience it.

                1. profile image74
                  Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  . . .I've experienced what I consider the same thing from some (a few) of our leaders though.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Same thing how? And who?

              2. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                But she insisted that she was a conservative and crammed conservative "values" down our throats day in and day out.

                1. profile image74
                  Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  These don't sound like conservative values to me.  Some of our forum socialists say I don't know what a socialist is.  Maybe that's true.  I do, however, know what a conservative is.  Raising taxes like you say Thatcher did is absolutely not conservative in any way.  Calling her a conservative seems arbitrary.  Based on what I've repeatedly heard, she was a RINO, republican (or conservative for the UK) in name only, at best.  So, why then do people keep calling her a conservative on one hand and then on the other, say she wasn't conservative at all?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I haven't seen a single person, apart from yourself, say that she wasn't a conservative at all.

                  2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
                    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Just curious, which 20th century politicians fit your definition of conservative?

                  3. Sufidreamer profile image82
                    Sufidreamerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I think that a lot of it is down to the differences between the two cultures - although the UK and US share many things, political terminologies and ideologies seem to differ slightly, hence the confusion.

                    Before Thatcher, old school conservatives were right of centre - the old school conservatives I knew were usually local businessmen, bank managers, or rotary club members who believed in helping others to help themselves and maintaining thriving local communities. Labour were left of centre, and believed in supporting the rights of workers and some wealth distribution. They also believed in supporting local communities. As far as the National Health Service and the welfare state go, few politicians of any party sought to remove those - even Thatcher realised that attacking the NHS would be political suicide.

                    By British standards, Thatcher drifted to the right (Labour to the left) and became uber-conservative, but she was probably not particularly conservative by US standards (as far as I can make out from various conversations with Americans). Thus, it can become difficult to have a discussion between Americans and Brits when we have such differing initial starting points.

                    The term 'liberal' is another case in point - it has a completely different meaning on this side of the pond smile

    2. my_girl_sara profile image85
      my_girl_saraposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I am completely saddened by the comments of this forum. She was and has been the only woman to hold the PM role, and held it for 11 years, longer than any other 20th century politician. Remarkable! She preached self-reliance, not government reliance. She brought GB into a golden age of growth, wealth, and freedom. Ronald Reagan, another figure most of you hate, was a close friend and held the same political ideologies. In the US, we too had a bit of a golden age. Do you all remember when gas prices were low, you had discretionary money to blow, and jobs paid well? That's all gone because of low information voters like many of you. So if you're suffering right now with no work, no money, and a lower lifestyle than you would like, just look in the mirror because you're to blame. You allowed government hungry politicians to bleed us dry.  We'll probably never see another woman, or person of courage like Margaret Thatcher again. Nobody has that much courage.

      1. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Unfortunately what she preached never really came into fruition. The state expanded in her governance despite the privatisation of some sectors, and her unwillingness to do it properly extended the recession and stunted growth.

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        One of the reasons your country is in such bad shape today is precisely because of some of policies of Ronald Reagan...the same as the US is that way due to Margaret Thatcher.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image82
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That's not true. Reagan ended the cold war, reversed hyperinflation and brought a sense of patriotism to the US that Jimmy Carter destroyed. The US is not in bad shape, despite a few who like to whine about it. We're still the greatest nation in the world. And Obama has said repeatedly that he's like Reagan. All this made-up stuff about Reagan is just that - made up.

          1. bgamall profile image83
            bgamallposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Reagan did this too:

            From Wikipedia we get this telling information:

                In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. This bi-partisan legislation was, according to the Urban Institute, intended to "increase the volume of loan products that reduced the up-front costs to borrowers in order to make homeownership more affordable."[128] Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[49][129] Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages.[4]


            Screw Reagan. He was not the man people thought he was.

        2. my_girl_sara profile image85
          my_girl_saraposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Record unemployment, debt, and high fuel prices...you're right, it is Reagan's fault. Let's blame a leader from 20 YEARS ago and not the real person who caused it: Obama.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            If you want a more recent culprit, take a look at George W. Bush. He was responsible for an unfunded Medicare drug plan which was written by pharmaceutical lobbyists; started two needless, costly un-winable wars, cut taxes for the richest Americans; and failed to regulate the banking and home mortgage industry, leaving Obama with the deepest recession since the thirties and a huge increase in the national debt, completely erasing Clinton's balanced budget. Obama recovery efforts have been crippled by the likes of McConnell in the Senate and the ignorant, Tea Partiers in the House of Representatives. Are you a Tea Partier by any chance? Sounds like you may be a victim of the "Tea Party Syndrome."

            1. my_girl_sara profile image85
              my_girl_saraposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Sounds like you're a victim of misinformation ala our media.  I will agree with you that neither Bush was good for America. Both spent way too much. But Obama has outspent them both. We need to stop coming to the rescue of the world. They take our help and our money with one hand and give us the finger with the other.
              Government is NOT the answer, you and I are. Leave us alone, stop regulating and taxing us and we'll thrive.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Actually, that is not true.

                1. Clint Ward profile image60
                  Clint Wardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes it is.

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this
          2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
            Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            He started the whole "trickle down theory" nonsense

            1. bgamall profile image83
              bgamallposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Actually, trickle down was called percolation in the Great Depression. Andrew Mellon, Hoover's Secretary of the Treasury believed in it and they were swept from power.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image86
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              And stupid people still believe that it works, despite 30 years of real-world evidence that it doesn't work at all. Or rather, it works perfectly, but not the way it's advertised: the wealth does move. It just moves upward, and not exactly in a trickle.

          3. bgamall profile image83
            bgamallposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Again I will post it for you about your hero Reagan:

            From Wikipedia we get this telling information:

                In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. This bi-partisan legislation was, according to the Urban Institute, intended to "increase the volume of loan products that reduced the up-front costs to borrowers in order to make homeownership more affordable."[128] Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[49][129] Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages.[4]

      3. Sufidreamer profile image82
        Sufidreamerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        This is exactly what I mean - you are welcome to have an opinion about Thatcher, but trying to tell people who lived under her rule that they are wrong is disingenuous. Seeing as you live in Georgia, how do you know what she was like? Personally, I regard your opinion to be almost completely worthless.

        I have noticed that many Americans become irate when non-Americans criticise US internal politics - with justification. Yet, many feel free to comment about British politics and ignore the views of people who actually lived there.

        Using this logic, I can safely say that Obama is the greatest President who has ever lived. Indeed, he is the greatest human being who has ever lived. He should be allowed to remain as President for as long as he wants and should be allowed to rewrite the constitution. Maybe we could make him the next British king because he is so unbelievably awesome. big_smile

    3. jimmythejock profile image88
      jimmythejockposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      positive = she died simple as that.....jimmy

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Thatcher and Reagan set civilization in the US and UK back a hundred years.

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The gap between the richest and the poorest had been steadily declining right from the birth of the industrial revolution until Thatcher when the gap widened considerably.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            True also in the U.S. where real wages increased fairly steadily at a rate of 2--2.5% per year along with productivity until Reagan when more and more went to the 2 percenters.

        2. profile image74
          Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Please provide statistical proof that it was 100 years and not 99.  Sorry, I keep getting that kind of statement from one of our forum members.  Just kidding.

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I'll settle for 99 years.

  2. marwan asmar profile image76
    marwan asmarposted 4 years ago

    "The Iron Lady"
    "The selfish society"
    "The private enterprize woman"
    "The woman who made the rich richer"
    "On Spitting Image"
    "As the woman who changed Britain to the worst"

  3. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    “There Is No Such Thing as Society”, Margaret Thatcher
    8 Comments

    Ironically, in pulling down the edifice and social constraints of the more conservative past, the liberal 60s generation’s counter-culture actually sowed the seed of a later oppressiveness from which we now suffer.

    As Clive Hamilton puts it in Growth Fetish: “Margaret Thatcher should be thankful to Alan Ginsberg and Timothy Leary…freedom from the fetters of career and family, and freedom of sexual expression were noble in themselves, but it is now evident that demolition of the customary social structures did not create a society of free individuals. Instead it created an opportunity for the marketers to substitute material consumption and manufactured lifestyles for the ties of social tradition.” xviii

  4. profile image74
    Education Answerposted 4 years ago

    I don't know that I can contribute to this question, but I doubt you'll find many people who speak on her behalf.  It seems that our community doesn't like her.  Either our community is largely filled with liberals and socialists or she was the worst person since Hitler.  I'm guessing she had to have something positive about her; she did get elected more than once.  Somebody must like her for something.

    1. bgamall profile image83
      bgamallposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      She didn't negotiate with unions. She killed them. Now capital to labor is more lopsided than ever in the US or UK.

      And she also allowed the bankers free reign. That free reign was imported to the US and the housing bubble was the result. Liar loans happened in the UK first, and they were called self certified loans there. The woman was a shill for the uber rich and psychopathic banksters and the Square Mile.

    2. WriteAngled profile image86
      WriteAngledposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The greedy liked her and voted for her, because they hoped they would profit from her policies, regardless of how disastrous those policies were for huge segments of the population.

      Secondly, you need to be aware that the winner of UK elections is not elected by a democratic majority. The first-past-the-post system means that elections are primarily decided by a handful of wavering, politically uncommitted voters in marginal constituencies.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly, the largest minority wins. The majority lose.

      2. profile image74
        Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, I thought about the election system when I wrote that.  That's a valid point.  Still, didn't she have to be elected from somewhere?  If that's the case, the UK has a lot of "greedy" people.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          The largest minority of voters are greedy people.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            And it needs to be remembered that we do not elect PMs in the UK. The leader of the winning party who is elected by the party faithful generally becomes PM.
            Therefore it is possible that many people voted conservative who, given the choice, would not have backed Thatcher.

  5. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    Margaret Thatcher's policies not only had devastating effects here in the UK, but she was also a huge disappointment when it came to women and the struggle for gender equality. During her time in office she ensured that the most marginalised women in society, for example lone parents,  were completely excluded when it came to social mobility, unless they were prepared to conform and remarry, or marry for the first time. She withdrew much of the funding for further education, and also ensured that it became very difficult for single parents to work. For example, a single parent who received some help with housing costs or the poll tax, could not have a paying place for her child at a state nursery. By paying place I mean one that the mother would pay for out of her wages. They had to have a free place, two hours per week. Or, reject any help with housing costs which they could not afford.

    She made life impossible for so many people. Sorry, I can't think of anything positive to say about her either.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image82
      Sufidreamerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      ^This

      I was brought up in a single parent family and it did become very difficult - the Tories gradually demonised us, as they did with many sections of society. They started off by calling single mothers scroungers who should go out and work. Many tried, but childcare was rare in those days and usually cost more than they actually earned. Many mothers with children old enough to be left alone worked, but were soon criticised for neglecting their kids. Damned if they did, damned if they didn't. Having no money was no fun, but what hurt most was the stigma and the whispers at school and in the street - they get to you, however much you try to shrug them off.

      My hatred of Thatcher and all she stood for is personal and I will never forgive her. The reason that so many people are angry isn't just what she did - it's the fact that she has been portrayed as some super-heroine who could do no wrong. This was intensified by the sheer number of people who never lived under Thatcher telling me how I should think and feel - I earned the right to have a negative opinion of her and don't feel any particular need to apologise for that. She destroyed communities and divided society, so I believe that the state funeral (in all but name) was a mistake that reopened old wounds - a small, private service would not have created so much resentment and anger.

      I fully intended to celebrate during the funeral and play some anti-Thatcher songs. In the end, I sat in quiet contemplation with old, bitter memories, and raised a glass for those who did not make it through the dark years.

      Now, it is time to move on and channel the internal anger into something constructive smile

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    I lived through the 80s, albeit not in Britain. I can't think of one positive thing.

  7. innersmiff profile image74
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I think I was bout 3 days old when Thatcher stepped down so I'd be hard pressed to explain what I remember about her. Though I can tell you she was no libertarian.

    Although she was broadly in favour of the free-market, she did nothing to stop the expansion of the state, in fact contributing to it, and also further integrating the UK with Europe, only seeing the downsides before it was too late (still contributing to her downfall, however). She was a war-hawk and a dictator supporter, also expanding the police state.

    The only positive I can think of off the top of my head was allowing families to buy their council houses, and perhaps her negotiations with the Soviet Union.

  8. innersmiff profile image74
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    I wonder, however, if the hate greeted to Thatcher will be matched with the hate towards Tony Blair, who was arguably much worse.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely! Arguably much worse, emm. Would Thatcher have endorsed war in Iraq? I think probably but we'll never know. So, yes, much worse. He's just as despised. If anything, Thatcher's death has taken the limelight from him- no wonder he was keen to attend her funeral.

      1. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I would take Thatcher's nose over Blair's you-know-what-eating grin any day.

      2. innersmiff profile image74
        innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Thatcher was in favour of intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, yes.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I'm saying we don't really know what her feelings would have been as PM in 2002 and 3. Yes, she had her moments as Pm when it came to foreign policy- but events may have rocked those (if she'd been Pm during Iraq and Afghanistan conflict) so I'm going with Bliar was worse, in some respects.

          Although, in all honesty, I think they were birds of a feather.

  9. profile image74
    Education Answerposted 4 years ago

    In America, conservatives would never be able to celebrate the death of a liberal politician the way some celebrate Thatcher's death.  We'd be called bigots, racists, or uncompassionate.  I don't know if that's a conservative thing or an American thing, but I'm a bit shocked by how joyful people are about her death.  I know people will talk about how bad she was, but we, too, have very unpopular politicians who meet this criterion.

    1. innersmiff profile image74
      innersmiffposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I was a bit mystified by it, but I think it has probably been exaggerated by the media. There are plenty of politicians that erk me to my very core, but I can't imagine feeling rejoice at any of their deaths.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe that's because you don't feel that they've ruined your life, or the life of your children, innersmiff. We can't walk in the shoes of another if we have not experienced what they have.

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "we, too, have very unpopular politicians who meet this criterion."

      The only one I can think of is Nixon. Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton didn't come close to "meeting this criterion." The right wing crazies have villified Obama even more or equally as the left villifies Thatcher, with an added racist tinge. Surely you've seen the cartoons Obama with a bone in his nose and the ignorant, wild birther and secret Muslim claims.
      Clinton was villified over Lewinsky, but he now seems to have recovered from that sad chapter so far as most people are concerned.

      1. profile image74
        Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I can think of many.  Obama is loathed by many conservatives as George Bush is by liberals.  Loathed.

        According to one poll, Nixon was hated more than Satan and Hitler.  This poll was taken when he was alive. 

        Few spoke this way of him when he died.  People waited in line for hours, in the rain, to see his coffin.  People cried.  It was a big deal.

  10. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago

    positive?....she entered a man's world....and succeeded (whether you agreed with her politics or not)....it was a different time....and she did it...and sacrificed a lot...and had to work much harder than a man would.....that's what i remember..................

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image65
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Some have questioned whether she was actually a woman.

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        ha ha ha!

      2. Reality Bytes profile image83
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Similar to Big Brother Napolitano!

        http://www.moonbattery.com/Janet_Napolitano.jpg

        1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
          SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          i just googled her most recent questioning...i get it...or i should say i don't get where she is coming from....from an outsider....i see the 'terror' that this event has caused....but school shootings for whatever reason are not looked at the same way....why?....

          later...i luv the pic above!...ha ha ha

          1. profile image74
            Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            People like to bash our governor, Jan Brewer.  Napolitano is what we had before her.  I'll take Brewer over Napolitano any day of the week.  Brewer looks great compared to our other option. . .

      3. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        She did say "every PM needs a Willie"!

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But didn't she also say women did not belong in cabinet? It was okay for her but not for others.

      1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
        SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        i don't know all the details around her because i was younger and not really following much about  world politics at the time ...my world was much smaller......i just remember a woman in a man's world...if she said it however....ha ha ha!...i can't take politics too seriously really...it's all the same crap...i just noticed a woman...it's as simple as that

  11. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 4 years ago

    i'll add a negative from the outside looking in.......margaret....i hated your 'do'!...too frumpy!

  12. mistyhorizon2003 profile image95
    mistyhorizon2003posted 4 years ago

    I left Guernsey in 1988 to move to the UK. When Maggie introduced the poll tax I was living a tiny bedsit which I paid £50 a week for. My annual salary then (before tax) was £5400 a year. I had a cheap second hand car and a ten minute drive to work. I got a poll tax bill for £386, a HUGE percentage of the money I was left with after tax (as it was I could barely afford to eat, didn't go out drinking etc). No wonder people were rioting in the streets. Whilst I agree with some of what Maggie did (Falklands, stopping Arthur Scargill etc), there was a 'get the rich richer and the poor poorer' mentality, with little or no concern for those of us who would have starved. Thank God Poll Tax got dropped quickly. In general I have no respect for those who party in the streets at anyone's death (including hers). This just drops us to a level of person we should be ashamed of. That said, I have no sadness where her death is concerned and feel it is very wrong the tax payer is going to have to pay for her very expensive and undeserved 'public' funeral.

    1. HowardBThiname profile image82
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good post, Misty. Anyone who takes pleasure at the death of another has more than one screw loose.

      I didn't agree with all that MT did, either, but to trash her after death shows a lack of respect for humankind in general.

      She did what she thought was right - she had some success - she had some failure.

      Those who denigrate her now are to be pitied. sad

      1. Josak profile image61
        Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Easy for someone who never suffered her governance and does not live in the UK to say.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image82
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          It's a cowardly thing to do - if you disagree with her policies, put forth the effort to make changes.

          But trashing the dead?

          Despicable.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            I can think of plenty of dead people who deserve trashing, being dead does not make you any less evil or the effects you had on others any less real, as for Thatcher I don't know I am not a Brit but I have not forgiven the dictators in Argentina and Chile (Pinochet whom coincidentally Thatcher was a good friend to) just because they are dead, innocent blood is still on their hands and pretending they were not evil because they are dead just makes it more likely people will forget and make the same mistakes.

            Death is irrelevant to the measure of a person, evil people don't become good because their heart stopped.

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Maybe I've not read all the posts, but I actually haven't heard anyone trashing her here, just commenting on her time as leader and how much they disagreed with her policies. The people who had to live under her regime have every right to voice their opinions about her, and the effects that she had on their lives. That's not despicable Howard, that is what you and so many other Americans talk about all the time: Freedom of Speech!

            We have it too, and we'll use it whenever we decide.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image82
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I mainly mean the protesters with the demeaning signs.

              I agree with free speech. We have a group in the States, called the Westboro Baptist Church, and they regularly engage in such activities at funerals.

              While I respect their right - they are despicable.

              1. Clint Ward profile image60
                Clint Wardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                And deserve to be beat down like the scum they are.

                My idea of free expression.

                1. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Yeah turns out violent crime to suppress free speech is not covered under free expression, how strange tongue

                  1. Clint Ward profile image60
                    Clint Wardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Checked my law book and you're wrong, it is covered.

              2. profile image74
                Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                +1

                I agree completely.

              3. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Many of those protesters with the "demeaning signs" suffered immeasurably under Thatcher, and now, they are expected to pay for her "non state funeral", keep quiet about her misdemeanors and pretend that she deserves respect, or at least, they should keep quiet about who she was, and the terrible things that she did.  Whilst the political elite rewrite history.

                It's perfectly reasonable for those who lived under Thatcher, sorry, not yourself or any other US poster here, to talk about what they feel were her achievements in office, it's their right- they experienced it. Just as it is the right for those who were hurt by Thatcher, to voice their opinions and recall their experiences, too.

                Of course, I have opinions when it comes to Bush, and Obama. And I know who I'd choose if forced to chose one, however, I would never feel that I had the right to tell Americans how they should, or should not, react at the death of either one. Because, with the exception of foreign policy and war, I simply would not have the experience, or indeed knowledge, to make such a judgement.

                1. HowardBThiname profile image82
                  HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Hollie, that door swings both ways.

                  You're trying to silence opinions from those who did not live under Thatcher, and yet you do not condemn non-US citizens from offering their opinions about Bush, Reagan, Obama, etc.

                  John Holden has made incredible errors in his assessment of the US, and we tell him he's wrong, but he still has the right to offer up those opinions.

                  Likewise, I believe it's in extremely poor taste for folks to picket funeral processions and it's my right to say so.

                  If you lived in the States and you witnessed the nastiness of The Westboro Baptist Church, aka., the Fred Phelps gang, you might better understand where I'm coming from. Those picketing Thatcher are just as bad.

                  When someone dies - it's over. Let it go. Let them go. Move on. The problem with disrespecting death is that it spreads, and soon, those who started it are angry when they're grieving over lost loved ones and someone makes incredibly cruel comments. What goes around - comes around, but I like to think that, as humans, we are better than that.

                  I hold myself and my family to higher standards. That won't change and I won't quietly stand by when I see others doing something I consider to be very wrong.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    You're trying to silence opinions from those who did not live under Thatcher, and yet you do not condemn non-US citizens from offering their opinions about Bush, Reagan, Obama, etc.

                    No Howard, I'm saying that other people have no right to tell us how we should feel about her death and how we should react to it. That is what others from other countries do not have the right to do. They can love Thatcher, or hate her- but not decide what is and what is not the appropriate response from those people who lived under her governance.

                  2. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Such as?
                    And if I do give any opinions, they are exactly that. I won't present opinion as fact and argue with those who have experience, unlike many others.

      2. bgamall profile image83
        bgamallposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        You don't have to take pleasure in her death. I am not sorry about it though. She did to the UK what Reagan did to the US but it was worse because there was no Glass-Steagall there to slow her down and no regulation of swaps. Of course, those protections were destroyed in the US, but this is the sort of thing I am talking about:

        From Wikipedia we get this telling information:

            In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. This bi-partisan legislation was, according to the Urban Institute, intended to "increase the volume of loan products that reduced the up-front costs to borrowers in order to make homeownership more affordable."[128] Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[49][129] Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages.[4]

        In the UK they were called self certified mortgages and here no euphemism as they were called LIAR LOANS.

  13. ahorseback profile image82
    ahorsebackposted 4 years ago

    You see thats the issue here  , Many , many in America still look at Reagan as a hero ! As I do , In fact prrobably top five of all U.S. presidents ,!  My issue with this is the disrepect of the left to not honor a true leader in her death !  How petty !  Someones who life was dedicated to  her country ,  deserves no less than at least the offer of a state funeral , wouldn't you do that for a soldier ?  There is no difference !  I have also seen many faces here ---that love to get involved in US politics ,  what go's around- comes around !  Bury your leader with all due respect and stop bickering over the cost of it,    why is it that  liberals are only concerned with money when it involves  a conservative ?  Hmmmmm?

    1. HowardBThiname profile image82
      HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      You're right. Reagan WAS a hero. It's only those who did not want to take responsibilities for their own lives that did not like the man.

      That lessens them.

    2. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But her life wasn't dedicated to her country, it was dedicated to some of her party. She was not a true leader, a true leader unites, not divides.

  14. marwan asmar profile image76
    marwan asmarposted 4 years ago

    I agree, but the problem is she is a public figure who induced for better or worse, crucial changes in society which are left so long after she moved on. As a political figure, I think, she is fair game to be criticized and critiqued long after in her grave.

  15. WriteAngled profile image86
    WriteAngledposted 4 years ago

    There are some political "leaders", including Thatcher, who have or had no common, human or any other form of decency...

  16. Ralph Deeds profile image65
    Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago

    Thatcher had her "velvet moments" according to Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker this week:

    "The Iron Lady had her velvet moments. She told her ideological American cousin Ronald Reagan that Mikhail Gorbachev was for real at a time when many of Reagan’s advisers thought that glasnost and perestroika were Commie tricks to weaken the West’s resolve. But the moral high point of her tenure was a passionate speech on global warming, delivered at the United Nations in 1989. “What we are now doing to the world,” she said,


    "by degrading the land surfaces, by polluting the waters and by adding greenhouse gases to the air at an unprecedented rate—all this is new in the experience of the earth. It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways. . . . The environmental challenge which confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. . . . Those countries who are industrialized must contribute more to help those who are not."

    However, "She didn’t do much about it, and in retirement she recanted, dismissing climate change as “a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.” Even so: De mortuis nil nisi bonum. ♦"

    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2 … _hertzberg

    http://s4.hubimg.com/u/7908295.jpg

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ralph, she was a liar who just wanted to close down the pits. That's all we have here now, three main parties which will lie to get elected then stick two fingers up at the electorate.

      1. HowardBThiname profile image82
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe Ralph is right or maybe he's wrong.  I think Obama has been an incredibly bad president for the US, but you won't catch me standing along his funeral route someday with a sign demeaning him. There are just some things in this world that we should have a bit of respect for, in my opinion. Death processions top that list for me.

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
          Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Then clearly, however bad that you feel he is, he hasn't ruined your life or the life of your children. And is probably not believed to be part of a mass cover up of 96 people being crushed to death. Some of them children, but not yours- so you wouldn't *get it* Therefore, you have no right to make claims about how people should react to her death. You haven't lost anything because of her.

          You appear to think that this is just about political leaders whom we dislike or otherwise, and then behaving in a way which YOU feel should be appropriate. Do you think the death of Heath,or the potential deaths of  Major, Heseltine or Clarke would evoke the same reaction? Do some research, they haven't, wouldn't. Why is that? Have you actually stopped to think about it?  It goes much, much deeper than you could ever imagine.

          This is about a woman who trashed the lives of so many, not just because she raised taxes and cut welfare, in this context, that is meaningless. You have no idea, and because you have no idea you should really keep your value judgements to yourself. Feel free to love her, or hate her, and voice your opinions in those regards- but you have absolutely no right to decide how people should react in this country to her death- particularly when you have no absolutely no idea what she put people through. If and when you do, which I hope you never do, your comments may carry some weight. Until then, you just sound like someone who wants to voice an opinion and make judgements- about a topic in which they have no clue.

          1. Clint Ward profile image60
            Clint Wardposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Didn't the supposed coverup come after the 96 people were crushed? How could any coverup lead to 96 people being crushed?

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              And is probably not believed to be part of a mass cover up of 96 people being crushed to death.

              I did think the same thing myself when I wrote it, but if you look again? Part of a mass cover up of 96 people being crushed to death. Part of the cover up after it happened, not before.

        2. profile image74
          Education Answerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I couldn't agree more.  I despise President Obama's politics.  Fast and Furious was one of his administration's programs, one that was in my home state of Arizona.  People died because of this program.  I would not celebrate his death.  He is my president, regardless of whether I believe in his politics or not.  That's just me.  Obviously many of our UK friends disagree when it comes to Mrs. Thatcher.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image65
        Ralph Deedsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        You should read Hertzberg's entire article. It wasn't very complimentary.

 
working