Yet, when the House of Commons decides to erect a statue of Mrs. Thatcher, we, the repressed British, are meant to just accept it as a sign of what put the Grate into Britain.
Mrs. Thatcher : The woman who stole milk from children. Who sold off everything the Nation ever had to be proud of. Who sent us to war so she could win an election. Who supported world-infamous torturer and dictator General Pinochet as a great man. Who gave business carte-blanche to use and abuse the public as slaves : as people who could not withdraw their labour in protest. What she could sell, she sold. What she couldn’t sell, she destroyed.
A woman who, let us not forget, came to represent everything that is evil, abusive, and vile about the human spirit and the Eighties. A woman who, more than ever, is Selfishness personified. A woman who, many of us know, was a power-addicted, semi-psychopathic bitter Iron Maiden who turned Britain into America's Largest Aircraft Carrier.
So, in many ways, Paul Kelleher, who recently decapitated the statue of the most hateful, vile politician this country has ever seen, is to be applauded. The jury in the recent court case that tried him were unable to reach a verdict if what he had done was criminal damage : a rarity in modern times. And deeply indicative of the fact that even now, a sample of twelve men fair and true, are unable to condone a man who stood up for common sense and empathy by destroying a totem of the worst ruler this nation ever had.
But what is the point of prosecuting him? He destroyed the statue of a hated, evil woman. To not want to do that is, to me at last, far more troubling and offensive. I only wish that people were more vocal and less repressed on the British Isles sometimes.
If people were prosecuted on the scale of the damage they had caused, Paul Kelleher wouldn’t even warrant a caution. And Mrs. Thatcher would be hung for Treason. Her policies resulted in more suicides, more broken homes, more poverty, and deprived childhoods, than any amount of Hitlers bombings achieved. “Hospital closures kill more than car bombs ever will.”
p> In her time in power, Thatcher was the most careless of leaders; she wasn’t representing the will of the people or showing care over the nation. A land where human compassion and decency had become burdens instead of virtues.
To put a statue celebrating her life and achievements is a slap in the face to every British citizen who suffered hardship under her misrule. An insult to everyone who ever went on a strike, to every docker and pit worker, every frozen pensioner, and poll tax victim.
Alderman Oliver, whoever he is, said at the time of the decapitation of the Thatecher Staue that "This act of wanton vandalism is utterly deplorable and I find such behaviour deeply saddening."
Sadly, he was talking about the British Public voicing it’s opinion on the Thatcher Statue. But ask the British Public what they think, and most of them would find Thatcher's vandalism of Britain far more deplorable. Viva Vandalism!

Thatchers Statue
Thatchers Statue
Re: Thatchers Statue
Much like now, where we're going to have Labour indefinitely because they stole all the desirable Conservative policies and left IDS et al to campaign on what remained - all the nasty bits that made people turn against them in '97.
Could vote Lib Dem I guess. But would anyone make a statue of Charles Kennedy...?
Re: Thatchers Statue
Thatcher was actually only re-elected twice, once on the back of the Gulf War and once on the back of a global economic boom, and just because a party wins an election, it doesn't mean that the majority of the country has voted for it.
Re: Thatchers Statue
And I thought that A Level political history would never come in useful...
Re: Thatchers Statue
Re: Thatchers Statue
Re: Thatchers Statue
Coal wasn't unprofitable at all, and was certainly more environmentally friendly than gas or nuclear power is today. As for it wasting 'our taxes', would you say our taxes are being put to good use now, now that everything is privatised? It's estimated that the war with Iraq is going to cost the UK £35bn. personally, I'd rather my taxes went to keep people in work than to kill people in Iraq, wouldn't you?
WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
You can't drive a car if you don't know how, so why the fuck should anyone be allowed to vote when they don't have a clue what they're voting for and the implications of just ticking a box??
Sometimes dictatorships make sense.
Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
People can quite easily find out what and who they're voting for, if they think it'll make a difference to their lives and their families lives and their friends lives. I don't think mainstream politicians give ordinary people enough credit when they don't vote, because they're just being told to choose between different shades of blue.
Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
And if coal was so profitable then why didn't some big company buy all the mines and start raking in the cash?
Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
I know it's not easy to grasp how bad the 80s were unless you lived through it, but I'm sick to the fuckin gut when people blather on about her being a 'good leader for this country. Good for making the rich richer and keeping us poor scummers in the gutter where we belong maybe, yeah.
*sighs* why did I get into this?
Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
The fact that coal wasn't profitable in the mid-eighties is because there was no need to mine it after the tories had begun stock-piling it in the late seventies in readiness for a strike...
Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...
People know what benefits them in their lives and that's what the vote for, Sean
Thatcher rules
Of course there are legitimate reasons to gripe about Thatcher - there are about most leaders / governments. However, on balance her reforms were entirely necessary. People who claim otherwise are frankly idiots. To illustrate my point, I recently had a long conversation with one of Gordon Brown's aides who spent 20 minutes telling me how evil she thought Thatcher was. When I asked for specific reasons why she replied that she didn't really know, she had just grown up 'knowing it'. When, however, I commented that her attitude was rather odd given that she now served a chancellor who was more Thatcherite in his economics than Thatcher she had no answer. This sort of unthinking condemnation is all too often trotted out in place of really clear sighted analysis.
And one final point. People may indeed know what their interests are. But this is in no way the same thing as saying they know the best way to achieve them.
Re: Thatcher rules
Monetarism was a fad that began in th UK with Callaghan (Denis Healy was a much stricter Monetarist than his successors) and ended with Thatcher.. and I don't think History will juge it particularly kindly.
Re: Thatcher rules
2)Its undeniable that Britian's manufacturing industry got hammered and alot of people suffered as a result. But what was the alternative? The country had an economy that was massively uncompetitive and that was falling steady behind those of its peers. Demand management was a nonesense: theorists such as Karl Polanyi had been articulating convincing arguments against it since the early 1940s! The bottom line is (to use some distasteful rhetoric)Thatcherite reforms transformed Britain from the Sick Man of Europe into a strong member of the G7. And, despite the Marxist claptrap that regularly gets wheeled out in Will Hutton books and the like, this did have a very real effect on peoples' prosperity and on their standard of living.
Re: Thatcher rules
This country was clinging to the memory of an Empire, pretending it was important, when it's just another country.
You want to know about prosperity? I was cutting mould off bread and walking an hour-and-a-half to work in Thatchers Britain. Yippee, Capitalism works!
But only if you're rich. How sadly, misguidedly selfish.
Re: Thatcher rules
You display no knowledge of Thatcherite thought; you’re probably not in the slightest bit interested. However, if you did perhaps you could engage in a more convincing analysis of exactly where you think it went wrong, rather than resorting to unsupported accusations intended paint your opponents in the worst light possible.
The truth is that a core concept in classical liberal thought (and by extension in neo-liberal thought also) has always been social harmony. The liberal solution differs to others because its ontology differs, but it is still one geared to the good of all. This was a central feature in the thought of thinkers like Hayek and Joseph who formed the backbone of the ‘Thatcherite revolution’. Thus while you might argue that Thatcherism had some very regrettable consequences (and on this I would agree) it is simply wrong to equate effect with intent. Moreover, the fundamental question has to be: in the absence of Thatcherism what policies would you have had a government pursue? How would you have arrested Britain’s well documented economic decline, an achievement which is now widely accepted?
My apologies, by the way, for my earlier miss-spelt slur. It was a heated reaction to a common caricature that I personally believe is plainly wrong.
Re: Thatcher rules
There for the grace of the economy go I, etc. etc.
Re: Thatcher rules
Re: Thatcher rules
Better to choose a debating point that can't be so easily shot down in flames! Breaking down closed shops and making large nationalised companies competitive (and SOME, but not all privatisation of them) was definitely a good thing, and couldn't have been done by a labour government, because of their union ties... (though privatisation of rail was done in a stupid way, and privatisation of water was dull, because it's not like you can get 'Cable Water' springing up to compete, like with telecoms.
Re: Thatcher rules
The moment any political leader becomes more governed by doctrine and ideal than by the managerial responsibility of governing the people of this country, the country suffers... with Thatcher this was symbolised by the Poll Tax and the way her chancellors were unable to temper an unsustainable boom without generating a painful bust, and I think Blair's very much in the same territory with his Iraq war. She didn't listen to the country she was governing, ad got chucked out, and Blair's displaying much of the same mental isolation now. It is hard. Both figures idealism made them charismatic leaders, but losing touch with the electorate in the pursuit of her own ideas and ambitions was her Nemesis, and may yet be Blairs.
Re: Thatcher rules
monetary policy is basically the control of interest rates as well. there was vast inflation in the late 70s, to control this interest rates were put up, thus making saving more attractive and borrowing less attractive. this made the country as a whole stop spending money it didn't have.
The fact that Thatcher's majority went from 43 to 144 between 79 and 83 says alot about the countries feelings towards her too.
Re: Thatcher rules
Soldieers died so she could rule.
George and Tonyt are doing it as well.
Die for Oil Sucker!
Re: Thatcher rules
Monetary policy: When Nigel Lawson was chancellor, interest rates were above 15% for a while. Indeed it probably deterred people from borrowing money, and overspending, and did serve to reduce inflation... however, the people who had been encouraged to spend and get into debt during the earlier boom times ended up getting shafted, houses repossessed all over the place. It was really severe.
Re: Thatchers Statue
Re: Thatchers Statue
Re: Thatchers Statue
Thatchers Statue
making kids pay for school milk comparable with the holocaust, is it ?
Re: Thatchers Statue
Mark Reed you need a labotomy
Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy
Can you spell?
Does your opinion matter?
Do you know who Mrs Thatcher is?
Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy
1) no, I'm dyslexic. (true actually).
2) yes. Weren't you just extolling the virtues of asking the British Public what they think in your article? I am a member of that noble mass and I'm letting you know what I think...
3)Yes. I met her just over a month ago (for tea and cakes!) and she didn't seem anything like any of those nasty, horrid things you said about her.
Do I get a gold star?
Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy
I don't know what your point is. I know what mine is. Thatcher was a woman who - despite being polite, which apparently counts for a lot in your book - had a terrible effect upon the country and the people within it. Her policies caused an enormous amount of damage financially, psychologically, and emotionally upon the country.
If you didn't notice that you obviously weren't in Britain between 1979 and 1990.
As for the British Public, yes, their opinions are important, but if you support selfishness, corporate bullying of the public, hypocrisy and a state where we are left to fend for ourselves in a dog-eat-dog,survival-of-the-fattest,let-the-poor-starve world, you're really not much better than an unfeeling animal. Because that's how animals behave. Without concern for anything but their own survival.
M
Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy
You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
You're so easy to rule.
Don't bother thinking. Let the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard do it for you.
Now go back to watching television and thinking that its OK to bomb brown people for their oil.
Mark
Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
I think you just answered your own question there!
Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
That question. If you suggest that a lack of consideration for others and a general attitude of selfishness is indicative of thought then you are clearly mistaken. You obviously won't need anyone else's help when you're made redundant will you? If you're sleeping on the streets because you haven't got a job you won't need handouts will you?
Empathy and consideration is a sign of intelligence and a civilised attitude. Without it, I regard you as unthinking.
Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
have a brain!
Guess again. They were a National Socialist party. Not the same thing at all.
Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!
what would've happened if labour had stayed in power? unions would still be holding the country to ransom. our whole water/sewage system would be gravely damaged due to strikes. the whole country being without water is a damn sight worse than a few miners losing their jobs.
Thatchers Statue
Mind you, I'm not talking about which of you are right or wrong about Thatcher - I don't know the details of British politics in the '80s - but I'm just enjoying the incredible dialogue. You should see how we Americans post and blog to each other - we sound like ten year olds compared to you guys. Even the least educated among you (or those who pretend to be) employ more articulate phrases, compelling arguments, and colorful epithets than we can. Somewhere along the way we forgot how to speak our own language...
Anyway, my ignorant, foreign, unexperienced opinion about your general subject of discussion is - maybe Thatcher was a monster, heartless, cruel, etc. I don't really know. But the fact that Labour had to move quite far to the right intellectually to be elected (and to stay in power) shows, I think, that the British want something about the Thatcher legacy/revolution/travesty, I'm not sure exactly what, to be perpetuated.