Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Maggie's Gone! How will History see her?

Recommended Posts

Maggie's Gone!

 

thatcher1.jpg

 

Love her, or hate her, She made her mark on British history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Press Conference shows the unique force of her style of leadership.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHoqqwp-WWY

 

Maggie had a strong and articulate sense of Right and Wrong.

 

Maybe everyone did not agree, be she herself was "never in doubt" about what was needed to be done.

 

 

(How much longer will the other side of the old partnership go on...?

He may also be unwell.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher announces the Falklands invasion to the House of Commons

 

 

 

Margaret Thatcher, Who Remade Britain, Dies at 87

 

New York Times - ‎24 minutes ago‎

Margaret Thatcher, the “Iron Lady” of British politics who pulled her country back from 35 years of socialism, led it to victory in the Falklands war and helped guide the United States and the Soviet Union through the cold war's difficult last years, died Monday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ONE PERSON's "Right thing" may not be a Party's (or the public's) "Right thing" - as this story shows...

 

 

When the lady “not for turning”, turned

 

The “Iron Lady” Dies…

ScreenHunter_1491-Apr.-08-12.47-640x586.jpg

Dead at 87

 

By Alan Hart

 

The news of the death of Britain’s Iron Lady, Baroness Thatcher, promoted me to recall my favourite story about her. In 1980, in the first of her three terms as prime minister, she said in a speech to her Conservative Party’s Conference: “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” Because I was personally engaged with her at the time, I know that she performed her first U turn in her first 48 hours of being prime minister.

I had visited the exiled Shah of Iran and Queen Farah in Morocco. When I met with Farah she was alone and I could see she had been crying. I put a gentle arm around her shoulder and asked her what was wrong. (My relationship with Farah was very special because I had assisted her efforts to educate her husband about what was going wrong in Iran before the revolution). There was a handwritten letter on her desk. She picked it up. “This is not helpful,” she said.

“Who is it from?” I asked.

“Ashraf”, she replied. (Princess Ashraf, the Shah’s twin sister, was safe and secure in America with her billions).

“What does it say?” I asked.

Farah read from the letter. “You bitch. You and your leftwing ideas are to blame for what has happened.”

But that insult was not the cause of Farah’s tears. She went on to tell me that King Hassan had called on them earlier in the day. (I knew that because he was taking his leave of them when I arrived. I thought he was embarrassed and very uncomfortable). He told them he was under great pressure and had to ask them to leave Morocco.

“We have nowhere to go,” Farah said.

I told her that I knew Jack Lynch, the prime minister of Ireland, very well. I proposed that I should call him and she agreed.

I got through to him without delay and went straight to the point. The Shah and Farah needed a temporary place of refuge. Ireland would be ideal, I suggested. Could he consider it? Jack’s response was also straight to the point. “No!”

 

Farah then told me that her husband had an estate in Surrey. I said I would return to the UK, take a look at it, and if keeping the place safe would not impose too much of a burden on our security services, I would ask Prime Minister Jim Callaghan if he would allow the Shah, Farah and their children to have temporary refuge there.

My exchange with Prime Minister Callaghan at Number 10 Downing Street was very brief. He said: “No way. The party would not allow it.”

Britain was four weeks away from a general election and few if any commentators doubted that the Labour Party would be defeated and Margaret Thatcher would become Britain’s first woman prime minister. I telephoned her and said that I had something important I needed to discuss with her in private. She said she would receive me on Sunday morning at Scotney Castle, her country home. (It was only about 40 minutes drive from where I then lived in Kent).

 

When I arrived at 10 o’clock, Margaret was outside pruning some roses. She took me inside and we chatted for more than an hour. She did almost all of the talking, telling me how she was going to change Britain and Europe. She left me in no doubt that she had no time for Europe’s male leaders. She loathed them all. While we talked, Denis was pacing in front of the fire place, drink in hand, and muttering insults of his own. One I recall was “David Owen is a c * * t.”

Eventually Britain’s prime minister to be said, “Now what is that you want to discuss with me?”

I told her about the Shah’s urgent need for temporary refuge. She was very open to the idea that it could be in the UK, at his country home in Surrey. But here’s the main point… Just before we said goodbye, she took both of my hands and held them close to her breasts. Then, with real passion in her voice and eyes, she said: “You tell His Majesty that I would be ashamed to be British if we could not give him refuge after all he has done for us.”

 

Before I drove away we agreed that I would report back to the Shah and Farah and that I would call her, Mrs. Thatcher, at about 8.30 on the morning of her election victory.

The Shah had two questions after I had briefed him.

The first was: “Is she definitely going to win the election?”

I replied, “Yes, probably with a 40-seat majority.” (That turned out to be a correct forecast).

The Shah’s second question was: “Can we believe her?”

I replied that I was in no doubt that she really, really meant what she had said when she said it, but only time would tell.

At 8.30 on the morning of her election victory, I telephoned Margaret. “Hello, Alan,” she said, “I’m cooking Denis’s breakfast.”

I asked her when she expected to have a decision on the Shah’s request for refuge. She replied: “I need to talk with Peter but I’m sure it will be alright. (Peter was Lord Carrington who was going to be her foreign secretary), Give me 48 hours and call me again.”

When I did make the follow-up call, Prime Minister Thatcher was not available to talk to me. She had performed her first U-turn and didn’t want to acknowledge it.

At the time I imagined that the foreign office advice to her had been something like the following: “Lady, you must be out of your mind. If we grant the Shah refuge, we’ll have enormous problems with the ruling mullahs and their fanatical followers.” It is possible, even probable, that she was so advised, but recently de-classified cabinet papers indicated another reason. Britain was already doing business with the mullahs.

 

The moral of the story? Leaders sometimes want to do what they believe to be right but are not allowed to do so. This, I believe, is the fix President Obama is in on policy for Israel-Palestine.

 

/VT: http://www.veteranst...turning-turned/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

General Pinochet ?

the sinking of the Belgrano ?

Yea Thatcher had a strong and articulate sense of right and wrong

 

Compare her reaction to Iraq going into Kuwait, with that of George Bush, and you will see what I mean:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHoqqwp-WWY

 

 

Bush: (on one of his whimp days)

"...Hoping that a peaceful solution can be found.

"We are considering what the next steps by the United States should be."

Maggie:

"Iraq has violated, and taken over the territory of a country which is a full member of the United Nations. That is totally unacceptable."

 

As I have said, you may have like her or hated her, but she was rarely in doubt about what she thought was the "right" action.

There was no joy in being targeted by her.

 

And if you agreed with her, it was great having someone with her "resolve" as a leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She attacked the Belgrano when it was sailing away from the Falklands

outside of an exclusion zone when peace negotiations were under way

She caused the needless deaths of many many young Argentinian and British lives for

political gain . She was a mass murderer and a heartless individual .

Anyone who lived through those times from Scotland and the mining communities

in the North of England and Wales suffered great hardship .

She did not unite the nation she ripped it apart .

History will be rewritten to show she was a wonderful person

but there are many millions of us who will never forget the true reality of her dictatorship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't just those areas, the midlands were hammered too. She decimated my old city. After Liverpool, we had the highest unemployment rate in the country (and yes, I was one of them).

 

Then again, TBH, it had been rapidly going down the pan before she took office, much like the rest of the country.

 

I remember the 70's well. What a pile of shite. I've argued many times here (often with people who weren't even bloody born then) that current times are nowhere near as bad as back then.

 

Two major recessions almost back to back, bloody power cuts all the time, rubbish pilled high and rats everywhere. As for the unions leaders and the old shop stewards, they were a fu*in joke. The (usually fat and drunk) arseholes took the piss, and you couldn't get anything done without kissing their arses.

 

Knew of a few people who couldn't even get work if you'd pissed one of them off. Even knew of people who were black balled because their fathers had fell out with them FFS. Nepetism ruled and if you didn't bow and scrape to them, or were on their wrong side, you were f**ked.

 

Of course, it's gone way too far the other way now (except perhaps for a few council's and their building standards departments up here, who still think they should be bowed down to, just to get them to do their bloody job).

 

She caused as many problems as she help to solve, and the pain disproportionately hit certain areas more than others. But f**k knows what would have happened if she had just come in and carried on like the previous 4 governments.

 

People forget, the country was in really seriously trouble, and in a seemingly never ending downward spiral long before she took office.

 

EDIT Argentina bit removed. This thread is about Thatcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher's flagship policies draw mixed support at her death, poll ...

 

The Guardian-6 hours ago

 

Privatisation of the utilities and the poll tax remain deeply unpopular. ... Substantial discounts combined with a buoyant property market to make the

... never entirely at home with Europe, and picked fights almost from the off.

 

Allowing council tenants to buy their homes

 

THATCHER_POLL_COUNCILHOUS-001.pngGraphic: Guardian

Thatcher's most popular idea was not a total novelty: it was played with by Edward Heath's government, and even featured in the 1959 Labour manifesto. But it was under Thatcher that government legislation in 1980 replaced local experiments with a nationwide drive, which saw a million homes sold by 1987.

 

 

Taking on trade unions

 

THATCHER_POLL_TRADEUNIONS-001.pngGraphic: Guardian

Membership was at its peak as Thatcher arrived at No 10, covering half the workforce – and with these numbers came a controversial clout. After the Heath government's attempt to pass a tough new law, the Wilson-Callaghan government negotiated swaths of policy with the unions, but both administrations were ultimately brought down in the aftermath of strikes. Thatcher was determined to tackle the unions, but also to avoid the fate of her predecessors, and so she resolved to fight smart. She took on strikes one sector at a time – waiting until the favourable circumstances of 1984 for her great showdown with the miners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Margaret Thatcher's Son: Family Overwhelmed

Baroness Thatcher would be "humbled" that the Queen is attending her funeral, her son has declared as he spoke of her death for the first time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie the moderate

The Britain which Margaret Thatcher came to lead in 1979 was a vastly different place. In retrospect, the politics of her time seems strident, violent even. The language was polarised and impassioned, the issues at stake starker and more real. This is to some extent an illusion. Politics was not nearly so professionalised then. Her rhetorical style was abrasive even at the time, but less outrageously than it would be today. Politics had not yet become wholly dominated by inoffensive platitudes. Quite the reverse, in fact: Mrs Thatcher often preferred the language of confrontation to its reality, and her policies tended to be less radical than her rhetoric. If a time machine could bring the Thatcher of the mid 80s into the present day, many her policies would be revealed as well to the left, not just of the current coalition government, not just of Tony Blair, but even of Ed Miliband.

 

Today we appear to be in the midst of an impassioned debate about welfare, but the one thing that all parties agree upon is that benefits are too generous and their claimants largely undeserving. Yet under Thatcherism, sickness benefits were generous and nodded through by family doctors, single parents were allowed to stay at home on Income Support until their children reached 16 (Harriet Harman ended that one), while unemployment benefit was worth 50% more in real terms than it is today. There were often three million unemployed, but this woeful figure didn't lead to their demonisation nor to a Dutch auction among politicians over who would be most punitive. (Norman Tebbit suggested that the unemployed should get on their bikes to look for work, but he neither cut their benefits nor forced them to work for nothing.)

 

The Thatcher government increased spending on the NHS in real terms every year that she was in power. She herself talked tough on law and order, yet under her the Home Office was a bastion of liberal reform. The prison population was half what it now is (even though crime was higher) and it was her government that introduced the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which for the first time laid down in a detailed statute the limits of police power. She faced IRA terrorism with fortitude but not with repression. Even after the Brighton bomb almost killed her and her entire Cabinet, the country didn't see the draconian laws that the Blair government introduced after 9/11. The most controversial measure was silly but harmless: a notorious stipulation that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness could not be heard on the airwaves but their words must be spoken by actors. Under Blair, they would probably have been in Belmarsh. On social issues she was not instinctively liberal, and many will never forgive her government for Section 28; yet she was one of a minority of Conservatives to vote for the decriminalisation of male homosexuality, and was personally sympathetic and supportive to many gay (but closeted) Tory MPs.

 

The first major politician to talk up the threat of global warming, Mrs T also did more than any previous British leader (apart from Ted Heath) to promote European integration, passing the Single European Act which opponents at the time feared would mean the end of British independence. Until Nigel Lawson's 1988 budget, the top rate of Income Tax was 60%, which today would seem impossibly high, and it was paid by all higher-rate payers, not just by millionaires. Lawson's tax-cut, moreover, came at a time when public finances were (astonishingly, it now seems) in credit. And even despite it, the total tax take was 2% higher as a percentage of GDP than it had been when she came to power. This was no profligate or ideological small-stater. Her government freed public utilities from sub-Soviet nationalisation and inefficiency, but privatisation was pursued with caution. She once said that some things could in principle never be privatised, and the example she chose was the Royal Mail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maggie was a "Statuesque" Personality:

 

Boris has already called for statue in London to honour Lady Thatcher

 

Daily Mail - ‎1 hour ago‎

Boris Johnson last night called for an airport to be named in honour of Baroness Thatcher. The Mayor of London has already said he wants there to be a statue erected in the capital to honour Lady Thatcher in the 'heart of the nation'.

== ==

 

Below the statue, a quote: "No, No,... NO!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She supported Pinochet (Inexcusable), but she never supported apartheid and was never involved with loyalist paramilitaries (she wasn't that stupid, and besides, she had the British army there). The British intelligence services supported and aided the loyalist paramilitaries for sure, but that's really not the same thing.

 

She had said Mandella's ANC were terrorists. He did actually try to bomb some places as a young man, hence the label (although I'd call him a freedom fighter).

 

However, this was at a time when the IRA were actively bombing/attacking civilians and on the UK mainland (including the blast at Brighton in which she was involved).

 

That aside, she directly called for the release of Mandella back in the mid 80's and practically demanded it when De-Klerk took over from Botha. She was also very happy for the ANC to have their offices in London during all this, and she gave them diplomatic protection, including armed protection for their senior members when the SA gov tried to blow them up.

 

There are many myths about Thatcher. Many are true, many are not.

 

Love her or hate her, the country was a right fu**in mess, and going down the pan at an ever increasing rate when she came into power (anyone who denies this fact either wasn't there, or doesn't understand basic economics).

 

She turned it around at first, but then went mad and took it all too far. New Labour then came in and took it to the extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she didnt support sanctions against her apartheid regime pals when the rest of the world did

They say racism is taught in the home -maybe thats where Carol picked up her Golliwog term of endearment

and Mark planned his coup d'etat of Equatorial Guinea and his gun running operations

Are the British Intelligence services a law unto themselves ?Do they not take their orders from number 10 ?

I have never supported the IRA but the nationalist community in Norn Iron were treated appalingly by succesive UK Govts

It was our own form of apartheid that Thatcher was happy to maintain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she didnt support sanctions against her apartheid regime pals when the rest of the world did (she hated anything that stopped free trade)

They say racism is taught in the home -maybe thats where Carol picked up her Golliwog term of endearment (Golliwogs were still being sold in the savoy centre in Glasgow just a couple of years back. So, is the parent to be blamed for the actions of their child? At what age, if any does this end? Besides, I'd wager judging her career, the kids didn't get much of a look in)

and Mark planned his coup d'etat of Equatorial Guinea and his gun running operations (See above)

Are the British Intelligence services a law unto themselves ? (British intelligence, ironic naming? :rolleyes: Yes they are, as has been shown time and time again) Do they not take their orders from number 10 ?(only when it agrees with their aims)

I have never supported the IRA but the nationalist community in Norn Iron were treated appalingly by succesive UK Govts (Nor have I and yes they were, I'm the son of a woman whose family had to leave Derry)

It was our own form of apartheid that Thatcher was happy to maintain (NO! She opposed the IRA's tactics. Apartheid or not, the minute the IRA attacked and killed innocent civilians, they fucked their own argument and subjected their own people, (whom had a legitimate argument, and whom they were, supposedly, meant to represent), to the indignation of people around the world for the next 30 years)

 

It's never as black and white as it seems at first glance (no puns etc intended) :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to stop watching James Bond movies JD

I dont disagree with your last point either -The IRA were as big an enemy to the Nationalist community

as they were to everyone else but Thatcher and those before and after her did not target the IRA as individuals

but the entire Nationalist community 90% of whom rejected these men of evil . She did collude with Loyalist terrorists

and she did order unlawful murder of innocents such as Pat Finucane

 

Thatcher was an evil wicked cow who had no regard for human rights

and nothing you or anyone says will change my mind on that

so we might as well get back to discussing 9/11 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher was an evil wicked cow who had no regard for human rights

and nothing you or anyone says will change my mind on that

 

 

I never said she wasn't, but some of the stuff written is just plain wrong, and this distracts from the real case and makes holes in the arguments against such things, and ends up weakening the arguments of those that make these claims when these points are clearly shown to be wrong.

 

so we might as well get back to discussing 9/11 :D

 

Yeah, OK. It was the Saudis :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I preferred hating her to the way I hated Blair, trickster, conman. At least you knew where you were with Maggie. Tebbit was worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They interviewed an old Glaswegian ship yard shop steward a couple of nights ago up here, next to the new Hydro on the Clyde.

 

“So” the reporter said, “is there anything good you can say about her at all”?

 

The old shop steward thought for a long time, then looked down at the river and with a small smile and a shrug said “well, there’s salmon back in the Clyde now”. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KLF should reform and gig at the O2 to commemorate.

 

Even meaninglessness has uses.

 

(See: service "industry", university "degrees", political "honesty" etc...)

 

((Sorry, am I giving virtue to Thatcher or Blair? It's a bit of a blur to me, a gen Y person...))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some quick morning thoughts...

 

What I liked about Maggie was should STOOD AGAINST the steady trend towards Socialism,

that seems to be ruining so many countries - and will one day bring a big and ugly depression IMHO

 

Could she have done it differently? Maybe. Her way angered many people.

 

But who else has done it?

 

Reagan? (Yes, better maybe.)

 

Hitler? (Maybe. But not better. And he brought: National Socialism, of a dangerous kind)

 

Some will argue that the Nazis are still with us... and they are winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boris has already called for statue in London to honour Lady Thatcher

. . .

Below the statue, a quote: "No, No,... NO!"

 

 

A good call by Maggie here on European integration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×