Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Lol, are you serious? You said "She defeated socialism! Long live Thatcherism!"

    And you're telling me to calm down?
    :rolleyes:
    I agree with Iron Lady.

    You need to calm down.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    The 'spontaneous' applause was memorable. Finally, she succeeded in uniting the entire country.
    (Original post by FinnianC)
    Please do not pretend that Thatcher ever united this country.
    Black humour isn't funny when you try to explain it...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I agree with Iron Lady.

    You need to calm down.
    I agree with you, fullofs**** needs to calm down. Lady thatcher was a good person, who helped many people.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    You do realise who owns that song? :rofl:

    Free markets, **** yeahhhhh.
    was just going to say that lol
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I have to question what you think she did to deserve the bizarrely excessive eulogising and reverence you and others are exhibiting right now. Do you really, seriously think Britain was some sort of East Germany before she took over and she liberated the slaves from their cruel socialist overlords? Lol. More like the other way round.

    BTW, there was an excellent documentary about her last night on BBC Parliament which was full of interviews with people who knew her and worked with her during her years as PM, which gives a somewhat more balanced picture, for people who actually want to learn about the reality of those years and not some ****-eyed student right-wing headbanger neocon madman view of it.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...rime_Minister/
    the document by BBC was excellent. many say it was biased, and well, i was quite surprised by their good nature to report fact rather than fiction, and focus on her as a person quite a lot... was really nice, and so inspiring!!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    She's had a big impact. Probably one of the few prime ministers who people would argue over and would fight other people over whether or not she was good. She oversaw the closing of mines and industries which didn't make much money. Maybe she should've compensated those hit by the closures or maybe it wasn't her job but those affect's job to find new jobs. I don't know and this is where I've got to on my opinions of her.

    Of course she'll be remembered for long, she's been out of the public eye for over twenty years and she has the overreaction of fawning for her or hatred for her.

    As much as I'm fairly neutral for Margaret Thatcher, this thread simply shouldn't exist. It's in a discussion and debate board and it's not the job of the OP to dictate their own rules onto this forum nor attack anyone for different views and censor those views. What good does a thread of completely positive comments on the subject of politics have for us, the users and members of the TSR?

    If there's one thing I know about Margaret Thatcher is that she was a hard tough woman. I can't imagine her even caring whether or not anyone hijacked her funeral, protested or badmouthed her. She completely walked over anyone who stood against her, she could've won any argument, regardless of where on the political spectrum she was arguing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by play_fetch)
    the document by BBC was excellent. many say it was biased, and well, i was quite surprised by their good nature to report fact rather than fiction, and focus on her as a person quite a lot... was really nice, and so inspiring!!
    It was much more real than the sort of fawning nonsense we're seeing in threads like this - the interesting thing was how sharply critical of some of what she did even her closest colleagues were. Also how few, if any, friends she really had - the loneliness of power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meenu89)
    Please do not pretend this country was united in harmony before she took power.
    1) At what stage during my post did I say that Britain was united during the 70s? Straw man brah. Try again.
    2) Whilst I'm certainly not claiming that Britain was 'in harmony' during the 70s, there was something called the post-war consensus, during which Britain witnessed growth levels unseen since the Victorian era. It was also rapidly becoming one of the fairest (in terms of income and living standards) countries in Europe.

    Whilst Union power did perhaps get out of hand; Arthur Scargill was no help to the Miner cause, Thatcher's complete destruction of union power regressed us back decades, back to the days of the Trade Disputes Act 1927 etc. As a consequence, we have an acute wage problem, with one of the highest levels of income disparity in the developed world. Over 300,000 people in this country now earn less than the minimum wage. One of the reasons the Conservatives are attacking our 'extortionate' welfare bill is because they have to pay huge subsidies to employers paying low wages through tax credits. These issues would be less pronounced if there was still a trade union culture in this country (not necessarily to the extent of the '70s). Whilst 1980s governments did need to tackle the balance between good wages and Britain's productivity, there certainly was no need for the nihilistic and permanent destruction of trade unions and their right to represent the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.

    (Original post by uktotalgamer)
    Your deluded. Take to liberalist bull**** somewhere else.

    Under labour prior to 1979 the country was an absolute shambles, held to ransom by the unions. Any idiot can see that she left the country in a better state than she found it, but judging on your ridiculous statements, your not any idiot, your the biggest idiot.
    Your ad hominem regarding me being 'an idiot' is somewhat laughable given the poor state of your written expression and of comprehension of what constitutes an argument. 'Liberalist'? What's that? Do you mean Liberal?

    You've managed to perfectly encapsulate the ineptitude of many Thatcherites in understanding the opposing point of view. Whilst my argument was based on facts, and assertions based on long term proof, yours is based on attacking my perceived delusion and intellect. Hm.

    Do you really believe the things you said in that latter paragraph? Do you have any understanding of history/politics at all? I'm going to assume the response to this is no, so I will track through your assertions very simply so that you can understand.

    First, claiming Labour were totally at fault exemplifies your miscomprehension of post-war history. Attlee's Labour from 1945-51 set the precedent for post-war consensus social democracy, but the Conservatives begrudgingly accepted that this was to be the norm. After 1951, Labour only formed, I think, 3 governments up to 1979, whereas the Tories continued in this trend. Whatever your perceived misgivings regarding the 60s and 70s are, you cannot blame them solely on Labour.

    Right, 'held to ransom by the unions'. Now I'm ready to acknowledge the
    repeated strikes of the late 70s were excessive, and represented a misunderstanding of Britain's need to remain productive whilst also remaining fair and equal. But at NO POINT in British history has our country been held to ransom by the unions. Whatever your Tory parents/The Daily Mail have told you, the trade unions never held significant power in our country. For example, my grandfather was a trade unionist, and was blacklisted. His national insurance number was marked, meaning he could rarely get a job, and was not allowed to perform civil duties such as jury service etc.

    For other points regarding the trade union movement, see my above point.

    And as to her leaving Britain in a better state than when she found it, I ask you to look at the 2008 financial crisis and the long-term destruction that neo-Liberalism has caused, and then discern what you think the state of our Thatcherite country is, compared to the (similar to post-war consensus Britain) Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Finland. Have fun learning about reality and not just toxic rhetoric propounded by Mail/Express.
    (Original post by dj1015)
    Do you actually believe what your saying or are you just neg rep whoring?
    Ha, no sir, I actually believe what I'm saying as my argument is based solely on facts, not arbitrary assertions like 'Thatcher put the 'Great' in Great Britain' or she was an 'inspiration'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    She helped bring an end to the Cold War, helped end apartheid, defended our sovereignity overseas while others wanted to find diplomatic negotiations to retake the Falkland Islands, she saved our country from it's disastrous conomic situation during the 70s.

    God bless Margaret Thatcher.

    And God Bless her grandson, that guy is sooo hot.
    Gorbachev brought about the end of the Cold War by allowing his absolutist regime to implode. Thatcher was merely a friend who encouraged him.

    Helped end apartheid?! Do you mean by calling Mandela a terrorist and sympathising with a Tory faction called 'hang Mandela'? Righttttt.

    And if we're talking about foreign policy, let's throw Pinochet and Ireland in there too.

    Have you heard of section 28?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not great at this sort of thing, but Thatcher was an exquisite example of a conviction politician who spoke from the heart about her conservative values instead of taking the easy option and pandering to the centre-left.

    If the Conservatives had the balls to properly honour their Thatcherite heritage by fighting for the causes she believed in the Tories would once again be an electoral force capable of putting us on the road to recovery instead of acting as the Blue wing of the Labour party.

    Thatcherism wasn't perfect, but it's a damn site better than whatever the liblabcon have on offer today.

    Rest In Peace.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinnianC)
    2) Whilst I'm certainly not claiming that Britain was 'in harmony' during the 70s, there was something called the post-war consensus, during which Britain witnessed growth levels unseen since the Victorian era. It was also rapidly becoming one of the fairest (in terms of income and living standards) countries in Europe.
    I am a Labour voter, but I think people forget how bad the 70s was.

    It is best to find someone politically neutral and ask them what the 70s were like. My Dad's memory of the 70s was crowding around candles with his family and sometimes being unable to have cooked food because of the constant power cuts. Three-day working week. Rubbish pilling up everywhere and having to be stored in the local playground. Being unable to have a telephone line installed because socialised British Telecom was so inefficient. The Unions bringing down an elected government. Upwards of TWENTY PERCENT inflation.

    I think even socialists have to view Thatcher against that background. I think it is very difficult for anyone to disagree with the fact that England was in a much better place in 1990 than 1979 for the vast majority of people.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinnianC)
    Helped end apartheid?! Do you mean by calling Mandela a terrorist and sympathising with a Tory faction called 'hang Mandela'? Righttttt.

    And if we're talking about foreign policy, let's throw Pinochet and Ireland in there too.

    Have you heard of section 28?
    This criticism is not fair. Thatcher was one of the only world leaders working to secure the release of Mandela, both publicly and privately. She was the first world leader Mandela wanted to meet and he publicly thanked her.

    Again, the Pinochet issue is not fair criticism. Pinochet was seen to be better than what he replaced, a repressive government which simply ignored parliament and the judicial system while destabilising the region. Pinochet initially promised to respect civilian government. You can't really blame Thatcher and other world leaders for what happened next, the same way you can't really blame George Bush Sr. for the later actions of Saddam Hussein.

    This is the difficulty of dealing with foreign policy issues. You cannot predict what will happen. If one government falls you hope it will be replaced by something better but it doesn't always work. And sometimes engagement is better than punishment. I am sure we will get much better results by trying to engage with Iran and North Korea rather than declaring war, but I guess that would make me in favour the governments of Iran and NK by this kind of logic.

    With section 28, admitted this was a disaster. But it is unfair to look at this issue through 2013 eyes. The vast majority of the public were not comfortable with homosexuality in the 1980s. Section 28 was born as part of a deal to decriminalise homosexuality in Scotland. Did you know that Thatcher was one of the first MPs to vote for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, damaging her career at a time when very few supported it?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This criticism is not fair. Thatcher was one of the only world leaders working to secure the release of Mandela, both publicly and privately. She was the first world leader Mandela wanted to meet and he publicly thanked her.

    Again, the Pinochet issue is not fair criticism. Pinochet was seen to be better than what he replaced, a repressive government which simply ignored parliament and the judicial system while destabilising the region. Pinochet initially promised to respect civilian government. You can't really blame Thatcher and other world leaders for what happened next, the same way you can't really blame George Bush Sr. for the later actions of Saddam Hussein.

    This is the difficulty of dealing with foreign policy issues. You cannot predict what will happen. If one government falls you hope it will be replaced by something better but it doesn't always work. And sometimes engagement is better than punishment. I am sure we will get much better results by trying to engage with Iran and North Korea rather than declaring war, but I guess that would make me in favour the governments of Iran and NK by this kind of logic.

    With section 28, admitted this was a disaster. But it is unfair to look at this issue through 2013 eyes. The vast majority of the public were not comfortable with homosexuality in the 1980s. Section 28 was born as part of a deal to decriminalise homosexuality in Scotland. Did you know that Thatcher was one of the first MPs to vote for the decriminalisation of homosexuality, damaging her career at a time when very few supported it?

    (Original post by FinnianC)
    Gorbachev brought about the end of the Cold War by allowing his absolutist regime to implode. Thatcher was merely a friend who encouraged him.

    Helped end apartheid?! Do you mean by calling Mandela a terrorist and sympathising with a Tory faction called 'hang Mandela'? Righttttt.

    And if we're talking about foreign policy, let's throw Pinochet and Ireland in there too.

    Have you heard of section 28?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I started to address his points but then my internet started playing up. I had this autosaved so I'll post it as you never addressed his point about the Cold War, so I will.

    I agree with everyone you said by the way

    "I didn't say Gorbachev never brought an end to the Cold War, however Thatcher was crucual in creating negotiations between the US and the S.U and was the first to recognise Gorbachev was the man that could help her, and Reagan achieve this.

    "Her famous remark, "I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together," was later helpful to me. When I became general secretary of the Communist party, it made it easier to seek contacts and mutual understanding with Ronald Reagan and with leaders of other countries." - Gorbachev"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinnianC)
    Oh, and of course the Falklands, for which she should have been imprisoned for war crimes.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    rofl
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miracle Day)
    And God Bless her grandson, that guy is sooo hot.
    Agreed. I have run out of rep, but don't worry, I'll be back
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinnianC)
    Oh, and of course the Falklands, for which she should have been imprisoned for war crimes.
    Go on then - explain!

    FYI, the sinking of the Belgrano was not a war crime, if that's where you're going with this one.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinnianC)
    1) At what stage during my post did I say that Britain was united during the 70s? Straw man brah. Try again.
    2) Whilst I'm certainly not claiming that Britain was 'in harmony' during the 70s, there was something called the post-war consensus, during which Britain witnessed growth levels unseen since the Victorian era. It was also rapidly becoming one of the fairest (in terms of income and living standards) countries in Europe.

    Whilst Union power did perhaps get out of hand; Arthur Scargill was no help to the Miner cause, Thatcher's complete destruction of union power regressed us back decades, back to the days of the Trade Disputes Act 1927 etc. As a consequence, we have an acute wage problem, with one of the highest levels of income disparity in the developed world. Over 300,000 people in this country now earn less than the minimum wage. One of the reasons the Conservatives are attacking our 'extortionate' welfare bill is because they have to pay huge subsidies to employers paying low wages through tax credits. These issues would be less pronounced if there was still a trade union culture in this country (not necessarily to the extent of the '70s). Whilst 1980s governments did need to tackle the balance between good wages and Britain's productivity, there certainly was no need for the nihilistic and permanent destruction of trade unions and their right to represent the poorest and most vulnerable in our society.



    Your ad hominem regarding me being 'an idiot' is somewhat laughable given the poor state of your written expression and of comprehension of what constitutes an argument. 'Liberalist'? What's that? Do you mean Liberal?

    You've managed to perfectly encapsulate the ineptitude of many Thatcherites in understanding the opposing point of view. Whilst my argument was based on facts, and assertions based on long term proof, yours is based on attacking my perceived delusion and intellect. Hm.

    Do you really believe the things you said in that latter paragraph? Do you have any understanding of history/politics at all? I'm going to assume the response to this is no, so I will track through your assertions very simply so that you can understand.

    First, claiming Labour were totally at fault exemplifies your miscomprehension of post-war history. Attlee's Labour from 1945-51 set the precedent for post-war consensus social democracy, but the Conservatives begrudgingly accepted that this was to be the norm. After 1951, Labour only formed, I think, 3 governments up to 1979, whereas the Tories continued in this trend. Whatever your perceived misgivings regarding the 60s and 70s are, you cannot blame them solely on Labour.

    Right, 'held to ransom by the unions'. Now I'm ready to acknowledge the
    repeated strikes of the late 70s were excessive, and represented a misunderstanding of Britain's need to remain productive whilst also remaining fair and equal. But at NO POINT in British history has our country been held to ransom by the unions. Whatever your Tory parents/The Daily Mail have told you, the trade unions never held significant power in our country. For example, my grandfather was a trade unionist, and was blacklisted. His national insurance number was marked, meaning he could rarely get a job, and was not allowed to perform civil duties such as jury service etc.

    For other points regarding the trade union movement, see my above point.

    And as to her leaving Britain in a better state than when she found it, I ask you to look at the 2008 financial crisis and the long-term destruction that neo-Liberalism has caused, and then discern what you think the state of our Thatcherite country is, compared to the (similar to post-war consensus Britain) Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Finland. Have fun learning about reality and not just toxic rhetoric propounded by Mail/Express.


    Ha, no sir, I actually believe what I'm saying as my argument is based solely on facts, not arbitrary assertions like 'Thatcher put the 'Great' in Great Britain' or she was an 'inspiration'.
    So your basing the quality of my views on my grammar? Thank god I'm not that doing that with yours or I may think you make sense, however you don't. Ok, you use a lot of well put together sentences but again, there isn't much content.

    In response to my "failing to understand" the argument notion you put forward, I'll pin point your failing to understand. The unions.

    Lets take ourselves back to 1979. Country in an absolute mess. Litter all over the place, union men in control of the country. Not to mention the hideous wages being given out by the unionized industries such as the mines. A relative of mine used to be a miner. Now in 1979, he worked for one week in Nottingham and earned £2500 for the week. Isn't that extortionate?

    So your, and Labour's, and indeed the North's whole argument is that "Bloody Thatcher shut the mines." Under both Wilson and Callaghan more mines were shut than under the entire Thatcher government, not to mention that Blair saw the shutting down of British industry moreso than Thatcher did.

    But back to the unions. The unions held this country to ransom indirectly, using the Labour Government. I ask you this one question. If Labour were elected in 1979, they wouldn't have stood upto the miners and unionists like Thatcher did. Where would we be now?

    The unions were completely overpowered and out of control. They cared for noone but their own profession, and even then, those within their profession who just wanted to complete a days work were labelled "scabs" due to their wanting to work. The buses containing these "Scabs" were repeatedly attacked and protested at. This really showcases the class of people that Thatcher dealed with. First class scumbags.

    And please don't think I'm coming at this from a middle class point of view. Im working class through and through, but completely support the notion that if you work hard then you should keep what you make. Those that don't work hard tend to be the ones that kick up this fuss. Those that think the government owes them something, it doesn't, and the unions and labour got this completely wrong. As a hard working northerner, that's why I would have supported the Thatcher government.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.