Baroness Thatcher has died

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has that stalwart of the Labour Party, Dennis Skinner, made any official comment on the matter yet ?

 

[ReverendFozz]

Plus all the overtime made a big chunk in a lot of their mortgages

A lot of policemen made enough overtime to pretty much see that there mortgages were outright and have enough for flash cars and fancy holidays and they never hesitated to wind the pickets up and it rub it about just how much they were earning

Marxista Fozz

 

[table38]

Interesting poll in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/opinion-sharply-divide-margaret-thatcher

 

[Oswyntail]

....If anyone wants to see first hand the destruction that women caused in my beloved Yorkshire just visit the Dearne Valley. In 2013 places like Mexborough and Denaby remain a picture of ill and pain.

Agreed - much of South Yorkshire is a picture of hopelessness. But did she "cause" that? The industry was doomed anyway. What else could have been done? Now that would be an interesting discussion!

 

[jb]

Interesting poll in the Guardian today:

Perhaps most interesting is that the Graun chooses to headline the article as "divided opinion..."

One could equally well argue that it's a remarkable achievement of any modern western leader to achieve 50% overall approval, with the benefit of 20 years of 20-20 hindsight following their departure from office.

Granted, it's not an absolute given that a higher percentage approval in this poll is a good thing, but still...

 

[Railsigns]

Interesting poll in the Guardian today:

I wonder how much correlation there is between those who suffered the most under Thatcher and those who'd take part in an on-line poll. Probably not much.

 

[SS4]

Interesting poll in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/opinion-sharply-divide-margaret-thatcher

That's quite an interesting graphic and certainly not the result I was expecting! I must note the difference between the question asked Did Thatcherite policies work? and the conclusion Thatcher's Rule: Good for Britain?

It is of course possible for a policy to work and be bad for Britain.Ditto for the converse. Plus the generation who would have most likely participated in the poll are the same generation as those who are told by their elders that they couldn't possibly know what her premiership was like because they weren't born. Can't let it detract too much from the results though.

That said I really hope the tv coverage is toned down. I really don't want sickly sweet obituaries, especially ones which don't tell the whole story

 

[balne-wonderer]

Agreed - much of South Yorkshire is a picture of hopelessness. But did she "cause" that? The industry was doomed anyway. What else could have been done? Now that would be an interesting discussion!

The problem in those areas was that the people only knew mining. Hague was going on about right to buy on the radio yesterday but those people had their jobs taken from them, they could not afford to buy. They were not properly supported after the closure of the pits. they were left to rot.

It wasnt just Mexborough and Denaby either. the closure of Markham badly affected Armthorpe area. Its sad. Yorkshire has so much to offer but the South has little.

 

[table38]

That said I really hope the tv coverage is toned down. I really don't want sickly sweet obituaries, especially ones which don't tell the whole story

Absolutely. If SKY could create a 007 Movie Channel to mark the release of Skyfall, perhaps they could create a Thatcher channel and just put everything on there.

I'm bored with it already, and I suspect it will go on until well after the funeral.

Still at least we don't have to listen to "sombre music" like we'd have had 30 years ago.

 

[LE Greys]

this thread shows how Thatcher divided people. I would never celebrate a death as I have previously said but I won't miss her either.

If anyone wants to see first hand the destruction that women caused in my beloved Yorkshire just visit the Dearne Valley. In 2013 places like Mexborough and Denaby remain a picture of ill and pain.

My sentiment exactly, and I was theoretically a beenficiary of her policies. My father's company, then called Confederation Life, made a lot of money out of insuring the newly-wealthy. Today, I see the way she embraced economic liberalism and incorporated it as the worst thing that ever happened to the Conservative Party. I also cannot stand the way she handled the unions, and think right to buy was a big mistake. However, she stood firm in the Falklands and was one of the toughest campaigners I have ever known. So mixed feelings and mixed views, but I'll shed no tears for her.

 

[bb21]

So because some people don't like her, she shouldn't be given a funeral an ex-prime minister and had been in that role for a long time is entitled to? There are many who didn't like Diana, should she never have been given the funeral she had in 1997 and all the associated coverage? Not everyone liked Winston Churchill, maybe he shouldn't have been given state funeral with what was considered extensive coverage at the time?

Before someone jumps in with the argument that many more people disliked Thatcher, where do you draw the line? Who should be given the responsibility of deciding whether that line had been crossed or not? What would that person use as supporting evidence?

She is given extensive coverage because she is an ex-prime minister who had served this country for 11 years. Her death is big news, both domestically and internationally. She is only given what is appropriate to the job she had. If people don't want to watch it, the solution is simple. Turn off your TV or switch to a different channel. There are people who do want to watch it (me not included btw) and they are entitled to do so.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am rather amused by the nicknames that some on the forum tend to give to certain national newspapers (based on an "intellectual play on words") whereas the more staid of the membership have no difficulty in using the correct names for these newspapers.

 

[balne-wonderer]

So because some people don't like her, she shouldn't be given a funeral an ex-prime minister and had been in that role for a long time is entitled to? There are many who didn't like Diana, should she never have been given the funeral she had in 1997 and all the associated coverage? Not everyone liked Winston Churchill, maybe he shouldn't have been given state funeral with what was considered extensive coverage at the time?

Before someone jumps in with the argument that many more people disliked Thatcher, where do you draw the line? Who should be given the responsibility of deciding whether that line had been crossed or not? What would that person use as supporting evidence?

She is given extensive coverage because she is an ex-prime minister who had served this country for 11 years. Her death is big news, both domestically and internationally. She is only given what is appropriate to the job she had. If people don't want to watch it, the solution is simple. Turn off your TV or switch to a different channel. There are people who do want to watch it (me not included btw) and they are entitled to do so.

many fair points. I'll have nothing to do with mourning her. However she served this country for 11 years and is a huge part of our history. Even after the pain she inflicted on people in my county we should respect the events of the next few days and allow those that want to remember her in a positive way do it.

I have no problem with her having a ceremonial funeral.

 

[Ivo]

Interesting poll in the Guardian today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/opinion-sharply-divide-margaret-thatcher

I find it interesting that even a paper as left-wing as this thing can return a 50% positive vote on Thatcherism, even allowing for uncertainty. The simple fact is, as even a lot of apparently left-wing people accept, most of what she did was necessary. Sure, she may have overdone the odd thing, but who/what hasn't? As with Beeching, it was necessary surgery for the benefit of the future, not mad chopping. If the odd community here or there had to suffer to allow 90% or more to improve, then so be it...

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I find it interesting that even a paper as left-wing as this thing can return a 50% positive vote on Thatcherism, even allowing for uncertainty. The simple fact is, as even a lot of apparently left-wing people accept, most of what she did was necessary. Sure, she may have overdone the odd thing, but who/what hasn't? As with Beeching, it was necessary surgery for the benefit of the future, not mad chopping. If the odd community here or there had to suffer to allow 90% or more to improve, then so be it...

Odd community? she destroyed most of the industrial heartland for gods sake! destroyed thousands of lives and families of which some have never recovered. some necessary yes. The destruction of Englands industrial heartland? no way

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I just hope that when her burial is carried out, there will be no chants of...."Maggie, Maggie, Maggie...out, out, out"...:roll:

No. she had already thought of that, deciding to be cremated.

 

[bb21]

Odd community? she destroyed most of the industrial heartland for gods sake! destroyed thousands of lives and families of which some have never recovered. some necessary yes. The destruction of Englands industrial heartland? no way

Much of what happened would have come anyway. She probably accelerated the arrival of the demise of the heavy industries but in no way is she the only reason. There probably are things that she could have done better. Like some have already mentioned, there could probably have been better provision for retraining the local population and help them adapt to the changes, but to say that the destruction of the industrial heartland is her fault is far from the truth.

Some people will disagree, but I think there is a pretty objective opinion piece on the BBC at the moment.

 

[ainsworth74]

Odd community? she destroyed most of the industrial heartland for gods sake! destroyed thousands of lives and families of which some have never recovered. some necessary yes. The destruction of Englands industrial heartland? no way

And the thirty years (indeed much more than that even) of managerial incompetence, union obstructionism and government 'let the next lot worry about it' had nothing to do with it? Much of British industry was already dead by the time Thatcher came to power, her action was akin to pulling the plug on a patient on life support. If these industries had been profitable/successful they would never have shut in the first place once the state support was removed. But they weren't and in many cases were never going to be again.

By all means attack the failure to properly deal with the aftermath of the closures (lack of retraining, ect), I certainly do, but to suggest that she, alone, destroyed British industry is at best simplistic and at worst wrong.

 

[Johnuk123]

Odd community? she destroyed most of the industrial heartland for gods sake! destroyed thousands of lives and families of which some have never recovered. some necessary yes. The destruction of Englands industrial heartland? no way

Don't you think that Far Eastern countries paying slave wages had something to do with that.

It's still going on now,we can't compete with labour being paid in a week what is earned in an hour here and it's been that way for at least 30 years.

Margaret Thatcher wasn't by any means perfect but if you honestly think she got up one morning and said "Today I will destroy thousands of lives" you're more deluded than you appear to be.

 

[balne-wonderer]

the Unions, the strikes etc, that's just fumes lets be honest. She had her agenda, to destroy the Northern working classes and she did that. The right to buy of which she is so complimented for in the south was just another way of rubbing Northern noses in the dirt. She knew all those people she had put out of work could not afford to buy their house, it was carrot on a stick many could never eat.

Lets not forget how foreign coal was stock piled on mass so she could close down the pits with the least disruption to supplies possible.

Whatever you claim about the industry not being profitable or the unions not helping, we are talking about human lives here, people's livelyhoods. All these people knew was mining, steel works, heavy industry. They lost everything. The Thatcher regime did nothing to get these people back into employment, there was nothing for the North, all funding was in the South. Southern coppers were sent up North on massive overtime paid for by Thatcher to batter the life out of people that were on the bread line. The people who lost their jobs were left to rot, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, just like the Tories want.

The legacy of her reign is still felt today. You have to appreciate the culture of these places and those un-affected by Thatchers rule never will. It's sad but we can't change history.

 

[SS4]

So because some people don't like her, she shouldn't be given a funeral an ex-prime minister and had been in that role for a long time is entitled to? There are many who didn't like Diana, should she never have been given the funeral she had in 1997 and all the associated coverage? Not everyone liked Winston Churchill, maybe he shouldn't have been given state funeral with what was considered extensive coverage at the time?

Before someone jumps in with the argument that many more people disliked Thatcher, where do you draw the line? Who should be given the responsibility of deciding whether that line had been crossed or not? What would that person use as supporting evidence?

Does this mean Blair will get a similar funeral when it's his turn? For the funeral itself I think it should be left wholly up to the family to decide.

She is given extensive coverage because she is an ex-prime minister who had served this country for 11 years. Her death is big news, both domestically and internationally. She is only given what is appropriate to the job she had. If people don't want to watch it, the solution is simple. Turn off your TV or switch to a different channel. There are people who do want to watch it (me not included btw) and they are entitled to do so.

She was a servant of this country, not a saint which is what most reports would have you think due to needing to avoid to be seen speaking ill of the dead (self-censorship is just fine thanks for asking). Central News, from what I seen, interviewed Ken Clarke who gave glowing praise and some of the people of Grantham who also praised her. Nobody that I saw made a negative comment.

It's impossible to avoid coverage by the way. TV is not the only medium carrying this story, you can't listen to the radio news (hourly or more), the newspapers or from what colleagues/customers say on the matter. It is naive to suggest one can simply "switch off" whilst maintaining a normal life

 

[Butts]

Odd community? she destroyed most of the industrial heartland for gods sake! destroyed thousands of lives and families of which some have never recovered. some necessary yes. The destruction of Englands industrial heartland? no way

So nothing happened in Wales or Scotland ???

 

[balne-wonderer]

[/B]

So nothing happened in Wales or Scotland ???

I'm sure he is making the same point as me, I can only comment on what i've seen with my own eyes and that is my Yorkshire homeland.

I can't speak for Wales or Scotland, although mentioning them would add weight to my own arguement it would be unfair too as I don't know all the facts in those areas.

 

[Butts]

I'm sure he is making the same point as me, I can only comment on what i've seen with my own eyes and that is my Yorkshire homeland.

I can't speak for Wales or Scotland, although mentioning them would add weight to my own arguement it would be unfair too as I don't know all the facts in those areas.

Well I've been in Yorkshire recently and York, Leeds and Harrogate are not showing much sign of poverty as far as I can see.

 

[balne-wonderer]

Well I've been in Yorkshire recently and York, Leeds and Harrogate are not showing much sign of poverty as far as I can see.

You need to read back on the posts Butts. Try the Dearne Valley or as mentioned, simply South Yorkshire in general. From your comments you'd clearly be in for one hell of a shock, I suspect you know very little and unlike me who refused to comment on other areas, it appears unwise you commented on Yorkshire. And I honestly mean that mate, it is not a pretty site and it saddens me to the core.

Forget North Yorkshire, how many mines do you know up there...!

 

[table38]

Also remember the decline in the coal mining industry started well before Thatcher. Harold Wilson's government shut far more pits than she did.

406 pits closed in the 1960s, with 315,000 job losses
146 closed in the 1980s, with 173,000 jobs lost

 

[12CSVT]

I have heard it said that she was to the country at large what Beeching was to the British railway system. Anyone with any thoughts on that point ?

I'd say Option A of the Serpell report (had it been implemented) would be a more accurate comparison.

 

[ainsworth74]

Lets not forget how foreign coal was stock piled on mass so she could close down the pits with the least disruption to supplies possible.

One interpretation.

An alternative is that in the aftermath of the near strike in 1981 there was a realisation that ensuring large stockpiles of coal were maintained were necessary to ensure that the NUM couldn't easily force the government to back down. Had a strike occurred in 1981 the NUM would have won. Rapidly.

With the need to reform the coal industry still paramount and the knowledge that, at the very least, the Yorkshire branches of the NUM would oppose any pit closure (unless it was caused by exhaustion or geological difficulties), even those that could never be made economic, it was pragmatic to ensure that stockpiles of coal were high. Sure enough when the NCB came with their proposal to close twenty uneconomic pits in 1984, Scargill and elements of the NUM went on strike.

Also most of the coal that was stockpiled before the strike was British.

Just an alternative view point to the stockpiling of coal

 

[Butts]

You need to read back on the posts Butts. Try the Dearne Valley or as mentioned, simply South Yorkshire in general. From your comments you'd clearly be in for one hell of a shock, I suspect you know very little and unlike me who refused to comment on other areas, it appears unwise you commented on Yorkshire. And I honestly mean that mate, it is not a pretty site and it saddens me to the core.

Forget North Yorkshire, how many mines do you know up there...!

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the "poverty pockets" in Yorkshire or anywhere else.

Are you suggesting The Dearne Valley has never recovered from the loss of the pits ? Is there a high rate of unemployment there and or social deprivation?

Surely not everyone worked in mining , what about all the Public Sector workers who lived there ?

 

[bb21]

the Unions, the strikes etc, that's just fumes lets be honest. She had her agenda, to destroy the Northern working classes and she did that.

I don't know if you have evidence to back this claim up or just a general rant. How does destroying the working class benefit her? Why would she want to do that?

Lets not forget how foreign coal was stock piled on mass so she could close down the pits with the least disruption to supplies possible.

Is it really beneficial if the country was brought to a halt again with a 3-day week imposed? It would completely ruin the economy and no one will have anything left if that happens. The consequence will be even more severe. I for one think that she did the right thing by stockpiling on coal.

The Thatcher regime did nothing to get these people back into employment, there was nothing for the North, all funding was in the South.

I, and many others, agree that this is probably her biggest mistake in the whole process. She is not perfect, and no one argued that she is.

the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, just like the Tories want.

Not exclusively a phenomenon under the Tories. Look around the world and I challenge you to find one counter example.

The legacy of her reign is still felt today. You have to appreciate the culture of these places and those un-affected by Thatchers rule never will. It's sad but we can't change history.

We can't, and people don't have to appreciate what she did. What some of us are saying is that you cannot pin all the blame on her and simply blame her for the demise of many industries.

Does this mean Blair will get a similar funeral when it's his turn? For the funeral itself I think it should be left wholly up to the family to decide.

Yes, I think he should. There are many decisions he made which I don't agree with but he has also served as PM for 10 years. If such a funeral is fit for someone who has served as PM for that long then of course he should.

She was a servant of this country, not a saint which is what most reports would have you think due to needing to avoid to be seen speaking ill of the dead (self-censorship is just fine thanks for asking).

I don't think anyone in this thread claimed that she was a saint and is perfect. What a lot of people are asking for is some respect at someone's death. There is absolutely no requirement not to speak ill of the dead. Debate her rights and wrongs all you want, but dancing in celebration is not appropriate imo.

Central News, from what I seen, interviewed Ken Clarke who gave glowing praise and some of the people of Grantham who also praised her. Nobody that I saw made a negative comment.

Serves you right watching that shower. Maybe you should submit a letter of complaint to ITV.

It's impossible to avoid coverage by the way. TV is not the only medium carrying this story, you can't listen to the radio news (hourly or more), the newspapers or from what colleagues/customers say on the matter. It is naive to suggest one can simply "switch off" whilst maintaining a normal life

You can't avoid it. I never said that, but you can do a lot of things to reduce your exposure. It is a big event and it is life that there will be a lot of publicity, and we can't change that.