That was pretty much just Dio, and he was roundly condemned, and not just by people like you.
First thing I thought of too.
And I (me?) as well.
I think she and Reagan did more damage to the working- and underclass in their respective countries than anybody before or since. And I’m not just an Elvis Costello fan - I share his sentiments about her.
Time to cue up “Pills and Soap” and “Tramp the Dirt Down” (and maybe “Stand Down Margaret” and “Madame Medusa”) on the mp3 player.
casdave, great post.
I will mourn her. She was the second-greatest British politician of the 20th Century after Churchill. She and Churchill dominated 20th Century British politics. She dragged Britain from the mire and set us on the road to success. Yes, it was painful; yes it was necessary. She, along with Reagan and Pope John Paul II, played a pivotal role in the defeat of the Soviet Union.
But with the Poll Tax she royally fucked up. She failed to sort out the issue of Europe within the Conservative Party. And she stayed too long.
casdave, alas, is remembering the nationalised industries with rose-tinted glasses. British industry, particularly the nationalised industry, was ruined by the unions. The British car industry was heavily subsidised by the state and was ruined by the likes of Red Robbo and incessant car strikes, and by poor quality products. The British shipbuilding and docks industries were ruined by strikes. My father saw this first-hand. Arthur Scargill did more to destroy the mining industry - which was also subsidised - than Mrs Thatcher: he openly wanted to bring down the government, just as they did in the early 1970s - I remember the power cuts. Until Mrs Thatcher’s reforms you had to wait months for a phone line. And the list goes on.
Her medicine was hard, but it was made harder by the fight of the unions. Had they acquiesced, there would have been a lot less disruption. Less mines would have closed for starters.
And it’s no use blaming her for people making huge profits from privatisations: more recent privatisations, like that of DERA / Qinetiq, show that the Civil Service is to blame for that.
As for the Falklands, remember that it was the Argentines that actually invaded. Their choice, not Mrs Thatcher’s. And Lord Carrington’s responsibility on our side, not hers. And he took responsibility and resigned. The successful recapture of the Falklands was a significant event in the fight against the Soviet Union. It gave us hope. It showed the Soviet Union that we would not back down. Contrariwise, had we failed then the malaise would have deepened. I saw the change in the public’s morale; I can only assume casdave, being in the navy, was somewhat insulated from it.
casdave is also forgetting that initially she was not terribly secure (or did not feel so) in her position. Only after the Falklands and the miners’ strike was she secure.
She thoroughly deserves a state funeral.
Like I said, I won’t defend the whole Thatcher record. But it occurs to me that you justify ownership of these industries by the state by the fact that the state made money - never mind that competition was stifled and that the consumer was hurt.
Sure, the state made out like a bandit with the telecoms industry, like AT&T did when they were a regulated monopoly here. But when businesses and individuals alike ration their long-distance calls and cables, that’s small comfort. Same with British Airways - it may be struggling now, but the air traveler is far better off since Virgin and Ryanair are flying.
As for cronyism, who got to head up all of those companies when they were state owned for decades? Wasn’t it ex-politicians and the connected wealthy?
The Left hated Thatcher and all she stood for with a virulent passion all through the Eighties - when they were still entertaining fantasies of a general strike and a workers’ revolution (and as a sometime Civil Service union branch secretary, I wot whereof I speak, tho’ I was never a leftie). But the basic fact was that the country didn’t want to elect them, wasn’t about to elect them, and only elected New Labour after it had become Tory Lite.
I remember Britain’s industrial relations record throughout the pre-Thatcherite 1970s; it was enough to make us the laughing-stock of Europe. I remember the can’t-be-arsed nationalised industries and how it took months to get a phone installed. I remember how electricity, coal and postal strikes were almost annual events, and I remember a bunch of thugs dropping a chunk of masonry off a bridge onto a blackleg’s car and the local Socialist bookshop owner coming round with a petition to have them pardoned for the resulting death. Now it’s hard to believe that the Trades Union Congress was once mentioned in the same breath as the democratically elected government, but that’s how it used to be.
Whatever evils may be laid at Thatcher’s door, I’m mighty glad Foot and Kinnock never got into Number 10.
What evidence do you have for any of these claims? 
Thatcher’s economic knowledge was pitiful. She espoused Monetarism (and the poll tax), which were instantly dropped when she was forced out by her own party.
The Falklands were a tiny island thousands of miles away, with a few sheepfarmers. By an accident of history, they were British.
After some fruitless negotiations about transfer of power Thatcher’s Government withdrew a gunboat or two from patrol. The Argentinians thought they would be welcomed and invaded.
Thatcher sent a force and recaptured the islands. Since we had total control of the seas (so no Argentinian reinforcements) and nuclear weapons, plus the support of the US, it shouldn’t have been difficult. (but see below)
You’re joking, aren’t you? :rolleyes:
The Soviet Union would have been amused that it took us months to recapture some poxy islands from a few unsupported troops.
We took heavy ship casualties from a few missiles. If a couple more missiles had got through, we would have abandoned the whole mission.
The Soviet Union collapsed due to things like:
- a crap economy
- the failed war in Afghanistan (and too much military spending)
- the desire for more reform (as started by Gorbachev)
- reform parties in the Warsaw Pact nations (e.g. Solidarity in Poland)
Thatcher had as much to do with it as Winnie the Pooh.
I wish my hatred of Thatcher would choke her as surely as it chokes me.
Exactly which version of history have you been reading, glee? Your ignorance starts with not knowing that the Argentine Junta invaded the Falklands to distract the populace from issues at home and gets worse. Go and do some reading.
[ul]
[li] The UK ship manufacturing industry didn’t collapse because of chronic underfunding, it collapsed because it couldn’t compete with the likes of Japan and South Korea.[/li][li] A service economy doesn’t translate into simply pushing shares around at all. That’s bullshit. Moreover, a service economy is inevitable when you have a large pool of educated citizens and competing with countries that can manufacture a product for a tenth of the cost that you can. Not only that, but a service economy is desirable. The money’s in designing a microprocessor, not in manufacturing it.[/li][li] Bemoaning the loss of industry while talking about the north-south divide is ironic. Let’s shove all the northerners down a pit and choke their towns with heavy industry.[/li][/ul]
Oh I’m sorry. 
After you claimed that Thatcher had ‘played a pivotal role in the defeat of the Soviet Union’, I assumed your knowledge of history was nil. :smack:
(If you do have evidence to back up this silly claim, feel free to present it.)
And since you think there was precisely one cause to the Falklands invasion, allow me to enlighten you with some details:
1967
Labour Foreign Secretary George Brown opens sovereignty talks with Argentine Foreign Minister, stating Britain prepared to forego sovereignty if assured the Islanders’ rights and way of life will be preserved;
1971
Argentina agrees temporarily to shelve their claim to sovereignty while they try to win Islanders over;
1973
Newly-elected Argentine Peronist government renews sovereignty claim in the UN which passes Resolution 3160 urging sovereignty negotiations;
1976
UN Resolution 31/49 urges sovereignty negotiations, and talks between Britain and Argentina resume;
1977
Newly-elected British Labour government re-opens sovereignty negotiations and sends Minister of State Edward Rowlands to Islands to obtain Islanders’ views;
1980
New talks held between Britain and Argentina in April;
Minister of State Nicholas Ridley visits to discuss sovereignty dispute but fails to persuade Islanders to accept ‘leaseback’ proposal;
1981
British Nationality Act removes British nationality from any Falkland Islander who does not have a parent or grandparent born in Britain;
Argentina protests to UN over lack of progress on sovereignty dispute;
Military junta led by General Galtieri seizes power in Argentina;
British government announce that HMS Endurance is to be withdrawn from the Islands;
Plans to rebuild the British Marine barracks at Moody Brook are shelved;
1982
Britain and Argentina resume sovereignty negotiations;
Argentine newspapers threaten military action if talks do not produce results soon
…
Argentina invades
I’m aware of those. And Argentina’s claim goes back way beyond what you show. I was giving the proximate cause, not the whole story.
And yes, Mrs Thatcher was pivotal in the fall of the Soviet Union. Perhaps you’ve forgotten her relationship with Mr Gorbachev? Perhaps you’ve forgotten the relationship between the unions and the Soviet Union? You do recall that Arthur Scargill was an honoured guest when he went over there, don’t you? You do recall Mrs Thatcher’s support of Solidarity, don’t you?
Mrs Thatcher made some pretty serious mistakes, but it is wrong to deny her her successes.
There are innumerable horrible leaders who’ve been successful in at least some endeavors - the real question is whether their successes outweighed their general horribleness. In the case of Thatcher/Reagan, my opinion is that they didn’t.
I for one will mourn as I mourned Reagan’s passing: not enough time living while suffering dementia for all the suffering they and theirs joyously inflicted on the weak, poor and mentally ill because it would save the rich and powerful money. While de-nationalizing industries and privatization were worthwhile ideas that needed to be reintroduced, the degree with which it was used to cruelly hurt the most vulnerable was despicable and showed no restraint.
They didn’t have “total control of the seas,” as long as the Argentine air force had an effective standoff anti-ship weapon. You don’t have total control of anything when the other guy has a weapon you can’t stop.
You are forgetting a few incidents yourself, one of those:
1833
England invades the islands, expell the argentinian goverment and occupies the islands.
I am aware that the sovereignity issue is not that simple and that hundreds of books were written to defend the position of each country but (i) England was the first to use force to settle the argument, and it wasn’t the first time it employed armed forces against us (ii) Argentina never resigned it’s rights (iii) The UN asked both countries repeatedly to negotiate and (iv) England refused repeatedly.
Sorry for the hijack.
Back to the op and in someway related to my hijack, when the bitch dies I will do exactly the same that I did when this fucker died: I will put on my dancing shoes, grab a mojito and start the party. Between the two of them they managed to kill almost 1000 mostly young men.
They didn’t have “total control of the seas,” as long as the Argentine air force had an effective standoff anti-ship weapon. You don’t have total control of anything when the other guy has a weapon you can’t stop.
There was nothing to discuss. If you think selling out British citizens to a far right Junta just to avoid a war gives you some sort of moral standing, you’re a fucking idiot. The Falkland Island’s are British and the Falklanders overwhelmingly want them to remain British.
Margaret Thatcher is going to burn in hell for what she did to Rhodesia. After the country was briefly re-classified as a British colony, she and the British governing body she installed in Rhodesia allowed Mugabe to take over through a completely fraudulent election combined with a campaign of the most brutal terrorism against anyone who opposed ZANU. The results of this horrific crime of omission speak for themselves. This happened on her watch, and now everyone is paying the price. Jimmy Carter, the spineless worm, also did nothing. All of those people who stood by and did nothing are as culpable as Mugabe himself as far as I am concerned. More so, since they had the whole military might of the Western world at their disposal! Thatcher is a savage. Actually, that’s an insult to savages.