Thatcher thread gets banned.

[10ClarionSt]

You see Krovo? Whenever anyone speaks the truth about Thatcher, it gets banned. Lots of things that people complain about in this country today are because of the Thatcher legacy. And whilst you wanted a debate, you haven't said anything about the vast profits that were made by the likes of Goldsmith and Rowland at the expense of peoples' jobs and communities. And what do you know? They were also friends of Dennis Thatcher! It stinks to high heaven. And Thatcher was a great PM? My 4rse!

[4GS]

47
And a life long Conservative, make that a lifelong Thatcherite Conservative.

Next question

[flip_flop]

"Falklands farce" Steve - how so?

[Kromovaracun]

Steve5:

Frankly, you're twisting information. The fact still remains that Thatcher won three elections fair and square. That's 3 more than Callaghan, about the same as Wilson, one more than Attlee, two more than Churchill.

The first the stupid voters saw it a novel idea to have a female PM, while Callaghan picked the wrong time for an election.

Actually the evidence suggests that more people thought Callaghan would be better as a PM. It also suggests that people overlooked this because they genuinely supported Thatcher's policies.

I love how you call the electorate 'stupid' in the one election where you can't pin an electoral victory on anything other than Thatcher's principles


The second was based on the glorification of the Falkland farce.

So Thatcher won an election based on a victory in war (which she did overhype). Wow. Stop the press. No democratic leader has ever done that before...

The third was aided & abetted by an idiotic Labour leader.

It's also pretty strong evidence that people didn't want to see the industries renationalised. Which is what Kinnock proposed.

So you're saying that Thatcher would have lost to a better Labour candidate? If so, like whom? Or is it Thatcher's fault that her opposition were incompetent too?

All in all you really seem to be trying to twist three free and fair democratic victories into some kind of falsity. Frankly, I could easily do the same for any election to make the victor look bad.

[legend004]

thgatcherism and the right to buy has put britain in the housing stock trouble they have today.
councils sold offf houses used the money .
they didnt invest it in rebuilding .the banks building societies made money on the loans , and working class folk became second rate middle class .
they had worroies about mortgages etc that they never had before .
they turned away from their roots and became tory sympathisers .
thatcher was cancerous and the sooner she expires the better.
as for the fortunes she and her family made , well its well documented.
money grabbing scum.



d t h ?

[flip_flop]

Another absolute cretinous moron hoping she dies. Why? Putting aside your flawed argument, she is no longer in power, she no longer has any say, she has not been PM for 18 years - why would you wish her dead?

I just don't get it.

Plank.

[Quinlad]

How can something die if it was never a living being in the first place?

[Kromovaracun]

Steve:

It is my own personal point of view, which is shared by some & dismissed by others

Fair enough. I rather assumed this was a kind of debate thread and thought you were joining in, sorry.

On the Wilson thing though:

Off the top of my head, Wilson won elections in 1964, 1966, and 1974. Is there one I'm missing?

Clarion:

Will respond once I've read your post.

[Kromovaracun]

You're telling me that was good?

Of course not. But it's not that simple and you well know it.

Nobody is happy about the unemployment or the impact on those communities. But the fact is that those communities were based around a severely outdated economic establishment which was in decline and, by that time, made no sense and were becoming rapidly unsustainable.

That's a far cry from saying that what happened to them was 'good'. It was a kind of open secret that someone would have to take on the unions and cut back the mines. Thatcher was the only person on the scene who was willing to take the political heat from it.

Worst of all were the people who were scofing at all the unemployed and deprived.

Here I agree with you. Yet I don't know of any evidence that Thatcher was one of them or could do anything about them. Ergo you can't really blame Thatcher because some people who had nasty viewpoints happened to like some of her policies. It's like blaming the Labour party because Communists happen to like some of their ideas.

[pusspuss]

when thatcher was in power you never knew if your job was safe as it turns out labour's 3rd term in office has finally put me out of work.the whole site shut down all jobs have gone to china and india. labour for the working class don't make me laugh.the firm i worked for had been on that site for over 130 years.thanks a lot mr brown

[jno]

Sorry to hear it, pusspuss, but I don't think it's Brown's fault. Jobs going abroad is a result of globalisation and the market economy. Socialist and even Tory governments used to operate more or less protectionist policies - protecting British jobs, partly by controlling the entry of cheap foreign imports into the country and money out (I think you used to be allowed to take out something like �20 a year, and it was entered in your passport). It was really Thatcher who opened the floodgates to the world, as British industry disintegrated. But I don't think you can blame her much either: she could perhaps have slowed globalisation rather than encouraging it, but I don't think in the end she could have stopped it. Things like the internet - and AB - are all part of it.

[Kromovaracun]

Apologies to Steve5, should he be reading this.

I was thinking about the Harold Wilson electoral victories thing yestarday, and I remembered that of course there were two elections in 1974. I always forget about the second one. So you're absolutely right, Wilson did get 4.