|
Location: sunny south
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 18,200
|
17-07-2008, 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by Helena54 
The thing I liked most about her, was how she called their bluff, the unions who were holding the country to ransome as they had done for sooooo many generations. She wanted everyone to have the chance of making a good life for themselves by offering them their council housing and most sensible peops jumped at the chance of getting on the housing ladder as Colin has stated.
Oh to be in her position if you owned a large consortium and all your workers wanted to walk out coz they weren't happy with their sarnies in the canteen or something just as menial, and I'd just love to say, ok go ahead then, I'll get some peops in who DO want your jobs - perfect, and I'd DO It too! Then watch them crying in their tea when they're out of work and have to live on a pittance I'd hand out as benefit. Things should be like they were once before, where you valued your job, you were grateful for it, you were happy when you got your weekly wage packet, and happy with your lot! Everyone's too darn greedy in this day and age, they want more, more more
That's probably why we've ended up in the state we're in, too many greedy b*stards taking off the cream and too many work shirkers who want paying for slacking around in work, constantly moaning about their woe's and jumping at the chance to strike for more! She had b*lls that woman, she stood up to everyone, hence her name the Iron Lady, I salute her!
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
17-07-2008, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by Colin
Yes she should have a state funeral, because in my opinion she has been without doubt the best PM this country has had since Winston Churchill.
Lets face it she didn't take any crap from the trades unions or Argentina. She helped thaw in East-West relations to end the Cold War.
The other thing that she did was look after the self employed worker and those that wanted to work for a living.
Originally Posted by nickyboy
youd have a party to celebrate someone dying - did she kill anyone?
Originally Posted by Colin
Well they only had themselves to blame because the National Union of Mineworkers wouldn't accept that it was not worth this government keeping open any unprofitable mines, plus most of the mines required increased mechanisation to increase their profitability.
Originally Posted by nickyboy
well lets say you lived down south and were relatively poor and objected to what tax you did pay subsidising non profitable mines?
Do you think the divide between the haves and have nots were greater then or less than they are now ? How sustainable will the hundreds of thousands of makeshift civil service jobs be under this present government should the country teeter and stumble into a recession? They may last as a flailing labour cant afford to dump the votes it bought by creating the jobs in the first place - but they will need to go afterwards.
Has this socialist government not betrayed people by pension raids, stealth taxes and running roughshod over the country? Much of this was done in times of unpresidented national and global prosperity by socialists who thought they knew better how to spend our money than we do- not a country re-dawning after years of union induced bankruptcy on Mrs T's watch which needed drastic action and strong and sometimes unpopular decisions?
She handed the poor and working classes of society the best gilt edged opportunity to prosper by giving them the one thing they never had before - the opportunity to be kings of their own castle - a move as revolutionary and barrier reducing as anything before or since.
A great woman with a bigger jonson than any other bloke in modern history
As for the gap between the haves and have nots...it's far greater now thanks to policies Thatcher put in place.
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
Very true. but i wonder how you can then bemoan this present socialist gov in an earlier post? Surely tahts a contradiction?
there is nothing socialist about New Labour...Blair or Brown.
Blair particulalry was a Tory with Thatcherite tendancies.
She shouldn't have a state funeral no, as it would ultimately be made a mockery of.
|
|
|
|
Location: sunny south
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 18,200
|
17-07-2008, 12:39 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble
Except the miners, possibly one of the hardest owrking groups of people in the country...she didn't look after them.
A few people in Argentina...
She destroyed, single handedly, entire communities and they are still suffering to date. The whole area around pits went downhill rapidly once the pits shut and I know personally many people who are still suffering.
What socialist government? Did I miss a socialist government???????? You're surely not referring to Blair and Brown are you??? Socialist???
As for the gap between the haves and have nots...it's far greater now thanks to policies Thatcher put in place.
Here here.
She shouldn't have a state funeral no, as it would ultimately be made a mockery of.
|
|
|
|
Location: sunny south
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 18,200
|
17-07-2008, 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble
Ditto.
Thatcher was one of the worst things to ever happen to this country.
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
17-07-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by Inca
my dad was telling me this morning a lot more about it .....devestating his words she crippled the country through greed
|
|
|
Location: South East UK
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 27,437
|
17-07-2008, 01:00 PM
|
|
|
Location: kent, uk
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 487
|
17-07-2008, 01:00 PM
But are you sure Blair doesnt label himself a socialist STILL, someone better tell his wife Cherie, while promoting her book she said both she and her husband were in a Martin Kettle piece in the Guardian earlier this year - or was that in trur Blair fashion just a gimmick to sell to the Socialist punter?
My point is that they all at the time of Thatcher were under the banner of socialism and he very much promoted himself as a Labour leader to appeal to that demographic, dancing happily side by side with Kinnock to things can only get better on victory night. But he is a shwred man and doesnt us the word for one reason, contradiction and more importantly he doesnt want to goose the middle ground voter who were predominantly tory until the Major government disillusioned them.
Yeah he was a reformer but if he is a man of conviction he is a reformer and a socialist one and he surrounded himself not just with people like Mandelson, but old socialist stalwarts like that raging cretin Prescott and Brown. Brown never instilled his socialistic views on the treasury because it was workin too well when he inherited it and his pension raids and gold sell off are no better a legacy than the privatisation era of Thatcher, in fact they were worse because they could have both been avoided.
Yeah Blair did a great job of saving Labour from the brink of oblivion by 'reforming' it - but now we know Blairs track record was the reform a change of thought or a means to an end - the end being the place in no.10 ( whods door he had painted red haha !! )- I wouldnt trust the man as far as I could throw him and as a result im happy to plump for the latter.
Cameron's first attempts to 'modernise' the conservative party are very hit and miss in my opinion - im still not sure if hes singing because he loves singing or because he wants to be a pop star a la Tony Blair - Mrs T loved singing in my opinion and thats the difference - Cameron doesnt need to modernise - he needs to go back to basics and the great lady is the best blueprint for that because IMO her politics was a lot more honest back then.
|
|
|
|
Location: South East UK
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 27,437
|
17-07-2008, 01:01 PM
Originally Posted by Inca
its not often am shocked but thats left me speechless
Which bit??? All of it??? I don't like Unions, never have, I don't like the way they bring the country to ransome. If you want more money go and ask your boss, don't cripple the whole country over it!
|
|