With Margaret Thatcher's death, a great personality who profoundly marked the history of her country during the eleven and a half years she was the Prime Minister of Great Britain, has gone. Throughout her public life, with the conservative beliefs that she fully assumed, she nurtured the influence of the United Kingdom and the defence of its interests.
The relations she maintained with France were always frank and loyal. She knew how to build a constructive and fruitful dialogue with François Mitterrand. Together, they set about reinforcing the ties between our two countries. It was in that era that Mme Thatcher gave the decisive push to the construction of the Channel tunnel.
The president of the Republic would like to express his strong and sincere condolences to the family and friends of Margaret Thatcher and address the British people in a spirit of solidarity.
- François Hollande
That's interesting, since I was under the impression that she and Mitterrand were complete polar opposites in their policies. But it's always nice to see kind words from foreign powers.
On April 09 2013 00:04 hzflank wrote: I am a little disgusted that Thatcher still gets so much support. She did more to harm the UK than any other single person since Hitler.
User was warned for this post
Do please add some content to that statement, maybe a little less on the ridiculous hyperbole and some substance; seems both the moderator and myself (and probably many people) seemingly think making statements of comparison between Thatcher and Hitler deserves a smack down but perhaps we're all wrong and you can show us the way.
I'm kind of surprised to see so many people who are such valiant economically inclined people claiming Thatcher relatively destroyed Britain's unionism and pushed crippling blows on the middle class... Don't get me wrong, unions are great in theory but let's look no further then the United States to see how terrible unionism can corrupt itself inward. You can ask the majority of the community within economics and political finances regarding Britain's near economic collapse and see who they mention as the polarizing figure that turned their course, that would involve some studying though and most people today read a single quote on Facebook about the terrible corporations and clap their hands together with that perspective without any actual research of their own.
No ones saying that you can't speak ill of the dead they're just saying don't be a dick about it. One liners are just as bad as any other one liner no matter what little content is in it. Everything after that is just tact.
At 3 am she's still up working on her speech when an IRA bomb destroys much of her hotel, including her suite, and kills many innocent people. Just an hour after the attempt on her life she's on television showing the country she is still very much alive and capable of leadership. They open Marks and Spencer, a high street clothing shop, early so people can find something to wear and she goes on to the Conservative Party conference as planned, giving her first speech at 9:30 am.
"We suffered a tragedy not one of us could have thought would happen in our country. And we picked ourselves up and sorted ourselves out as all good British people do, and I thought, let us stand together for we are British! They were trying to destroy the fundamental freedom that is the birth-right of every British citizen, freedom, justice and democracy".
Yeah sure judge her on her abrasiveness and not her works
A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil.
Hard to disassociate the politician from the person, but RIP and condolences to her nearest and dearest.
Pissed off, as ever, by the media coverage today. It's basically 'she was a divisive figure', and subsequently they only get tributes and opinions from one side of that particular divide.
On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote: A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil.
I'm not sure if 'evil' is the correct term. I might be wrong but I like to put down their policies down to ignorance of the lives of those they negatively affect rather than a conscious decision to fuck people over. That said the latter is not necessarily not the case, but I find it easier to live with by discounting it
On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote: A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil.
Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full
"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"
What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong.
Socialists and other creatures of the Left are angry that she took them on on their own terms, ground them into a pulp, destroyed the sinecures and subsidies and distortions that had wrecked the economy during the 70s, and basically pwned the hidebound, reactionary Left over and over again. Now that she's incapable of rhetorically body-slamming them, the bile they kept inside for so long is being vomited out.
Baroness Thatcher was almost single-handedly responsible for halting the economic, social, and geopolitical decline of Britain that was started and supported by both parties in the post-war years. A decline that essentially re-started the instant New Labour and her successor Tories got into power.
Her greatest mistake was in believing that crushing Labour and being the force that externally pressured it into New Labour was a good thing; New Labour is just as bad as the old. And the Tories, policy-wise, have fallen all over themselves to be New Labour-lite.
Britain needs a new Iron Lady and there isn't one to be seen anywhere. Baroness Thatcher said she could not and would not stand to see Britain decline; thankfully for her, she isn't here anymore to see idiots like Clegg and Cameron and pretty much everyone in Labour drive Britain right into the ditch.
God give her soul the rest she wouldn't have wanted but certainly deserved.
On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote: A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
You know what they call on people who are part of a collective society? Sheeple
On April 09 2013 01:05 YMCApylons wrote: She also thought the Euro was a terrible idea.
RIP Margaret Thatcher, Iron Lady, more of a man than all the PMs who followed her combined. Sadly, your service will not be appreciated, because it's apparently cool to hate you.
It's always been a little bit cool to hate advocates of greed and violence. She used purely ideological rhetoric to promote welfare to the wealthy at the expense of welfare to the poor, even when it made no real fiscal sense. A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low business taxes, if not more. Business will exist as long as there is a demand for it -- what's more important is what actual good those businesses provide for society.
And yes, society is a real thing. Otherwise the word wouldn't exist. People are not islands onto themselves. We all impact each other in countless ways, and when you gouge programs that help the general welfare under the excuse that business "needs it", you're fostering an ignorant society. Businesses don't need anything. A business can't die of hunger, or even feel pain for that matter. Business without people is meaningless, and people without society are alone and helpless.
Kurt Vonnegut surely would have a fit to hear her denounce society as not being a real thing. Society is the best thing about humanity. Society is a recognition of each other's humanity.
She was old-school imperialist, in her actions and her rhetoric, putting her antiquated notion of Old England above the lives of innocent people, multiple times, in multiple scenarios.
Condolences to her family and real friends, but congratulations to the rest of the world. She was a tough lady. She appreciated a good fight. Do her the favor of not requesting people coddle her memory just because she's now a corpse.
On April 09 2013 02:10 Rossie wrote: A toxic, inhumane woman whose world view was typified by the statement: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families."
Everything that went wrong with the UK (housing crisis, banking crisis, lopsided dependence on the City, de-industrial revolution and the stricken communities created by it) was the direct result of her policies.
The only good thing I can say about her is that David Cameron is twice as evil.
Taken out of context as you would know if you'd looked into her history and politics at all before repeating such a often misquoted statement. Here it is in full
"They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"
What it means is that saying that something is "society's problem" or an obligation of society doesn't mean anything because society isn't a real person who can come in and fix everything for us. It's made up of individual men and women. You should take your meaningless, superficial and ultimately idiotic critique back to youtube comments where they belong.
I think it's somewhat misleading to suggest that that is the quote in full there.
What is wrong with the deterioration? I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”
On April 09 2013 02:21 mdb wrote: I`m very surprised so many british people didnt like her. I`ve always thought that she was highly respected in UK.
She had a massive effect on british society, moreso than any politician since Churchill. When this happens, there are always winners and losers. In Thatcher's case, the effect on those that lost out was swift and direct, due to the swift and direct action that she took. This explains why so many people hate her in the UK.
On April 09 2013 02:21 mdb wrote: I`m very surprised so many british people didnt like her. I`ve always thought that she was highly respected in UK.
She dismantled the failing foundations upon which many towns and people built their lives and they blamed her for the subsequent collapse. I don't think it's unreasonable to criticise the extent to which she did it, or the degree to which she was motivated by ideology rather than human concern, but you'd have to be delusional to think that the situation in the 1970s was sustainable. The crash was coming either way. Still, when everyone in a town is made unemployed at the same time and secondary and tertiary industries go out of work because they lack the custom to sustain themselves it's easy to hate the immediate source. I'll not deny there was real poverty in much of the country under Thatcher.
A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low taxes, if not more.
Britain had a strong, healthy, motivated workforce during the 1970s?
It's always been a little bit cool to hate advocates of greed and violence. She used purely ideological rhetoric to promote welfare to the wealthy at the expense of welfare to the poor, even when it made no real fiscal sense. A country needs a strong, healthy, and motivated workforce as much as it needs low taxes, if not more.
She was old-school imperialist, in her actions and her rhetoric, putting her antiquated notion of Old England above the lives of innocent people, multiple times, in multiple scenarios.
I must admit, Argentina and the USSR were fine countries doing no wrong and it's shameful how the Baroness bullied them, and how she was a violent imperialist [snort] and didn't care about innocent people [snigger] and had 'antiquated' [roflmao] views about 'Old England.' [don't get the vapors now!]
EPT
