Margaret Thatcher dies after stroke

[Greg Bernhardt]

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died Monday following a stroke, her spokeswoman confirmed.
Britain's only female prime minister, Thatcher served from 1979 to 1990 as leader of the Conservative Party. She was called the "Iron Lady" for her personal and political toughness.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/world/europe/uk-margaret-thatcher-dead/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

 

[phinds]

My favorite story about the Iron Lady is this.

She was notoriously contemptuous of what she viewed as some of the weak males around her and very early in her tenure, she took her cabinet out to dinner. She, being the only female in the room and seated at the head of the table was the first one addressed by the waiter.

"Will madam have the steak of the fish this evening"
"The steak, please"
"And for madam's vegetables this evening?"
"Oh, give them the fish".

 

[arildno]

She had a magnetic, strong personality and a degree of honesty more politicians should aspire to, even if they lack the two previous elements.

Whatever one thinks about her politics.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Death is never something to be celebrated but I can't honestly say I'll miss her. It's a shame Thatcherism didn't die with her.

 

[cristo]

Its very easy to look and admire someone from the outside. To those who lived under her, and whose lives she destroyed, there is no admiration.

But, I shouldn't comment more on this.

 

[arildno]

Since the 1970s labour unions destroyed a lot more people due to their irresponsibilities, whatever "sins" M.T. had pale in comparison.

 

[Borek]

She (or more precisely her visa policy) is responsible for the fact I am married.

Edit: spelling corrected.

 

[epenguin]

She (or more precisely her visa politics) is responsible for the fact I am married.

She should not be blamed for something she could not have foreseen.

 

[AlephZero]

Thatcher didn't destroy trade unionism in the UK. She just gave their leaders the opportunity to destroy themselves.

 

[arildno]

Thatcher didn't destroy trade unionism in the UK. She just gave their leaders the opportunity to destroy themselves.

And good riddance to them, to the unilateral benefit to the rest of the country

 

[phinds]

I heard on satellite radio this morning that even today you can start a vehement argument in England as to whether Thatcherism was a good thing or a bad thing. This thread certainly supports that likelihood.

Lighten up, folks. She's DEAD.

 

[aquitaine]

Death is never something to be celebrated but I can't honestly say I'll miss her. It's a shame Thatcherism didn't die with her.

If it wasn't for her policies the Winter of Discontent and seemingly terminal economic decline would have lasted much longer than it did. The central planning and socialism in the UK and abroad were dying in the 1970's and 80's, but despite this the only alternative to the wholesale reforms proposed by Thatcher and other leaders like her was just more of the same.

 

[lisab]

C'mon, folks - let's keep it civil.

 

[JesseC]

I hope this isn't too serious a topic to add this link:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/northern-britain-already-hammered-2013040865062

Because it is scarily close to the truth:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-party-brixton-glasgow

Goes to show how decisive she was.

 

[arildno]

From JesseCs link:
"Clive Barger, a 62-year-old adult education tutor, said he had turned out to mark the passing of "one of the vilest abominations of social and economic history"."
---------------------
Until Clive Barger dies himself, of course.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Good riddance.

I heard on satellite radio this morning that even today you can start a vehement argument in England as to whether Thatcherism was a good thing or a bad thing. This thread certainly supports that likelihood.

Lighten up, folks. She's DEAD.

I will never understand the reservation that is held towards discussing someone after they are dead, or that of criticizing those who are dead. It's as if the moment of death exempts someone from having any reprobation directed his or her way. The only definitive cases where this trend does not continue are those in which the deceased was an undoubtedly evil person. (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, [insert your favorite inducer of genocide here]).

 

[micromass]

Good riddance.



I will never understand the reservation that is held towards discussing someone after they are dead, or that of criticizing those who are dead. It's as if the moment of death exempts someone from having any reprobation directed his or her way. The only definitive cases where this trend does not continue are those in which the deceased was an undoubtedly evil person. (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, [insert your favorite inducer of genocide here]).

I agree 100%

 

[AlephZero]

I heard on satellite radio this morning that even today you can start a vehement argument in England as to whether Thatcherism was a good thing or a bad thing.

That's very true. It's hard to think of a comparable political example. Judging from PF threads, you could probably get the same level of reaction by debating USA gun control, or the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

But for those not in the UK (or too young to have been there) the miner's strike, possibly the most divisive event, was pretty much like a civil war in some of the mining communities, with mounted police trying to keep the peace between strike-breaking workers and nationally organized "flying pickets" - not just for a few days, but continuously for months on end.

The irony is that if the miners hadn't been led by a politically inept buffoon, they could most likely have won - though some of the losers still regard their former leader not as a buffoon but a minor deity.

 

[Forge]

Good riddance.
I will never understand the reservation that is held towards discussing someone after they are dead, or that of criticizing those who are dead. It's as if the moment of death exempts someone from having any reprobation directed his or her way. The only definitive cases where this trend does not continue are those in which the deceased was an undoubtedly evil person. (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, [insert your favorite inducer of genocide here]).

I think it's a matter of mutual respect and tolerance.

If someone passed away that you looked up to or are related to, would you like it if people celebrated?

Also, criticizing someone when they're dead feels similar to talking behind someone's back and/or being cowardly.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I think it's a matter of mutual respect and tolerance.

If someone passed away that you looked up to or are related to, would you like it if people celebrated?

Also, criticizing someone when they're dead feels similar to talking behind someone's back and/or being cowardly.

Quite frankly, if the concerns mentioned about my hypothetical deceased idol or family member were legitimate and factual, then how could I be against any of what they are saying? Throwing stupid emotions into the mix of what could possibly be rational discourse is the dumbest thing to do. If you think that the loved ones of Margaret Thatcher are, instead of mourning her loss and using each other for emotional support, busying themselves with what other people are saying about her postmortem, then any reasonable argument won't get through to you.

Where is the cowardice in discussion? Where is the cowardice in justified criticism? You might find cowardice in one who waited until after someone's death to criticize the deceased, but in any other situation, what is taking place is simply discourse. It's not gossip, it isn't an example of cowardice, and it certainly isn't impolite, it is merely a discussion about someone, who just so happens to be dead. Why this is so touchy and difficult to comprehend baffles me.

 

[JesseC]

Various newspaper front pages: http://sandsmediaservices.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/thatcher-regionals-capture-mood.html

 

[cristo]

I will never understand the reservation that is held towards discussing someone after they are dead, or that of criticizing those who are dead.

An interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette

That one should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant influence and political power. "Respecting the grief" of Thatcher's family members is appropriate if one is friends with them or attends a wake they organize, but the protocols are fundamentally different when it comes to public discourse about the person's life and political acts.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/sc...hp?newsID=1541
Alzheimer’s Society comments on the death of Margaret Thatcher

It has been announced that former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher has died today (Monday 8 April).

'It was well known that Baroness Thatcher had dementia during the last years of her life. Dementia is caused by brain diseases; the most common are Alzheimer’s and vascular dementia. One in three people over 65 will develop dementia but for too long dementia has been kept in the shadows and families have been left to struggle alone.

'Today, up and down the country people will be sharing memories of Baroness Thatcher. At this time we hope people will also reflect on the impact dementia can have on a person’s life. By speaking openly about the effects of the condition, we will begin to tackle some of the stigma that still surrounds dementia and ensure that everyone gets the support they deserve.'

I recall Thatcher mainly for the Falklands war and the fact she had dementia. My adoptive sister suffered and died of dementia, so I know something about it. It's bad.

Thatcher was also deeply involved in policy decisions which still affect the world today. There's no going back, but we should know how we got here.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Len M]

I have mixed feelings about her time in power – there is no question that something had to change in this country, the unions were rampant and strikes were common place, led in some instances by some very political union leaders.

But in changing the country we lost a generation, mining communities were ravaged with a brush that made no distinction between pits that had potential. Witness the subsequent buy out of one pit by the workers themselves despite it being part of this general closure – it went on for many years as a profitable concern and is now being developed using open cast methods and is contributing to the local economy in a manner that would never be contemplated by a multinational. Thatcher wanted to change inefficient working practices (and rightly so), but she attacked the problem as if we were at war, where human causalities were simply part of the battle. It’s hardly surprising that many of those casualties have bitter memories of that period and see her as an enemy who inflicted real damage to peoples lives.

A well rounded leader can make changes through strength, flexibility and compassion, Thatcher only had one of those attributes - strength, and it ravaged the country. History seems to be judging her in terms of the right person being around at the right time and maybe she was. But I would never class her as a great leader, she lacked empathy with people who were innocently caught up in it all, but she was certainly a strong leader in the sense that she held black and white convictions and had the determination to follow them through no matter what.

 

[mheslep]

From JesseCs link:
"Clive Barger, a 62-year-old adult education tutor, said he had turned out to mark the passing of "one of the vilest abominations of social and economic history"."
---------------------
Until Clive Barger dies himself, of course.

Yet Clive lives on for now and continued to say ...

"It is a moment to remember. She embodied everything that was so elitist in terms of repressing people who had nothing. She presided over a class war."

Elitist defined in this case as

"Mrs. Thatcher... grew up in an apartment above her father's grocery store in Grantham, eastern England ... was schooled from an early age in an ethic of hard work and self-reliance. She grew up in a house with no hot water and an outdoor toilet."

 

[mheslep]

She (or more precisely her visa policy) is responsible for the fact I am married.

Edit: spelling corrected.

And likely responsible in part for the fact the Poland is no longer part of the Warsaw Pact; that there is no Warsaw Pact.

 

[Borek]

As we say in Poland - shirt is closer to the skin

 

[Astronuc]

And likely responsible in part for the fact the Poland is no longer part of the Warsaw Pact; that there is no Warsaw Pact.

No, not really. That was Andropov and Gorbachev. It had nothing to do with Reagan and Thatcher. There involvement is a popular myth in some circles. Reagan and Thatcher (and their respective intelligence organizations and foreign affairs bureaus) were pretty much clueless, and they were caught off-guard by the events and subsequent collapse of the SU and Warsaw pact. It was a bit like a doctor being unaware of a cancer in a patient who deteriorates rapidly.

 

[lisab]

No, not really. That was Andropov and Gorbachev. It had nothing to do with Reagan and Thatcher. There involvement is a popular myth in some circles. Reagan and Thatcher (and their respective intelligence organizations and foreign affairs bureaus) were pretty much clueless, and they were caught off-guard by the events and subsequent collapse of the SU and Warsaw pact. It was a bit like a doctor being unaware of a cancer in a patient who deteriorates rapidly.

More like, a patient having a sudden "miracle cure" and the doc getting the credit .

 

[nsaspook]

Not everyone was blind but the huge amount of effort and money invested to make it happen created an inertia of belief that took a while to spin-down.

OCR scan of the original.
http://www.faqs.org/cia/docs/28/0000028820/WHY-IS-THE-WORLD-SO-DANGEROUS.html

 

[russ_watters]

More like, a patient having a sudden "miracle cure" and the doc getting the credit .

Except that in this case, they were actively "treating" the patient. Perhaps it is more like the doctors treating the patient while expecting him to die, then he suddenly gets better against the odds and their expectations.

It had nothing to do with Reagan and Thatcher. There involvement is a popular myth in some circles. Reagan and Thatcher (and their respective intelligence organizations and foreign affairs bureaus) were pretty much clueless, and they were caught off-guard by the events and subsequent collapse of the SU and Warsaw pact.

Just to be clear, is there is a specific "popular myth" about this? That they had a specific influence at the moment of collapse? Or are you downplaying the impact of their entire foreign policy WRT the USSR?

I will say though, I didn't realize some people had such a strong dislike toward Thatcher in the UK (not that I should: I'm not old enough to remember the '80s that well). I'm not sure anything comparable exists in the US toward Reagan except perhaps if you were an air traffic controller. I'm not sure there is a simple answer, but is this just the result of her being a conservative activist, privatizing industries? Any specific reasons for the hate?

 

[atyy]

As we say in Poland - shirt is closer to the skin

Closer than what Not the socks, surely ...

She had a magnetic, strong personality and a degree of honesty more politicians should aspire to, even if they lack the two previous elements.

I once heard a comment that she was so stubborn because she was a scientist.

 

[AlephZero]

I'm not sure there is a simple answer, but is this just the result of her being a conservative activist, privatizing industries? Any specific reasons for the hate?

I don't think privatization had much to do with it. Plenty of people were happy to make a quick buck from the share issues.

The second biggest reason was probably what caused her downfall - attempting to sort out the taxation system by introducing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Charge, as a flat-rate local tax. This led to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots and was modified by her successor (John Major) from a flat rate to a scale based on property values, which is still operating.

The biggest reason was probably trade union reform. The mining and steel industries had been nationalized by the labour government after WWII. In about 1970, the miners went on strike and won a 27% pay award. They then struck again for more, resulting in the the Tory prime minister (Heath) calling a general election and campaigning on the slogan "who governs Britain". Heath lost. Thatcher came to power after the following Labour governments, and the miners went for "third time lucky", ostensibly in protest about a proposal to close some pits (which were still nationalized). Arguably, the miner's union made several strategic and tactical errors, and the end result was the strike was abandoned after 12 months when the union ran out of money. The union had never held a national strike ballot, and operated a policy of secondary picketing which led to extreme violence. At one of the biggest secondary picket sites there were running battles between 10,000 pickets and 5,000 police that lasted for months.

Having broken the strike, and also having a huge parliamentary majority, Thatcher then rewrote the labour relations law to prevent any repeat of this sort of thing. And given that the economy had survived a 12-month coal strike with no great ill effects, the pit closure plans were revised: the original plan was to reduce 170 deep coal mines to 150. The revised version reduced the number from 170 to 3.

The hard line left wing still regard her as the antichrist - though in his 10 years in government, Blair made no attempt to repeal any of Thatcher's trade union legislation.

 

[mheslep]

No, not really. That was Andropov and Gorbachev. It had nothing to do with Reagan and Thatcher. There involvement is a popular myth in some circles. Reagan and Thatcher (and their respective intelligence organizations and foreign affairs bureaus) were pretty much clueless, and they were caught off-guard by the events and subsequent collapse of the SU and Warsaw pact. It was a bit like a doctor being unaware of a cancer in a patient who deteriorates rapidly.

The myth is that the collapse "...had nothing to do with Reagan and Thatcher". This is not to say the pair were wholly responsible for the collapse of a deeply flawed and corrupt system, but they had a great deal to do with the timing.

Reagan, unlike his predecessors, set out with deliberate intent to collapse the SU: a sharp reduction of oil prices, aggressive stance of US Naval power, SDI, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,159069,00.html, support for the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation, direct support for and mention of dissidents inside the SU, etc.

Edit:
Here's a video of Thatcher visiting communist Poland in 1988. While there, she demanded to see Solidarity leader Lech Walesa. See sailed into the shipyard in Gdansk, causing a near riot of shipyard workers who rallied to see her, and laid a wreath at the monument to shipyard workers killed in 1970 by Polish security forces.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/video/qt/mini_p02_09_300.html

Whatever else one might say about this kind of engagement, it was directly opposed to the go-along policy of former PMs like Heath, Wilson, and Callaghan. Same goes for Reagan's predecessors. With the help of a Ford, a Carter, and perhaps a Heath instead of Reagan/Thatcher, then Wojciech Jaruzelski's descendants might still be clinging to power in a communist Poland ala North Korea.

Lech Walesa's opinion of the impact of Thatcher on the Polish Solidarity movement:

Without this meeting there would have been *no* victory, that's for sure. There would have been delay, greater difficulties, or even our destruction

 

[aquitaine]

Here's a video of Thatcher visiting communist Poland in 1988. While there, she demanded to see Solidarity leader Lech Walesa. See sailed into the shipyard in Gdansk, causing a near riot of shipyard workers who rallied to see her, and laid a wreath at the monument to shipyard workers killed in 1970 by Polish security forces.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandinghe...02_09_300.html

Whatever else one might say about this kind of engagement, it was directly opposed to the go-along policy of former PMs like Heath, Wilson, and Callaghan. Same goes for Reagan's predecessors. With the help of a Ford, a Carter, and perhaps a Heath instead of Reagan/Thatcher, then Wojciech Jaruzelski's descendants might still be clinging to power in a communist Poland ala North Korea.

Ah, The Commanding Heights. An excellent documentary on the economic history of the 20th century. It did talk a lot about Thatcher and Reagan's reforms as well as the collapse of socialism and communism and the role their policies played in hurrying it along.