I've made it clear that whilst I have enormous admiration for Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister and Human Being, I disagreed with many of her policies, particularly her social ones, and never voted for her.

However, the main criticism - of her economic policies - I totally disagree with. For me the 80s were a terrific decade. I made a great deal of money and had enormous success on TV, in the papers, in publishing and in America.

Several aspects may indeed have sowed the seeds of disaster such as attitude towards bankers but every approach can go wrong in certain ways as the years become decades and what was perfect - indeed brilliant - for the 80s could be corrupted by the 90s and in the 00s.

The NHS was a great idea but we were bound to have certain hospitals fall apart. That doesn't mean Atlee's concept was bad.

Although I'm hugely pro European (and feel we should have been in the Euro from the start) I liked her hard nosed approach to the EU - we should be in it but under strict terms.

Unions had become far too powerful and utterly stupid - never seeing the future. She was right to challenge them but wrong in not backing alternatives more forcefully.

The NHS was a brilliant concept. The likes of Margaret Thatcher just don't approve of it so don't want to put money into it, in same way as she doesn't approve of free milk in schools, social housing, the minimum wage all these good or at the very least nice things that benefit ordinary people and make Britain a nice place to live.

I wonder how much SHE was getting paid?

Some people use the argument well I don't have kids or I've never been in hospital, without acknowledging that they were a kid themselves at one point and will probably end up needing to be in hospital one day or someone in their family might.

a bit weird admiring someone because they are PM but not liking their policies and not voting for them.

you are admitting to falling for the publicity...something you have spent your life getting others to do !

Day Eleven in the Big Blubber House, and Jonathan is still "in bits" over the loss of his close acquaintance Margaret Thatcher. After digging out old photos, novelty records and ancient ideologies, and watching TV for any reference at all to the ghastly old monster, he is still inconsolable and can only survive by boring the tits off everyone else with his wailing and weeping. Medical staff are on standby with an elephant gun loaded with industrial strength Diazepam, and, quite frankly, the sooner they use it the better!

She shouldn't really have been given a state funeral I don't think none of the other prime ministers have had one apart from Winston Churchill.

Thatcher's politics, 1979 - ongoing.

Vast growth in: Fraud Markets, Tax-Dodging, Bent Media, Corrupt Cops, Irresponsible Authorities, Unreliable Institutions, Compo Stalkers, False Allegations, Wrongful Convictions, Deregulation Disasters, Pirate-isations, Don't Care Health Care....and much more.

And the bad points are....

SweeTalk wrote:
Thatcher's politics, 1979 - ongoing.


at least she taught those bloody Welsh miners / unions who was boss !

# Britain now imports coal and China is the biggest market for coal in the world.

the important thing is : we are all Thatcherites now ! .( Frightening to think that bloke runs the country )

I got a free university education under the Tories.

I wouldn't have got one under Blair.

My university education allowed me to get work which meant I was putting ££££ back into the tax system.

Blair would have taxed me twice.

For me, the Tories might not be totally trustworthy, but they are generally the best of a very bad bunch.

steveimp wrote:
I got a free university education under the Tories.

I wouldn't have got one under Blair

True, but I don't think Margaret would have really wanted you to have that either.

Thatcher quotes:

"Too much education is not good for this country."

"There's no such thing as society."

SweeTalk wrote:
Thatcher quotes:

"Too much education is not good for this country."

"There's no such thing as society."

We have education rammed down our throats almost from birth and it continues through life with courses for this, exams for that, twenty-four hour television documentaries, information about most things at the touch of a Google and yet we have probably never been as gullible, malleable and downright stupid as we are today.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
SweeTalk wrote:
Thatcher quotes:

"Too much education is not good for this country."

"There's no such thing as society."

We have education rammed down our throats almost from birth and it continues through life with courses for this, exams for that, twenty-four hour television documentaries, information about most things at the touch of a Google and yet we have probably never been as gullible, malleable and downright stupid as we are today.

I started full time education at 4 years old.

I left it at the age of 22.

18 years. Am I well educated? God knows.

As for the 'society' line, it was taken out of context and still is!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
SweeTalk wrote:
Thatcher quotes:

"Too much education is not good for this country."

"There's no such thing as society."

We have education rammed down our throats almost from birth and it continues through life with courses for this, exams for that, twenty-four hour television documentaries, information about most things at the touch of a Google and yet we have probably never been as gullible, malleable and downright stupid as we are today.

I know, I think thats the one quote of hers I actually agree with.

"There's no such thing as society."

it was taken out of context but perhaps a Freudian Slip ?...she set out to ensure it was true.

like Reagan's Welfare Queen claim...set up a generation of Yanks to attack African Americans.

words have power.

hedda wrote:
"There's no such thing as society."

it was taken out of context but perhaps a Freudian Slip ?

It was definitely a Freudian slip.

And i'm sure the 'welfare queens' were absolutely rolling in it living the lap of luxury in America

I think the Society thing has strong points at both ends; yes, too many people use "society" as an excuse for having a mess in their own lives. It's essential to get your own life in order before you start helping - or lecturing - others. But it's also crucial that a responsible society looks after the vulnerable and that's where I felt Maggie went wrong; not enough concentration on the others - that was where Unions went wrong but she failed to see that other sections of society were going wrong too... bankers, politicians, media, social workers, lawyers, judges, police...

When Society gets too big (and too important, over ruling individuality) like everything - it goes off the rails. Maggie went off the rails at the end; Tony Blair went off the rails very early on; but now democracy has gone off the rails.

Decency and humanity mean nothing anymore. I predicted all this in 1999. King was making much more sense than Prince.

I think this is the thing she said that the quote was taken from:

"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… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

Which is correct really. She's saying there is no such thing as 'society', but she probably meant 'society' as in the cliché i.e 'it's societies' fault' - as if the people who are saying that aren't part of 'society' themselves. But she goes on to describe 'society' as she sees it as a "living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate".

Which is right, society is made up of individuals and the better each individual is the better society will be, everyone plays a part.

But that said, if someone is homeless and they haven't seriously, deliberately and willfully put themselves in that position - it is good in the government can help them back on their feet by giving them accommodation, that's a good thing for everyone really. And it's good to have a government that can help if people find themselves in problems - that aren't of their own deliberate making.

And the government is voted in by the public and the public (for the most part) pay taxes, so is it not part of 'society' in a way?

I have never once met a homeless person who has "seriously, deliberately and willfully put themselves in that position"
Usually it is just because "stuff" happens.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I have never once met a homeless person who has "seriously, deliberately and willfully put themselves in that position"
Usually it is just because "stuff" happens.

Yeah but you know what I mean. Some people have been given council or housing association houses and repeatedly trashed them, or shown consistent disregard for the neighbors so had to be evicted or deliberately avoided paying rent consistently.

I've never met them, and don't know the extent of the damage to the actual house, but, by setting fire to it, could you not say that if the Phillpots had ended up homeless as a result, then they made themselves homeless willfully?

imo wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I have never once met a homeless person who has "seriously, deliberately and willfully put themselves in that position"
Usually it is just because "stuff" happens.

Yeah but you know what I mean. Some people have been given council or housing association houses and repeatedly trashed them, or shown consistent disregard for the neighbors so had to be evicted or deliberately avoided paying rent consistently.

I've never met them, and don't know the extent of the damage to the actual house, but, by setting fire to it, could you not say that if the Phillpots had ended up homeless as a result, then they made themselves homeless willfully?

I dont think so because they didn't intend to destroy the house, and I would be very surprised if Phillpot was not suffering from a mental illness.

Incidentally, I do think they should have been rehoused into something much larger for the sake of the children.