Maggie's dead

Once again it should be noted that Mrs T was not voted out of office by the electorate but was pushed out by her so called friends…as Norman Tebbitt put in last week:

“Of course, she was brought down in the end not by the electorate but by her colleagues. Not only is it quite remarkable that she won three elections running-someone else has done that since-what was remarkable was that she polled slightly more votes on the occasion of her third victory, when she had been in office for eight years, than on her first. I regard that as a triumph for her.

My regrets? Because of the commitments that I made to my own wife, I did not feel able either to continue in government after 1987 or to return to government when she later asked me to do so. I left her, I fear, at the mercy of her friends. That I do regret.”

HL Deb, 10 April 2013, c1143

You have to listen to it to hear the scorn and disgust in the words “I left her, I fear, at the mercy of her friends.” Many of whom were sat around him in the Lords.

Also there was a good deal of public anger at what happened to her at the time and still is.  The reason that most politicians (not the most honest or generous of people) are very careful to praise her is that to slang her off is not going to make them popular or get them votes…..the reason is that despite a loud and rather ignorant minority the majority, even her political opponents admired and respected her.

Where is the public grief ?  Watch the crowds lining the streets on Wednesday in respectful silence, not the loud, ignorant few.   She beat such people 20 years ago and they still cannot put up a rational argument, to sooth their bruised egos.  Their actions now again prove Maggie was right.

Well all I can say is that if it represents antipathy held by her opponents, they could make it a bit clearer.  

Destruction of saviours goes much further back than the recorded history of the UK, but you are correct Britain does deal brutally with its leaders, sadly for the last few years there had not been many that can bear the title.

If a song from a fantasy show is all her opponents’ can muster in opposition to her legacy then I suppose vehemence and castigation is all they have and her legacy will endure.  Sadly I can remember when socialists actually had an argument to put forward, history has proven it incorrect but at least they had an argument.

I would say having spoken to American friends that they really do not understand the “left” as it exists in Britain.  As we over here look on both of their main parties as conservatives and are often puzzled about their arguments.

No you misunderstand I have no objection to an opposing view provided it can be backed with rational argument (the key word is of course rational).  No the post is strange as it does not make any sense.  I assume the reference to the Wizard of Oz song is meant to be offensive (it is in fact merely juvenile) but the posting above it itself makes little sense.

Interestingly the many downloads of the song are not from the film but from Lloyd Webbers show, thus making him yet another fortune.  Since he is a staunch conservative, admires Mrs T and gives a great deal of money to them, I suppose you could say another victory for Maggie.

Most amusing.

Does she have more “Haters” than fans?  I am not so sure, certainly the anti-Thatcher camp is loud, but empty vessels do make the most noise do they not?  The ignorant do tend to be the loudest and generally most ill mannered.  Youth (most of the protesters appear to be so young that they probably don’t remember John Major never mind Mrs T) mistakenly seem to think that to be ignorant and ill mannered is “cool”. It is not it is just ignorant and ill mannered.  Perhaps the education system run by socialists might have something to do with that, who knows.  If you ask them why they will quote "Historical Facts" that belong in the fiction or perhaps science fiction shelf in the library. This is the ultimate sin, their politics are up to them but to re-write history is a no no, and as it is recent easily remembered history and can be refuted also rather stupid.

Three election wins, surely an indication that “everyone” did not hate her.  Perhaps more importantly she is not hated, far from it in the parts of the world freed from socialist ideology.  Her enemies could not bring her down (which still stings their egos) she was betrayed by her “friends”.

I have no doubt there will be protests, supported (though from the background as befits cowards) by the socialist movement.  This will probably give the present government a boost as in fact the “haters” are in a minority and the majority of decent people will be disgusted.  So I guess another victory for Mrs T, as it should be remembered that the younger conservative MPs are almost certainly Thatcherite as it was her that inspired them to go into politics.

As Frank Field said in the debate in parliament:

“The third big area is a problem in our country that she thought she had solved but that now appears in a different guise. We have mentioned, even quite properly on the Opposition Benches, that one of her great struggles was to bring the trade unions within the law decided by this House—not the law that they thought they would abide by. I have been perplexed by some of the recent newspaper coverage of her stewardship, much of which has stated that the country was previously ungovernable. It was governable all right, but not from here and not by the Government elected by the people. “   HC Deb, 10 April 2013, c1652

It seems to me that those who shout the loudest about democracy, peoples this and peoples that are those who support organisations who do not believe in any such thing.  I guess that is why some of the most despotic and brutal regimes during the last century tended to have the word democratic or socialist in their title.

Was Margaret Thatcher divisive?  The NUM under Scargill made no secret of the fact that the strike (for which they had no majority vote) was political in nature an attempt to bring down an elected government….they failed and their egos and that of the “Left” have never recovered.  Was she divisive for upholding the rule of law?  Was she divisive for allowing people the freedom to decide if they wished to be a trade union member? Was she divisive for allowing people to buy their own homes? Was she divisive for ensuring that the trade union movement did not stop fire fighters from responding to emergencies?  Ambulances from saving the lives of the sick and injured?  It was the trade union and socialist movement that was divisive.

Glenda Jackson typically attempted to re-write history claiming:

“Our local hospitals were running on empty. Patients were staying on trolleys in corridors. I tremble to think what the death rate among pensioners would have been this winter if that version of Thatcherism had been fully up and running this year.” HC Deb, 10 April 2013, c1649

A pretty good description of the NHS now after over a decade of socialist government, remember Stafford (and it is just one of many perhaps most trusts in England), though having to be sorted out by the present government happened under Labour. The NHS was turned in to a Stalinist state by the labour government were staff who complained about poor standards were bullied, hounded and ruined.  Blair was right in 1997 the voters did have 24 hours to save the NHS, they elected his government and condemned it to failure.

Like Cuba? In many respects it was worse than Cuba before she sorted things out.