Line up to pelt Thatcher with rotten vegetables?

[PH]

I love the fact that the failures of some 20 years of Government including Labour are still facing back on this red herring to excuse their own failures

No, the 80s were a change in direction - from an industrial economy to a service one, from public owned utilities to privatised ones, from social housing to private landlords, to importing raw materials rather than utilising our own, the demutualisation on the Building Societies in favour of commercial banking, the commercialising of the NHS, to shifting tax from earnings to sales, and a whole load of other things. These are not easily reversible, some may be impossible, some may be undesirable, anyone who even suggests we might look at them is shouted down as a loony leftie.
The battles in the 70s & 80s is portrayed as Left Vs Right, yet it was mostly between Keynesian economics and Monetarism. All post war governments had been Keynesian to some degree, Tory and Labour, all governments since Thatcher have been monetarist and yes I believe most people are the poorer for it.

Back on topic - I couldn't care less about the statue other than it shows the continued arrogance of her supporters, to have spent however much on having it made when everyone from the Royal Parks to her family don't want it.

[PH]

Margaret Thatcher created wealth for many with the right to buy,

The country sold off most of the housing stock and now pays out record sums in housing benefits to private landlords.
I see how this benefited your sister, I disagree it was for the benefit of us all.

As for supporting Apartheid where is your evidence of

I don't need google, that revolutionary socialist David Cameron apologised for her policy on Apartheid.
The 80s miners strike was broken by importing coal from Poland, in order for them to have coal for sale they had to import from SA for their own use, something the UK couldn't do because of a supposed trade embargo.

[661-Pete]

Oh dear have we another thread 'gone bad'?

Let me lighten the mood with one of my inexhaustible supply of anecdotes.

Back in my postgrad student days, one day a statue appeared on the campus. This consisted of a young lady (goddess or nymph maybe?) who was - well - less than scantily clad. It was so tasteful that no-one would have been outraged, I'm sure. Nevertheless, one morning a few days after, we discovered that she had been decorously covered with a bra (it wasn't possible to put knickers on her because of the way the legs were attached to the plinth). Cue peals of hysterical laughter from all present!

Now I'm not suggesting that the statue of Mrs T should be of the same style, nor that it should receive comparable after-attention. But it would be fun if it did!

[bikepacker]

Margaret Thatcher created wealth for many with the right to buy,

The country sold off most of the housing stock and now pays out record sums in housing benefits to private landlords.
I see how this benefited your sister, I disagree it was for the benefit of us all.

As for supporting Apartheid where is your evidence of

I don't need google, that revolutionary socialist David Cameron apologised for her policy on Apartheid.
The 80s miners strike was broken by importing coal from Poland, in order for them to have coal for sale they had to import from SA for their own use, something the UK couldn't do because of a supposed trade embargo.

So the all the coal we imported from open cast mining in Australia never existed?

As an industrialised nation we were finished well before she became PM. Our outdated union protectionism made us unproductive. She and her government were the only people with the guts to put the country on the right path. Capitalism and our capacity to be great at financial services improved this country.

[bovlomov]

As an industrialised nation we were finished well before she became PM. Our outdated union protectionism made us unproductive. She and her government were the only people with the guts to put the country on the right path. Capitalism and our capacity to be great at financial services improved this country.

PH's analysis upthread has a lot going for it. Thatcher's government is widely seen to have been wrong about apartheid. It's policy on council house sales, and the absence of replacement housing is widely criticised. The roots of the banking crisis, according to many, may be found in the demutualisation of the building societies.Those are mainstream views, not left wing ones.

It should also be acknowledged that Thatcher was extremely fortunate with North Sea oil.

I don't see anyone here blindly defending the unions of the 1970s. There are a few blindly defending Thatcher.

[reohn2]

Margaret Thatcher created wealth for many with the right to buy, my own sister who is a devotee of Margaret Thatcher because of the financial start this scheme gave her. As for supporting Apartheid where is your evidence of this? There is none only socialist speculation. Now go and Google for half an hour to see if you can find an example.

There are many who gained from Thatcher's time in office including your sister,but it wasn't the majority by any means,she was a con artist who sold off well built very good social housing stock for a song for votes,and now look where we are with a housing crisis of epic proportions and whilst she started it her prodigy Blair carried her standard forward.
Cameron then apologised for some of her failings and the present PM is now trying to model herself off Thatcher,though I suspect isn't clever enough.

PH has covered the Aparthied question sufficiently,though I will add and post once again(yawn)her husband Dennis' business interests where in S.A. mining,which answers a few more questions about her reluctance to impose sanctions again S.A.
And Bov make a good point about the demutulisation of the building societies/beginnings of the banking crisis.
Of course YVMV,but it doesn't make you right
BTW I'm proud to be left wing and a socialist,a union member an ex miner,and someone who run my own business for 25 years

[Cyril Haearn]

Oh dear have we another thread 'gone bad'?

Let me lighten the mood with one of my inexhaustible supply of anecdotes.

Back in my postgrad student days, one day a statue appeared on the campus. This consisted of a young lady (goddess or nymph maybe?) who was - well - less than scantily clad. It was so tasteful that no-one would have been outraged, I'm sure. Nevertheless, one morning a few days after, we discovered that she had been decorously covered with a bra (it wasn't possible to put knickers on her because of the way the legs were attached to the plinth). Cue peals of hysterical laughter from all present!

Now I'm not suggesting that the statue of Mrs T should be of the same style, nor that it should receive comparable after-attention. But it would be fun if it did!

Similar thing here, some larger than life statues were anonymously clothed in the winter

Someone commented: *the young naked females almost look better with clothes on. Just like in real life*

[Cunobelin]

As an industrialised nation we were finished well before she became PM. Our outdated union protectionism made us unproductive. She and her government were the only people with the guts to put the country on the right path. Capitalism and our capacity to be great at financial services improved this country.

PH's analysis upthread has a lot going for it. Thatcher's government is widely seen to have been wrong about apartheid. It's policy on council house sales, and the absence of replacement housing is widely criticised. The roots of the banking crisis, according to many, may be found in the demutualisation of the building societies.Those are mainstream views, not left wing ones.

It should also be acknowledged that Thatcher was extremely fortunate with North Sea oil.

I don't see anyone here blindly defending the unions of the 1970s. There are a few blindly defending Thatcher.

I simply see it as a sad bunch who need a bogey man / woman to blame, and Thatcher fits that bill

It is not about blaming the Tories / blaming Labour, or whether you believe in them or any other group as all have he'd their opportunity to change things, .

It is the sad obsession

[reohn2]

Oh dear have we another thread 'gone bad'?

Let me lighten the mood with one of my inexhaustible supply of anecdotes.

Back in my postgrad student days, one day a statue appeared on the campus. This consisted of a young lady (goddess or nymph maybe?) who was - well - less than scantily clad. It was so tasteful that no-one would have been outraged, I'm sure. Nevertheless, one morning a few days after, we discovered that she had been decorously covered with a bra (it wasn't possible to put knickers on her because of the way the legs were attached to the plinth). Cue peals of hysterical laughter from all present!

Now I'm not suggesting that the statue of Mrs T should be of the same style, nor that it should receive comparable after-attention. But it would be fun if it did!

Similar thing here, some larger than life statues were anonymously clothed in the winter

Someone commented: *the young naked females almost look better with clothes on. Just like in real life*

From mine,and many other people's perspective Thatcher's clothing was always quite transparent

[bovlomov]

I simply see it as a sad bunch who need a bogey man / woman to blame, and Thatcher fits that bill

There is an element of that, but there's more to it. Several specific issues have been raised about Thatcher's government - about decisions that were made, which (according to the some) we are still suffering from.

Some claim Thatcher saved the country. It is only fair that others should point to the greed and corruption (not least within her own family), and to the terrible decisions taken at the time.

That criticism goes beyond the left/right narrative, and I think it is more considered than you say - the desire for a bogeyman.

[pete75]

our capacity to be great at financial services improved this country.

Ludicrous. That's why we've ended up with such vast public debts - bailing out the financial services industry. If the country really was great at financial services that wouldn't have been necessary would it?

[Cunobelin]

I simply see it as a sad bunch who need a bogey man / woman to blame, and Thatcher fits that bill

There is an element of that, but there's more to it. Several specific issues have been raised about Thatcher's government - about decisions that were made, which (according to the some) we are still suffering from.

Some claim Thatcher saved the country. It is only fair that others should point to the greed and corruption (not least within her own family), and to the terrible decisions taken at the time.

That criticism goes beyond the left/right narrative, and I think it is more considered than you say - the desire for a bogeyman.

Same could be said about any Government, Blair'sr's illegal wars and corruption, previous Governments. The fact the public was unwilling to see another "Winter of Discontent"


It is just sad that people have sufficient of a worrying sick obsession that results in throwing things at the statue of a dead woman

[pete75]

It is just sad that people have sufficient of a worrying sick obsession that results in throwing things at the statue of a dead woman

1. No one is throwing things at a statue of a dead woman - it doesn't even exist.

2. The suggestion that people would throw rotten veg is merely ahumerous(?)thread title the OP chose.

[Psamathe]

I read permission for the statue has been refused anyway. I don't know if the statue has already been made and it is a question as to where to put it. If it has already been made then I guess the issue will continue elsewhere, if not I wonder if those contributing money will be refunded.

Ian

[Norman H]

She could be placed alongside a statue Ted Heath perhaps. No chance of any nocturnal shenanigans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku5TtmODmck