Margaret Thatcher has passed away

Well she did good and she did bad...

One thing is for sure she was a very strong lady and have to give her respect for that.

I was brought up in a mining town and served in the forces... got a lot to say but this is not the time or place.

So, 'Fare ye Well' and RIP iron lady.

RIP Baroness Thatcher. Ultimately She saved the UK from being destroyed by the Labour-backed, self-serving, militant money-grabbing Trades Unions.

Personally, I think she was one bloody hard lady and the toughest PM we've had in my lifetime.

Admittedly there are people who hated her, then again, you can't please everyone.

I do think it's quite sad when impromtu street parties celebrating her death break out in Glasgow and Brixton. Sad they are so small minded and full of hate and very sad to see so many people on a monday, when the rest of the country is at work, painting they're bed sheets with things like "The bitch is dead" and bouncing round the streets.

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

I'm also thoroughly enjoying all the Argentinians slagging her off as though the war ended yesterday. It is sad they lost so many men, it is sad their ship Belgrano was sunk and it is sad we had to have the war at all, however, it's a bit ironic when they call her a warmonger when they started it by invading the Falklands.

Call the Falklands British or call it what you like, there's no way a woman like Maggie was going to stand back and let them invade that island.

RIP.

Gut-reflex herd mentality.

It's cool to be progressive you're young, when socialist revolutions are the only ones that matter. "Power to the people", eh? Plus, your great granddad was pretty conservative and he didn't get laid much, by your judgement.

Curiously, these "rebels" dress like punks and hippies and pretend to care about freedom and human welfare while talking like anarchists, hating on everyone who isn't exactly like them, and aligning themselves with liberal parties with policies more heavy-handed, far-reaching and oppressive than the ones they protest against.

Thatcher was probably a model woman for so-called feminists globally, but I'm struggling to imagine many of them singing her praises today... :rolleyes:

That's a point, it was always left out wasn't it? I remember if you were lucky, in summer, if there were one or two left after break time, you could have the disgustingly room temperature ones left over.

Thanks Fin, that brought back memories.

Me neither, I don't recollect it going. It was there one minute, gone the next.

You're right Fin. I have avoided the news all day today. Sensible advice.

She wasn't quite royalty (except perhaps to some Tories and UKIP'ers) - just the Prime Minister, the leader of Government.

(Since they're unelected, the royals are supposed to be politically neutral - particularly the reigning monarch, the heir and those in close lineage anyway. In reality, of course, they're not. They've been known to meddle when it suits, albeit covertly, when proposed legislation or policy threatens to negatively impact their social and financial interests.)

I think putting across the notion that people had ill-feeling towards the women over little more than the cancellation of school milk schemes is a bit 'Fox News-ish'.

Personally, I'm indifferent about her, but, whatever about the mining families, poll tax protesters, Argentinians, etc., I can think of a thousand or so families who would have every reason to hate her. Some of her actions in relation to 'the Troubles' in Northern Ireland (which her own party later forced her to reverse anyway) prolonged the conflict by many years (my guess is somewhere in the region of 10-15). In the process, she somehow managed to not just alienate both sides in the conflict (which was quite a feat in itself), but also senior figures in both the British Army and the police too.

She did a pretty good job of alienating key people in her own party; that's why they booted her out.

She wasn't royalty, Sal.

She wasn't elected to the position of Prime Minister either.

In the Westminster system (and in the parliamentary systems of countries fashioned after it, such as Ireland, Australia, Canada, India, Israel, etc.), the Prime Minister is the leader of the party that holds the largest number of seats in the parliament. They are elected by the people as a member of that parliament like everyone else, but the party itself elects (and removes) them from the position of Prime Minister.

You can be Prime Minister today but, if your party loses confidence in you, you'll be out on your ear by tomorrow morning (well, out of the job anyway, and back to being just a lowly MP)!

Under the same system, expressions of animosity towards political figures (by both other politicians and the general public) are quite common. Recall the shock and outrage many Americans had about that incident a few years ago when some US politician shouted "You're lying!" (or something like that) at the US President while he was addressing Congress. However, in most Westminster-based parliamentary systems, such an "outburst" would hardly be noticed. If you're ever looking for some entertainment, look up "Prime Minister's Questions" on Youtube to see what their British counterparts get up to (which is actually quite mild in comparision to some countries).

I take your point. Nevertheless, there are some similarities, despite the obvious differences.

Both had a range of entrenched self interested groups who were highly resistant to change. These groups in Australia had a steel capped boot firmly applied to their arses, just as they did in the UK.

The landscape (politically) was very different, but the need for reform was just the same. Modernise or die (metaphorically speaking of course).