I have to say I agree with both Mary & Kimbo and in my opinion it was Gordon Brown as both chancellor & prime minister that brought this country to it’s knees, that man should be in prison for what he did to this country. Sorry just my opinion
Hi Kim,
This forum is about being able to express our oppinions and that is exactly what we are doing. It is obviously a very sad time for her family but she absolutely devastated communities with her policies without any regard for the people living in those communities all to satiate her very large ego. That is why people are being so vitriolic.
Adrian
[quote=“Anonymous”] I have to say I agree with both Mary & Kimbo and in my opinion it was Gordon Brown as both chancellor & prime minister that brought this country to it’s knees, that man should be in prison for what he did to this country. Sorry just my opinion [/quote] How can you blame Gordon Brown and co? Britain being brought to its Knees was done long before him and his party. Weather you like it or not you have to face facts, Maggie Thatcher and her party were to blame , and her policy’s are living on with her Tory party and what they are doing now to the disabled and vulnerable , and please don’t forget that her own party turned on her in the end. Yes she was a mother , but how many other mothers had to watch there family’s destroyed by what her and her part did to their children? Just because she’s dead I for one won’t pretend she was a plaster Saint, because she doesn’t even come near.
And I find this this type of comment offensive and disrespectfull,
Just my opinion
I have to say that the street parties are a step too far. Although, by the look of it, the participants seem to be thugs and troublemakers just out to cause trouble and not a true representation of the genuine people who are left still hurting at the damage cased to their lives in the late 80s…
I understand the venom and bad feeling of those who suffered at that time and had their lives ripped to pieces by the change in politics that she brought into action resulting in the loss of peoples homes, jobs etc, etc. I for one will never forget what I lost and the stress it caused me and my family.
I do feel for the family but by watching interviews over the last couple of days with the family they suffered too at the hands of her coldness.
Anyway, I am going to leave it there and not going to say any more on the matter as I want to have a happy day.
Take care and I hope the sun shines.
Shazzie xx
What occurs to me is that if people(and there appears to be tens of millions) wanted Maggie to suffer, wasn’t sitting in a nappy completely helpless possibly lapsing into occasional lucidness be the ultimate torture.Now she has died it’s over and her suffering is finished,so why the happiness for all her enemies?
Shouldn’t they have been wishing for years more of the same for her.That really was a fate worse than death.
Wb
A copy & paste from the excellent Tony David Foster’s blog - says more than I ever could:
At times like this it’s difficult to know how to feel. Margaret Thatcher was loved and hated in almost equal measure; her politics divided the country, and to her death her Labour opponents continued to praise her “courage and determination”. She was the catalyst to today’s capitalist society, and the message Tony Benn delivers in the video below about Thatcher’s legacy is as evident today as it was thirty years ago: measure the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Amongst today’s tidal wave of opinion following her death my thoughts are best summed up by two men whose words, despite being thirty years apart, speak for those who bitterly opposed Thatcher’s injection of greed into the British public’s psyche which is as evident today as it was throughout the ’80s.
Today, Billy Bragg wrote:
“This is not a time for celebration. The death of Margaret Thatcher is nothing more than a salient reminder of how Britain got into the mess that we are in today. Of why ordinary working people are no longer able to earn enough from one job to support a family; of why there is a shortage of decent affordable housing; of why domestic growth is driven by credit, not by real incomes; of why tax-payers are forced to top up wages; of why a spiteful government seeks to penalise the poor for having an extra bedroom; of why Rupert Murdoch became so powerful; of why cynicism and greed became the hallmarks of our society.”
“Raising a glass to the death of an infirm old lady changes none of this. The only real antidote to cynicism is activism. Don’t celebrate – organise!”
Thirty years ago Tony Benn spoke with a straight-talking passion about Thatcher and the Tories, slandering the injustice and unfairness of a capitalist society. Whilst I appear to be on a current blog love-in with Mr Benn, the man speaks with a truth and honesty so desperately missing from today’s Tory parliamentary opponents. This is indeed no time for celebration, but a time to remember, and should itself be used as a catalyst for change.
That’s great Anu thanks!
I think some of the reaction to Thatcher’s death has taken the lid off a pressure cooker of anger about what the Coalition government are doing.
The destruction that Thatcher caused is being continued by those ‘Thatcher’s children’ who are now running our country.
Billy Bragg says ‘Don’t celebrate - organise!’
Well said!
Pat x
She was 87, we all die eventually. Why do people feel we now have to respect her and her family? She was a dreadful person who ruined this country by making money seem like the most important thing and people who had lots of it the new “aristocracy”. Her philosophy was look after yourself first before thinking about others- how vile is that? As for her “grieving family”- why should I respect a rather dim racist woman (she referred to someone as a “golliwog” and then didn’t even know what was wrong with that) and her son, a dodgy arms dealer, who made shedloads of money with her help. As for her grandchildren, they hardly saw her because her son was banned from entering the US, where they live. An all round pleasant family? I don’t think so!!
Spits out coffee !!!
It’s sad so many of you think now you have something to say, punching a corpse says nothing about the corpse, but it says plenty about you.
[quote=FrostPaw]
It’s sad so many of you think now you have something to say, punching a corpse says nothing about the corpse, but it says plenty about you.
Very strange thing to say.I went on demo’s, went on strike, signed umpteen petitiions etc while she was in power so to say we had nothing to say before she died is unfair to say the least.
Spot-on
I havent read every comment on this subject some of the ones I have really sadden me. As was mentioned earlier this person we are discussing was a mother/grandmother.
We dont have to agree with her ideology or politics. But the thought of people celebrating a persons death seems to me like the mindset of the lynch mob and to me distatesful no matter who.
Its a matter of basic humanity to me.
Im no right wing zealot and I dont agree with a lot this Government are doing but I wouldnt celebarate their death either.
I thought this forum was about daily life with ms and the challenges it can bring. Clearly you all have strong feelings about this but is this really the place for them to be aired?
If this gov ruined communities like she did i would cheer if they were gone too.
Just heard that her funeral will cost 10 mill. I thought the country was broke?
It’s not only the 10 million cost of her funeral. Parliament was recalled early today so Tories can have a mass debate over her legacy and provide the farewell she so richly deserves. Apart from the fact that MP’s were due back on Monday anyway, they can now claim nearly 4k each in expenses for coming back from holiday early.
Surely a more fitting tribute in austerity Britain would be to privatise the PR event and save a few bob.
£3750 per mp
Well the good news, we are not broke. Panic over!
I am not ‘punching a corpse’, neither do I only NOW have something to say, I marched on countless demonstrations when I could still walk, I wrote to her and signed petitions against her fascist policies over and over again.
I will not NOW be a hypocrite and agree with the rewriting of the first draft of history – painting her in soft rose coloured focus.
Not speaking ill of the recently dead? Why ever not? I didn’t have a good word for her or her ilk when she was alive so why now?
The maxim of respecting the dead certainly didn’t apply to Hugo Chavez a few weeks ago – there was a torrent of abuse toward him from right wing media on the announcement of his death. What’s the difference?
What did I think of Thatcher?
Millions of kids got 1/3 pint of milk in primary schools until Thatcher took it away under Heath’s government. For many it was the difference between breakfast and no breakfast.
She destroyed significantly more of Brian’s industry that Hitler’s Luftwaffe ever did – privatisation of key industries – robbing us all of our birthright – that which our parents and grandparents had worked and paid for to enrich her wealthy ‘loadsamoney’ friends.
She destroyed the coal, steel, car, bus, motorcycle and truck manufacturing industries, printmakers, ship builders and the railway workshops were all decimated and destroyed.
She hated the trade unions and her agenda was to seek and destroy whilst filling the pockets of her ‘kind’, the loadsamoney city bankers, those gamblers who were given approval to gamble away OUR assets on the international stock markets – skilled individuals were no longer valued….trades were no longer necessary……the industries had been sold off to the highest bidder……
The communities left behind have never recovered. Many people never worked again. Her policies took and destroyed and left nothing behind - no jobs and no future.
She famously uttered the words ‘There is no such thing as society’ – REALLY???!!! Her policies certainly shunted Britain toward that – the disrespect we show to each other, towards other peoples families, the dishonour to our disabled, our old, our abused and our sick, dog eat dog Britain post Thatcherism.
She introduced the ludicrously unfair Poll tax which resulted in rioting on the streets and widescale refusal to pay.
She withdrew political status from Irish Republican prisoners, her militarisation of Northern Ireland lead to continues conflict and years of suffering. She colluded in the murder of Irish Catholics for political gain.
She didn’t have any ‘respect for the dead’ for the 326 young, conscripted Argentinean sailors on board the Belgrano when she ordered Britain’s nuclear submarine to torpedo it as it was FLEEING from the Falklands Islands, her words when she heard it had sunk were, REJOICE!!! REJOICE!!!
326 young men with homes, wives, girlfriends, children, mothers and fathers……she was personally responsible for their deaths. The Belgrano was fleeing the conflict.
Until then she was Britain’s most unpopular PM – she sacrificed those young lives, and the lives of those British soldiers who died at Goose Green for her own political ends.
When Britain subsequently ‘won’ the Falkland’s war – she called a general election and won by a landslide. Job done, lives sacrificed but so what, what is the life of a young British or Argentinean sailor or soldier compared to the political ambition of a hard hearted, greedy politician married to a multimillionaire.
She was a strong supporter of apartheid – I vividly remember she called Nelson Mandela a ‘common terrorist’ the script rewriters were already reporting yesterday that ‘Mrs Thatcher was the one who saved Mandela’, utter twaddle……there will be more of the same over the coming weeks.
She recognised Pol Pot in Cambodia as the ‘real and recognised’ leaders of the country, whilst the skulls of their victims piled higher and higher……
She vigorously supported the forerunners of the Taliban and Al Qaeda – hailing them on the Tory platform as ‘freedom fighters’, she armed them and gave them political and diplomatic support until they were no longer of use to her and thus became ‘terrorists’.
But now we’ll be subjected to days and days of sweet words and lovely memories of her ‘greatness’ and her ‘leadership’ and how she ‘saved Britain’.
It’s entirely reasonable to respond to a thread and elucidate an alternative opinion of this person than that proposed by the mainstream media; she had no respect for the dead (for many of whom she was responsible) or the living whose lives and futures she sold to her rich city friends.
And yes, this is ‘Everyday Living’, as the news of this person’s death in the Ritz (didn’t realise they had a nursing wing) will dominate the media for the next couple of weeks at least and be largely sycophantic, it is an appropriate subject to be debated.
oooh - an excellent article from The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
The dictate that one ‘not speak ill of the dead’ is (at best) appropriate for private individuals, not influential public figures
-
Share131879
-
inShare93
-
Email
Margaret Thatcher Photograph: Don Mcphee
News of Margaret Thatcher’s death this morning instantly and predictably gave rise to righteous sermons on the evils of speaking ill of her. British Labour MP Tom Watson decreed: “I hope that people on the left of politics respect a family in grief today.” Following in the footsteps of Santa Claus, Steve Hynd quickly compiled a list of all the naughty boys and girls “on the left” who dared to express criticisms of the dearly departed Prime Minister, warning that he “will continue to add to this list throughout the day”. Former Tory MP Louise Mensch, with no apparent sense of irony, invoked precepts of propriety to announce: “Pygmies of the left so predictably embarrassing yourselves, know this: not a one of your leaders will ever be globally mourned like her.”
This demand for respectful silence in the wake of a public figure’s death is not just misguided but dangerous. 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. I made this argument at length last year when Christopher Hitchens died and a speak-no-ill rule about him was instantly imposed (a rule he, more than anyone, viciously violated), and I won’t repeat that argument today; those interested can read my reasoning here.
But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren’t silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person’s death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: “The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend.” Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
Whatever else may be true of her, Thatcher engaged in incredibly consequential acts that affected millions of people around the world. She played a key role not only in bringing about the first Gulf War but also using her influence to publicly advocate for the 2003 attack on Iraq. She denounced Nelson Mandela and his ANC as “terrorists”, something even David Cameron ultimately admitted was wrong. She was a steadfast friend to brutal tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein andIndonesian dictator General Suharto (“One of our very best and most valuable friends”). And as my Guardian colleague Seumas Milne detailed last year, “across Britain Thatcher is still hated for the damage she inflicted – and for her political legacy of rampant inequality and greed, privatisation and social breakdown.”
To demand that all of that be ignored in the face of one-sided requiems to her nobility and greatness is a bit bullying and tyrannical, not to mention warped. As David Wearing put it this morning in satirizing these speak-no-ill-of-the-deceased moralists: “People praising Thatcher’s legacy should show some respect for her victims. Tasteless.” Tellingly, few people have trouble understanding the need for balanced commentary when the political leaders disliked by the west pass away. Here, for instance, was what the Guardian reported upon the death last month of Hugo Chavez:
To the millions who detested him as a thug and charlatan, it will be occasion to bid, vocally or discreetly, good riddance."
Nobody, at least that I know of, objected to that observation on the ground that it was disrespectful to the ability of the Chavez family to mourn in peace. Any such objections would have been invalid. It was perfectly justified to note that, particularly as the Guardian also explained that “to the millions who revered him – a third of the country, according to some polls – a messiah has fallen, and their grief will be visceral.” Chavez was indeed a divisive and controversial figure, and it would have been reckless to conceal that fact out of some misplaced deference to the grief of his family and supporters. He was a political and historical figure and the need to accurately portray his legacy and prevent misleading hagiography easily outweighed precepts of death etiquette that prevail when a private person dies.
Exactly the same is true of Thatcher. There’s something distinctively creepy - in a Roman sort of way - about this mandated ritual that our political leaders must be heralded and consecrated as saints upon death. This is accomplished by this baseless moral precept that it is gauche or worse to balance the gushing praise for them upon death with valid criticisms. There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn’t change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history.