Why the hell do you think that, even to this day, Tory MP’s are non-existent in large swathes of Scotland

Well, woppitt, unless stage 2 of the Scottish independence plan has been enacted, and they’ve invaded northern England, I think you’ll find you’re wrong…

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/

Solid Tory majority, then…

yes 1 MP and finishing last [ of the big 4 parties] i surely prrof of popularity

Sun stroke zokes?

…..the destruction her ideology wreaked on entire communities. Those who voted for her were normally safely insulated from the fall out!

Actually the irony of Thatcherism is that many of her victims could be counted among her most enthusiastic supporters.

Thatcher succeeded in becoming PM in 1979 by convincing a very small but significant minority to change their traditional allegiance away from Labour and to the Conservatives.

The region which actually tipped the scales in what was otherwise a fairly close election was “the prosperous Midlands”.

Skilled workers in the Midlands were doing relatively very well at a time when Britain still exported more manufacturing goods than she imported. What occurred was the Labour Party and trade unions became victims of their own successes.

After decades of constantly improving living standards thanks to Labour national and local governments, plus the negotiating skills of their trade unions, a minority of skilled workers decided they wanted nothing less than “more”.

Thatcher’s appeal to selfishness and the triumph of personal greed struck a particular cord with them, specially with all the talk of alleged tax cuts and buying your council property.

So it was that a significant minority of skilled Sun reading manual workers gave Thatcher the power, which she otherwise would not have had, to do what she did. They continued to support her and still largely do to this day.

The irony is that despite the prosperous Midlands winning it for Thatcher in ’79, and the fact that many skilled workers subsequently did precisely what Thatcher requested of them and obediently turned their backs in their trade unions putting instead their faith in her, she destroyed British manufacturing, preferring instead to help her mates in the banking and financial services industry.

Another example of how Thatcher shafted her own supporters was the case of the Notts Working Miners. The Notts Working Miners were indispensable to Thatcher and she promised them a bright well-paid rosy future with lots of talk of endless work in the so-called “Super-pits”.

All they had to do was turn their backs on their union and carry on working with complete disregard for their colleagues who would lose their livelihoods. They obliged, and when Thatcher had consolidated her power she shafted them. Although I’m sure many former Notts Working Miners will still tell you what a great gal Maggie was.

There were also btw plenty of Notts Striking Miners, they didn’t get paid for a year, whilst Maggie’s boys were raking it in. Until she shafted them of course.

.

Woppit & Junkyard – I think zokes point is that binners is correct, and it’s not just in Scotland where Tory MPs are non-existent in large swathes of the country.

ye you may be right Apologies if I am wrong.

I saw this film last night and enjoyed it. Very sad. I didn’t grow up in the UK so don’t have quite the same emotional involvement with it all, but had forgotten how much happened during that time, IRA bombings and hunger strikers, Falklands war, Miners, Poll tax in Scotland.

Whatever your politics she was a strong woman succeeding in what had been a very male dominated world. Sad to see her decline.

And Meryl Streep deserves that inevitable Oscar !

hatefull spitefull evil self serving woman, who made her politics personal.
she ruined our industries, our communities and in some places, our childrens futures.
the day she dies will be a day for celebration in a lot of places.

and on a personal note, i would rather go to watch a film about hitler/stalin/pol pot/peter sutcliffe/ dennis nielson/blah/blah/blah……….than watch a film about her.

And it is that kind of silly comparison that really kills credibility. Pol Pot killed 20% of the Cambodian population. Hitler burned 6 million Jews. Breaking the Miners strike was exactly like that.

I think ton’s just done a Godwin

hels, i was not comparing….just saying that I would rather watch a film about other evil people than her.

nah he has just called her evil and I think his view will be shared by millions…i am not sure where he puts her on the scale of evil just that he is putting her there.

ton
Take a moment to reflect on your post.
You are way out order. I haven’t come across a single person in politics who isn’t in it for personal reasons.
If you don’t want to see the film then fine but I don’t see how Thatcher ruined our industries, communities and childrens futures all on her own.

Matt, i reflected on my post while i typed it.

can i ask, where in the country you live, cos i have a theory that it usually affects how you feel about her

I dont think anyone is saying she did it alone but the other extreme would be to say she stood for nothing and she was powerless to do anything differently..I doubt anyone wants to argue this.

The PM has some serious power and the choices they make have consequences….for many communities [ Northern in particular] it was to literally destroy entire towns and communities.
We are still dealing with these consequences today.

I haven’t come across a single person in politics who isn’t in it for personal reasons.

really almost every politician [ this is changing n more recent years] gets into politics to make the world a better place. I think maggie did this too and would argue she did make it a better place as well.

Pol Pot killed 20% of the Cambodian population.

Interestingly the Khmer Rouge were able to kill as many Cambodians as they did, and for as long as they did, thanks to some considerable help which they received from Thatcher. Thatcher (along with Ronald Reagan) was a particular strong supporter of Pol Pot, and even after he was overthrown insisted that the Khmer Rouge be allowed to retain their seat at the UN, something which she succeeded in doing.

And Thatcher’s support went beyond just vital diplomatic support, she arranged for the SAS to train Pol Pot’s forces. Something the US was no longer able to do after the “Irangate” arms-for-hostages scandal in 1986. She justified her support for Pol Pot by claiming in a 1988 Blue Peter programme that “the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”

And she did all this at a time when The Killing Fields was on general release ………there was no doubt at all in anyone’s mind what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were doing in Cambodia, or “Democratic Kampuchea” as Thatcher insisted the UN called it.

How Thatcher gave Pol Pot a hand

I have always thought that Thatcher should have stood trial for the support she gave Pol Pot. Perhaps if we had had a decent Labour government committed to justice instead of one led by another war criminal she might have done.

Interestingly the Khmer Rouge were able to kill as many Cambodians as they did, and for as long as they did, thanks to some considerable help which they received from Thatcher.

Now that really is quite a leap, given that the 20% of the population dying happened whilst he was in power, and he was booted out in January 1979.

And she did all this at a time when The Killing Fields was on general release ………there was no doubt at all in anyone’s mind what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were doing in Cambodia, or “Democratic Kampuchea” as Thatcher insisted the UN called it.

Except that by that time they weren’t doing it.

I’m not defending Thatcher’s support for Pol Pot, just pointing out that you can’t blame her for those deaths.

So what do you think the SAS was training Pol Pot’s forces to do aracer………organise tea parties ?

Pol Pot’s forces continued to operate throughout the 1980s, this involved killing a lot of Cambodians. The support they received at the UN from Thatcher, along with other assistance, was vital to them – they were able to kill more people and for longer.

British, US, and Chinese support, kept Pol Pot and his forces able to continue their murderous campaign against the Cambodian people for some considerable time after 1979, in fact for almost 20 years.

Interestingly it was the same unholy trinity, ie Britain, the US, and China, which in the 1980s supported, armed, and trained, Osama bin Laden and his murderous followers. And the same unholy trinity also supported, armed, and trained, the murderous regime of General Pinochet in the 1980s……nice guys.

aracer – Member
I think ton’s just done a Godwin

Is that a (Sir?) Fred Godwin?!!?

[crap joke as I realise it Goodwin – but just looked right!]. Interesting comments ernie.

So what do you think the SAS was training Pol Pot’s forces to do aracer………organise tea parties ?

The same as numerous other terrorist groups or freedom fighters (depending on which side you support) which have got the backing of the UK, US and various other countries over the years under a multitude of different governments. Maybe they killed 1% of the population after he was booted out – I don’t know, that’s just a guess, but I suspect it’s on the high side. What they weren’t doing was killing 20% of the population – that had already happened.

So are you happy to agree with me that Thatcher had no part in Pol Pot killing 20% of the Cambodian population, and your earlier implication was purely accidental?

the day she dies will be a day for celebration in a lot of places.

Not for me. I’m quite happy for her to continue to suffer from a debilitating illness, my only disappointment is that her sycophantic supporters don’t share the same fate.

That Woman legitimised poverty, division and selfishness.

you seemed to have changed your argument somewhat and it just appear weak why not reread what you and ernie said – his is bold your is not

Interestingly the Khmer Rouge were able to kill as many Cambodians as they did, and for as long as they did, thanks to some considerable help which they received from Thatcher.
Now that really is quite a leap, given that the 20% of the population dying happened whilst he was in power, and he was booted out in January 1979.

And she did all this at a time when The Killing Fields was on general release ………there was no doubt at all in anyone’s mind what Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were doing in Cambodia, or “Democratic Kampuchea” as Thatcher insisted the UN called it.
Except that by that time they weren’t doing it. [ you now say it might have been 1 % btw]

I’m not defending Thatcher’s support for Pol Pot, just pointing out that you can’t blame her for those deaths.

ernie never said the 20% you seem to be objecting to hels did he simply explained how he was able to make it this high – with the support of the SAS/Thatcher etc….I am not sure why you wish ernie to apologise for something he did not say when you seem to agree with buy hey that’s internet arguing .

No offence aracer but sometimes , even on here, its worth just accepting someone made a good point.
it hardly seems worth the effort explaining why this is a contradiction

Maybe they killed 1% of the population after he was booted out – I don’t know, that’s just a guess, but I suspect it’s on the high side. What they weren’t doing was killing 20% of the population – that had already happened.

So are you happy to agree with me that Thatcher had no part in Pol Pot killing 20% of the Cambodian population, and your earlier implication was purely accidental?
you are arguing over how much of a part now surely so she did have a part- hels statement is ambiguous as to when the figure relates to but you accept they continued after thatcher came to power and she supported them- i really dont see what the argument is here tbh

I am not internet warring with you but you seem to be digging a bit here.

ernie never said the 20% you seem to be objecting to hels did he simply explained how he was able to make it this high – with the support of the SAS/Thatcher etc.

Except he made it to 20% without any help from SAS/Thatcher at all. I’ve not seen anybody present any figures for how many were killed when he was operating as a freedom fighter/terrorist from outside Cambodia, but that’s certainly not what anybody is referring to when they talk about the huge numbers he massacred. The implication from ernie’s original post is quite clear – I mean why make the post at all if not to implicate Thatcher in the massacre? If not that, what point exactly do you think ernie was trying to make? After all, virtually all recent western leaders are tainted to some extent or other with being involved with insurgents, which is all she did.

you are arguing over how much of a part now surely so she did have a part- hels statement is ambiguous as to when the figure relates to

No – I’m arguing that he killed the 20% hels is referring to without any help from Thatcher at all. As I keep pointing out, that figure relates to the numbers killed before 1979 (whether or not hels pointed that out – she didn’t need to be unambiguous, the information is easily available). I wasn’t asking ernie to apologise – simply to agree that Thatcher actually had no part in Pol Pot killing the 20% of the Cambodian population he is generally credited with for the time he was in power.

I don’t see what’s wrong with correcting people on things they attempt to imply as well as things they actually state. I mean ernie could have just stopped digging himself by agreeing with me that Thatcher had no part in killing the 20%, but oh no, that would completely spoil his slur.

So are you happy to agree with me that Thatcher had no part in Pol Pot killing 20% of the Cambodian population, and your earlier implication was purely accidental?

You are starting to sound desperate in your attempt to exonerate a woman whom you clearly admire aracer.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge murdered somewhere in the region of 2 million people. The mass killing and the ability of the Khmer Rouge to do it with complete impunity came to an abrupt halt when Vietnam invaded Cambodia.

Although undoubtedly they would have eventually reached a point when they would have run out of people to kill………they wouldn’t have been able to murder 110% of the Cambodian population.

But yet despite Pol Pot’s government having being overthrown, which should have spelt the end of the Khmer Rouge, they were able to continue to murder and terrorise the Cambodia people because of the unwavering support which they received from Thatcher, Reagan, and the Chinese.

Sure, thanks to the presence of Vietnamese forces the Khmer Rouge were no longer able to carry out their mass killings on the Nazi-style industrial scale which they had previously done so, but Thatcher was very instrumental in providing them the opportunity to carry on with their “more limited” level of mass murder.

If after 1979 Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were not quite as successful as they might have wanted to be, then it certainly wasn’t because of lack of support from Thatcher – she did everything she could to support and help them.

Eventually (after 19 years) the Khmer Rouge fizzled out, but only after they were no longer receiving support from the US, Britain and China, proving how vital that support had been.

To give real, effective, material, and tangible support, to a known genocidal maniac who had clearly murdered somewhere in the region of 2 million people, often for nothing more that “wearing a wrist watch”, was a deeply vile and despicable act. And anyone doing so should face justice. Sadly we haven’t yet reached that level of development for that to happen.

You are starting to sound desperate in your attempt to exonerate a woman whom you clearly admire aracer.

Rather than you and junky sounding desperate in your attempts to discredit a woman you clearly hate? 😆 I don’t need to exonerate her for something she didn’t do (though for the record I’m indifferent, unlike Blair, Brown etc.).

Can you answer a straight question, ernie – do you agree that Thatcher had no part in Pol Pot killing 20% of his population?

Or are you now attempting to imply that Thatcher would have supported his genocide had he remained in power?

“the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”

Thing is Ernie – she was right, wasn’t she? She wasn’t just right, she was ahead of her time!

Just like we came to the realisation that you can’t manage Afghanistan, without working with and cooperating with the Taliban, Just like we realised that we had to include members of the former administration in Iraq and Bosnia and yes, Just like we had to do the same with convicted terrorists in Northern Ireland.

So, are you actually stating she was wrong?

I note that you chose to include only part of the quote of course… do you recall the rest of it Ernie?

“So, you’ll find that the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government, but only a minority part. I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea.”.

Strange that for some reason you missed that bit off the end, I wonder why you chose to do that Ernie?

Woppit & Junkyard – I think zokes point is that binners is correct, and it’s not just in Scotland where Tory MPs are non-existent in large swathes of the country.

Yup, that’s what I meant, but given how hot it is here at the moment, Junky may be right about the sun-stroke 😯

so which “minor figures in genocide” would you propose for minority roles?
If she shared our horror she would not have put so much effort into ensuring they stayed as the recognised government.
Whatever you want to say her record on supporting RIGHT WING dictatorships is terrible, South Africa – she call Mandella a marxist and a typical terrorists who could not and should not form a government* , Pinochet, Khymer rouge etc. this record is something that probably even you are not comfortable with.

she also said tis about the terrorists

In February 1994, as Gerry Adams visited America, Lady Thatcher, as she had become, criticised President Clinton saying: “No democracy should have any truck with terrorists.”

she did communicate with them though…well probably depending on who you believe

Not sure she was either forward thinking or principled tbh
FWIW i did not know the end of that quote but it would carry more weight if she had not given them support.

* history will judge her poorly on this

I grew up in a northern (former) mining town in the 80s and I can’t bring myself to hate Margaret Thatcher. I feel that comparisons with genocidal dictatorships are a bit silly.

I’m very much in favour of primary industries/manufacturing/engineering, but I’m fairly sure that the UK before Thatcher wasn’t quite the paradise that people like to make out and the manufacturing companies and state-owned corporations weren’t quite the efficient, prosperous entities with healthy, happy workers that people like to believe they were.

Subsequent governments have carried on with ‘Thatcher-esque’ ideas and we have suffered various boom-busts (as we did before), but had we gone with a socialist agenda in 1979(when the economy was picking up prior to the Tories getting back into power) and stuck with it, would we have been in a better position than we are now???

ps. I feel fortunate to have been born British and I suspect that I would be of the same view whether or not Margaret Thatcher had been Prime Minister a quarter of a century ago -but I would have been equally fortunate to have been born in many other western European nations.

but had we gone with a socialist agenda in 1979(when the economy was picking up prior to the Tories getting back into power) and stuck with it, would we have been in a better position than we are now???

Doubtful – the country would have had much more to offer than ‘just’ monetary services when the banking sector was hit hard. There’s no reason why primary and secondary industries couldn’t compete with China – Germany and the US do quite well. Greed and a quick buck at everyone else’s expense seemed to be her motivation. I’m not totally sure such a philosophy has helped much…

Without wishing to appear negative, I’m not convinced that, once the “sellers’ market” conditions were over, British primary/secondary industries would have been that competitive without some fairly major changes.

I like the German approach to engineering and ‘skilled’ trades (and I like Germany in general), but I don’t think that we would necessarily have been a mirror image of them, with many prosperous mittelstand producing useful widgets, had we gone with Labour in the early 80s and stuck with union-controlled nationalised industries.

In truth, though, who knows what would have happened?

I share your utter horror that these terrible things went on in Kampuchea.”

What else would you expect her to tell her Blue Peter audience ? That murdering 2 million people was just fine ? ffs.

She might well have talked about “the more reasonable ones of the Khmer Rouge” but there was no such thing, and besides even if there was, Pol Pot who she supported, and who’s henchmen she insisted took Cambodia’s seat at the UN, certainly wasn’t one of them.

Thatcher did what she could to get the Khmer Rouge back into power in Cambodia. And this wasn’t anything like Afghanistan, an endless conflict which seemed to have no solution. The only reason the conflict with the Khmer Rouge continued was because her, Reagan, and the Chinese, were supporting them. All they had to do was to stop supporting the Khmer Rouge.

And when the US, Britain, and China did eventually stop supporting the Khmer Rouge (after Thatcher and Reagan were gone) then the Khmer Rouge’s ability to wage war diminished until they finally gave up.

.

I don’t need to exonerate her for something she didn’t do

So you are now claiming that she didn’t give support to Pol Pot ? That’s the same Pol Pot who was a mass murder, right ? OK, I think we’ll leave it at that.

.

Rather than you and junky sounding desperate in your attempts to discredit a woman you clearly hate?

If nothing else, I think I’ve made the point on this thread that I am not motivated by any personal hatred of Thatcher.

I have no problem with her being a Tory – she was brought up in a petty bourgeois environment and went on become the loving wife of a fabulously wealthy man – how else do people expect her to have turned out ?

The fact that she happened to be at the right place at the right time to further her political ambitions is an irrelevance imo. Nothing she did was the result of some strange mysterious power which she possessed.

Far from me having a problem with Thatcher for being a right-wing Tory, it’s working class people like myself who supported and voted for her which I have a problem with.

She served her class well – I can’t knock her for that, after all, I have exactly the same ambition.

I also think her ‘personal’ contribution is grossly overstated and overrated. None of economic policies were her own, she didn’t even invent “Thatcherism”.

Furthermore I dislike the “evil Thatcher is directly and personally responsible for everything which is wrong in society” argument because not only is it simply untrue, but it also hugely damaging and dangerous.

Today we have a Prime Minister who is going far further than Thatcher ever dared to go – she was largely correct when she famously said that the NHS was “safe in my hands”, she simply had no choice. But despite the fact that the present PM is at the very least no better than Thatcher, he doesn’t receive a fraction of the bile which she received.

It was no accident that David Cameron very publicly distanced himself from Thatcher at during the last election campaign, like everything else it would have been part of a carefully planned strategy. Because thanks to ill-informed herberts on the soft left and their constant vilification of Thatcher, the government policies of the Thatcher era have very successfully now been personalised.

The message from Cameron was very clear……”It’s safe to vote Tory because I’m not Thatcher”.

And the Tories have previously capitalised on the anti-Thatcher cult. In 1990 they believed that if despite continuing to pursue the same policies they sacked Thatcher and replaced her with someone else, they stood a good chance of winning the following general election – they were right. If instead of constantly attacking her personally the soft left herberts had had the same level of success in attacking her policies, then the outcome would have been different.

I tend not to hate people (although I’m no saint and I find the challenge offered by Tony Blair and New Labour hard to resist) but I do hate bad ideas though.

No mate, I’ve got better things to do with my emotions than to waste them on hating a senile old woman who was once Prime Minister. I think her support for Pol Pot was truly despicable though.

Rather than you and junky sounding desperate in your attempts to discredit a woman you clearly hate?

missed that one for the record I dont hate her I feel more strongly than that 😉 – this cant be used against ernie he consistently argues against personalising the Thatcher thing
I dont hate her I hate what she did, what she stood for and who she represente and I wont be sad to see her go

The only good thing about seeing time passing is that we can watch Margaret Thatcher get closer to death.

Armando Iannucci

I think her support for Pol Pot was truly despicable though.

I actually agree with you there (along with a few other things in your post, but then you do know I don’t disagree with you about everything?) But why the need for the implication that Thatcher was involved in the deaths of 2 million, when clearly she wasn’t? If you didn’t mean to imply that, then you could just answer my question.

So you are now claiming that she didn’t give support to Pol Pot ?

Apologies if I’ve not said this explicitly enough – I thought I’d mentioned it at least once – but I’m claiming she didn’t give support to Pol Pot when he was in power and actually killing the 20% of his population.

Or we could just agree on our indifference towards Thatcher – as you say she is a senile old woman, who has should have no influence on the future of our country.

But why the need for the implication that Thatcher was involved in the deaths of 2 million, when clearly she wasn’t?

I haven’t once claimed that she was implicated in the deaths of 2 million Cambodians.

I have repeatedly claimed that she gave vital support to Pol Pot – who was responsible for the murder of somewhere in the region of 2 million people. I have also claimed that this support helped Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to continue to murder and terrorise the Cambodian people.

Finally I said that I had always believed she should stand trial for the support which she gave the genocidal murderer and how she helped him long after he had been overthrown.

Obviously it’s too late for now that she’s completely doolally. Besides, as I said – sadly we haven’t yet reached that level of development for that sort of thing to happen.