[Closed] Thatcher's died according to BBC

Ironically, she'd fit right in on here

Nope. She spent her life 'doing' which seems to go against principles here.

This thread is comic, do some of you actually believe your own words?
Some of you seem to have a great understanding of our history and come across as intelligent and articulate yet you are still under the thumb of Thatcher 😕 If you need to celebrate then go for it; I hope you wake up the next day and have rid yourself of that monkey. I look forward to seeing the better Britain that you will then be able to help create.

She was an impressive character, no doubt! She followed her path and looked after her own and here we are, people with great visions of perfect Britain cheering and dancing in the street because that great oppressor of ours has died (seriously??). If she really was as vindictive as some of you suggest then I think she will be happy to see you all still under the cosh.
As you were. (telling me how you know best on some tiny little bike forum in a dark corner on the interweb. 😳 )

Good to see her property is all held by offshore trusts and thus avoids £2.4million in inheritance tax.

Would have paid for a quarter of a decent funeral, that would.

theocb-- you don't get it do you ?

I was quite interested to read in the DM article linked above about her approach to expenses. In between the hyperbole about offshore trusts and the £75K a year in security / accommodation expenses she claimed in the last 8 years she seems to have been fairly frugal, certainly when compared to Gordon Brown who continues to claim the £160K a year ex-PM's allowance on top of his external income and the £65K MP's salary despite rarely attending the Commons these days.

"At No. 10, she had scrupulously paid all her private entertainment and dining expenses. She had also refused to take successive salary increases as Prime Minister, and that reduced her pension, a situation that in later years prompted her to complain ceaselessly and disagreeably about how much she had forgone.

At the age of 65, she needed to earn a good salary during the rest of her active life if she was to retire in comfort. Denis Thatcher could not afford to keep them both, and such a course was never envisaged."

He's not the only one...

At the age of 65, she needed to earn a good salary during the rest of her active life if she was to retire in comfort. [b]The multi millionaire*[/b] Denis Thatcher could not afford to keep them both, and such a course was never envisaged."

FTFY.

*net worth estimated at around 60 million GBP.

At the age of 65, she needed to earn a good salary during the rest of her active life if she was to retire in comfort. Denis Thatcher could not afford to keep them both, and such a course was never envisaged."

Maybe their son, who despite being a total ****-wit made over £20 million from dodgy arms deals she personally set up, could have helped out with the odd food parcel sent from his luxury apartment in Marbella? Just a thought 🙄

hard life-- being a retired member of the ruling class--paying for things doesn't come easy to them--

In between the hyperbole about offshore trusts and the £75K a year in security / accommodation expenses she claimed in the last 8 years

Unlike Gordon Brown though she based her whole philosophy around demonising people who rely on handouts off the state. I'm also not aware Gordon Brown has a multi millionaire partner.

It's also pretty pathetic 'whataboutery' to bring up Gordon Brown in a thread about Margaret Thatcher.

"At No. 10, she had scrupulously paid all her private entertainment and dining expenses. She had also refused to take successive salary increases as Prime Minister, and that reduced her pension, a situation that in later years prompted her to complain ceaselessly and disagreeably about how much she had forgone.

At the age of 65, she needed to earn a good salary during the rest of her active life if she was to retire in comfort. Denis Thatcher could not afford to keep them both, and such a course was never envisaged."

My heart bleeds

didnt know how to cook--happy enough to lecture all and sundry about being a 'housewife'--

(And tbf probably plenty of 1950s housewives couldn't cook in a way olive oil users wouldn't recognize 😉 )

At the age of 65, she needed to earn a good salary during the rest of her active life if she was to retire in comfort

Presumably this worked out for her in the end, presuming of course that you can't get rooms at the Ritz on housing benefit nowadays.

I reckon after about 6 months Jade Goody will be back in second place.

Have we done the bit about how they're going to silence Big Ben for the funeral?

Not even Hitler managed that.

You like your Hitler analogies, don't you ben 😉

Just seeing how many Godwins I can get in 😉

I did have my suspicions about that!

Blimey you lot have a chip on your shoulders. 45 pages.

I blame Thatcha!

So do I. If you had your life blighted by the bitch you'd be bitter as well.

Blimey you lot have a chip on your shoulders. 45 pages.

You make it sound as if it has been 45 pages of criticism jonba.

Surely since everyone is completely free to express an opinion there must have been a tremendous amount of posts praising the Iron Lady, no ?

After all she was so popular and loved by the British people that she is being accorded an almost state funeral.

Or are those who like to ride bikes completely out of touch with the rest of the British people ?

Or it could mean that a handful of people are saying the same thing over and over and over and over again 😀 .

You can all move on now; the bogeyman is no more!

The only other possible explanation theocb.

Anyone who is accorded an almost state funeral must undoubtedly have been deeply loved by the British people.

Obviously people appear to be a bit shy and not exactly forthcoming about expressing their true feelings, but I'm sure the government has accurately judged public opinion. The sobbing crowds on wedsneday will be testimony of that.

I am going to have a party when Blair goes.Seems Maggie was not everyones cup of tea but some of us did rather well from working hard unlike under labour.

What about Gordon Brown - isn't he worthy of a party ?

No,Brown was just useless.

I am going to have a party when Blair goes.Seems Maggie was not everyones cup of tea but some of us did rather well from working hard unlike under labour.

i'm intrigued. what did blair do that un-did anything that thatcher had started that stopped you doing well from working hard ?

i keep hearing this phrase 'working hard' anyone care to explain what it actually means

i keep hearing this phrase 'working hard' anyone care to explain what it actually means

In this context I'd guess at...

A phrase spread by people with capital to confuse those that don't into believing the economic system is a level playing field.... So long as you work hard obviously.

OUCH!Working hard means 16 hours a day 7 days a week,2 weeks holiday a year and ride my horse once a week and then labour taxing you so much that you just walk away.I did not start with loads of capital and not a fancy job either as I cleaned and repaired horse rugs for a living.Ended up retiring at the age of 42 and buggering off to Spain.

what is taxing you so much?--you must have some turnover--and you hit the ceiling for NI--so those of us on PAYE payed proportionately more of our earnings --mind you i didn't work as Hard as you obviously-- you seemed to want to work two weeks in one--through choice i take it-- then off to spain--- have you settled in spain and adapted to their ways of working or do you live among other 'ex pats'?

You'd have retired at 35 if you started with lots of capital

working soft is the way to go---thats what the idle rich do-- they seem to make it pay.........

I've gone for working oasis plant foam.

Looks solid, really not.

OUCH!Working hard means 16 hours a day 7 days a week,2 weeks holiday a year and ride my horse once a week and then labour taxing you so much that you just walk away.I did not start with loads of capital and not a fancy job either as I cleaned and repaired horse rugs for a living.Ended up retiring at the age of 42 and buggering off to Spain.

so basically you don't want to pay your share (a share that you can well afford) AND you want to be able to work the hours of two jobs when there isn't enough work for everyone.

if you'd have just told us that you loved thatcher because she enabled you to be selfish and greedy then we'd have all just understood in the first place.

though i still don't understand why bliar stopped you working the hours of two jobs.

hang on, so working hard to improve the lot of you and yours is selfish and greedy - how do you work that one out?

if the man is working 112 hours a week-- that is almost three peoples work in hours--so surely he could have shared the workload--and given another person the chance to provide for his/her family-- its about sharing --not gaining at other peoples expense--the working week needs to be shorter with higher hourly pay-not the race to the bottom that all the 'grafters' seem to hark on about--history shows that gains were only made by collective action , reducing hours , and getting better conditions and pay-----all the things that Thatcher set out to destroy......

Hi rudebwoy.

I'd just like to pick one more thing you said on one of the other threads back up, if I may?

You said that it was a 'fail' on my part when you came up with one (shining admittedly) exception to my general comment that people tend to move to 'better' areas if they get a bit of cash. I think you'll find that one swallow does not make a summer.

However, my issues with your example are as follows.

You said the bloke in your example was a millionaire who had stayed local and employed people. As a Trotskyist,do you view him as a benevolent Victorian uncle capitalist, or do you view him as a bourgeois exploiter? He remains a millionaire, so how do you reconcile his continued individual wealth?

I think your standpoint and example may be contradictory. The usual sequence runs like this. Left wing idealist says he hates the rich. An example of someone from their own background who has worked their way 'up' to wealth is then given to them. The left wing idealist then says ' ah, they're the worst kind'.

bhmartin - Member

Seems Maggie was not everyones cup of tea but some of us did rather well from working hard unlike under labour.

bhmartin - Member

....then labour taxing you so much that you just walk away.I did not start with loads of capital and not a fancy job either as I cleaned and repaired horse rugs for a living.

Well make your mind up mate !

You say that you didn't have much money when Labour came along and taxed you, but yet you said you "did rather well" under Maggie.

So what happened between when you had plenty of money under Maggie, and then none by the time Blair came along ? Did John Major take it all from you ?

BTW Labour under Blair [u]didn't[/u] put up taxes. In fact the basic rate was reduced under Blair.

Plus, under Maggie taxation went UP not down, as you can see :

[img] [/img]

I think you're a tad confused/suffering from false memory bhmartin.

I personally don't hate the rich, but I'd like to see this addressed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20104177

I personally don't hate the rich

You're probably not a left wing idealist then, apparently it's left wing idealist that hate the rich.

I used to be a Left Wing Idealist now I'm an Idealist Left Winger.

dannyh-- the guy runs a boat --he pays his lads a weekly wage, which is very rare, basically he chooses to pay his workers a decent wage-- rather than buy himself a mock tudor pad--and live isolated among the curtain twitchers--he is an avowed socialist --so i guess he may be swimming against the stream--but he seems a very contented happy bloke , who just happens to be in a position to look after more than himself....

Oh, it was a troll then given the reply.

Nipper99 - Member
Oh, it was a troll then given the reply.

Hardly, what do you disagree with?

Rudebwoy. You haven't stated what you actually think of him, though. In your opinion, should he ever have been allowed to accumulate his wealth? Should his wealth have been requisitioned and redistributed?

From the limited amount you have said about him, I think he may be one of life's good examples, it is your position relative to his individual wealth that intrigues me.

BTW Labour under Blair didn't put up taxes. In fact the basic rate was reduced under Blair.

A little bit disingenuous. Stealth taxes? Massive debt (i.e. taxing people in the future)?