My favorite story about the Iron Lady is this.
She was notoriously contemptuous of what she viewed as some of the weak males around her and very early in her tenure, she took her cabinet out to dinner. She, being the only female in the room and seated at the head of the table was the first one addressed by the waiter.
"Will madam have the steak of the fish this evening"
"The steak, please"
"And for madam's vegetables this evening?"
"Oh, give them the fish".
She had a magnetic, strong personality and a degree of honesty more politicians should aspire to, even if they lack the two previous elements.
Whatever one thinks about her politics.
Death is never something to be celebrated but I can't honestly say I'll miss her. It's a shame Thatcherism didn't die with her.
Its very easy to look and admire someone from the outside. To those who lived under her, and whose lives she destroyed, there is no admiration.
But, I shouldn't comment more on this.
Since the 1970s labour unions destroyed a lot more people due to their irresponsibilities, whatever "sins" M.T. had pale in comparison.
She (or more precisely her visa policy) is responsible for the fact I am married.
Edit: spelling corrected.
She should not be blamed for something she could not have foreseen.
Thatcher didn't destroy trade unionism in the UK. She just gave their leaders the opportunity to destroy themselves.
And good riddance to them, to the unilateral benefit to the rest of the country
I heard on satellite radio this morning that even today you can start a vehement argument in England as to whether Thatcherism was a good thing or a bad thing. This thread certainly supports that likelihood.
Lighten up, folks. She's DEAD.
If it wasn't for her policies the Winter of Discontent and seemingly terminal economic decline would have lasted much longer than it did. The central planning and socialism in the UK and abroad were dying in the 1970's and 80's, but despite this the only alternative to the wholesale reforms proposed by Thatcher and other leaders like her was just more of the same.
C'mon, folks - let's keep it civil.
I hope this isn't too serious a topic to add this link:
Because it is scarily close to the truth:
Goes to show how decisive she was.
From JesseCs link:
"Clive Barger, a 62-year-old adult education tutor, said he had turned out to mark the passing of "one of the vilest abominations of social and economic history"."
Until Clive Barger dies himself, of course.
I will never understand the reservation that is held towards discussing someone after they are dead, or that of criticizing those who are dead. It's as if the moment of death exempts someone from having any reprobation directed his or her way. The only definitive cases where this trend does not continue are those in which the deceased was an undoubtedly evil person. (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, [insert your favorite inducer of genocide here]).
I agree 100%
That's very true. It's hard to think of a comparable political example. Judging from PF threads, you could probably get the same level of reaction by debating USA gun control, or the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
But for those not in the UK (or too young to have been there) the miner's strike, possibly the most divisive event, was pretty much like a civil war in some of the mining communities, with mounted police trying to keep the peace between strike-breaking workers and nationally organized "flying pickets" - not just for a few days, but continuously for months on end.
The irony is that if the miners hadn't been led by a politically inept buffoon, they could most likely have won - though some of the losers still regard their former leader not as a buffoon but a minor deity.
I think it's a matter of mutual respect and tolerance.
If someone passed away that you looked up to or are related to, would you like it if people celebrated?
Also, criticizing someone when they're dead feels similar to talking behind someone's back and/or being cowardly.
Quite frankly, if the concerns mentioned about my hypothetical deceased idol or family member were legitimate and factual, then how could I be against any of what they are saying? Throwing stupid emotions into the mix of what could possibly be rational discourse is the dumbest thing to do. If you think that the loved ones of Margaret Thatcher are, instead of mourning her loss and using each other for emotional support, busying themselves with what other people are saying about her postmortem, then any reasonable argument won't get through to you.
Where is the cowardice in discussion? Where is the cowardice in justified criticism? You might find cowardice in one who waited until after someone's death to criticize the deceased, but in any other situation, what is taking place is simply discourse. It's not gossip, it isn't an example of cowardice, and it certainly isn't impolite, it is merely a discussion about someone, who just so happens to be dead. Why this is so touchy and difficult to comprehend baffles me.
Separate names with a comma.