Thatcher Dead

[inflatable dalek]

I can't really get into all this celebrating crap, mind. Whether you liked her or not it's been 20 years since she was anything other than an old retired woman. If someone thinks she did damage there's no cause to cheer because the damage was long done (typically when the people celebrating were six or something).

Surely by that logic no fans of hers should be mourning her death as whatever good she did for the country was equally far in the past?

I don't really get the mockery of peoples views because of their youth either, there's been a lot of it on Facebook (where it usually comes across as folks disagreeing with the idea Thatcher was a bad person but not being able to come up with a counterargument beyond "Huh, what do you know kid hey?"), even the usually excellent Daily Mash seems a bit dickish on that score.

I'm sure there's no shortage of people under 35 (or whatever you want to make the cut off point) will ill informed political viewpoints, but that's in no way a problem limited to youth. Certainly just about everyone in this thread seems either capable of making their views based on the facts or fully admitting what they don't know about, despite the fact that presumably we're all on the younger side of 40.

The whole idea seems a bit of a strawman argument, especially as there's more than enough comfortably middle aged people who think she was a ****.

I really don't get the idea of her having a "State" (just calling it that for ease of reference, there's a few options in naming but it basically boils down to the same thing), even if you're a fan of hers is she really on the same level as the last PM to get that honour, Churchill? If anything it's insulting to the various PM's in-between the two of them who didn't get one.

Indeed, the only reason I can think for having a publicly paid for big funeral for her is that Cameron wants shot of Scotland and is keen to piss the Scots off as much as possible before the referendum.

The only real advantage I can see in it is it would legitimise the inevitable protests. Picketing a private funeral would be icky, on the same level as that nutty American family. A state funeral, by its very definition, is a public event. And we're all paying for it. Might as well join in and get the placards out.

RE: The Falklands, whilst I generally agree with Cliffy on that, I can see the counterarguments. Playing Devil's advocate, it's the job of the government to protect the interests of the majority of the British people, not those of every single individual. Is protecting the right of the relatively small number of Falklanders to farm sheep in a wilderness worth the cost of a war in lives and money on the rest of us? We use compulsory purchase orders in order to move people against their wills so as to build things like high speed rail links, why not to prevent a war?

Mind, I've never got the complaint she only went to war in order to win the following election. I'm fairly sure most politicians do what they think will win them elections, the opposite would be rather odd.

I've said before, and this bears repeating, the English population today would not have, and could not have, won World War II (with or without American assistance).

But the UK population at the time really shouldn't have won World War II either, it's one of the great feats of British history that we did win the Battle of Britain and thus kept the Nazi's out long enough to be on the winning side.

Though we were mainly helped by Hitler making his big mistake and giving up to a certain extent on us and turning his attention to Russia, with disastrous results (forgetting the mistakes of Napoleon and the World War One Germans, showing he had less understanding of history than the people the Daily Mash was mocking). If he'd have kept up the pressure he would have successfully invaded Britain, we didn't have much more left to throw at him.

So under broadly similar circumstances, I could see the UK population today doing exactly the same. Even now we're remarkably good at just knuckling down and getting on with it when it really matters.

Yeah, weren't they the rag that was shitting on Churchill recently? See above.

In what way were they attacking him? The thing with Churchill, and what makes him fascinating as a historical figure, is that he was a deeply flawed man with a frankly poor record outside of World War II.

He efforts during the first war were infamously poor and his record as a peacetime Prime Minister were frankly dismal. He was a bastard really, but was in exactly the right place at the right time when we needed a bastard in charge. That shouldn't prevent discussion of his mistakes and slip ups as well though (and telling, after the war he was voted out almost straight away despite what he did, his victory lap in the '50's shows why this was generally a good thing).

[Cliffjumper]

I don't think she should necessarily be celebrated either. She hasn't been a significant factor since 1992.

On the Falklands, you don't show weakness to people like Galtieri. If someone invades somewhere that does not belong to them you don't just evict people. What if Spain was to invade Gibraltar? Or France to invade Jersey? Or Ireland to invade Northern Ireland? Or Norway to invade Scotland? Where exactly do you draw the line on this?

You cannot abandon people because defending them might be expensive or inconvenient, especially if they're being threatened by an extreme right-wing government. The Falklands conflict not only repulsed Galtieri's immediate military aims, it gave his whole regime a black eye. A fascist dictator was removed from power as a result, sparing God knows how much of the indigenous population.

Off-Topic:
Regarding World War II, geography saved us as much as any other factor. The Luftwaffe would never have been able to acheive the air supremacy necessary to prevent the Royal Navy from annihilating an invasion fleet (we basically had the capital ships to clog the Channel and blow apart any invasion force even if there were 75% losses to aerial attack); Fighter Command was never seriously close to collapse (we had a lot of forward airfields knocked out but the way the network was laid out meant that this simply wasn't a crucial factor).

The Battle of Britain saved lives because the casualties the RN would have sustained stopping it would have been enormous but the English channel was basically impregnable; the 'Few' is partly a propaganda thing designed to disguise that Churchill was happy enough to let the Germans bomb the **** out of the civilian population.

[Denyer]

Surely by that logic no fans of hers should be mourning her death as whatever good she did for the country was equally far in the past?

Basically. "Bill, quit talking about Kennedy, man. Let it go..."

And yes, Churchill's immensely popular in spite of his record. Jingoism and knowing very little about history apart from the bits we can be argued to have won are fundamental to the British character.

would not have, and could not have, won World War II

Not sure a close equivalent is possible in a similar frame, unless instigated by religious nutters with unprecedented support or a significant collapse of Western civilisation. People are a lot less inclined to die because of political cluster****s and concepts such as national borders. Succeed in totally blacking out all world communications, and maybe.

[Jaynz]

Not sure a close equivalent is possible in a similar frame, unless instigated by religious nutters with unprecedented support or a significant collapse of Western civilisation. People are a lot less inclined to die because of political cluster****s and concepts such as national borders. Succeed in totally blacking out all world communications, and maybe.

Empires tend to collapse not due to external armies marching through their streets (though that does happen) but largely due to internal discord and what we now call 'Balkanization'.

When your (the generic 'your') people see that government as nothing more than a broker of entitlements, which is a plague in the entire Western world, and you've undermined your cultural identity in that pursuit, you're more than ripe for collapse and fragmentation.

In the US, we're seeing a massive rise of nullification of our Federal Goverment due to our increasing cultural split between certain areas of our country. This is an early sign of "Bad Things" (TM). That's not irreversible, of course, or even new, but is very much a sure sign that reform is necessary. While a nation is in this stage, it's almost impossible to have a strong unity against more serious threats - be they Hitler, Al Queda, or the more-usual unpayable debts.

The only thing that seemingly saves us now is that we have a long, long way to fall and our relative luxury is immense. But as Detroit shows us, it's not at all impossible to fall from a high perch.

[Denyer]

In the US, we're seeing a massive rise of nullification of our Federal Goverment due to our increasing cultural split between certain areas of our country.

What's substantially different to a quarter century ago except for new forms of media and people having to be a bit more coy when being racist or defining "the deserving poor"? To the outside world as well as many locals, there's relatively little difference between the two prominent parties in US* politics. They're backed by the same financial interests, and both have overseen a race to the bottom with production tending to go overseas. Each promises all things to all when it's campaign time.

It's easier to get webbed into recursive loops due to the way media has developed -- people mostly follow things that they agree with -- but any divisions have been there a lot longer, and arguably a lot fiercer in the past.

*Not that the US is in any way alone in this.

[Addl]

But the UK population at the time really shouldn't have won World War II either, it's one of the great feats of British history that we did win the Battle of Britain and thus kept the Nazi's out long enough to be on the winning side.

Though we were mainly helped by Hitler making his big mistake and giving up to a certain extent on us and turning his attention to Russia, with disastrous results (forgetting the mistakes of Napoleon and the World War One Germans, showing he had less understanding of history than the people the Daily Mash was mocking). If he'd have kept up the pressure he would have successfully invaded Britain, we didn't have much more left to throw at him.

.

More O. T.
No, our Wehrmacht would have surely never invaded Britain and more, it was never planned to do war against fellow Germans in a racial term ( all the invasion preparation was just for propaganda during the BOB).
As France mainly is settlement of the German tribe Franken ( mixed with romans and celtic) who's core area is still upper Bavaria it is the same for Britain: the German tribes Angeln and Sachsen (core area sachsen in east germany) came to the island, settled and mixed with Normans (Germanic) and the already being there Celtic.

It was Britain and France that declared war on Germany after the attack on Poland.
The "wonder" of Dunkirk" was again a sign of nazi regime, that Britain is not the enemy and Rommels tanks were stopped by order.

North Africa was only the aid for our ally Italy, as they attacked British controlled Egypt but failed.
This was never the interest of hitler, as only Rommel with a small force mostly less than 100 tanks was dispatched, as British were there ten times in numbers.

And of course the flight of Rudolf Hess to Britain to negotiate peace in 1940. But rather to listen, Churchill never spoke to him and he spent the rest of his life in jail until he died in 1987 only because he made the error to fly to Britain.

It was the commonly known goal, as written in "mein kampf" that Jews together with Bolshevik are the focus of nazi party and war.
The war was planned for roughly 1947 with jet fighters and bombers and rockets available. Stalin also planned for war against Germany, so this showdown was inevitable, but hitler (as strange to some it might seem) wanted and undertook serval actions to make peace with France and Britain during to war.

Also, 75% of the Wehrmacht was fighting in Russia, only 25% to cover France, Balkan, Italy, Scandinavia, so no wonder the west allies won, once they landed, but the war in our west was never planned goal.

And: the First World War ended with a surrender due to a real war in the west while the reichswehr had already won against Russia in 1917. Germany's declared war goal in the east was reached, but the west front could not be recovered.

[Cliffjumper]

Yep - Hitler would rather have had peace with the UK than invaded, especially once Chamberlain was out of power. No big genetic beefs and no grudge match like there was in France (in Versailles the UK and the Americans were the voice of reason) and not even that many idelogical ones (not long before there was Edward VIII and Oswald Moseley). Failing that he would have settled for simply neutralising Britain as an offensive threat.

Plus strategically we've always been a nightmare to invade. The British coast is relatively easy to police (which is why the Channel Dash of Scharnhorst, Gniesenau and Prinz Eugen was so acutely embarrassing); the amount of battleships that could have been pulled back had home base been threatened is astonishing. Similarly the amount of aircraft in reserve units and the amount of reserve airfields avaliable - even in the Battle of Britain the RAF was barely scratched. We learnt very quickly from the French and Belgians too - there were no real fortifications erected in the UK, instead defence units were made flexible and ran along almost guerilla lines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_an ... rld_War_II)

We lost a certain amount of top-line fighters (i.e. Hurricanes and Spitfires) and a fair few cream pilots but mass numbers were never an issue. By then lend-lease and the Empire Training Scheme were toting up considerable numbers of second-grade aircraft (American stuff like the P-40, early Mustangs and Buffalo that were largely shipped off East but would have been used in the UK if necessary) and pilots that would have made a big difference in a war of attrition. There was also the sizeable Auxiliary Air Force using semi-retired pre-war machinery and most of our trainers had the capability to fight if needs be. IIRC analysing the figures from about midway through the Battle of Britain our losses were beginning to be overtaken by the number of replacements being introduced while the German losses were doing the opposite.

The Luftwaffe simply didn't have the machinery to operate far enough North in the UK to neuter the RAF - no genuine heavy bombers, no long-range single-seat fighters - whereas British aircraft could operate from the North and still cover the South. The Wehrmacht would basically have to get a serious foothold in the South - enough to get airbases operating - while holding off the RAF, RN and the Army with only limited air and naval cover. Sea Lion always looked somewhat half-hearted, a show of force to try and convince Britain to keep out of things rather than a serious invasion plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... st_Wargame is worth a read.

It's worth noting D-Day took place four years later; that's four war years, with some astounding advances in technology - the UK & US waged strategic bombing campaigns with four-engined planes that delivered several times the payloads of the German machines, all covered by long-range escort fighters; Allied engineers spent years developing special equipment for the raid.

Barbossa/Russia is less of a turning point for the UK than made out because Britain was never going to be an easy nut to crack anyway - force of numbers wouldn't work in the same situation due to the crossing; chances are the battle in the West would have developed along similar lines if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, if the initial progress had been maintained and so on. If the battle hadn't started the Eastern front numbers would have been needed to prevent the Soviets invading; if it had been successful they'd have been needed to police the territory.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Basically. "Bill, quit talking about Kennedy, man. Let it go..."

And yes, Churchill's immensely popular in spite of his record. Jingoism and knowing very little about history apart from the bits we can be argued to have won are fundamental to the British character.

I think that is a fundamental character to almost every country in the world as well.

[Jaynz]

Seriously, guys? In an effort to make sure Thatcher and Churchill remain defamed, you're going to rehabilitate The Nazi Regieme? Really, there's not much room left for discussion at that point...

[Hound]

Yeah! How dare you muddle up his jingoism with an objective evaluation of the historical facts!!! Grr! [/mean face]

[Denyer]

Seriously, guys? In an effort to make sure Thatcher and Churchill remain defamed, you're going to rehabilitate The Nazi Regieme?

Against airbrushing out the ways in which a majority of political leaders have been ****s, personally.

not long before there was Edward VIII and Oswald Moseley

Mmm. It's not well-recorded by this point because most people try to keep a lid on what they or their families were doing if it involved admiration for Hitler, but there was quite a lot of popular support for him in other countries prior to the outbreak of hostilities. And with far less media it took time to sink in, even without actively positive coverage such as the Daily Mail under Lord Rothermere.

edit:

Other bits and pieces...

Margaret Thatcher's Funeral: Her 9 Friends Who Sadly Won't Be Able To Make It


http://i45.tinypic.com/29uw1ok.jpg

[Sixshot]

there's relatively little difference between the two prominent parties in US* politics. They're backed by the same financial interests, and both have overseen a race to the bottom with production tending to go overseas. Each promises all things to all when it's campaign time.

Or promise all things to 53%, if you're a ****ing idiot.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people." - Mitt Romney.

It's quite surprising how many people believe they aren't dependent upon government and take it in the literal sense of cash/benefit receipts without considering education, NHS etc. Even people who can afford to go private for those services will still be dependent on infrastructure, civil order and a population who have the means to trade. I wonder how many politicians benefit from Maggie's great big social housing sell-off? Hasn't changed much for the people in receipt of housing benefit, but that funding is now going to private landlords rather than Local Authorities.

[Denyer]

Yeah... pulling something old out of the quote file...

This morning I was woken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Dept of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Dept. of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on roads built by the local, state and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log onto the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Or promise all things to 53%, if you're a ****ing idiot.

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people." - Mitt Romney.

It's quite surprising how many people believe they aren't dependent upon government and take it in the literal sense of cash/benefit receipts without considering education, NHS etc. Even people who can afford to go private for those services will still be dependent on infrastructure, civil order and a population who have the means to trade. I wonder how many politicians benefit from Maggie's great big social housing sell-off? Hasn't changed much for the people in receipt of housing benefit, but that funding is now going to private landlords rather than Local Authorities.

As an American voter and speaking for only myself I know damn well that I rely on the government because I'm disabled and live on Social Security and Medicare. Without it I would be at best homeless and at worse dead. I can say that almost 3/4th of my check goes to paying my rent and by the time I pay the rest of my bills and get my meds and food, I lucky to have about $40 a month to live on. At least I know that my income comes from the govenement and admit it.

[Summerhayes]

Well, thanks to my tonsilitis I've come to the party super late.
The bit that bugs me is everyone saying how disgraceful it is that Labour MPs didn't show up to get tribute thing. I think they did absolutely the right thing. If you don't like someone, you don't go to their funeral. It's not like they were picketing it...

[Addl]

Yeah... pulling something old out of the quote file...

This morning [...] anyghing right.

Perfect Quote Denyer, similar to what I always like to explain to all the people who think German government is only corrupt and does nothing right.
In fact, after living in a couple of countries abroad for years, Germany is the only country I want to live in while growing old, using the benefits and security and honesty of public services, something very wrong and corrupt lying here in china.

But people will never know how good it is at home, if they never leave it.

@Jaynz: what?
Where is it rehabilitated?
Even if we are discussing, there is much more to the political and ideological structure of my country 1933-1945 than you see on the documentary channel or play in return to castle Wolfenstein.
The media of the last 70 years has painted a simple black/ white image for the masses to easily to point at the bad ones, the Germans Nazis, ignoring all other topics during those 12 years and reducing it to the holocaust. If I read things here like ( the nazis would have invaded britain) I always think they are talking about our prussian Wehrmacht including my grand parents, just because they happend to live at that time, fight in the Luftwaffe and army for our country. It would not have been a bunch of political and ideological blinded maniacs swimming across the channel.

[Skyquake87]

Caught the news last night...protests in the street from the National Union Of Mine Workers and violent scuffles with the police elsewhere. If it weren't for the internet campaign to get 'ding dong the witch is dead' to number 1, it'd feel like the 1980s all over again.

Carole Thatcher made a wee speech and whatever else I think of her and her ridiculous brother Mark (whom I thought was in jail after that bungled coup ) let alone her mum, I did feel a bad for them as the death in the fmaily is difficult enough without the circus that's currently going on around them. Perhaps if we weren't so keen on having a ridiculous state funeral then this wouldn't be a problem.

I don't think there's been this much out pouring of public sentiment since Diana died and the Iraq war protests. You'd think our politicians might have learnt something by now, but noooo....

[Cyberstrike nTo]

You'd think our politicians might have learnt something by now, but noooo....

Politicians learn?!
Well not some (mostly the Republicans and a few Conservative Democrats) in the USA anyway.

I don't know about Britain though.

[Skyquake87]

The thing that frustrates me about politicians is this unwillingness to learn from history and properly tackle problems.

For example; Its been 21 years since the Bristol NHS heart scandal broke (child mortality rates were found to be alarmingly high due to a series of botched operations, lack of specialist care, trained nurses and a management culture that turned a blind eye to the problems). We are still no closer to properly dealing with problems like this because of the political fall out the solution involves - creating fewer larger specialist centres throughout the country rather - which sees the public up in arms because all they hear is that part of their local hospital is closing.

Its a times like this that you do need someone (like Maggie) with the courage of their convictions to push through changes like this, instead of the endless t*tting about that goes on.

[Tetsuro]

I lucky to have about $40 a month to live on.

I might be able to live with $40 for a week if I only buy food.

I can't even imagine what kind of food you'd have to eat to be able to make $40 last a whole month