Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Thatcher has dementia

124»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Really? Others believe the invitation was just a cynical attempt to sabotage international efforts to impose economic sanctions to South Africa. In any case, when Botha ignored every single one of those requests, she happily continued to oppose sanctions.

    When even the current Tory leader has apologised for Thatcher's stance on the Apartheid, you know how twisted and perverted it was.

    Do you really think her opposition to sanctions was prompted by her concern about the poor in South Africa? Really?

    I find that an extremely naive belief myself...

    Tony Blair has blood on his hands. Thatcher doesn't. Thatcher only started wars in which British territory was invaded, Blair did not. Yet Tony Blair is considered to be popular still, especially since most people seem to dislike Brown.

    And what's worse is that he claims to be Christian. Thatcher goes to church sometimes i guess, but was never that vocal about her faith. I guess Jesus would have condoned war based on a false premise, huh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Distancing myself from the argument here a second, i think ilipintt has started a good thread here. There has been some good debate so far!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ilipintt wrote: »
    Tony Blair has blood on his hands. Thatcher doesn't. Thatcher only started wars in which British territory was invaded, Blair did not. Yet Tony Blair is considered to be popular still, especially since most people seem to dislike Brown.

    And what's worse is that he claims to be Christian. Thatcher goes to church sometimes i guess, but was never that vocal about her faith. I guess Jesus would have condoned war based on a false premise, huh?
    I don't have any sympathy for Blair myself either mate! I don't think it's an argument about who was worse anyway. I think the general theme is about ''it's too bad she's got dementia and nobody deserves that, but how should history remember her Premiership?''
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    but how should history remember her Premiership?''

    As unpleasant but necessary. By all accounts Winston Churchill had many flaws but he got the job done. We emerged eventually a much stronger and better positioned kingdom for having had the changes Thatcher pushed through, and you must concede that even if you don't like the way she did things (I detest the woman and the things she stands for, and the way she did things - but they had to be done).

    Who knows, we could have ended up like France.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    By all accounts Winston Churchill had many flaws but he got the job done.

    What did churchill ever get done, a polo medal and some memorable speeches? His career was farce after farce.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    minimi38 wrote: »
    What did churchill ever get done, a polo medal and some memorable speeches? His career was farce after farce.

    Well this thread isn't about Churchill but he did lead the country through WW2 so I wouldn't say he was a complete numpty. Having been to plenty of Churchill exhibitions I learnt a fair bit about him and I think he was the man to lead us and I think he did the best job he could. But as you say there was plenty he did wrong and he never would have been the best peacetime prime minister. Waking up your ministers in the middle of the night for secret meetings because he was a bit peculiar lets say don't usually inspire confidence.

    We won, didn't we? :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ShyBoy wrote: »
    As unpleasant but necessary. By all accounts Winston Churchill had many flaws but he got the job done. We emerged eventually a much stronger and better positioned kingdom for having had the changes Thatcher pushed through, and you must concede that even if you don't like the way she did things (I detest the woman and the things she stands for, and the way she did things - but they had to be done).
    The unions might have needed to be cut to size, but this could have been done without going to the extremes she went to.

    As for the benefits she might have brought to the country, these were almost exclusively gained by the already wealthy. Indeed, millions of people ended up worse off after 11 years under her. I should imagine City boys spending 40 grand on a lunch outing and the sight of Ferraris clogging the King's Road would be of little comfort to those struggling to put bread on the table- and sadly there were a lot more in 1990 than they were in 1979.

    Of course, what people remember is the opulence and success enjoyed by some, the soaring shares and the rising fortunes of many an investor and businessman, and reach the conclusion Thatcher brought prosperity for all. That was not the case.
    Who knows, we could have ended up like France.
    If only!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    If only!


    No one if forcing you to be in the UK, if you really dont like it why dont you just fuck off?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    No one if forcing you to be in the UK, if you really dont like it why dont you just fuck off?
    LOL! Great argument! Very thought-out and rational. Never heard it before either :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    As for the benefits she might have brought to the country, these were almost exclusively gained by the already wealthy. Indeed, millions of people ended up worse off after 11 years under her. I should imagine City boys spending 40 grand on a lunch outing and the sight of Ferraris clogging the King's Road would be of little comfort to those struggling to put bread on the table- and sadly there were a lot more in 1990 than they were in 1979.

    Of course, what people remember is the opulence and success enjoyed by some, the soaring shares and the rising fortunes of many an investor and businessman, and reach the conclusion Thatcher brought prosperity for all. That was not the case.

    The opportunity was there for all (or almost all). See my previous post.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    No one if forcing you to be in the UK, if you really dont like it why dont you just fuck off?

    Oh dear ... we have one of 'those' here. :yeees:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Anyone who actively wants to be Prime Minister should be shot, in my opinion.

    well seeing as most PM's seem to bodge the job along with all the gov arguing among themselves trying to look good I'm sure many would like to get in there if only to tell the current one a thing or two. they seem so out of touch and unrealistic in dealing with issues
Sign In or Register to comment.