• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

She's dead

Some of you folks give far more exclusive credence to Thatch's public statements than you would to just about any other politician's. A certified extract from a letter which was kept secret at the time is far more likely to represent what she really thought.
So we can add lying to the public to the list.
Good work jj.
 
You can't assert anything from an extract of a letter without context. It's like claims relying on stats, you can call it any which way. Certainly her public statements and deeds were contradictory.

Even in this obscure reference though it's plain to see that people are divided as to her intentions. The point of most of this thread.
 
Certainly her public statements and deeds were contradictory.

I think that the most outstanding example of that, is that Thatcher convinced the nation that her government was cutting expenditure, whereas in reality public expenditure continued to rise in the Thatcher years, especially in the NHS where it rocketed.
 
@ Portly - if you want to discuss my point earlier via message, please do ... I have many other examples and would would like to hear your opinions, but don't want to get in the way of this thread (too much at least!)
 
I think that the most outstanding example of that, is that Thatcher convinced the nation that her government was cutting expenditure, whereas in reality public expenditure continued to rise in the Thatcher years, especially in the NHS where it rocketed.

I was referring to South Africa, apartheid and the figures and organisations involved.

But, yeah, you're point is valid. If you create mass unemployment then public expenditure rises. Then, as now.
 
But the fact is that Thatcher was not a supporter of the Apartheid régime as has been frequently asserted in this thread. She worked alongside Commonwealth leaders to try to dismantle it. As you see from the letter I posted she was trying to persuade the hardline P.W Botha to release Nelson Mandela. I think her position on trade sanctions was perfectly logical even though the ANC were in favour of sanctions. Sanctions always have the worst effect on ordinary people, as we saw in Iraq under Saddam and we are seeing now in North Korea.

It may seem harsh to have described Mandela as a terrorist, but in the early days of the ANC he was involved in activities including bombings that we normally associate with terrorism - even if you think that it was a worthy cause.

A steadfast critic of apartheid, she had consistently and correctly believed that much more could be achieved through constructive engagement with the South African government than through draconian sanctions and isolation, De Klerk (My addition: Former President who released Mandela and ended Apartheid) said in a statement.
She had understood the need to consider the concerns and aspirations of all South Africans in their search for constitutional consensus.
"For this reason, she was able to play a positive role in supporting our own process of non-racial constitutional transformation in South Africa," he said.

One can also look at Ahmed Kathrada's stance to add weight to Portly and JJ's position.
 
Just rearranged my meetings to not be in London Wednesday. Just in case something daft kicks off.
 
so is anyone willing to defend her supporting pinochet and pot

If someone can give me some reading material on Pinochet & Pot and why she felt the need to be their friends, I'd be grateful (it's tough to ascertain what's worthwhile reading now as it's all swining one way or another).
 
If someone can give me some reading material on Pinochet & Pot and why she felt the need to be their friends, I'd be grateful (it's tough to ascertain what's worthwhile reading now as it's all swining one way or another).

Power made her wet.
 
I've just rearranged my meetings so I can make time for some hardcore happy dancing

1zl92fn.gif


smith1.gif


tumblr_mau60rxVFF1r3bwow.gif


th_HappyDance.gif


happy-dance-o.gif


happy-dance-o.gif


http-_lexmccoy.tumblr.com_.gif


john-green-happy-dance-o.gif
 
Does the NHS have to look after them as well?. No wonder it's tough getting an appointment.

And why is Cuba keeping tabs on our sickness and unemployment rates?

I think you're trying to be funny, but anyway, the research was about how being poor and unable to afford a normal western level of sustenance actually seems to improve one's health.

@athensruairi this relates to your post too.
 
I think you're trying to be funny, but anyway, the research was about how being poor and unable to afford a normal western level of sustenance actually seems to improve one's health.

It's a fact that in both World War 1 and World War 2, when the public's diet was severely restricted by rationing, public health at home improved considerably.
 
I think you're trying to be funny, but anyway, the research was about how being poor and unable to afford a normal western level of sustenance actually seems to improve one's health.

@athensruairi this relates to your post too.

The Cubans have a policy of sending junior doctors door-to-door calling in on old people and the very young. This simple act means a lot of easily preventable conditions are spotted early.

Saves a fortune and keeps people healthier for longer, hence their high life expectancy.
 
I wouldn't defend the Pinochet and Pol Pot connections, except to say that I think politics is a dirty business and almost all leaders tend to have these obnoxious episodes. She was a politician, so I tend to judge her in that context. It's bad, no doubt, but worse than Blair and Gaddafi? Or Blair lying in order to send his people to die in a pointless war? Or Cameron supporting the continuation of the Afghanistan war in return for The Lying Rag's political support?

Probably not.
 
Well Peter said earlier that if there was a greater purpose then sending people to their death could be justified.

I think almost anyone who isn't a pacifist believes that, don't they? Or do you think no war has ever been justifiable?
 
It's a fact that in both World War 1 and World War 2, when the public's diet was severely restricted by rationing, public health at home improved considerably.

I doubt that but surely the improvement only lasted until you got shot in the trenches or a bomb fell on your house.
 
The Cubans have a policy of sending junior doctors door-to-door calling in on old people and the very young. This simple act means a lot of easily preventable conditions are spotted early.

Saves a fortune and keeps people healthier for longer, hence their high life expectancy.

But that seems irrelevant to this recent piece of research, which plots a connection between absolute poverty and improved health.
 
But that seems irrelevant to this recent piece of research, which plots a connection between absolute poverty and improved health.

I haven't seen that research. Do you have a link for it, or did you post it earlier and I missed it?
 
Back
Top Bottom