Why we love Margaret Thatcher
Published:
March 13, 2011 at 8:00pm
Prime minister Tony Blair with Muammar Gaddafi
When photographs of Tony Blair embracing Muammar Gaddafi were shown on British television as the Libyan uprising began, Margaret Thatcher took one look at them and said:
I NEVER HUGGED HIM. I BOMBED HIM.
Viva n-nisa, ghax l-irgiel vera bla bajd (at least those on the world stage right now).
65 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Our Agatha Barbara did not bomb him. She hugged him. Any mitigating excuses aren’t valid.
She’s not a real woman.
She’s not a woman.
THE IRON LADY HAD BALLS OF STEEL!
She certainly had bigger balls than Tony Blair that’s for sure. His idea of bringing peace to N. Ireland was to surrender to a bunch of murdering terrorists. Interesting to note that he is now some sort of peace envoy. God help the world!
Change of subject, if I may
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/i-have-no-faith-in-anthony-tabone-muscat
Ah, but using muscat’s own hindsight, and if what Muscat is saying is true, wasn’t Tabone right to limit Labour?
Well said Daphne.
Thatcher and Reagan: now those were a good match.
She had the same attitude with the IRA. And they bombed her too. She’s a cold-hearted warmonger. Her son was caught with his pants down fomenting coups in Africa.
I agree that Gaddafi is illegitimate and should be deposed. But the core of the argument should be “the people”. Thatcher didn’t care about how misrepresented the Catholics were in Ireland. She only cared about “Great Britain”. She didn’t care about the miners and their families, she only cared about the rich getting richer.
It was Gaddafi who financed the IRA bombings.
Well actually, Joseph, the IRA didn’t care a lot about how misrepresented the Catholics were in Ireland, I assume by the way you meant N. Ireland as they are different. All they cared about was killing Protestants, Catholics, police, soldiers, judges, members of the Royal family, men, women, children including ones still in the womb and anyone else who got in the way of their various little money making schemes.
They were also backed by Gaddafi who sent them little presents in the way of 6 or 7 boatloads of guns, ammunition, explosives and rocket launchers.
Offloaded in Malta’s territorial waters. Newtralità my left foot.
To all: the British used a heavy hand that further alienated the population. Same as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I’m not absolving the IRA from its dastardly actions and criminal enterprises. The group got neutered only when Britain started dealing with the political issues. It’s interesting to note the shear hypocrisy exercised by American politicians who defend the IRA but trash any insurgent who is motivated by the horrendous discrimination suffered by his family.
Anyone who loves Thatcher is no friend of mine.
Thatcher is to me what Mintoff is to you.
[Daphne – God knows why, given that they come from opposite sides of the political spectrum and couldn’t have been more different.]
Their policies were often completely different but quite similar in their views on the then European Community.
Another similiarity is that they both had very strong and overbearing characters and had uncompromising attitudes.
[Daphne – Can you name one national leader without a strong and overbearing character? If you’re reduced to saying ‘Lawrence Gonzi’, you’ll see what I mean.]
David, I do not think that it is correct to say that Thatcher and Mintoff shared similar views about the EU. Thatcher always expressed herself against giving more sovereign powers to Brussels. Hers was a fight against EU bureaucrats and the united states of Europe.
She never questioned Britain’s membership of the EU, as far as I can recall. Thatcher’s philosophy has remained in her party: the present Conservative government has promised that any European act that proposes to transfer any powers to the EU will be subject to a referendum in Britain.
Mintoff had a very negative view of Europe. Mintoff was inspired by dictators such as Tito and Caucescu, by the Soviet Union, and as we learned recently from Reno Kononna Calleja, by Mao Zedung.
Which is why Mintoff built a relationship with Gaddafi.
“Can you name one national leader without a strong and overbearing character?”
Er, the Pope?
H.P. Baxxter: That’s because he does not use a handbag ?
Why, because she cut the miners and Arthur Scargill down to size using her handbag?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpbydCMpnWg&
18:52 CNN Nic Robertson shows the deserted Medical Clinic in Ras Lanouf after revolutionaries pulled back.
Viva n-nisa, ghax l-irgiel vera bla bajd.(at least those on the world stage right now). Indeed. No doubt the Libyan rebels are praising Allah right now as Angela Merkel’s Luftwaffe swoops down on the Libyan army.
Daphne, I am pretty sure the British intelligence knew very well how Gadaffi have treated his people for the last 42 years. Also, I have no doubt that the CIA know his whereabouts all the time at an given day. The world has yet to learn the real reason why Blair among other world leaders let him stay in power.
There is no such hatred for this regime among the Libyans that toppling him from within would have been a realistic option.
It begs the question, was the benefit of keeping the regime outweighed the alternative?
I am not defending Blair’s schmoozing with Gaddafi, but how could Blair NOT let him stay in power?
…well….Thatcher, like Gaddafi, bombed first of all her own people. If she is the model we are being asked to look at in admiration, God help us.
[Daphne – Really, Albert? Where?]
I think Mr Farrugia means bombing metaphorically in Thatcher’s case. Naturally this is due to his negative view of Thatcher’s policies.
Her policies like those of Blair and many other leaders were controversial. Blair is less controversial as he is considered a moderate and centrist politician while Thatcher had a strong conservative and right wing policy.
I remember following the Falklands war on television. The war victory increased her popularity. Her most controversial decision was the introduction of the poll tax and she had to resign her premiership.
David, was Blair’s decision to commit his country to the Iraq war on the basis of “evidence” of WMD not controversial?
Tony Blair was considered centrist because by his time Thatcher’s brand of conservativism had become mainstream. As Geoffrey Howe remarked long after their departure from politics, not only she changed the Tories but she changed Labour, too.
Albert Farrugia seems to have forgotten that “her own people” tried to bomb “her”: at the 1984 Tory party conference. She escaped unscatched. The Gaddafi-funded IRA planted the bomb in the wrong floor.
And David, saying that Thatcher resigned because of the poll tax is a bit simplistic.
Actually David if you remember back the Falklands issue went a lot deeper. Thatcher was going to lose the upcoming election, that was a certainty. The planned invasion of the Falklands was known about months in advance because the Americans had already told the British about it.
All they had to do was divert a few ships including an aircraft carrier to the South Atlantic and the invasion would have been dead in the water. Instead of doing that Thatcher decided on advice from the military that the best option would be to let the invasion take place and then retake the island. She did exactly this with a great loss of lives on both sides but she did retain her position on the strength of it.
Oh right. So Thatcher raided the national coffers and sacrificed the lives of 255 British servicemen, and almost risked losing the Falklands just so she could get re-elected. Take off that tin foil hat.
A case of wag the dog then, Beowolf.
Baxxter, why are you so shocked? It wouldn’t have been the only reason. Losing the Falklands would have meant certain defeat come election. There is also the prospect of oil there.
I doubt she cared about people’s lives unless they’re in her ruling class.
[Daphne – Don’t be ridiculous. You should know better than to subscribe to the propaganda of denaturing women (“unsex me here”) so as to better make them figures of hatred. Margaret Thatcher just happened to be a woman world leader and British prime minister at a time when ‘equality’ was still pretty much all about talk and no substance. Men like Arthur Scargill hated been told what to do by somebody with a handbag and it showed.]
You’re telling me that she likes your sort Baxxter?
@Joseph A Borg
Margaret Thatcher was a grocer’s daughter, much derided by that ‘ruling class’ you mention.
I actively fight prejudice and understand she wouldn’t have had it easy being prime minister.
But I’m judging her legacy. I assume we can criticise female prime minister as much as we can bash Lloyd George or Churchill or Bliar…
I know you chaps adore Carl Sagan, so I’ll quote him: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Bring me proof that Thatcher colluded in the invasion of the Falklands, and then we can start talking. Otherwise, this is one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I’ve ever seen.
Planned invasion my arse. Argentina has been planning an invasion of the Falklands since the early 20th century, and it’s still on their constitution (Maltese tight-arsed lawyer types would take so much comfort in that). How was Thatcher to pre-empt it? By bombing Buenos Aires every week?
I suppose Hitler was financed by Churchill so he could start the war and make Churchill popular. Right?
It is the stupidest conspiracy theory ever. The Thatcher government had planned to decommission the two carriers and the two amphibious landing ships, with which it fought that war, as part of budget cuts. Had the Argentines attacked the Falklands a few months later, Britain wouldn’t have had anything to retaliate with.
@ La Redoute
“Margaret Thatcher was a grocer’s daughter, much derided by that ‘ruling class’ you mention”
and she got amply rewarded for her services
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr Farrugia is referring to the Falkland Islands.
The Falkland Islands are British territory and inhabited by British people. The Royal navy dropped bombs on the Falklands therefore Thatcher bombed her own people.
Such is the logic of some people.
Similarly they will see any military intervention to get rid of Gaddafi as an attack on Libya.
“Thatcher bombed her own people” .
Did she really? Is this some new videogame ?
Britain produced only two politicians with balls in the twentieth century.
Winnie and Maggie.
Any decent Englishman would agree.
She had balls
Veru … fil-fatt it-teorija tal-Global Warming kagunata mill-carbon emissions taghta spinta hi. Dik l-ewwel degree taghha kienet BSc fil-Chemistry.
Thatcher riedet tirbah zewg battalji. Wahda ma ridietx tkun rufjana taz-zejt tal-gharab u l-ohra riedet tkisser is-sahha tat-trade unions tal-minijieri tal-faham. Allura tat spinta lit-teorija tal-hsara lill-ambjent mill-carbon emissions biex titfa dawl ikrah fuq iz-zejt w il-faham. Il-boloh ambjentalisti (il-Greens dejjem kretini) belawha sa grizmejhom u paxxewha.
During the miners’ strike in 1984, Scargill, the miners’ union leader received money from Libya and the Soviet Union. Scargill has now disappeared from the scene and lives in a luxury apartment in the Barbican, London.
Prosit! Ilqatt il-musmar fuq rasu. Mistoqsija lil Daphne: Inti lil Obama tarah Thatcher jew Blair iehor?
[Daphne – Che centra? Hemm ghalfejn taghmel paragun bejniethom?]
Sadattant: Gaddafi daqt jirbah Benghazi wkoll. Qed tisserja l-bicca. Issa s-slaten kollha mill-Oman sas-Saudis sal-Marokk jibdew jghidu: “Ara x’tiswa s-sahha militari tal-Amerikani. Zero. Bhal Gaddafi jaqblilna naghmlu .. nimmassakraw l-avversarji taghna inkellna jaqtawlna rasna.”
2012 fil–qrib … hocuc pocus ..abrakadabra … bwahgaghabahaga
Minhabba din li deheret ftit mumenti ilu. Reuters jew Guardian. Insejt.
The Obama administration has so far blocked British and French moves to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to curtail Gaddafi’s attacks on rebel forces and civilians. One stated reason for its reluctance is concern that the US has little first-hand knowledge of the embattled rebel groups, which have been asking for western military assistance with increasing urgency in recent days.
Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Obama expressed caution about dealing with the Benghazi council, which France alone has recognised as Libya’s legitimate successor government. The opposition was “just getting organised”, Obama said. Clinton’s talks are intended to give the US a better picture of who it may be dealing with if Gaddafi falls.
While everyone talks about meeting at the next talking shop….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPJ2ajVgxHI&
Niltaqghu “taht it-tinda.”
PS Issa l-istatwa ta Angelik tibki d-demm u jaghmel xi miraklu Borg In-Nadur ghax gejja l-ahhar tad-dinja.
Thatcher was the one who said ‘there is no such thing as society’ just remember that.
[Daphne – Words taken out of context by her politicial enemies. You should check these things before you parrot them. What she actually said was: “But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate. And the worst things we have in life, in my view, are where children who are a great privilege and a trust—they are the fundamental great trust, but they do not ask to come into the world, we bring them into the world, they are a miracle, there is nothing like the miracle of life—we have these little innocents and the worst crime in life is when those children, who would naturally have the right to look to their parents for help, for comfort, not only just for the food and shelter but for the time, for the understanding, turn round and not only is that help not forthcoming, but they get either neglect or worse than that, cruelty.” http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 ]
In order to achieve constructive changes, Mrs Thatcher subjected Britain to a sequence of destructive upheavals. Her cure for the UK’s ills was attractive enough for a portion of its population to vote her into office three times, but the medicine was so objectionable she never received majority support.
the apparatus she used to achieve her goals harmed just as many – if not more – than they helped. This was because her policies tended to involve short-term pain for many, but long-term gain for only a few.
Rather than stimulating the economy through investment and tax cuts, she tried to control the amount of money in circulation. Mrs Thatcher thought this would reduce inflation from its 1979 level of 10.3%. It didn’t. Inflation doubled within a year and only fell to present day levels of 2-3% in 1986.
By this point, the damage had been done. To get to such a low level, indirect taxes had been hiked (VAT rose from 8% to 15%), as had interest rates (topping 17%). Subsidies for industry were reduced. The result was a massive rise in unemployment from 1.4m in 1979 to 3.5m by 1982, or one in eight people out of work. “I knew that when you change from one set of policies to another, the transition is very difficult,” Mrs Thatcher later reflected, “but benefits would come in the longer run.”
Benefits did come, but not for everyone. Long-term unemployment blighted an entire generation in Northern Ireland (where 20% of people were left out of work), Scotland and the NE and NW of England (16%). Supporters insisted work was there to be found; critics argued it was unreasonable to expect people to leave homes and families to take a job 100 miles away.
A disunited kingdom emerged, as some parts of the country flourished while others faltered. Industry declined in the north; new sectors such as financial services boomed in the south. Mrs Thatcher went further, advocating both economic and moral belligerence. There was “no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families.” People should look to their own and not rely on the government for help.
This crystallised into her observation that the only reason the Good Samaritan did any good was “because he had money”. Fine: everyone wants money and some made a lot during the Thatcher years, but what if you happened to live in a place where you couldn’t earn any?
Selective prosperity
The prosperity Mrs Thatcher brought to Britain was selective, antagonistic and temporary. She did indeed leave Britain “very, very much better”, but only for some. She also left it in recession, with unemployment, inflation and interest rates rising.
Above all, not only was she bad for the country during her premiership, she continues to be bad for the country today. The causes of the present slump – unrestricted credit, deregulation and too much financial speculation – all date back to the 1980s. No successive government dared reverse these decisions: a blessing to her legacy, but a curse we must now all share.
….that’s the bombing I meant, thanks.
I hope you are ian6479 because if not we cannot really take you seriously!
http://www.city-data.com/forum/united-kingdom/638819-what-your-opinion-margaret-thatcher-6.html
People should look to their own and not rely on the government for help
Classic libertarian claptrap. they f@ck the country, get voted out and continue spouting the same garbage. Those are the same policies the GOP is forcing on the US citizens wherever they got elected.
Gwap how can I offer you a pint?
Good that this Thatcher discussion came up. Not that we needed any confirmation, but its very clear where certain quarters within the PN take their inspiration from. At least the picture is clearer now.
One can never hide one’s true nature for ever. And it’s incredible how people try twisting history to their ends. One post here actually tried to reconcile Thatcher with the EU! This is the same woman who, in her book, “Statecraft”, described the EU as “..perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era”, and of Britain’s membership she said it was “a political error of historic magnitude”.
And, yes, all one needs to do is just google her name.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1878097.stm
[Daphne – Well, we certainly shouldn’t be taking our inspiration from any British Labour leader, should we. Ghamlu success, ukoll.]
Only because Bliar tried to institute public programmes to raise the quality of life of the middle and lower class whilst stuffing the rich with more money.
It is now unavoidable that if you want a country that works, you need progressive taxation that limits top end incomes and regulates financial speculation.
Bliar tried to be good to both thinking that wealth can pop out of nowhere. Well we now know that it’s a zero sum game.
“It is now unavoidable that if you want a country that works, you need progressive taxation that limits top end incomes”
What are you saying “limits top end incomes” Are you saying people should not be allowed to earn too much?
How Mintoffian of you. The word ‘lanzit’ comes to mind.
I understand that progressive taxation will imply a heavier tax burden but why would you want to limit top end income? If anyone can earn more, good luck to them.
For the record, I would consider a maximum of 45% tax for 6 zero figure earners. Anything higher than that I would consider as socialist state sponsored theft.
My goodness David! Thanks for the cogent retort…
Mintoff must have got his inspiration from the murkans:
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Or Adam Smith:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax#History_of_intellectual_debate
Don’t worry. I’m not advocating you get a tax hike, unless you’re in the top 5%. As it stands now the tax burden is shifting more on the low (me) and middle income earners (most probably you and daphne) whilst the government gives a lot of incentives to high income earners and asset holders just in case they would like to invest their money in the economy.
You find that fair?
Do you think it promotes a healthy democracy?
As it is now democratic governments are in fact neutered shams that have to institute policies to favour rich asset holders. Up till now Malta has been relatively egalitarian, contrary to other island states (Bahrain comes to mind) but things are changing fast.
Large pay packets are in fact an incentive to commit misdeeds. I’ll leave you to Taibbi but I assume you only read stuff that reinforces your prejudice…
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216
try this as well
http://www.youtube.com/user/belgranoinquiry#p/u/0/eXHsLleeg6I
I still remember the “Challenger” going up the Clyde back to Faslane flying the Jolly Roger after sinking the Belgrano. Way to go !
http://belgranoinquiry.com/?page_id=5
finally
http://belgranoinquiry.com/
I agree, however Thatcher was rather too friendly with Pinochet, who was hardly a saint. True, he helped out in the Falklands war, but still.
She backed him completely when he was arrested in the UK too.
Completely off on a tangent, are you going to review this set of books for your mag?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/mar/13/modernist-cuisine-worlds-heaviest-cookbook
It’s all about business and money. The moment the economic sanctions were lifted in 2004, several world leaders rushed to embrace Gaddafi – to push their country’s companies for lucrative contracts. Period.
Are you sure Thatcher bombed Gaddafi? It was only the US, under the great Ronald Reagan that went in for him. RR and Thatcher were the two real leaders that together brought the Soviet Union to its knees.
‘Peace through Strength’ Ronald Reagan declared when he became president. I totally agree with you though that Britain has had only two PMs with balls since WW2 – Churchill and Thatcher. The latter will remain famous for bringing to a complete halt the coal miners’ unions, and for going for the Argies to retake the Falklands. Some feat that is, and balls yes.
Margaret Thatcher succeeded in restoring to her country the respect, admiration and economic power previously lost through abusive political strikes. Her strong character and determination in pursuing what is good for her country should be an inspiration for all politicians. She inherited a third world country and left it once again a country to be dealt with in Europe. Her economic policy of encouraging private enterprise and doing away with many lame public ducks is still followed to this day.