egafd.com

Hear Hear ! rightly said !

Here's a hypothetical where I try and establish what Thatcher would have done if the mines had been located in areas that returned Conservative MP's. Bearing in mind she did a lot of things for political (self-interest) reasons, it is interesting to consider what she would have done in this situation. In the 1980's, if I remember rightly, the Tories held EVERY seat in the south-east outside London with the exception of Thurrock in Essex which was Labour. The political landscape down here is somewhat different now. The mining areas were Labour seats.

I said earlier she took us in to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) even though she was against it in principal but because she was faced with possibly losing her second Chancellor in one year if she didn't, and that would have been the end of her. She held back pulling the subsidy on the shipyards in the north-east until just after the 1987 election because to do it before would have harmed her at the election. It was reported in the late-1980's that the Channel Tunnel rail link, linking Dover to London, ran the risk of losing the Tories six seats in Kent had it gone ahead (as it would involve smashing through lots of picturesque areas of the Kent countryside). This was put back and put back and was eventually built many years after the tunnel opened. The trains ran much slower than they would have done, on existing lines, and when it was eventually built it took a non-direct route and was built along the side of existing motorways to minimise the damage to the Kent countryside. This was years after she left office.

The Scots getting the Poll Tax a year before England was clearly done for political reasons, as was her decision to hold off privatising British rail and one or two other privatisation programmes were held back too. They was done in later years, after she left office. So had the mines been in Tory heartlands and she faced the prospect of losing seats at a subsequent election if the closures had gone ahead I am sure she would have done it differently. She could not have been seen to have been defeated by the miners, or them having her over a barrel like with Ted Heath in the 1970's. I am sure she would just have monitored the situation closely, had her people have regular meetings with the miners union and quietly ensured they were kept sweet. Behind-closed-doors meetings with her people and theirs, offering gradual increases in pay, more subsidy to keep the mines open, improved working conditions, better pensions, money to smarten up the districts, and so on. I'm certain that's how it would have gone and we would not have had the mines close - even if in the real world many mine closures were inevitable as we have discussed in previous parts of this thread.

What do people think? I'm sure things would have gone VERY differently had the mines been in Kent or Berkshire.

I did not agree with the poll tax but she only lost control of the situatio in the last couple of years. It was then right she went.
Unlike Tony who hung on for far too lon, became a tory, and took us into a war we should never have been in

The Scots getting the Poll Tax a year before England was clearly done for political reasons,

Christ dont you read the facts ? It was the scottish councils that wanted the poll tax in early as they had made a cunt of the rates system - thatcher wanted to wait and bring it in all together as a a one. If she had then we would still be under a poll tax system, a system that is much fairer in my opinion. you live in the area you benefit from the services - so rightly you should pay for them.

"There are plenty of pricks on the 'i hate thatcher' bandwagon. Either that, or all ex-miners, ex-shipbuilders and ex-car makers have diversified into porn.
Just watched the news and there were girls, of no more than 20 years of age, dancing around, celebrating her death. What the fuck. She'd left office years before they were even fucking born. Talk about the great brainwashed masses".

Now you are just being silly. Are you saying that unless you lived through a prime minister's time in office, you cannot have a view on their leadership?

You think if your father was thrown on the scrap heap after decades of work in manufacturing, the mines, ship building etc and saw the destruction of their way of life and community, becoming clinically depressed as a result, would not have an impact on you?

"Harold Shipman, in all probability, killed around 250 people. No dancing in the streets when he killed himself.
Fred West, killed 11+ people, then killed himself. Nope, no dancing there either"

This is a very dumb analogy. Thatcher created utter devastation in much of the North of England and Scotland as part of her leadership. Comparing that with a serial killer is silly.

"The people of this country used to have some dignity and yet they're treating an ex-leader as beneath that of a fucking serial killer. Disgusting".

What you have clearly not understood is that Thatcher's time in office created huge divisions in this country. For some it was a great time where they made "loadsamoney". For others she was a complete disaster for their lives. That is why unlike the deaths of Harold WIlson, Harold MacMillan, Jim Callaghan etc etc. her death has created such reactions.

These reactions are NOT synthetic. Get over it. And to protest against the 10 million or so being forked out for the pseudo-state funeral of someone like Thatcher who was determined to privatise huge amounts of British industry is not unreasonable.

As others have stated, given Thatcher's political views it would have been entirely appropriate and in keeping with those views if her funeral had been privatised.

Without doing any research I seem to recall George Young having a big hand in this. He is still a prominent Tory front bencher and has been prolific in the Scottish bit of the Tory party for many years. Although when every Scots MP lost their seat I am not very familiar with what he did next, I assume they put him forward for a safe seat elsewhere and just arranged for him to be re-elected (like Rifkind and Portillo). Anyway, regarding the Poll Tax north of the border, I see no reason why England and Wales could not have had it at the same time. Even if the Scottish councils pushed for this, like you say, it could have been implemented nationwide simultaneously.

I can see why I don't post here much!

Kent Coal!

God help us!

Kent Coal!

Only a week to think up all that shite. You're slipping Dave.

As stated previously, I no longer have any sympathy for all these groups, communities, etc. who have chosen to be so offensive and distasteful, before a lady is even laid to rest.
They've had 23 ish years to carry out protests since she left office. Nothing.
Cowardly pricks can only do it now she's dead.

Fuck 'em.

You've got a poster on here advocating shitting in Lady Thatcher's mouth!! while she lies in her coffin. The sick fuck.

This is my last post on this forum. As I no longer want to be associated with people who are into, or supportive of, necrophilia, scat or paedophilia. And there seems to be a handful of posters on here who into one or of the above.

The moderators don't remove their posts, or take any action. Other members don't seem to have a problem with them either.

Bye bye Dave. Hope you continue to live in poverty in Blackpool. You can't have made any money since your impoverished upbringing in the North East but at least it gives you something chat about.

"Bye bye Dave. Hope you continue to live in poverty in Blackpool. You can't have made any money since your impoverished upbringing in the North East but at least it gives you something chat about"

Oh dear and you criticise other people. How sad!

1. When have I said that I had an impoverished upbringing?

2. Given you know nothing about me and I know nothing about you, it is rather childish to make statements like "hope you continue to live in poverty", don't you think?

3. What is worse:

a. To insult the dead or
b. To wish the living have a life of poverty?

No wonder you don't want to reply.