Sunday, April 21, 2013

What is the Legacy of Margaret Thatcher?

*******
Silencing the British People: The Legacy of Thatcherism and the Iraq War
By Jason Langley
Global Research, April 18, 2013
Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/silencing-the-british-people-the-legacy-of-thatcherism-and-the-iraq-war/5332008
It is often said that power corrupts, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. If a person or a group of people has the power to do as they wish without fear of having to answer for their actions in any meaningful manner, would they feel obligated to listen to those who protest against their actions? Would they feel that those with less power than their own are worthy of being heard?
Since the War on Terror began, Britain has followed the example set by the US, clamping down on civil liberties, protest and dissent. Not all actions taken in this regard have been related to the alleged threat of Islamic terrorism; some have come about through a need to alter a historical narrative, some have come about through chances offered by legal fallout, some have come about in order to keep an agenda on track, and so on. Below are some examples of such moments in the recent history of Britain, where chances to silence, or at the very least, downplay dissent have been seized upon with gusto by the British elite.
The Iraq War: Anti-War Protests and the September Dossier
February 2003 saw the largest political protest in British history. An estimated two million Britons took to the streets of London as part of a wider global movement to march against the looming Iraq war. The protest united people of all ages, ethnicities, faiths and political persuasions. The noise was deafening. A rolling forest of placards and flags covered the streets around the heart of the British capital, calling for peace. In places, parts of the route became so packed with marchers that movement slowed to a standstill.
The establishment’s response to the march was to ignore it. Then Prime Minister Tony Blair, a
disciple of Margaret Thatcher, was elected by a landslide in 1997. He dominated the British political landscape, and apparently became so used to getting his own way that he felt that the concerns of the protestors bore no consideration as his government continued to plan their attack against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Blair, with the backing of the media, had done everything possible to sell the Iraq War to the British public, a highlight of which was the now infamous September Dossier. The dossier, among other things, alleged that Hussein would have been able to attack Europe with his fictitious arsenal of weapons of mass destruction within forty-five minutes of the order being given.
On a related note, there is the case of Dr David Kelly. Kelly was a Ministry of Defence biological warfare expert and former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq who came to public notice in July 2003 when he was revealed to be the source cited in a report by BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan. The report alleged that the dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction had been ‘sexed up’, and that British intelligence were concerned about some of the claims made.
Kelly’s name became public knowledge as he was questioned aggressively regarding his role in Gilligan’s report in a televised hearing by Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Select Committee on July 15th, an experience which caused him great stress. The following day, he was questioned by the Intelligence and Security Committee. The day after, Kelly apparently took his own life near his home in Oxfordshire.
Following Kelly’s death, the Blair Government set up the Hutton Inquiry, the conclusion of which would be that Kelly had indeed committed suicide. Lord Hutton also decided that the evidence, including photos of Kelly’s body, were to remain classified for seventy years, a decision that raised suspicions of a cover-up. Hutton would later claim that he took this decision to spare Kelly’s family any further grief through media reports, and not because there was something to hide. Many dismiss Hutton’s explanation for his actions, and suspect that the Hutton Inquiry was little more than a whitewash, covering for the assassination of Kelly, a man who dared to offer a glimpse into just how far the Blair Government was willing to go to push Britain into what would prove to be one of the most horrific wars of recent decades.
G20, London 2009
The G20 summit held in London in 2009 gave us another glimpse into the utter contempt the elites of
Britain have for dissenting voices. Demonstrators were kept well away from those they wanted to be heard by, while the mainstream media downplayed their presence, using the classic tactic of reporting attendance figures well below the actual numbers.
The media were also there to capitalise on the result of systematic provocation and violence from the Metropolitan Police, the desired outcome being that the protestors would respond with equal force, allowing them to be vilified further. This brutality from the Met demonstrated neatly the Us vs. Them mentality instilled in the Police force, a necessary mechanism to keep the Police serving the establishment. It also led to the death of Ian Tomlinson, an uninvolved passer-by who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
His death and the subsequent inquiry paints a very telling picture. Video footage of a police officer,
PC Simon Harwood, attacking Tomlinson without provocation, eye witness testimony of Harwood’s apparent lust for violence that day, which included assaulting a BBC cameraman shortly before he attacked Tomlinson and motive demonstrated by Harwood’s attempt to conceal his identity, were apparently not enough to convict a member of the British Police for crimes committed. And it is not as outlandish as it may initially seem to predict that were a civilian being investigated for such actions, there would be no doubt that the defendant would be convicted. And were the roles reversed, and the victim a police officer, an example would be made of the defendant through the sentence passed down.
The reason for this appalling lack of justice is very simple. The political class of Britain need the Police. If convictions for violence against protestors and, in this case, random civilians, are a possibility, then the Police will be less eager to act in such a way for fear of prosecution. This will then derail the attempts to provoke protestors so that they can be smeared by the media. And as an interesting side note, initially, the Police claimed to be pelted with bottles by protestors as they attempted to aid Tomlinson, a claim shown untrue by video footage.
The Legacy of Margaret Thatcher
Cut to the present day, and, with the death of Margaret Thatcher, and disgruntled Brits seized upon the opportunity to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the legacy left behind by the so-called Iron Lady. The method of protest chosen by some was to throw a party. Many will say this was distasteful, but with Thatcher’s penchant for backing some of the most brutal, murderous dictators and regimes of the Cold War, not to mention domestic policies that gutted Britain of jobs, wealth, social services, infrastructure and a critical sense of community, all in the name of furthering the Friedmanite free market ideology, it is hardly surprising many were pleased to see her go.
Perhaps the most innovative way in which much of Britain showed its distaste for Thatcher was to try to propel the song ‘Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead’ from the Wizard of Oz to the top of the music charts. The BBC, hosting the music chart show, decided that it would only play a five second clip of the song in an effort to avoid offending anyone.
But perhaps this attempt to avoid offending those saddened to see the back of a woman who supported Apartheid in both South Africa and Israel can be seen in another light. It is, after all, a good way to downplay the anti-Thatcher sentiment. The song doesn’t get the full air time, and those who sought to make the song number one can be painted as distasteful and classless by right wing pundits and frowning news readers.
The problem with this move is, however, is that sometimes, when you ban something or try to
marginalise it, it becomes all the more attractive to those you are trying to keep it from. The BBC may have only played five seconds, but that would not have stopped people going to YouTube and watching a video featuring the song. But with the British Right and Pseudo-Left united in their grief over the loss of a woman who paved the way for the war crimes of Tony Blair, the City of London-centric policies of Gordon Brown, and the disastrous anti-working class austerity measures of David Cameron, George Osborne, and Nick Clegg, the BBC cannot be seen to be going against the grain and actually giving angry working class Brits their voice with any degree of parity to the sycophantic tributes from Thatcher’s fellow upper crust neoliberals and working class flag wavers who appear blinded to Thatcher’s assault on British society by the Falklands War and the IRA. Once again, one is reminded that you can never underestimate how useful an enemy is to an authoritarian government when it comes to fooling vast swathes of the electorate into backing ludicrous policies.
The Fight Against Independent Media
So while the British establishment may be well practiced at playing down and marginalising people with an alternative point of view, they are not able to stop people from having this view. They are trying, let there be no doubt about it. In the aftermath of the recently concluded Leveson Inquiry, ridiculously open-ended laws have been brought forward, allegedly designed to reign in Britain’s gutter press. But bloggers in Britain, providing a refreshing and much needed counterbalance to the narrative provided by corporate and state controlled media in the UK, are under threat of huge penalties if they fail to tow the line as well. The nature of the language in the new legislation screams misuse in the near future, so open to interpretation it is.
Walter Cronkite once said – ‘Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.’
Well, Britain likes to call itself a democracy, yet the state of said British democracy looks bleak indeed. Independent media is slowly being stifled. Nice, orderly protests by ‘respectable’ (read; tame) Britons are ignored or hijacked by the mainstream media and politicians posing as the opposition. Protests by those looked down upon as ‘fringe’ or ‘extremist’ by the establishment are attacked by the police. And when frustration at being robbed, abused, exploited and ignored boils over into violence, then it is those who have been wronged who are painted as the villains.
But who is the villain? Those who see wrong in the world around them and try to speak out? Or those who, by comparison, have everything, yet still lie, steal, corrupt and destroy entire nations for profit and power?
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
*******
*******
Margaret Thatcher: Queen leads mourners at funeral
BBC News
17 April 2013
*******
The Queen has led mourners in St Paul's Cathedral at the funeral of Baroness Thatcher, Britain's longest serving prime minister of modern times.
*******
More than 2,000 guests from around the world paid their last respects at the biggest such occasion since the Queen Mother's funeral in 2002.
Thousands of members of the public and the armed forces lined the funeral procession route through London.
PM David Cameron said it was a "fitting tribute" to a major figure.
Four thousand police officers were on duty in central London but, despite concerns about demonstrations, only a small number of protesters voiced their opposition to Lady Thatcher's policies and there were no arrests.
The congregation at St Paul's included Lady Thatcher's family and all surviving British prime ministers Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Sir John Major, the current cabinet and surviving members of Lady Thatcher's governments.
There were tears, and occasional laughter, as the Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, paid tribute to Lady Thatcher's forthright character in a simple service, which, at her personal request, did not include any eulogies.
"After the storm of a life led in the heat of political controversy, there is a great calm," said Bishop Chartres.
"The storm of conflicting opinions centres on the Mrs Thatcher who became a symbolic figure - even an ism.
"Today the remains of the real Margaret Hilda Thatcher are here at her funeral service.
"Lying here, she is one of us, subject to the common destiny of all human beings."
Chancellor George Osborne appeared to wipe away a tear as the bishop reflected on Lady Thatcher's life.
'Beloved mother'
The day began with Lady Thatcher leaving Parliament for the last time as a hearse took her body from the crypt chapel of St Mary Undercroft in the Palace of Westminster to the start of the military procession at St Clement Danes in The Strand.
*******

*******
The union jack draped-coffin was topped with a large bunch of white flowers and a note, by Lady Thatcher's children Sir Mark and Carol, reading: "Beloved mother, always in our hearts."
A gun carriage drawn by six black horses carried the coffin through the streets to St Paul's, where the funeral service began with readings from the King James Bible by Mr Cameron and Lady Thatcher's 19-year-old granddaughter Amanda, and hymns chosen by the former prime minister.
The service ended with a blessing from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.
Lady Thatcher's coffin was borne out of the cathedral and returned to a hearse which took it to the Royal Hospital Chelsea and then to Mortlake Crematorium in south west London for a private cremation.
Lady Thatcher, who was Conservative Prime Minister from 1979 until 1990, died on 8 April, following a stroke, at the age of 87.
She was accorded a ceremonial funeral with military honours, one step down from a state funeral.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Cameron said it would have been seen as extraordinary not to commemorate her life.
Asked about those who wanted to challenge his view of Lady Thatcher, the prime minister said: "Of course people have the right to disagree and take a different view.
 
"But when you're mourning the passing of an 87-year-old woman who was the first woman prime minister, who served for longer in the job than anyone for 150 years I think it's appropriate to show respect."
There were more than 50 guests associated with the Falkland Islands, including veterans from the 1982 conflict with Argentina, but Argentina's ambassador to London, Alicia Castro declined an invitation to attend.
Alan Southern, a former member of the Parachute Regiment who fought in the Falklands War, said: "Lady Thatcher was an absolutely wonderful lady. She loved the armed forces and she did so much for the country, she put the 'great' back in Great Britain."
In total, two current heads of state, 11 serving prime ministers and 17 serving foreign ministers from around the world attended.
Notable absences were former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who could not attend because of ill health, and former US first lady Nancy Reagan, who was also unable to come.
Six police forces from outside London sent specialist officers to help with escorting foreign dignitaries.
There were union jacks on display, as well as flags from the US, Canada, Scotland, Poland and the Falkland Islands.
*******
*******
Margaret Thatcher: three generations' views on her legacy
Margaret Thatcher seems to divide a nation in death as she did in life. So what do people who grew up before, during and after her time in power think about her today?
Amelia Hill
Saturday 13 April 2013
'Even though I think Margaret Thatcher was a great leader, I’m an avid Labour supporter now' … Adam Dickson, 15, representative for North Yorkshire in the UK Youth Parliament. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian
Among the acres of coverage of
Margaret Thatcher this week, one thing was clear: opinions about the former prime minister – who, in the words of Labour leader Ed Miliband, "reshaped the politics of a whole generation" – varied dramatically according to which generation the person came from.
Those who remember what Britain was like before Thatcher took centre stage in 1979 recall a world order so different to that of today that it seems almost anachronistic: a world where it was illegal to put an extension lead on your phone, for example (you had to wait six weeks for a telephone extention instead); a world where there was only one, state-approved, answering machine available.
Those born in the 1970s, however, and raised as "Thatcher's children", watched as she reshaped the country around them as they grew up. This is the generation that feels her impact most viscerally, and it was largely members of this generation who rushed to the spontaneous Thatcher death parties that sprang up around the country on Monday night. But it is also this generation that has most feted and mourned her. And this is the generation that holds power today: just under half of the current members of parliament were still children when Thatcher first entered No 10. David Cameron and Nick Clegg were both 12 years old. Ed Miliband was nine.
For those born years after Thatcher was ousted, however, she holds an almost theoretical status. If, that is, she has any meaning for them at all: on the day of her death, one teenage Twitter user inquired, "Who is margaret thatcher; she's trending 2nd worldwide." Another posed the same question: "Going to sound like such an idiot when I say this, but who is Margaret Thatcher?"
Before Thatcher
Beth Butler, 78, lives in Chepstow in Monmouthshire. A former teacher, she remembers the power of the trade unions in the early 1970s: "One example springs to mind that was entirely typical," she says. "Our union – the NATFHE [the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education] – came to us one day and asked us to go out on strike for an increase in the wages of the cleaners and auxiliary staff at our college. That was fine, and we did it – but a short while later, the union steward came back and said that the teachers should now strike to get an increase in our own salaries. That was crazy – it was reinstating the discrepancy between our salaries that we'd just managed to narrow.
"We refused to strike," she adds, "but it was a big thing to refuse to do what your union told you to do. Unions were all- and over-powerful in the 70s. It was a closed shop: if you didn't do what they told you to, they would kick you out and then you'd lose your job – and wouldn't be able to find another because employers wouldn't employ anyone who wasn't in the union.
‘There was a real sense that young people were already being put on the rubbish heap’ … former teacher Beth Butler, 76. Photograph: SWNS.com
"It really was the iron hand of communism creeping in and grasping everyone by its throat, and that created an atmosphere of fear that came close to hysteria. But it was also a bit of a joke, the way they would force employers to split jobs," she says. "So, for example, they would have to employ one person to heat the rivet, a second person to hand the warmed rivet to a third person, who would hit it into the hole."
Butler also remembers how education and a flailing economy failed children who were not sufficiently academic. "Education was very bad outside of the grammar school system," she says. "In the tertiary college I taught at from 1972, the teachers were, to be quite honest, rejects. I had come from a Catholic grammar school for girls, where all us teachers were dedicated and enthusiastic, and I was horrified by the quality in the college. There was a real sense that these young people were already being put on the rubbish heap, despite their youth: education had failed them and there were few other employment options available because despite what the received belief is nowadays, it was the free market that wrecked manufacturing – not Thatcher. It was such a tragedy: if I could find two manufacturing jobs a week for my students from the college to apply for, I regarded it as a triumph."
By the time Thatcher came to power, there was a steady rise in racism, she says. "When I lived in Huddersfield in the 60s, there were lots of immigrants but no racial tension at all because there were lots of jobs.
"By the 70s, that had changed. People began talking of 'them' – you would hear it in the buses and in queues on the street – and that's because times had become very hard. Property prices rocketed and so did the cost of consumables and food. I bought a flat in Chepstow in 1972 for £9,100, and although it was very hard for an unmarried woman to get a mortgage then, mine was £6,000, or £42.50 a month. That took up virtually my whole salary as a teacher.
"It was only because my mother was living with me and had her pension that we could afford to buy food," she says. "By the late 70s, prices had risen so sharply that her pension didn't cover our basic needs. Fortunately, I married in 1978, so we had another wage coming into the house, but nevertheless, things were far from easy."
Weighing up what was lost and what was gained under Thatcher, Butler – a lifelong liberal voter – says she believes something important disappeared for ever.
"What did we lose? A zest; a get-up-and-go; an optimism. People seemed to become gradually more passive under Thatcher, as though the colour had gone out of their lives. Possessions suddenly became far more important, too. Fashion, clothes and shoes – and the concomitant rise in fake goods. It was as though the zest for life had been replaced by self-centredness. People were interested in what they had for themselves, rather than doing things together."
Thatcher's child
‘Thatcher was trying to smash everything that had helped us’ … Isabel Cortes, 41. Photograph: Sean Smith for the Guardian
Isabel Cortes was born in 1972, and came to England as a refugee from Chile when she was five. Arriving with her mother and stepfather, both passionate trade unionists who had to leave because of persecution under the Pinochet government, she remembers how the country that took her family to its heart was even then in the act of being dismantled.
"My earliest memory is of a refugee hotel in London, but we were quickly moved to a council flat in Northampton," she says. "I remember a real and powerful sense of community closing in around us from the minute we arrived. There were so many people to help us. Two people were assigned to look after us from the Labour party: I called them Uncle John and Aunt Marie. They gave me a cuddly toy, which was a massive deal for a scared little girl who only had a single suitcase to her name. They weren't the only ones to help us, though. There were people from the trade union, the church, from Amnesty and the Quakers, too."
The move to a different country was, says Cortes, "terrifying … but because we were given so much help to resettle, enrol in language classes and find jobs, we were able to start building our new lives very quickly. I was able to settle quickly into school, which meant I could restart my education and my parents were able to find good jobs – Aunt Marie even went with them to interviews to translate. Both my parents were working almost immediately – they were chemical analysts. They stayed in those jobs for the rest of their working lives.
"As we settled into our new home and began to look around us, though, we realised that Thatcher was trying to smash everything that had helped us begin living again. We were refugees from a country where Pinochet smashed trade unions, society and the people themselves, and we could see that Thatcher was doing exactly the same thing."
It was intolerable for Cortes's parents. "To watch the parallel destruction of public health, education and all that was good for working people was terrible for them," she said. "They fought back against Thatcher's ideology with every bone in their body."
Her upbringing, as a result, was that of an activist. "I was taken on rallies galore, and helped campaign for the Labour party," she remembers. "My mum was a Greenham Common woman, so I went with her to their meetings, too. At school, we raised money for the miners and we were involved in the anti-apartheid movement.
"Everyone around me was working together to fight back against Thatcher. Things were tight. My parents worked really hard. We lived in social housing until I was 17, moving from a flat to a house when my brother and sister joined us from Chile a couple of years after we had settled here. When I left home, my parents were able to buy a home of their own."
The worst thing about growing up in that era, for Cortes, was the racism. "I remember having to deal with a lot of it. There was National Front graffiti on the walls everywhere; in school, in the street. My brother got beaten up loads of times."
When Cortes left school, she went to the Polytechnic of North London [which now forms part of London Metropolitan University]. "It was quite a politicised university: I never met anyone who was a strong supporter of Thatcher. I was one of the last people to receive a university grant, and when I paid it back I bought a small flat in south London, where I still live. I couldn't have done either thing now. In fact, I almost certainly couldn't have afforded to go to university at all. That's Thatcher's legacy: generations of people, unable to achieve their potential or live secure lives. That's what she means to me."
After Thatcher
The younger generation – if they know who Thatcher was – has a far less visceral memory of her. But for 15-year-old Adam Dickson, UK Youth Parliament representative for North Yorkshire, member of Ripon youth council and North Yorkshire youth council, she is an almost mythical figure. "I'm unusual among my friends in admiring Thatcher," he admits. "Most people my age either know nothing about her, or only know she was a milk stealer and won the Falklands war, but still don't have any opinion. For me though, even though she did some things I don't totally agree with, I definitely think she made the country better.
In the past few days, says Dickson, the Labour-dominated council in his small village has had nothing but positive words to say about Thatcher – "and this is an area where coal mines were closed. But after they closed, the miners moved to the villages and began working on the farms, which meant the farms became more profitable and began generating bigger incomes.
"There's also a lot of affection for her because loads of people around here were able to buy their own homes, too, under her government."
His admiration for Thatcher and his belief in her legacy, has, however, pulled Dickson over to the other end of the political spectrum. "Even though I think she was a really great leader, I'm an avid Labour supporter now," he said. "New Labour has got elements of Thatcher embedded in their policies, more so than the Tories. Both Blair and Brown embraced individualism through Thatcherite policies, for example. Blair did it through his Third Way politics, his regulation of the banks and his amending of Clause IV to support privatisation. Brown did it through his creation of an independent central bank, which in a way, embraced individualism.
"Mr Miliband has also adopted Thatcherism by making the trade unions take a back seat," Dickson adds. "But he also talks about a One Nation Labour party, which includes big government, increased intervention and spending, which means increased regulation.
"I think the modern Conservative party have strayed away from Thatcher's ideals, however. Cameron's big society goes against Thatcher's individualist way of thinking. He's also been creating loads of new comprehensive schools instead of the grammar schools she championed and the new "help to buy" scheme is meant to copy Thatcher's "right to buy" scheme, but is really going against anything she would do. On the other hand, in Cameron's recent budget announcement, he spoke of an aspiration nation, which is the rhetoric of Thatcher, so you can still see her influence."
*This article was amended on 15 April 2013. The original misspelled grammar school as grammer school and has been corrected.
*******
The Best Way To Deal With Margaret Thatcher's Legacy Is To Kill It
8 April 2013
Among the many valuable lessons that history has bequeathed is the undeniable truth that it is written
by the victors. Or perhaps rewritten would be nearer the mark. Now that Margaret Hilda Thatcher is dead we’ll need to brace ourselves against a veritable tidal wave of mawkish revisionism and rewritten history.
With at least the possibility of a state funeral for the former Prime Minister, opinions, as one might expect, have polarised sharply. They shouldn’t have, though, because one’s political affiliations aside, it’s simply not on. Despite the rank, power, influence and wealth that comes with the office of PM, in the final analysis, the role is simply that of a public sector worker. If we think giving state-funded funerals for prime ministers is acceptable, why not for doctors? Firemen? Nurses? Teachers? Cleaners? Or indeed all public sector workers? Besides which, giving Thatcher such a send-off, paid for by tax-payers, raises the entirely reasonable question of why her but not, say, Tony Blair? Gordon Brown or any other politico?
The fact is, though, that Thatcher is a powerful symbolic totem for the champions of capital and her
unassailable credentials as the consummate class warrior of the late 20th century provide invaluable propaganda for her epigones at a time when all she constructed is rapidly going down the toilet.
Her demise will allow the reconstruction of the myth that she saved Britain, that she was a great and fearless warrior, a visionary and a giant among world leaders. The inevitable link between her economic philosophy and the austerity measures currently being foisted onto the heads of the poorest and most defenceless will be made. The message will be clear: this is what she would have done. This is what she would have wanted and as she was so omniscient and all-powerful, a kind of credibility by association will be invoked to provide yet further justification for the coalition’s reverse Robin Hoodery.
Against the oncoming flood of propaganda, lies, distortions and Orwellian changing of the past, the space for the truth will be remarkably small. But there will still be a space. So let’s start filling it now and remind ourselves of the true legacy of the most pitiless, inhumane, greedy, venal and megalomaniacal creature ever to cross the threshold of 10 Downing Street:
The institutionalised corruption of privatising the nation’s utilities so her mates in the City could get ever richer.
The complete dismantling of entire industries and the communities that relied on them.
Engineering the biggest transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest ever seen in the UK up to that point.
The cynical and immoral war-mongering in the Falklands for the sole purpose of conning a politically backward electorate in securing for her a further term in office.
The Poll Tax, riots, poverty, record unemployment, the most draconian and repressive employment legislation anywhere in the developed world, more small businesses going to the wall than at any period prior to her rule, her defence of and friendship with Chilean mass-murdering dictator General Pinochet and the ruination of the NHS to name but a few of her achievements.
You can, I’m sure, add many more to this partial and by no means exhaustive list. We are, today, as she made us. A paranoid, divided, mean-spirited nation, full of resentment, envy, greed and distrust. Racist, selfish, inhumane and tragically too stupid to see we are now nothing but turkeys lining up to
continually vote for Christmas.
Were there a shred of doubt about any of this, just step back a few weeks to the 30th of November and recall the petty, resentful and envious bitching of private sector workers without the balls to defend their pensions, whinging and whining about how good the undeserving public sector workers have it.
Take a look at the lying, racist, foaming bigotry and xenophobia dripping from our two biggest-selling daily newspapers and then listen to the idiots in your workplace unthinkingly lapping it up as gospel and then regurgitating it for the benefit of the next clueless and brainwashed fuckwit.
Listen to the vitriol and condemnation heaped upon the head of some track-suited sink-estate youth for cleaning a few windows on the side while claiming benefit and then contrast that with the deafening silence as the banks and the City continue to loot and pillage their way through the nation’s economy.
This is her legacy.
In conclusion, then, the best way I think we can mark her passing with dignity and without conceding the moral high ground to the enemy by gloating and cheering, comes from a friend of mine; we should line the streets along which her funeral cortege passes and simply turn our backs in silence as it trundles by.
One by one, each of us, in silence, as she passes turn our backs and say that on this, the hour of her death, now is the time to start living again. To rebuild the shattered, violent land she has left by placing people before profit. By tossing into the dustbin of history all her hate-filled bile. The best way to deal with Thatcher’s legacy is to destroy it.
The lady might not have been for turning but when that solemn procession passes you by, turn your back. Turn your back and, instead, remember the countless millions she gloatingly destroyed in pursuit of yet more wealth for her pals. Turn your back and think of ‘care in the community’; the elderly, the sick, the mentally ill and the infirm treated with all the compassion shown by a fox in a henhouse. Turn your back and remember her victims.
Turn your back…
*******
*******
Margaret Thatcher Quotes
 
Note: What better way to understand what a person thinks than to see what they say.
 
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies.
So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.
...
*******
Also See:
The Gipper, The Iron Lady & Disaster Economics
22 January 2008
*******