Thatcher Is Dead

[El Pibe]

How can it not be the government that has control of the process when they have the power.

Actor a attempts to force behaviour from actor b using asymmetric techniques.

It doesn't matter who a and b are, nothing can progress until actor b is willing to progress it or has their hand forced by actor a.

You think if the a Palestinians put up flashing invitations to strike a peace deal including a nice table and statements that they'll raise their posteriors invitingly that it'll make a blind bit of difference if b Israel aren't interested?

That's how power works.

If the IRA had shot down all the helicopters, paralysed troop movements by pinning them down, wrested effective control of the territory from stormont, ended tax revenues and paralysed Northerm Ireland then they would be dictating things as you say.

Syria, might be an example of this latter situation, but they hadn't managed that in NI.

In fact of the bishopsgate bomb, an attempt to suffocate the UK economically by chasing away business from the city and stifling our economy, this campaign failed, the team were arrested, thanks in part to tip offs from informants, and 49 arrests were made, 19 of whom were sent to prison, as well as the confiscation of huge amounts of materiel.

Yet the point was made that the mainland was vulnerable

I don't credit Thatcher with anything, its there in black and white. In fact when Major attempted to say in 1993 that he was prepared to speak to the IRA though it would choke him to do so, it was the IRA who leaked the fact that they'd been speaking for three years, when open talks started in December 1993.

IMO not sure how its possible to interpret things otherwise.

That said, I totally agree with you that she made things significantly worse, she agreed to the opening of channels right at the end of her tenure, a move she apparently subsequently said she deeply regretted.

My whole point was that both sides, not just the government, needed to come to the realisation negotiation was necessary, and that it took further conflict before the IRA were willing to concede that talks were the way forward.

I've seen mcguiness interviewed about the difficulties of persuading his side that a negotiated political settlement was necessary, many of whom believed anything short of total victory was tantamount to surrender or treason.

Some, as we know, still do, but they are just as mistaken that a military victory is possible, more so now that they've lost popular support among any but the hardest line communities.

[Mick Mac]

Yes Loz....

[El Pibe]

And what the hell is everyone doing up at his hour, I just got woken up by three year old needing wee wee, what's your excuse ;)

[Mick Mac]

Fell asleep in.front of tv when I came home from work. :(

[the-e-dealer]

Yeah we can all feel safe again as thatcherism is dead

[the-e-dealer]

Says it all!

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/owen-jones-thatcherism-was-a-national-catastrophe-that-still-poisons-us-8564858.html

[Loz]

But what was the alternative, TED? What would have happened if Thatcherism never happened? Let's face it, the years before she took power were hardly a picnic.

[StraferJack]

I think it might have been possible to implement most of the changes she did without being quite so "one of us?" about it

Much like the current lot really - I think it's possible to be unpopular, to take hard decisions, to make necessary cuts without being quite so supercillious

I think that may account for a lot of the ongoing hate. It's what I would suggest as a (mild) alternative anyway

[Mick Mac]

I'm surprised you say that SJ. I actually thought she made little or no attempt to be "one of us", for major sections of society at least. She drove forward, determined, caring little about public opinion.

[StraferJack]

Sorry MM - I didn't make myself understood

I put a ? at the end of "one of us" to indicate she was divisive - ie it mattered to her if decisions affected "us" or "them".

"Us" in this case meaning only those who supported her, not "we, the people"

[woodrot]

oujbol3vge4lvgne4lor,gnep

[woodrot]

pfft

[Loz]

I tend to agree, SJ. But on the other hand, the country was in such a mess it needed a pretty headstrong leader to push through the massive changes needed. And yes, she bulldozered through with some bad things too - I don't think many could argue otherwise.

What is the current count of u-turns for the current lot? I think I read 47 so far the other day. They didn't even have the cojones to follow through on a tax on pasties, for goodness sake!

Like her or hate her, at least you know what she stood for and what you were getting. There are few top-level politicians you can say that about. Certainly not Cameron, Osborn, Clegg, Miliband, Balls, etc, etc.

[El Pibe]

If you judge cameron and osborne by their actions rather than their disingenuous hug a hoodie soundbites I think it's plain to see what they stand for. Rolling back the achievements of Beveridge, Atlee and Bevan, rolling Europe back to 1991 and completing the neoliberal revolution started by Thatcher and hugely extended by Blair.

Heir to Blair was the one moment of honesty I think we've had.

[Mick Mac]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry MM - I didn't make myself understood

>

> I put a ? at the end of "one of us" to indicate

> she was divisive - ie it mattered to her if

> decisions affected "us" or "them".

>

> "Us" in this case meaning only those who supported

> her, not "we, the people"

I see - I'm up to speed now ... hence I now completly agree.

[Coman]

Whatever your views happened to be. Unless you really are above it all.

Grant her rest

[UncleBen]

I'll dance when Thatcherism is dead, not an old lady. I dispised her politics, its effects back then, its effects now and the way her politics made the majority selfish and greedy. The condems are repeating them now.

[LadyDeliah]

UncleBen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll dance when Thatcherism is dead, not an old

> lady. I dispised her politics, its effects back

> then, its effects now and the way her politics

> made the majority selfish and greedy. The condems

> are repeating them now.

I'm good for two dances :-)

[Santerme]

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What part of "effectively stalemated" somehow

> differs from "It could ahve gone on forever"?

>

> The IRA had been putting feelers out to the

> security services for negotiations from the mid

> eighties onwards, but it was Maggie who pooh

> poohed them with her legendary 'convictions'.

>

> When Major came along he was keen for a new

> approach from the off and gave the greenlight for

> the security services to begin talks (metatalks

> really, ie talks to begin talks); the city

> bombings were done to strengthen a negotiating

> position not force anyone to the table.

>

> I may be many annoying or unsavoury things MM, but

> brainwashed or spoon-fed isn't one of them..

>

> -- edit --

>

> A bit of digging and I'm mistaken, it wasn't Major

> on coming in to office, it was actually Thatch

> herself prior to leaving!!!

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/oct/16/northerni

> reland.thatcher

> It seems just like to many other things, she saw

> too much through the lens of the cold war, and

> indirectly ew may have Gorbachev to thank for the

> first shoots of peace in NI.

> A weird world indeed.

I did two tours of Northern Ireland in the eighties and was a Brigade Intelligence Officer on the latter....

There were always channels of communications open with every organisation during the Troubles

Actually Thatcher never pooh poohed the efforts, she just refused to give them the oxygen of publicity and therefore show any weakening of the Govt position on negotiating with terrorists...

The real world works behind closed doors.

John Deverell had meaningful dialogue in the late 80's and intense discussions in 1990 on bringing about a peaceful solution to the conflict and I am sure Hal Ditmus would have done previously.