Why are lefties so sycophantic to Margaret Thatcher?

Yes, a few drunken anarchists danced, but most of the left has marked Thatcher’s death with synchronised sycophancy

13 April 2013

I’ve been scratching my head for the past half hour trying to work out how I would react if I were a Conservative MP and a BBC reporter stuffed a microphone in front of me and told me that Arthur Scargill had just died. I know I wouldn’t punch the air, but a syrupy tribute?

I think not. It would go something like this: ‘I’m sorry to hear that. Scargill was a charismatic leader to his followers but one whose legacy was to destroy the industry he loved, and all for his own ego.’

Would I expect to be hauled over the coals for saying that? Surely it is not unreasonable to react to the death of a political figure with a genuine assessment of their foibles.

Yet the left’s reaction to the death of Lady Thatcher was bizarrely schizophrenic. Handfuls of activists did indeed attempt to create the Mafeking they had promised, with fireworks, balloons and whistles, to name a few of the contents of the party packs put together by the Derbyshire Unemployed Workers’ Centre and on sale at last year’s TUC conference. Yet the numbers attending impromptu street parties were pathetically small.

Meanwhile, the mainstream left maintained a front of sycophancy. To read through the Twitter accounts of Labour MPs one might have thought they were paying tribute to Fidel Castro.

‘My condolence to the Thatcher family,’ swooned Harriet Harman. ‘First woman PM, a towering figure.’ Yes, this is the same Harriet Harman who, when spending our money on a ‘Women in Power factsheet’ to distribute to schools in 2009, omitted to mention Mrs Thatcher at all.


Labour MP Chris Bryant put out an almost identical tweet: ‘Warm condolences to the extended Thatcher family. A towering figure who was never afraid of controversy.’

This from a man who told the Independent in 2010: ‘It was when I saw the effect of Mrs Thatcher’s policies on our inner cities that I realised Conservatism was divisive, uncaring, economically incompetent and morally wrong.’

Almost simultaneously, the Twitter feed of former Labour minister David Lammy burst into life, stating: ‘RIP Margaret Thatcher. Whatever you think of her she will remain a political giant. End of an era.’ All from a man who remembered in the New Statesman recently the ‘tears of joy’ he had cried when he heard she had resigned as Prime Minister.

Between this and the unpleasant contributions on the outer fringes of the left, the worst being George Galloway’s ‘may she burn in the hellfires’, there has been virtually nothing. The unions have remained almost silent.

What’s wrong with them? Why can’t they say what they really think, which in most cases is that Mrs Thatcher was a callous Prime Minister who cared more for her free market ideology than she did for human beings?

I wouldn’t have thought any the worse of Ed Miliband if he had enlightened us as to where he thought Thatcher had gone wrong, rather than laying on his condolences with a trowel. He, Blair and Brown all made pointedly more generous tributes than did Michael Heseltine, John Major or Geoffrey Howe. Labour’s reaction looks co-ordinated, as if the spin doctors had calculated that even slightly barbed words would be used against them. Emotional correctness has trumped even the left’s visceral hatred of Thatcher.

But there is another possible explanation for Labour’s reluctance to trample on Lady Thatcher’s grave: Labour’s own failures have taken all the sting out of attacks on Thatcher and her government. How do you accuse her of having bumped off the sick — as Kinnock liked to claim — when it was during Labour’s great NHS spending splurge that the worst NHS scandal of all occurred: the deaths of up to 1,200 patients in Mid Staffs? How do you accuse Thatcher of encouraging greed when the yuppie bankers of her day earned peanuts compared with those of Brown’s Britain, who not only stuffed their pockets but drove the banking system to ruin?

At least the privatisations of Thatcher’s day worked well for the taxpayer, which is more than you can say of current train-operating companies and PFI hospitals.

Compared with the excesses of recent years, the 1980s now come across as rather quaint. Even her housing boom was relatively sane compared with what was to come. True, Thatcher’s comments on Nelson Mandela and Clause 28 still give the left some means to attack her as heartless. But try to condemn her on most economic grounds and all Labour politicians will manage is to draw attention to things about the Blair and Brown years that many of them would rather forget.

No wonder Lady Thatcher has enjoyed a gentle passing.

More Spectator for less. Subscribe and receive 12 issues delivered for just £12, with full web and app access. Join us now.

  • alabenn

    They are sycophantic because they think in that little tiny part of their brain that houses reason that she was right and the vast majority of people in the country think the same.
    They just don’t have the bottle to admit it, this is the reason you get the ranting and screeching presented by the BBC as reasoned opposition, politics of the nursery.
    Time to shut down the Nursery and save the poor a £145.50.

    • http://twitter.com/RichardBrennan Richard

      Is this the same BBC which had more complaints about its coverage being too pro-Thatcher than too anti-Thatcher?

      • Macky Dee

        lefties complain all the time – the BBC is leftie, so the lefties are appalled at the slightest bit of non-partisan putdownisms

        • Jamie

          paranoid-fantasy alert.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mike.godfrey.754 Mike Godfrey

        If the national broadcaster did its job properly we wouldn’t have pro or anti reporting on Thatcher but the BBC has a cancer of the extreme left embedded in its psyche.

        • Jamie

          The BBC is, as befits on of teh bastions of our culture as disproportionate number of clever people working there. As clever people are less likely to be right-wing http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html, it is possible that there is a liberal – or simply nuanced/intelligent bias within the BBC. This is not to do with partisan politics however, but simply due to a higher than average ability to reason and empathise.

          • Knives_and_Faux

            Like attracts like, that the left leaning BBC attract left leaning people doesn’t require you to quote a tabloid junk science site so full of holes it doesn’t even qualify as science in the first place. The standard of what passes for research is deeply shocking to anyone who looks into it. I’ve read more authoritative data on family fortunes polling a 100 people.

          • Jamie

            You are being rather unscientific. The site simply reports the research so it’s non-academic nature is irrelevant to the quality of research. This is the study: I suspect you haven’t even looked at it despite your wild claims and “deep shock” http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187.full

          • http://www.facebook.com/mike.godfrey.754 Mike Godfrey

            I agree, we do see many left wing ‘clever’ people on/at the BBC and especially on Question Time but well informed or having common sense are not traits automatically embodied by those with degrees a plenty.

            That hippie professor from Cambridge comes to mind when she tried to assert that the people of Boston (Lincs) were better off with mass immigration and was immediately shot down in flames by everyone.
            The country and the BBC needs people who have common sense and a will to succeed like Thatcher and not half baked theorists who live in a UNI bubble and preach claptrap based on wacky theories rather than real world experience !

          • Jamie

            I would say Thatcher was clever but totally lacked common-sense and intelligence. It was her blind-faith in Hayekian neo-liberal theories which led to the banking crisis, the profiteering utility and rail companies flogging us dear what we used to own and the rampant individualism of modern Britain.

            Hitler had a will to succeed. He’d have done a thorough job at the Beeb.

    • http://twitter.com/AlexDJones Alex D. Jones

      “and the vast majority of people in the country think the same.”

      Funny definition of “vast majority” you have there!

      • alabenn

        Can you not comprehend the narrative, I said “they think” she was right and the vast majority think the same,
        Although using a lefty definition of majority your first misapprehension may be right.

      • First L

        If the majority had thought she was wrong, she would have lost an election. Funny how she never did. Isn’t it?

        • Guest_1117

          You don’t need a majority of the popular vote to win a general election.

          • First L

            You do to get a landslide. She got three of them. No party has ever won a majority of the public vote. Plus this is beside the point. If the majority of people hated her, they would have voted against her and another party would have won. This failed to occur on the three occasions that Thatcher faced the British electorate.

          • Guest_1117

            “You do to get a landslide. She got three of them. No party has ever won a majority of the public vote.”

            You’re tying yourself in knots there. You’ve just said that she did AND didn’t win a majority of the popular vote.

            “If the majority of people hated her, they would have voted against her and another party would have won.”

            They may not all have hated her enough to vote tactically against her, that’s true. But the comment I was responding to was:

            “If the majority had thought she was wrong, she would have lost an election.”

            The majority of people voted for other parties in those three elections (56%, 58% and 58% again, respectively), which I’m sure you’ll admit is an unconventional way of indicating support for her ideas.

            Don’t get me wrong, she actually had a stronger mandate than most modern prime ministers. Not debating that. Just wanted to point out that your argument didn’t make any sense.

          • First L

            You don’t need a majority of the public vote to get a landslide, you need a sizable minority of the vote. It is possible to win an election on just 25% of the vote. 44% gives you a landslide. She won 44% twice and 43% once. No PM in history has ever earned so many votes except for John Major in 93. (Blair got a similar percentage of the vote on much smaller turnouts) No one has ever won over 50% of the vote. You seem to misunderstand how our electoral system works. If the public had not wanted Thatcher she would not have won three elections. It’s very simple.

          • Guest_1117

            Here are two of your own statements:

            1) “If the majority had thought she was wrong, she would have lost an election.” [This statement entails that it is NOT possible to win an election if the majority of people think you are wrong and thus don’t support you.]

            2) “It is possible to win an election on just 25% of the vote.”

            If you can’t see how those 2 statements contradict each other then you are beyond help.

          • First L

            You’re not taking turnout or our electoral system where not all constituencies are equal in terms of people into account. I suggest you do, then you might be able to make sense of those statements. Shetland has a tiny population compared to practically anywhere but still sends one MP just like somewhere such as Chelsea with ten times the electorate. If you can’t figure out the implications of that and the various permutations that this makes possible then that’s your problem.

          • Jamie

            Shetland has a population of 22,500. It shares a constituency with orkey – with a population of 20,000, Roughly 1/4 – not a tenth of the population of Chelsea. If your arguments were stronger, you wouldn’t need so much hyperbole.

          • First L

            Fair enough, I really wasn’t going to spend time on looking up the numbers for someone who doesn’t actually understand the electoral system. The argument still holds though. Scotland has tiny numbers of Labour voters compared to London Tory voters, it’s the number of MP’s that determines who wins an election, not the actual number of voters.

          • Jamie

            I’m unclear who you are suggesting doesn’t understand the electoral system. You exaggerated by 250% to make your point. MPs doesn’t require an apostrophe – to those who don’t understand punctuation.

          • First L

            The person I was originally talking to, whoever it was. Who couldn’t grasp that Thatcher’s win on 43% of the vote in 1979 yielded only a 44 MP majority. but her win in 83, on almost the exact same percentage of the vote, yielded a 144 MP majority. This is because of the vagaries of the electoral system, the discrepancy of turnout and difference in population of constituencies. Yes I couldn’t be arsed to look up the figures to make such a minor point to someone who can’t understand the electoral system, but the point is still valid.

          • Jamie

            Fair enough. What you refer to as “interesting” Vagaries” seem like a very compelling argument for proportional representation to me. One benefit of which would have been to have kept the Conservatives out of power (since the majority of voters support progressive parties like the LibDems and Labour) – which is why all these radical unmandated changes to welfare, health and education are such undemocratic (yet sadly constitutional) abuses of power.

          • First L

            Well when PR was first mooted I was in favour of it for quite a while, but now I’ve come back to thinking that FPTP is better. Simply put I came to feel that the disadvantages of PR outweighed the benefits. i don’t feel that the majority of voters support Lib Dem and Labour. I feel that the country is instinctively conservative but that the weakness of the current Tories means that the Left gets more of a turnout. I also really would never describe Labour or the Lib Dems as progressive, and I vote LD. I don’t feel that filtering ever more money through Government or council hands is ‘progressive’.

          • Jamie

            Progressive simply means whether that government’s policies spread wealth or retrench it. Under Thatcher the post-WW1 trend towards a growing economic equality reversed. You might not feel that LibDem and Labour voters outnumber Conservative but they have – in almost every election of the 20th century – a trend which is growing as time goes on (Thatcher’s vote decreased with every election).

          • First L

            Wealth did spread under Thatcher. Yes the rich got richer, but so did the poor. In fact the wages of the poor rose faster and higher under Thatcher than under any other Prime Minister in history. You can either have everyone getting richer or you can have everyone getting poorer. Wealth equality is impossible. While left wing parties may claim that they are progressive, many of their policies, while sounding very nice on paper, are in fact counter productive and trap the poor into welfare dependency.

          • Jamie

            You assume that wealth inequality doesn’t matter. Research such as that in the Spirit Level shows it is hugely important – as even Cameron acknowledge prior to the election, while he was still hugging hoodies and gallivanting with huskies. We have more wide-screen tellies etc than before but work among the longest hours in Europe and have among the highest rates of crime, poor mental health and teenage pregnancy – all symptoms of inequality. Are you sure you an LD? You sound to the right of even the Orange Bookers. NB: “Wealth did spread under Thatcher. Yes the rich got richer, but so did the poor.” You mean ‘increase’ not “spread” – it did not spread.

            See Cambridge Professor of Economics Ha-Joon Chang for a debunking of the trickle-down theory (wrong called an ‘effect’ by those who believe in it): “All this upward redistribution of income might have been justified, had it led to accelerated growth. But the fact is that economic growth has actually slowed down since the start of the neo-liberal pro-rich reform in the 1980s. According to World Bank data, the world economy used to grow in per capita terms at over 3 per cent during the 1960s and 70s, while since the 1980s it has been growing at the rate of 1.4 per cent per year (1980–2009).

            In short, since the 1980s, we have given the rich a bigger slice of our pie in the belief that they would create more wealth, making the pie bigger than otherwise possible in the long run. The rich got the bigger slice of the pie all right, but they have actually reduced the pace at which the pie is growing.

            The problem is that concentrating income in the hands of the supposed investor, be it the capitalist class or Stalin’s central planning authority, does not lead to higher growth if the investor fails to invest more. When Stalin concentrated income in Gosplan, the planning authority, there was at least a guarantee that the concentrated income would be turned into investment (even though the productivity of the investment may have been adversely affected
            by factors such as the difficulty of planning and work incentive problems – see Thing 19). Capitalist economies do not have such a mechanism. Indeed, despite rising inequality since the 1980s, investment as a ratio of national output has fallen in all G7 economies (the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, Italy, France and Canada) and in most developing countries (see Things 2 and 6).

            Even when upward income redistribution creates more wealth than otherwise possible (which has not happened, I repeat), there is no guarantee that the poor will benefit from those extra incomes. Increasing prosperity at the top might eventually trickle down and benefit the poor, but this is not a foregone conclusion.”


            On welfare dependency – this was a Thatcherite creation, those on out of work benefits tripled under Thatcher. New Labour failed to challenge this it is true and that was a big fallacy – seeking as they did to mitigate poverty rather than retrain people – and spending a huge amount of tax-payers money subsidizing shareholder profits rather than bringing in a living wage. But the Tories wouldn’t even have brought in a minimum wage and it was Thatcher wot broke Britain.

            Well – I have to mark essays. I campaigned for the LibDems last election. I won’t next time.

          • RageAgainstIgnorance

            Totally agree with you. Lefties always harp on that ‘inequality has increased’, but that is half the truth. I give you an example:

            There are 10 people in a village. Everyone has the same amount of money (100% equality). But they are poor because each villager grows their own food by hand and it isn’t very efficient.

            One day one of them, Bob, has a great idea about iron ploughs. He works hard, more harder than anyone else to come up with his invention. He sells them to the rest of the villagers and It’s a great success, everyone now is more efficient, and some even have some surplus crop to sell. Everyone is twice as wealthy as before.

            Bob, however is four times as wealthy because he made lots of money on his iron ploughs – his reward for his initiative, risk, and hard work.

            Now, inequality has increased! The gap between the rich and poor has doubled! What would you prefer? The left would have preferred the way it was. How stupid. I hate the left and the way they pull the wool over people’s eyes.

          • First L

            So true. The left would happily have us living back in the stone age, cos then at least we’d all be equal. They are so ridiculously self deluded it’s unbelievable. They fail to understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. All the villagers in your example had the same opportunity as Bob, but Bob was the only one who put it into action. lefties want to take Bob’s money and give it to the other villagers who didn’t have Bob’s attitude and work ethic.

          • Guest_1117

            I was planning to call this discussion quits, First L, but I’m afraid you’ve really intrigued me now: reading back over my posts I can’t understand what I might have said to make you think that I “couldn’t grasp that Thatcher’s win on 43% of the vote in 1979 yielded
            only a 44 MP majority. but her win in 83, on almost the exact same
            percentage of the vote, yielded a 144 MP majority”.

            There’s nothing wrong with my understanding of the electoral system; the only slip I can see is that when I said “The majority of people voted for other parties in those three elections”, I should have said, less ambiguously, that “The majority of those who turned out voted for other parties in those three elections”.

            Care to humour me?

    • http://www.facebook.com/mike.godfrey.754 Mike Godfrey

      Spot on and you can see this unreasoned ranting from the left any time QT has a contentious question.

  • http://twitter.com/greatbiglizard a large reptilian

    To prevent the raft of “Sick Left bashes dead old lady” stories obviously. Not a battle worth fighting. Nod, smile, move on.

  • D B

    Sycophantic is far too strong a word.

  • MikeF

    The left have always been fascinated – even obsessed – by Margaret Thatcher because they could never quite believe that she happened. As for the vile ‘parties’ that took place in a few instances on Monday they at least had the benefit of showing the whole nation the reality of the nasty underside of the contemporary left. Inadvertently they therefore enabled Mrs Thatcher to provide a posthumous lesson on the nature today’s politics to the country. You might even say that despite their vicious grinning glee they enabled Mrs T to have the last laugh.

    • global city

      Exactly. Imagine living in a country ran by one of them. Cruel, pitiless to the perceived opposition, intolerant, full of bile… just like any leftist experimental society that has been tried in the world.

  • http://twitter.com/marstrina MarinaS

    All you need to do to answer your own question is look at Tony Baldry. After Glenda Jackson gave the sort of unvarnished tribute to Thatcher you wish for, he tried to get her sanctioned on a point of order. That means he thought criticism of Thatcher was *unparliamentary*. In some way, illicit, illegitimate, verboten. Full marks to Bercow for slapping him down, but he’s the exception: the right wing press has been preparing the ground for literally years for exploding in rabid indignation at the left on the occasion of her death, all the while dancing on the graves of the likes of Michael Foot and Hugo Chavez.

    There’s no use pretending – even in the Speccie – that the public realm is some kind of level playing field, and the left just aren’t running with the ball. Here as in the US, the right gets a free pass to embellish the facts, deny reality and slander its opponents, all the while lurking in ambush for some rhetorical (or ethical, let’s be fair) stumble from the left to jump out and yell “hypocricy!”.

    I’m neither fascinated nor obsessed by Margaret Thatcher. I want her buried and gotten out of the way already, so we can go back to fighting the government wreaking havoc on Britain *today*. It’s well worth my while to save some calories on fending off hysterical pearl-clutching from the right by not saying anything about her that’ll give them an excuse.

    Props to Jackson and all, but it’s not the only way. Fighting against her legacy in the here and now is the priority, not critiquing her past actions.

    • TinCanFerry

      Jackson is nothing more than a jealous old harpie. So much hope, when first elected, a minor government post and then…………gradually sank below the waves. No wonder she was at her bitchiest yesterday. As for the old tart Winnick, when will the antediluvian fool be led away to the ‘Abide-a-wee’ retirement home??
      When will the BBC stop peddling barefaced lies about Maggie’s time in power?
      Paxman decided not to correct the Mining myth. More pits were closed and, more mining jobs lost during Wilson and Callaghan’s tenure than in Maggie’s.

      • First L

        Dan Hodges’ Telegraph column today is a gem. Spoke to Glenda Jackson on the phone once and found her to be a harpy. But I can fully respect her son, even on the occasions I disagree with him.

      • http://www.facebook.com/mike.godfrey.754 Mike Godfrey

        No doubt some women suffer from recurring menopause rather than just a one off and looking at Glenda Jackson she probably needs help !

  • Macky Dee

    The moms and dads were horrified when it was to be repealed, Thatcher was in tune with public opinion.

  • Eddie

    Because they realise now that she was largely right.
    Because most people in Britain – incl Labour voters – believe that.
    Because the left now occupies Thatcherite ground too and accepts they were wrong in the 70s. If they criticise her policies, therefore, they are criticising themselves!
    Because dancing on people’s grave is bad manners perhaps? George Al-Galloway can be expected to do ghoulish things like that, as can the white middle class lefties who are pretending to be poor in Brixton. People with manners and honour do not do such things.

    • Augustus

      All of this is correct. At the heart of her politics was aspiration. Her attitude was if you couldn’t get a job in one area, move to another. This rankled with a society deeply immersed in class divides. The working class stuck to the jobs and areas they knew for generations. Change represented a huge threat and many could not make an emotional shift in the face of this perceived threat. It is more likely that pride fuels this kind of position. People hate to be proven wrong , especially when an ideology like socialism guides their life and their leaders play into their insecurities by blaming ‘the rich upper class’ or ‘greedy capitalists’. And yet Thatcher actually played a part in destroying class. She was looked down upon and mocked by the old boy network of Old Etonian Conservatives who enjoyed class privilege but thought little of how a meritocracy could improve people’s lives. Thatcher knew that by opening markets, deregulating business, and turning the dependant into property owners she would foster a culture of self-responsibility and entrepreneurship. Not to mention the path she paved for women to follow.

      • Drew Edward

        You are right about aspiration being at the heart of her politics. She aspired to bring in huge tax cuts but total tax revenues as a percentage of GDP only returned to 1979 levels in 1992. She aspired to massively cut government spending but in real terms it rose 18% while she was in office. She aspired to get Britain back to work but unemployment rose from about 5% to 7%when she left office. She aspired to make Britain a radically more productive and efficient workforce, freed from the shackles of regulation and the unions but GDP rose on average 0.6% a quarter, no more radical than the overall rate it grew between 1955 and 2013.

      • Augustus

        and yet the working class conservatives love her, the rest, that have memories of their childhood in soup kitchens because their father striked against Thatcher, hate her. But, unsurprisingly, many people blame her for their own failings. In our increasing intellectual laziness in this country, capitalism and greed are linked as though one is not mutually exclusive from the other. Thatcher was a capitalist, therefore she was greedy, and therefore she was bad is the way the puerile thinking goes. And given the state we are now in, we need to look for another leader with the conviction of principle, drive, and determined leadership, that this most extraordinary woman possessed.

    • Jamie

      No they don’t. New Labour believed she had won argument with her ‘public bad, private good’ mantra. Till deregulated markets crashed the economy and the public woke up to case after case of the tax-payer funding rip-off and inefficient private industry with GS4, dodgy care-homes, following increasing calls for rail nationalisation even as our privatised utility companies – thanks Thatch – fleece us. The Tories failed to win last time and will lose next time because their ideas are wrong, based on faith rather than evidence and the scales have fallen from the public’s eyes.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mike.godfrey.754 Mike Godfrey

      This was the beginning of the blame culture where those who refused to aspire to better things and would rather live off the state started their blame excuse for their own failings.

  • Tim

    Well some union people have been less than silent. Benetta Adamson, a member of the national executive committee of the broadcasting union BECTU until only last year, began commenting about Thatcher by posting (on her internet forum tvwatercooler.org) the simple message “Ding dong”. She later referred to Thatcher as a “monster”.

    She has recently hidden the comments from public view so only registered users can now see them.

  • TinCanFerry

    It was nice to see some of the Left wing myths about Thatchers time in office being deflated on QT last night. Only La Toynbee couldn’t bring herself to be pleasant but, no surprise there. She must be jealous of someone that got more than One ‘A’ level and actually went on to finish a university course before getting the top political job in the land. Meanwhile Toynbee has done what??

    Most of the hate parties seem to have been attended by those far too young to have known how dire pre-Thatcher Britain was. Just shows what brainwashing has been going on in our schools all this time. The left hate her because she wanted to dismantle the nanny state, one of the ways that Labour is able to keep it’s vote high is to make a good proportion of the electorate believe that it is in their best interests.

    It is nothing of the sort, of course! Just another big, left-wing con job.

    Complainants about the Wizard of Oz song should listen to the complete Album beforehand.

    Track One. Mr Blair – If only I had a heart
    Track Two. Mr Brown – If only I had a nerve
    Track Three. Mr ED – If only I had a Brain
    Track Four. Mr Balls – Optimistic Voices and not forgetting
    Track Five. Mr Kinnock – Follow the Red brick road…. (on a road to nowhere)

    • James

      I’ve debated this issue on the Guardian and sad to report that many of the kids were brainwashed even admitting it was what they were taught at school or university. This is evil social engineering, a Labour strategy but, children at schools? Given the nature of the beast, I now think this was a plan set out under Blair to create a generation of protesters and anti-establishment kids and whatever they were taught in school will be on the Labour agenda come elections.

      • http://www.facebook.com/emmsflavell Emma Flavell

        I have given up with the Guardian, this paper has ceased to be Left wing, and is now a regressive tabloid!

        • James

          I grew up in the 80s Emma, most protesters were not even around to know about the times. Ironically, Thatcher was a working class hero to many, but she did her job under a democracy that voted for her at the time. Labour support the EU, Thatcherism… its hypocritical.

    • Jamie

      It would be nice if you could explain which myths were deflated. I didn’t see any.

      • TinCanFerry

        Can I suggest that you have a look on iPlayer if you are that interested.

        • Jamie

          I watched it. I simply take issue with your statements that any so called myths were apparently deflated. By your silence I assume you can’t identify any.

          • TinCanFerry

            Assume all you jolly well like.

          • Jamie

            Conservativism seems to be progressively becoming more of a faith than a system of thought – as with the (mad hatter’s) Tea Party in the US. A proper debate – and good politics and governance is only possible with people who use facts.

  • http://twitter.com/emjp888 Emily Jade

    Left, Right whatever, but really Thatcher’s being seriously compared to Hitler? Can everyone get a grip, if those protesting, rejoicing, whatever about her death really cared about what’s best for the country I’m going to hazard an opinion that violet mob mentality isn’t exactly the most noble response, the woman’s dead- who are you shouting at?

  • Colonel Mustard

    Why? Because lefties always excel in hypocrisy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/emmsflavell Emma Flavell

    Ultimately none of this matters a jot, she will have a State Funeral, She does, like it or not, have Legitimacy,and she was to coin a phrase ” A Political Giant”. This thrice elected PM no more divided the Nation than Blair and his school boy adoration for anything USA. The tragedy for me is, I never particularly liked Margaret Thatcher, but now that the ‘Left’ are being so grotesque, they have forced me into a position where I feel I ought to defend her!!!

    Try telling the so called ‘Left’ that the 10 million quid Funeral cost is insignificant by comparison to the 50 Million a day we give to the EU and they start getting all ‘Guivera’ on you!!

    I remember a time when the Political left stood for something, ironically, they died out along with Margaret Thatchers Tenure.

    Rest in Peace Maggie, the milk was often sour, and always warm!

    • http://www.facebook.com/mike.godfrey.754 Mike Godfrey

      Not only did Blair divide the nation he sent our boys off to an illegal war without adequate body protection and Iraq ended up with over a million dead over one mans lie !

  • http://www.facebook.com/emmsflavell Emma Flavell

    Tom Chivers, always an assistant. your amateur tail needs tucking in. Flush Please.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike.godfrey.754 Mike Godfrey

    The salient point being “I wouldn’t have thought any the worse of Ed Miliband if he had enlightened us as to where he thought Thatcher had gone wrong”.

    No one and certainly not the juvenile retards like Dominic Francis stirring up trouble from his privileged childhood has spelled out where they think Thatcher went wrong and thereby deny an open debate over her premiership. Non political achievers Glenda Jackson, Galloway and many others just spite venom at a dead person without any fact to substantiate their point.

    Its a sad but predictable that many on the left whether on Question Time, posting on the internet or demonstrating in public seem intellectually challenged to debate openly. The reality is they know that any point they may offer will be shot down even before they have opened their fat gobs !

    • Jamie

      Whether declaiming those whose politics you disagree with as menopausal and or simply having fat-gobs, your erudite commentary is always enlightening.

  • http://profiles.google.com/sj2503 Stephen Jones

    Let her corpse now feed the maggots like her and her rotten government fed off those they considered maggots and forget the evil sod.

    • The_greyhound

      She was never defeated, will have a funeral befitting a queen, and a statue in Trafalgar Square (at your expense).

      I trust that the knowledge chokes you.

      • http://profiles.google.com/sj2503 Stephen Jones

        She’ll still be feeding the worms and statues can be crapped on by the pigeons. So, no, she’s worm food, I’m happy enough.

  • True Blue

    Major figures who plotted her downfall seated in the pews comfortably and sanctimously mourning her demise.

    A good example of modern mass hypocracy in contemporary society everywhere. Political leaders who aspire to play the role of God end up in the dust bin of history.
    Nations aspiring end up axphiating.

  • True Blue

    Major figures who plotted her downfall seated in the pews comfortably and sanctimously mourning her demise.

    A good example of modern mass hypocracy in contemporary society everywhere. Political leaders who aspire to play the role of God end up in the dust bin of history.
    Nations aspiring end up axphiating.

  • James

    People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. I’ve been horrified by the hypocrisy and callous lack of respect displayed by the left human rights party. However, I am seriously worried that infant minds are being poisoned with the manufactured protesting and PR that say to the youth the right is evil.

  • JulieThomas

    I greatly tempered my views when I realised that Arthur Scargill was unlikely to live forever. Somehow it was one or the other, and if I trash Maggie now I will have to big up the Scargill eventually. Not a chance.

Can't find your Web ID? Click here