General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn Case you weren't sure that Margaret Thatcher wasn't an evil scumbag
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/03/margaret-thatcher-secret-plan-army-miners-strike<snip>
Margaret Thatcher was secretly preparing to use troops and declare a state of emergency at the height of the miners' strike out of fear Britain was going to run out of food and grind to a halt, government papers released today reveal.
The 1984 cabinet papers, released to the National Archives, show that Thatcher asked for contingency plans to be drawn up to use troops to move coal stocks, despite official government policy ruling out the use of service personnel. A plan involving the use of 4,500 service drivers and 1,650 tipper lorries was considered capable of moving 100 kilotonnes a day of coal to the power stations.
A separate contingency plan, codenamed Operation Halberd, to use troops in the event of a dock strike, had also been drawn up.
The files show that there were two moments during the government's bitter year-long struggle with the miners when Thatcher and her ministers "stared into the abyss" and glimpsed the possibility of defeat.
The first came in July 1984, when Britain's dockers joined the miners on strike. The Downing Street papers show that Norman Tebbit, then Thatcher's employment secretary, wrote her a "secret and personal" letter warning that "I do not see that time is on our side".
---------------------
That was one evil woman
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Recommended.
1000words
(7,051 posts)Margaret on the guillotine."
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)WANTED
FOR
murder & torture
of Irish prisoners
Maggies Face
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Even the Labour Party did not support the strike.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)suffragette
(12,232 posts)K&R
cstanleytech
(26,319 posts)After all isnt it the job of any government to investigate and setup varies plans for things?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Making contingency plans to ensure that people have access to food does not seem especially "evil".
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I would take Reagan over Thatcher any day, at least Reagan had that "sunny optimism" thing going for him.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Do you seriously believe that ANY head of state would tolerate that? There is a level of power that a labor union should not have and shutting off the country's electricity is well beyond that.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)the Thatcher government had prepared against a repeat of the effective 1974 industrial action by stockpiling coal, converting some power stations to burn heavy fuel oil, and recruiting fleets of road haulers to transport coal in case sympathetic railwaymen went on strike to support the miners.[18]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/sense_of_place/miners/miners_strike.shtml
Freddie
(9,273 posts)I hope I live long enough to savor
That when they finally put you in the ground
I'll stand on your grave
And tramp the dirt down
calimary
(81,466 posts)She was his ideological kin. Which defines her as one of the "bad guys."
harun
(11,348 posts)calimary
(81,466 posts)Who then charm their way into power like wolves in sheeps' clothing, and then bring all the lice and fleas and vermin and filth in with them. The 1% hide behind appealing, smooth-talking, presumably harmless "aw-shucks" types, or media darlings who can ride in on the electrifying historic firsts as Miz Maggie did - first woman prime minister. Everybody falls in love with the idea, swoons, oh-she's-SOOO-refreshing!, votes for her party so she's carried into 10 Downing Street. And NOBODY looks beneath the surface where the meanness and cold-heartedness and imperiousness and other assorted rot is. chris christie's another one. BEWARE!!!!! But his "appeal" is the common-man plain-talking no-bullshit "real" schtick, and it's nothing but a veneer. He's a bully of the first order. Loudmouthed, in-yer-face, nasty, pugnacious, mean-spirited. He doesn't fool me or many others of us here for a minute, but a lot of other people ARE fooled. So many people think he's just adorable with that schtick of his. I freakin' hate it.
harun
(11,348 posts)Need candidates for the 99% from the Dem's.
calimary
(81,466 posts)or a Dem doing it? Would you rather have the kind of vermin a CON tends to bring in with him, or a Dem and friends? Hillary has, at least, spoken many times about how she and Bill believed government to be a force for good. I remember those words. Sure there'd be Wall Streeters coming in. It is hard to remove them from anywhere near the top of the zigurrat. They're deeply imbedded because they want to back the winning side - and since they're never sure, they always spread their bets around to both sides. But also, with Hillary anyway, there'd be a few who'd be looking to advance the cause of women everywhere - which she loudly and publicly and consistently over the years has championed. There'd be more of an interest in education and the poor than you'd find among the rapacious CONS who care about nothing but money money money (and punishing their enemies).
There's no question in my mind. And frankly, our side has been so full of sitting ducks I think I'd rather like a shrewd one for a change.
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,377 posts)It's called a Dumptruck in the US.