Thatcher.

[Major Tom]

You are simply wrong.

 

Labour, upon coming into power adopted the prevailing Tory budget, and stuck to it. Fact.

 

"Despite large increases in the generosity ofbenefits for lower income families with children and lower income pensioners social security spending has grown less quickly (under Labour)than it did under the Conservatives"

Institute for Fiscal Studies

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf

 

To make any sort of salient point, you would need a breakdown of the actual spend. The fact is, Brown spent more on Public Services than a Tory Chancellor ever would. Contradicting your original assertion.

 

What's your breakdown? Your expenditure point is meek - nay non-existent - without it.

 

Brown is not a psuedo-Tory. Far fucking from it.

 

Edit: Look at page 4 of your doc there. There's your comparison between Brown and Tory Chancellors, right there!

[Jarvinja Ilnow]

Some interesting stuff being posted on here but, at the end of the day, Thatcher is dead.

 

Fuck Thatcher and fuck Kelvin.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Good article here :- Margaret Thatcher era left mark on football but she could have ruined game | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

"Her attitude to football, inevitably coloured by the stain of hooliganism on Britain's international reputation, and the reaction of football fans to her were also bound up in the complex web of social and cultural upheaval that she helped create – particularly in the sport's great northern strongholds. Twenty years after she left Downing Street for the last time it was revealed that her ministers had recommended the city of Liverpool be abandoned to "managed decline". There were times when it appeared Thatcher would be happy if football followed a similar path."

[xerxes]

To make any sort of salient point, you would need a breakdown of the actual spend. The fact is, Brown spent more on Public Services than a Tory Chancellor ever would. Contradicting your original assertion.

 

What's your breakdown? Your expenditure point is meek - nay non-existent - without it.

 

Brown is not a psuedo-Tory. Far fucking from it.

 

Edit: Look at page 4 of your doc there. There's your comparison between Brown and Tory Chancellors, right there!

 

I've given you the facts- break them down as you wish.

 

I didn't say that Brown was a Tory. I said that Brown applied Tory discipline and a Tory budget to succeed- he did. He was a very good chancellor.

[Major Tom]

I've given you the facts- break them down as you wish.

 

I didn't say that Brown was a Tory. I said that Brown applied Tory discipline and a Tory budget to succeed- he did. He was a very good chancellor.

 

Too broadbrush, xerxes. If you can't (or won't!) see the difference, it is akin to putting your fingers in your ears and yelling!

[Paco]

she was like the ma who punished her kids before even listening to their side of story. If her kids were getting blamed for anything that was happening on the street she had them in the house and locked in their rooms so they couldn't get blamed for anything else. That wasn't the end of the trouble on the street and the real culprits were allowed to get away with what they were up to. Eventually she let her children back out but they resented her for for her lack of trust and this turned to hate and they grew courage and left her.

[clangers]

To make any sort of salient point, you would need a breakdown of the actual spend. The fact is, Brown spent more on Public Services than a Tory Chancellor ever would. Contradicting your original assertion.

 

What's your breakdown? Your expenditure point is meek - nay non-existent - without it.

 

Brown is not a psuedo-Tory. Far fucking from it.

 

Edit: Look at page 4 of your doc there. There's your comparison between Brown and Tory Chancellors, right there!

 

In the sense that Labour spent more than was sustainable based upon expecting revenue's at the peak of a global boom to continue indefinitely, hence numerous references to ending boom and bust. However it's fair to suggest that even a Tory government would have spent considerably more during a sustained period of strong national and global economic growth.

 

In many ways New Labour's policies were appallingly to the right of Thatcher. The fact that Labour under Blair spent so much of it's time tearing up key policy principles prior to 97 says a great deal. Their economic policy was pure neoliberal, you could get barely get a hair between UK and US fiscal policy, which is why the crash is often referred to as an Anglo-American recession.

 

New Labour deregulated the financial market well beyond Thatcher, implemented a now highly discredited tripartite regulatory system that allowed London to effectively become the casino banking capital of the world whilst overseeing the nation's largest credit bubble (an often overlooked consequence of most Tory governments). Let's not forget Gordon Brown touring the worlds capital's crowing about his 'light touch' regulation.

 

Manufacturing fell from 25% to 23% of national output under Thatcher, it fell from 19% to 11% under New Labour.

 

They substantially extended privatisation well beyond Thatcher even extending it to social provision. They effectively sold off much of the NHS to private sector landlords landing us all with £260 billion worth PFI bills.

 

Let's not forget the 10p tax or the derisory 70p rise for pensioners.

 

The saddest death is not Thatchers but rather John Smith's in 1994. It could have been very different.

 

New Labour in many ways implemented policies that wouldn't have formed part of Thatchers wettest dream.

[kop77]

BBC dilemma over playing Ding Dong The Witch is Dead on radio as Thatcher protest campaign sends single surging up the charts

 

The BBC is facing a difficult decision about whether it should play a Wizard Of Oz track which has had a surge of popularity in the wake of Baroness Thatcher's death.

 

An online campaign has driven sales of the song - today midweek placings released by the Official Charts Company show Judy Garland's Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead is now at number 10.

 

The corporation will now have to decide if they will play the 1939 tune during Radio 1's top 40 countdown when places are finalised at the weekend.

 

 

just down loaded it.

[Coro]

In the sense that Labour spent more than was sustainable based upon expecting revenue's at the peak of a global boom to continue indefinitely, hence numerous references to ending boom and bust. However it's fair to suggest that even a Tory government would have spent considerably more during a sustained period of strong national and global economic growth.

 

In many ways New Labour's policies were appallingly to the right of Thatcher. The fact that Labour under Blair spent so much of it's time tearing up key policy principles prior to 97 says a great deal. Their economic policy was pure neoliberal, you could get barely get a hair between UK and US fiscal policy, which is why the crash is often referred to as an Anglo-American recession.

 

New Labour deregulated the financial market well beyond Thatcher, implemented a now highly discredited tripartite regulatory system that allowed London to effectively become the casino banking capital of the world whilst overseeing the nation's largest credit bubble (an often overlooked consequence of most Tory governments). Let's not forget Gordon Brown touring the worlds capital's crowing about his 'light touch' regulation.

 

Manufacturing fell from 25% to 23% of national output under Thatcher, it fell from 19% to 11% under New Labour.

 

They substantially extended privatisation well beyond Thatcher even extending it to social provision. They effectively sold off much of the NHS to private sector landlords landing us all with £260 billion worth PFI bills.

 

Let's not forget the 10p tax or the derisory 70p rise for pensioners.

 

The saddest death is not Thatchers but rather John Smith's in 1994. It could have been very different.

 

New Labour in many ways implemented policies that wouldn't have formed part of Thatchers wettest dream.

 

Brilliant that, Clangers.

 

Bravo

 

[Major Tom]

In the sense that Labour spent more than was sustainable based upon expecting revenue's at the peak of a global boom to continue indefinitely, hence numerous references to ending boom and bust. However it's fair to suggest that even a Tory government would have spent considerably more during a sustained period of strong national and global economic growth.

 

As xerxes pointed out, spending under the Tories grew quicker than under Labour in real terms over the past 30 or so years. It's the breakdown that makes for interesting reading.

 

UK Public Spending Breakdown: Central Government and Local Authorities 1692-2015 - Charts

In many ways New Labour's policies were appallingly to the right of Thatcher.

Examples, clangers? A genuine question.

New Labour deregulated the financial market well beyond Thatcher, implemented a now highly discredited tripartite regulatory system that allow London to effectively become the casino banking capital of the world whilst overseeing the nation's largest credit bubble (an often overlooked consequence of most Tory governments). Let's not forget Gordon Brown touring the worlds capital's crowing about his 'light touch' regulation.

 

Regulation was a problem, agreed. Both in the US and the UK, though. The CDOs fell nicely in between FSA, the Treasury and the BoE over here. Very few people knew what the fuck was going on and where the potential problems lay. Or even what the potential problems were! Hence the decision to let Lehmans fail (a US decision) without having a real grasp of the consequences. I lay a good portion of the blame at the feet of the NY Fed, the Fed and the US gov't. The UK were culpable too, of course.

 

Manufacturing fell from 25% to 23% of national output under Thatcher, it fell from 19% to 11% under New Labour.

A sign of the times. Manufacturing became cheaper offshore.

They substantially extended privatisation well beyond Thatcher even extending it to social provision. They effectively sold off much of the NHS to private sector landlords landing us all with £260 billion worth PFI bills.

I am not so au fait with the workings of the NHS so can't argue that either way. Saying that, I have a number of friends who work within it and they are all dismayed at what the current gov't is doing to it. I shall have to pick their brains!

[janmolby]

PFI is national calamity, even Parry and Moores couldn't have come up with that shit.

[Fowlers God]

Vote Xabi, come on guys vote Xabi's team to win the draft and I will personally advise you that he IS going to sign at the end of the season.

[FanchesterCity]

"...British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pressured the FA to ban all English clubs from Europe indefinitely. Our own Football Association had pre-empted them by withdrawing our clubs from the following season’s European tournaments pending UEFA’s announcements. Two days later she was granted her wish as UEFA banned all English sides for what they stated was “an indeterminate period of time”"

 

Source

 

I don't really see that as her steering things / changing them. I think she probably did what most politicians would have, was seen the 'condemn' what was going on, especially after Heysel which (initially) was portrayed as the last in a long line of English hooliganism.

Of course we now know that other factors contributed to Heysel... but I think she was merely being seen to condemn it all and nudge it into reform (which people already knew was needed).

 

I based my view from the starting premise of some recent articles suggesting Thatcher 'saved' football. To that I say 'bollocks'. The healthy state (as many claim) of football today, is not due to her.

Then I got to thinking about 'did she make it worse then?'.... and I reached the same conclusion - no, she didn't make it worse either.

She didn't like football, and certainly didn't like fans. Not many people outside of football did at that time. The view then was that fans were mindless, violent scum, and I expect she held that view too. As did much of the Police.

 

I think we'd have been banned from Europe with or without Thatcher.

I think we'd have finally improved safety with or without Thatcher.

I think the formation of the PL would have happened with or without Thatcher.

 

That's why I believe she was irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

Can't deny she got involved, but no more than any PM would have to get involved given Heysel and Hillsborough, and general hooliganism at games.

 

It's just my view. I don't want to get into Hillsborough though, as I think that's beyond football. Her defence of SYP in the light of the Taylor report (along with Hurd) was sickening, but that's something far more than football and more about covering each others arses in the wake of an almighty fuck up (something she didn't HAVE to do, had she just accepted Taylor's report and condemned the FA, SWFC and SYP she'd have come up smelling of roses for doing the RIGHT thing).

 

My loathing of her will be for merciless destruction of some industries in the name of 'profit'... without a care for the consequence of her actions.

My loathing of her will be for standing by Duckenfield and co and allowing him to retire with a pension AFTER the Taylor report (before that, I can't blame her, as she was just a PM being told a pack of lies by SYP).

My loathing of her will be for her to see a war as a political tool for popularity.

My loathing of her will be for denying injured Falklands heroes from appearing in parades, as it was 'bad for public morale'.

But for her influence on football? nil-nil draw for me.

[FanchesterCity]

Good article here :- Margaret Thatcher era left mark on football but she could have ruined game | Football | guardian.co.uk

 

"Her attitude to football, inevitably coloured by the stain of hooliganism on Britain's international reputation, and the reaction of football fans to her were also bound up in the complex web of social and cultural upheaval that she helped create – particularly in the sport's great northern strongholds. Twenty years after she left Downing Street for the last time it was revealed that her ministers had recommended the city of Liverpool be abandoned to "managed decline". There were times when it appeared Thatcher would be happy if football followed a similar path."

 

I have to agree with this. Depends on your perspective if you see that as her being influential, or simply apathetic. I see it more as the latter.

I absolutely think she deemed football fans to be the very same as those rioting in Moss Side, Toxteth, and Brixton. The great unwashed / unemployed / social underclass.

By the mid 80's anybody who didn't like football would probably have felt the same. The news was consistently about 'fans on the rampage' / 'expected trouble' etc etc. and so when disasters struck, it was almost by default deemed to be yet another example of extreme hooliganism. There was a reasonably good case for that with Heysel, which clearly made it easy for Hillsborough to be tarred with a similar brush.

 

This is where I form my view of her NOT being influential though... because I think she'd far rather it didn't exist, but if it had to, she wanted the hooligans taken out. But the ID card scheme never happened (certainly not in the guise proposed), and I think the European ban was coming our way with or without her. She had opinions on things, and made them known, but did SHE really change anything? I don't think so. I just think much happened on her watch.

 

Trouble is, I've forgotten half of what went on back then, and who said and did what, and in what order. Maybe she did pull many of the strings, but I think she was too busy shafting half the British workforce to be bothered about shafting football too.

[Red Baron II]

Fucks sake! I thought this was supposed to be a football forum?? Do we really need 10 pages of shitty political bullshit? She's dead...whoo hoo...fuckin get over it!

 

Now, can we get back to the football....pleeeeease??

[Guest ShoePiss]

I have to agree with this. Depends on your perspective if you see that as her being influential, or simply apathetic. I see it more as the latter.

I absolutely think she deemed football fans to be the very same as those rioting in Moss Side, Toxteth, and Brixton. The great unwashed / unemployed / social underclass.

By the mid 80's anybody who didn't like football would probably have felt the same. The news was consistently about 'fans on the rampage' / 'expected trouble' etc etc. and so when disasters struck, it was almost by default deemed to be yet another example of extreme hooliganism. There was a reasonably good case for that with Heysel, which clearly made it easy for Hillsborough to be tarred with a similar brush.

 

This is where I form my view of her NOT being influential though... because I think she'd far rather it didn't exist, but if it had to, she wanted the hooligans taken out. But the ID card scheme never happened (certainly not in the guise proposed), and I think the European ban was coming our way with or without her. She had opinions on things, and made them known, but did SHE really change anything? I don't think so. I just think much happened on her watch.

 

Trouble is, I've forgotten half of what went on back then, and who said and did what, and in what order. Maybe she did pull many of the strings, but I think she was too busy shafting half the British workforce to be bothered about shafting football too.

 

If we were talking about someone on the street that had no interest in football I can agree that their influence will be nil. Thatcher's lack of interest, her complete disdain for it and more importantly the fans of the game even by doing 'nothing' means she had an affect on the game. If she had any respect for us I doubt a mounted policeman would have thought it ok to barge me (a 10 year old queuing up outside the kop), trample others and treat us generally like shit.

 

Maybe if she held it and us in higher regard she wouldn't have allowed us to be treated worse than cattle. Of course the knobheads causing shit played a huge part in that but it isn't the point here.

 

Authorities home and abroad were given a green light to treat us in a way they wouldn't your average citizen and she played a part in that situation.

[Dr Nowt]

In the sense that Labour spent more than was sustainable based upon expecting revenue's at the peak of a global boom to continue indefinitely, hence numerous references to ending boom and bust. However it's fair to suggest that even a Tory government would have spent considerably more during a sustained period of strong national and global economic growth.

 

In many ways New Labour's policies were appallingly to the right of Thatcher. The fact that Labour under Blair spent so much of it's time tearing up key policy principles prior to 97 says a great deal. Their economic policy was pure neoliberal, you could get barely get a hair between UK and US fiscal policy, which is why the crash is often referred to as an Anglo-American recession.

 

New Labour deregulated the financial market well beyond Thatcher, implemented a now highly discredited tripartite regulatory system that allowed London to effectively become the casino banking capital of the world whilst overseeing the nation's largest credit bubble (an often overlooked consequence of most Tory governments). Let's not forget Gordon Brown touring the worlds capital's crowing about his 'light touch' regulation.

 

Manufacturing fell from 25% to 23% of national output under Thatcher, it fell from 19% to 11% under New Labour.

 

They substantially extended privatisation well beyond Thatcher even extending it to social provision. They effectively sold off much of the NHS to private sector landlords landing us all with £260 billion worth PFI bills.

 

Let's not forget the 10p tax or the derisory 70p rise for pensioners.

 

The saddest death is not Thatchers but rather John Smith's in 1994. It could have been very different.

 

New Labour in many ways implemented policies that wouldn't have formed part of Thatchers wettest dream.

 

Brilliant, that.

 

When Thatcher was asked what she regarded as her greatest achievement, she is said to have replied: “New Labour”.

[Major Tom]

Brilliant, that.

 

When Thatcher was asked what she regarded as her greatest achievement, she is said to have replied: “New Labour”.

 

Do you have any specifics, TT? Again, it's a genuine question.

[KMD7]

Fucks sake! I thought this was supposed to be a football forum?? Do we really need 10 pages of shitty political bullshit? She's dead...whoo hoo...fuckin get over it!

 

Now, can we get back to the football....pleeeeease??

 

No one asked you to read the thread in fairness. Plus there's plenty of active football threads already on the forum. You may want to look them up.

[thompsonsnose]

I've given you the facts- break them down as you wish.

 

I didn't say that Brown was a Tory. I said that Brown applied Tory discipline and a Tory budget to succeed- he did. He was a very good chancellor.

 

 

And now i KNOW that you are full of shit.

[navbasi]

Tony Barrett posted an article on his blog on the Times, I'm not a subscriber and it was only free until 1pm so I missed it.. Anyone able to post it on here? It was titled "It's time that we discovered the whole truth about Thatcher's response to Hillsborough..."

[magicrat]

In the sense that Labour spent more than was sustainable based upon expecting revenue's at the peak of a global boom to continue indefinitely, hence numerous references to ending boom and bust. However it's fair to suggest that even a Tory government would have spent considerably more during a sustained period of strong national and global economic growth.

 

In many ways New Labour's policies were appallingly to the right of Thatcher. The fact that Labour under Blair spent so much of it's time tearing up key policy principles prior to 97 says a great deal. Their economic policy was pure neoliberal, you could get barely get a hair between UK and US fiscal policy, which is why the crash is often referred to as an Anglo-American recession.

 

New Labour deregulated the financial market well beyond Thatcher, implemented a now highly discredited tripartite regulatory system that allowed London to effectively become the casino banking capital of the world whilst overseeing the nation's largest credit bubble (an often overlooked consequence of most Tory governments). Let's not forget Gordon Brown touring the worlds capital's crowing about his 'light touch' regulation.

 

Manufacturing fell from 25% to 23% of national output under Thatcher, it fell from 19% to 11% under New Labour.

 

They substantially extended privatisation well beyond Thatcher even extending it to social provision. They effectively sold off much of the NHS to private sector landlords landing us all with £260 billion worth PFI bills.

 

Let's not forget the 10p tax or the derisory 70p rise for pensioners.

 

The saddest death is not Thatchers but rather John Smith's in 1994. It could have been very different.

 

New Labour in many ways implemented policies that wouldn't have formed part of Thatchers wettest dream.

 

repped

Despite Xerxes assertions Brown was a dreadful Chancellor who from the outset taxed pension funds and bent very fiscal rule to suit his own ends. He left the alcoholics in the City in charge of the brewery and squandered billions in the false belief economic growth was a one way ticket. “Prudent” was his buzz- word , what a joke.

I have stayed away from this whole Thatcher exchange mainly because of the bile and invective ( some of which was quite creative to be fair) directed towards a deceased demented 87 year old woman by many people that were probably too young to have had any first- hand experience of what it was like when she was Fuhrer . The argument that I didn’t have to live through WW2 to know Hitler was a cunt is a bit weak.

I remember how shit the seventies were in Liverpool and in the wider country. Strikes, power cuts , IMF bail outs, three day week, rubbish uncollected, closed shops, picketing everywhere and with Liverpool, the once great city, decaying around us. With the Labour party controlled by the block vote, unable to deal with the Union stranglehold, and the Tories defeated by the miners under Heath the country was in a pretty desperate state by the time Thatcher was elected. Even so it took a huge slice of luck with a successful foreign adventure in the South Atlantic and Labour now led by Michael Foot and busily tearing itself apart to allow her a second term. Dennis Healey accusing her of glorying in the slaughter of the Falklands probably sealed the deal. It was after her second victory the monster was born. She became infallible , overbearing and utterly detestable. Despite any personal gain I may have derived from her policies I hated the woman. I had been forced to leave Liverpool along with many many other in the eighties to find a decent job and her every word she uttered used to touch a nerve. Her supporters claim her as saviour of Britain. With hindsight the Unions power would have waned, the cold war would have ended without her holding Reagans hand and we might not have spawned New Labour with all its failings as Clangers pointed out. We may have given up the Falklands which would have been embarrassing but long gone and forgotten by now . We might be on decent terms with most of our European neighbours.

It’s with a sense of perspective we should view Thatcher, what made her rise possible and what came after she went. She was undoubtedly a fiercely patriotic woman that did what she did in the belief it was in the country’s best interests. She didn’t court personal popularity and she had a steely resolve I have never seen in any other politician. For that , and the fact she was PM for 11 years winning 3 elections, she will be remembered fondly by so many. It’ s these very qualities coupled with the fact she was wrong in so many of her beliefs that made her so dangerous in my mind.

Other than the fact that we are spending millions from the public purse on the funeral her death invokes no emotion in me. Twenty three years ago her departure from Downing Street in tears, stabbed in the back by the lackeys, was day she died and the day I celebrated.

[rome 84]

Tony Barrett posted an article on his blog on the Times, I'm not a subscriber and it was only free until 1pm so I missed it.. Anyone able to post it on here? It was titled "It's time that we discovered the whole truth about Thatcher's response to Hillsborough..."

 

Now is the time to reveal truth about Thatcher’s response to Hillsborough

 

As has been the case throughout their 24-year struggle for justice, the Hillsborough families and their supporters kept their dignity in the wake of Margaret Thatcher’s death. “I don’t have any feelings about her either way,” was the diplomatic offering of Margaret Aspinall, whose 18-year-old son, James, was one of the 96 victims of British football’s worst disaster.

 

Margaret could have said many things. She could have been vindictive. She could even have welcomed Thatcher’s passing. But as a mother who knows only too well the pain and anguish of death, she also recognised that this was not the time for any of that. Instead, tact and diplomacy took precedence as her innermost thoughts remained private.

 

There was something else as well, though, an expression of frustration that Thatcher’s exact role in the cover-up that followed Hillsborough is still to be established. “We know she had sly meetings the evening of the disaster and the morning after at the ground and that is when the cover-up started,” Margaret said.

 

Sheila Coleman, of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC), went a step farther. “The HJC hope that now she is dead at least those who have protected her will do the decent thing and release all documentation in respect of the Hillsborough cover-up,” she said. “Thatcher was instrumental in the Hillsborough cover-up. We call on the Government to release all documentation about her involvement.”

 

For anyone tempted to suggest that such requests are ill timed or opportunistic, don’t. The Hillsborough families have waited far too long for full disclosure and those who were involved in what was described by Michael Mansfield QC as “the biggest cover-up in British legal history” are either dying off or reaching the stage of their lives when being held to account becomes increasingly unlikely. The justice clock is ticking. There is no more time to waste.

 

Even more pertinently, a fortnight before Thatcher’s death, John Glover, whose 20-year-old son Ian perished on the Leppings Lane death trap, passed away following a brave battle with cancer. Meanwhile, Anne Williams, who lost her 15-year-old son Kevin in the tragedy, is spending her remaining days in a hospice having had terminal bowel cancer diagnosed. The plights of John and Anne highlight exactly why time is of the essence where the full truth about Hillsborough is concerned.

 

 

 

That Thatcher’s involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough remains clouded in mystery is wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable. It had been hoped that the release of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report into the disaster last September would shed light on her activities but such optimism went unrewarded and the grey areas remain.

 

Twelve months earlier, the Information Commissioner had ruled that discussions involving Thatcher should be made public at the earliest possible opportunity. Crucially, though, details of the briefing given to her and Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, on the morning after Hillsborough were not disclosed. It was also claimed that there was no documentation relating to her visit to the stadium the following day.

 

As such, there is still too much that we do not know about what the Prime Minister of the day thought and said about a tragedy that cost so many lives and changed the face of English football. In the absence of that information, it is inevitable that those affected by Hillsborough feel that the whole truth is yet to emerge even though so many steps have been taken towards that aim during the past year.

 

Equally inevitably, particularly given the extremes that instruments of the state went to in an attempt to subvert justice, the vacuum that has been created has led to conspiracy theories, the main one being that Thatcher’s role has been suppressed in order to protect her and the office that she served.

 

There will be those who believe that to be far-fetched. Those who do should consider this – one of the few things that we know for sure is that she succeeded in distorting her government’s response to the findings of the interim report into the disaster by Lord Justice Taylor out of a misplaced desire to protect South Yorkshire Police.

 

We know this because in a handwritten note in the margin of a civil servant’s memo informing her that Hurd planned to welcome Taylor’s findings, she wrote that this amounted to “a devastating criticism” of the police. “What do we mean by ‘welcoming the broad thrust of the report?’” she asked. “The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations – M.T.”

 

If a Primer Minister is ready, willing and able to go to such lengths to protect the state, then surely it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that the very same state would go to the same lengths to protect her? It took 23 years for an establishment conspiracy to come to light so why would anyone believe it impossible for steps to have been taken to prevent the stench of the cover-up from infecting those at the very top?

 

We also know that in the aftermath of the disaster, two of Thatcher’s favourite attack dogs, Bernard Ingham (her press secretary) and Kelvin MacKenzie (her favourite newspaper editor, who this week described the former PM as “a revolutionary who made a fantastic difference to this country”) played crucial roles in warping the public’s perception of Hillsborough.

 

Under his infamous headline “The Truth”, MacKenzie ensured that The Sun’s coverage of the events at Hillsborough fitted in with the black propaganda that was spewing out of South Yorkshire Police. For his part, Ingham claimed the disaster had been caused by “a tanked-up mob” of Liverpool fans. He later admitted to having his opinions shaped by the same police officers who briefed Thatcher, including Peter Wright, the then chief constable of the police force.

 

The possibility remains that Thatcher never got her hands dirty; that she didn’t need to because her minions were doing the dirty work on her behalf. It seems highly unlikely, though, that one of the most powerful politicians of the last century limited her involvement to a scribbled note in the margin of a piece of foolscap.

 

This is why the time has come for the exact role that Thatcher played following Hillsborough to be made public. It is the very least that the Hillsborough families and their supporters deserve. On Monday, they will gather to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the disaster and they will do so in possession of most, but not all, of the truth about how their loved ones perished and how the state responded. That has to change.

 

“Somebody fed those lies, I think she was part of it and she knew about it,” Margaret Aspinall said. Given the instincts of the Hillsborough families have been proven to be right on every other issue relating to the disaster, it would be foolish in the extreme to dismiss the idea that they are wrong to suspect Margaret Thatcher.

[xerxes]

And now i KNOW that you are full of shit.

You haven't a clue about what you are talking about, or the facts, enjoy.

[navbasi]

Now is the time to reveal truth about Thatcher’s response to Hillsborough

 

As has been the case throughout their 24-year struggle for justice, the Hillsborough families and their supporters kept their dignity in the wake of Margaret Thatcher’s death. “I don’t have any feelings about her either way,” was the diplomatic offering of Margaret Aspinall, whose 18-year-old son, James, was one of the 96 victims of British football’s worst disaster.

 

Margaret could have said many things. She could have been vindictive. She could even have welcomed Thatcher’s passing. But as a mother who knows only too well the pain and anguish of death, she also recognised that this was not the time for any of that. Instead, tact and diplomacy took precedence as her innermost thoughts remained private.

 

There was something else as well, though, an expression of frustration that Thatcher’s exact role in the cover-up that followed Hillsborough is still to be established. “We know she had sly meetings the evening of the disaster and the morning after at the ground and that is when the cover-up started,” Margaret said.

 

Sheila Coleman, of the Hillsborough Justice Campaign (HJC), went a step farther. “The HJC hope that now she is dead at least those who have protected her will do the decent thing and release all documentation in respect of the Hillsborough cover-up,” she said. “Thatcher was instrumental in the Hillsborough cover-up. We call on the Government to release all documentation about her involvement.”

 

For anyone tempted to suggest that such requests are ill timed or opportunistic, don’t. The Hillsborough families have waited far too long for full disclosure and those who were involved in what was described by Michael Mansfield QC as “the biggest cover-up in British legal history” are either dying off or reaching the stage of their lives when being held to account becomes increasingly unlikely. The justice clock is ticking. There is no more time to waste.

 

Even more pertinently, a fortnight before Thatcher’s death, John Glover, whose 20-year-old son Ian perished on the Leppings Lane death trap, passed away following a brave battle with cancer. Meanwhile, Anne Williams, who lost her 15-year-old son Kevin in the tragedy, is spending her remaining days in a hospice having had terminal bowel cancer diagnosed. The plights of John and Anne highlight exactly why time is of the essence where the full truth about Hillsborough is concerned.

 

 

 

That Thatcher’s involvement in the aftermath of Hillsborough remains clouded in mystery is wholly unsatisfactory and unacceptable. It had been hoped that the release of the Hillsborough Independent Panel’s report into the disaster last September would shed light on her activities but such optimism went unrewarded and the grey areas remain.

 

Twelve months earlier, the Information Commissioner had ruled that discussions involving Thatcher should be made public at the earliest possible opportunity. Crucially, though, details of the briefing given to her and Douglas Hurd, the then Home Secretary, on the morning after Hillsborough were not disclosed. It was also claimed that there was no documentation relating to her visit to the stadium the following day.

 

As such, there is still too much that we do not know about what the Prime Minister of the day thought and said about a tragedy that cost so many lives and changed the face of English football. In the absence of that information, it is inevitable that those affected by Hillsborough feel that the whole truth is yet to emerge even though so many steps have been taken towards that aim during the past year.

 

Equally inevitably, particularly given the extremes that instruments of the state went to in an attempt to subvert justice, the vacuum that has been created has led to conspiracy theories, the main one being that Thatcher’s role has been suppressed in order to protect her and the office that she served.

 

There will be those who believe that to be far-fetched. Those who do should consider this – one of the few things that we know for sure is that she succeeded in distorting her government’s response to the findings of the interim report into the disaster by Lord Justice Taylor out of a misplaced desire to protect South Yorkshire Police.

 

We know this because in a handwritten note in the margin of a civil servant’s memo informing her that Hurd planned to welcome Taylor’s findings, she wrote that this amounted to “a devastating criticism” of the police. “What do we mean by ‘welcoming the broad thrust of the report?’” she asked. “The broad thrust is devastating criticism of the police. Is that for us to welcome? Surely we welcome the thoroughness of the report and its recommendations – M.T.”

 

If a Primer Minister is ready, willing and able to go to such lengths to protect the state, then surely it isn’t beyond the realms of possibility that the very same state would go to the same lengths to protect her? It took 23 years for an establishment conspiracy to come to light so why would anyone believe it impossible for steps to have been taken to prevent the stench of the cover-up from infecting those at the very top?

 

We also know that in the aftermath of the disaster, two of Thatcher’s favourite attack dogs, Bernard Ingham (her press secretary) and Kelvin MacKenzie (her favourite newspaper editor, who this week described the former PM as “a revolutionary who made a fantastic difference to this country”) played crucial roles in warping the public’s perception of Hillsborough.

 

Under his infamous headline “The Truth”, MacKenzie ensured that The Sun’s coverage of the events at Hillsborough fitted in with the black propaganda that was spewing out of South Yorkshire Police. For his part, Ingham claimed the disaster had been caused by “a tanked-up mob” of Liverpool fans. He later admitted to having his opinions shaped by the same police officers who briefed Thatcher, including Peter Wright, the then chief constable of the police force.

 

The possibility remains that Thatcher never got her hands dirty; that she didn’t need to because her minions were doing the dirty work on her behalf. It seems highly unlikely, though, that one of the most powerful politicians of the last century limited her involvement to a scribbled note in the margin of a piece of foolscap.

 

This is why the time has come for the exact role that Thatcher played following Hillsborough to be made public. It is the very least that the Hillsborough families and their supporters deserve. On Monday, they will gather to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the disaster and they will do so in possession of most, but not all, of the truth about how their loved ones perished and how the state responded. That has to change.

 

“Somebody fed those lies, I think she was part of it and she knew about it,” Margaret Aspinall said. Given the instincts of the Hillsborough families have been proven to be right on every other issue relating to the disaster, it would be foolish in the extreme to dismiss the idea that they are wrong to suspect Margaret Thatcher.

 

Thanks mate!