T
literature

The Day that Margaret Thatcher Died

Skargill's avatar
By Skargill
9 Favourites
75 Comments
1K Views
I’ll tell you true, I’ll tell you why
So many are happy to see Thatcher die.
She made it her most important role
To condemn millions to waste on the dole.
So tight was the woman called Thatcher
That for decades we knew her as “Milk Snatcher”.

The nickname was apt for she was the cream
Of the proponents of Milton Friedman’s dream.
For over ten years she reigned supreme
At the head of our most divisive regime.
Her favoured title was the “Iron Lady”
Though her favoured practices were quite shady.

Her response to the trouble on Stormont Hill?
A sinister order to “Shoot to kill”
An order that punished many whose only crime
Was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
When the Miners were on strike
She sent up the Met with a pay hike.

The people of Brixton were left in the lurch
Her solution? Stop and search.
Construction workers were trying to organise
Such an act would threaten her drive to privatise.
The solution she hid in bureaucratic mist
Was to agree to the bosses black list.

Still I’ll say this she was kind to her friends
That chosen few who enjoyed dividends.
Yes it was a good time to be in real estate
Or any position that could profit from the decline of the State.
A friend of Thatcher was here to stay
Just ask the Chilean butcher Pinochet.

Still that was all in the past
The shrill one is dead at last.
And the lie of Thatcherism
Will end like every other Despotism.
When the Working class
Shatter her legacy like glass.
Today is a Red letter day, Margaret Thatcher has finally died, and its true this time. To "commemorate" this day I have composed the above using just some of her highlights. Oh and I guess this is also my contribution to the NaPoWriMo too since this is the 8th.

[link] That song has been playing on a loop for other an hour now.
And for those of you unfamiliar with the Baroness this short speech is a good summary of most of things she was responsible for [link]
Published:
© 2013 - 2020 Skargill
Comments74
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
EclecticQuill's avatar
This is a bit harsh, don't you think? The woman made some bad decisions, but many people benefited from her policies. In fact the economic boom of the 90's and 00's were largely thanks to the changes she made during the 80's. And many of the issues during the 80's were the result of James Callaghan's bad decisions, and he was a Labour minister.
Also, reveling in the death of a person is cruel and frankly a little twisted. Whatever crimes you may lay at her feet, making art in celebration of her death is insensitive to her family who've done nothing.
Skargill's avatar
"This is a bit harsh, don't you think?"

No as a matter of fact I don't. Do you know my history during this period? If not then your not really in a position to lecture me or anyone else about what to feel are you.

Actually you don't have to answer that since it doesn't really matter. What your saying in plain speak is "I don't like your opinion because it upsets my personal morals" Which is just tough luck for you. I don't like people using pleas to civility to impede objective history.

"The woman made some bad decisions, but many people benefited from her policies." Feel free to write a poem about that then.

"In fact the economic boom of the 90's and 00's were largely thanks to the changes she made during the 80's."

Well its good to know you value money over lives and civil liberties... If this were about Mussolini would you be bleating about trains running on time? Or how about Pinochet would you excuse his crimes because the Santiago stock market did well? Or Stalin, or anyone else. I'm curious are you complaining because you believe death should be off limits always, or just irked because I've targeted someone you seem to quite like?

Oh and one last thing I don't know which 90's you were living but I quite clearly remember the recession starting in 1990 that lasted until 96. And the economic recovery was due to the Labour parties increased spending policies.

"And many of the issues during the 80's were the result of James Callaghan's bad decisions, and he was a Labour minister. "

Everything I refer to was an event or result of one of her governments policies. So even if what you were saying it were true it would be irrelevant. A poor performance is not excused by someone else's poor conduct.

If you want to write something explaining how Callaghan is to blame for a cosy relationship with Chile, shoot to kill and use of the police to break up dissent etc. by all means give it a go, but if your not going to bother then refrain from this poor attempt to shift blame.

"Also, reveling in the death of a person is cruel and frankly a little twisted."

Well first of all that isn't why I made this poem and I resent your implication. Second who made you the behaviour police again? Third this is just a list of policies and their results, if you don't like them thats fine but your problem is with history not me. Fourth trying to impose your own personal moral foibles for the purpose of stifling criticism is for me a twisted and cruel thing to do.

"Whatever crimes you may lay at her feet, making art in celebration of her death is insensitive to her family who've done nothing."
Thats a load of bollocks, and I'm sad to see you stoop so low. I'm not interested in her family I'm interested in history. If I stopped writing for fear of upsetting someone I wouldn't write a thing (and neither would you if you actually believed that) but if you actually care about the Thatchers then here's what you should do, simply refrain from sending them the poem. I haven't sent it to them so your argument that I'm causing them grief is sheer fantasy.

If everyone thought like you history would be nothing more then cheap propaganda. And art would be nothing more then pretty meadows and geometric sculptures.
EclecticQuill's avatar
I care not one jot for money, what I care about is the fathers who were unable to work and provide for their families, due to the corruption and money grabbing of the trade unions. And while a good deed may not erase a bad, the good she did outweighed the bad. More people benefited than suffered under her premiership.
Regardless of whether you show it to them or not, it remains insensitive. A lack of empathy is the first step to committing atrocities of your own.
And as for your point about art, you show yourself clueless. Art is about celebrating the beautiful and the human experience, not spouting spiteful and hateful commentaries. The artist's job is to record and celebrate, not to pass judgement.
You claim objectivity, so why not practice it? Your poem is judgmental, and as such, is not objective. Propaganda need not be positive only, defamation and dismissal of good points is propaganda too.
You're a good writer, and I had thought you better than this... Reducing yourself to carrion, making a meal of a corpse. If you don't find it distasteful, then I need not make any implications, you make them for yourself.
Skargill's avatar
"I care not one jot for money,"
Then you shouldn't use economic arguments to justify murder and civil rights abuses.

"what I care about is the fathers who were unable to work and provide for their families, due to the corruption and money grabbing of the trade unions. "

And I care about the people who were not able to provide for their families due to the greed and corruption of private execs who threw entire communities on the scrape heap.

"And while a good deed may not erase a bad,"
Then you shouldn't being up "good" deeds when some ones criticising the bad then should you.

" More people benefited than suffered under her premiership." Maybe were your from they did but not were I'm from. But even if that were mathematically true, its completely irrelevant since it doesn't change the harm she caused to many people, the very thing I am criticising. Using your little rule would mean we weren't allowed to criticise any political leader ever.

"Regardless of whether you show it to them or not, it remains insensitive. A lack of empathy is the first step to committing atrocities of your own."

You're being quite the hypocrite here, your comments smack of a lack of empathy for the victims of her government. It is out of empathy for those people that I made this. I understand why you don't care about people like me since we didn't make you rich but its pretty offensive to trivialise her crimes in the way your doing now. As far as I'm concerned the only callous one here is you.

"And as for your point about art, you show yourself clueless. Art is about celebrating the beautiful and the human experience, "

Sorry but you really are being quite dense here. Beauty is subjective, there is nothing more beautiful to me then the truth and if we can merely "celebrate" through art then explain memorials. Explain all that poetry about how horrible war is. Explain political poetry and fiction.

According to you that isn't art, you'd make a very good censor.

"The artist's job is to record and celebrate, not to pass judgement." Well you seem to be passing quite a lot of judgement right now bub. Or is this a thing were you make rules that apply when you don't like something a "I know it when I see it" kind of deal?

Its also complete bollocks, drama is a form of art it often passes judgement. Poetry and fiction are often used to explore criticise and or praise real events. Photography can also come to dominate how we view certain events, even painting. What about Guernica? You seriously want to tell me that Picasso was celebrating its destruction, or that he wasn't passing judgement, or that it isn't art?

"You claim objectivity, so why not practice it? Your poem is judgmental, and as such, is not objective. " You don't know what objectivity is (what a shock) a judgement is perfectly acceptable so long as it is supported by the facts, that is all objectivity is. Question did all the things listed above happen? Yes, Are they terrible? Yes are they worthy of condemnation? Yes. Therefore objectivity has been maintained. The only way you could call into question my objectivity is if you think economics is worth more then lives and civil liberties.

" Propaganda need not be positive only, defamation and dismissal of good points is propaganda too."

Well then its a good thing I didn't do that then isn't it. I'll say it again since apparently you have difficulty. This is a list of her negative acts, nor does it claim to be a definitive list. Therefore your comments are irrelevant since they do not reflect the body of work. If I claimed this was a comprehensive account of those years maybe you'd have a point, but I didn't so you do not.

I'll ask again since you dodged the question last time. If this were about Mussolini would you be bringing up his "good" points? If not you have no argument beyond simple sour grapes. But if you did I'd still tell you what I have now, this is a list of the negatives of the era feel free to write your own about the good stuff.

"You're a good writer, and I had thought you better than this... Reducing yourself to carrion, making a meal of a corpse. If you don't find it distasteful, then I need not make any implications, you make them for yourself."

You really are a despicable person. To attempt to stifle criticism because you don't like it is shocking behaviour for a self declared "artist" but to do so through such crass manipulative behaviour is just contemptible. You are nothing more then an apologist. That woman caused me, my friends, family and people extreme harm in ways you couldn't even imagine. Furthermore everything I have said happened, so leaving aside your false appeal to morality (you don't get to play the moral card when you trivialise death and repression) what your condemning me for is simply telling the truth. I don't care about your lack of moral fibre I care about honesty if you can't stomach the knowledge that your idol wasn't sugar and rainbows then that's your problem and if compromising my principles is what it takes to please your whims then I am happy to disappoint you.
EclecticQuill's avatar
Objectivity shows the black, white and grey of a given topic without drawing subjective conclusions. If I were being objective then yes, I would highlight Mussolini's good points, as well as his bad, and all those points that lay somewhere in between. When you focus on only one side of a story to support your preconceived judgments, that is not being objective.

As for being manipulative... I don't deny it. That was a blatant appeal to your pride. But it is also manipulative to lay bare only those facts that support your views while brushing those in opposition under the rug.
Skargill's avatar
"Objectivity shows the black, white and grey of a given topic without drawing subjective conclusions....When you focus on only one side of a story to support your preconceived judgments, that is not being objective."

Sorry but that would only be the case if I were making a piece on the totality of the subject. It is a perfectly valid analytical tool when dealing with complex or "big" subjects to break them down into smaller parts to ensure they receive detailed attention. The measure for Objectivity are the questions "Did it happen"? and "is it relevant to my area of study"? Since I am interested in the negative side of her government and made no claims otherwise ( I don't even claim that this is a definitive list of the bad) your claim of un-objectivity is false.

What you've just done is the equivalent of calling a work about the Air Force un objective because I didn't mention the Marines. Furthermore what you've just said is a declaration that no piece of work is objective since it is literally impossible to cover every single factor related to any subject. If I were to follow your advice and include the "good bits" according to you that still wouldn't be objective since I wouldn't of taken into account the years before and after 1979-91 and there is no way to say for certain that those periods were not important or increase our understanding of the main period of interest.

"But it is also manipulative to lay bare only those facts that support your views while brushing those in opposition under the rug."

Sorry but your in no position to lecture here. The only one doing that is you, your the one attempting to stifle criticism. The closest you've come to a legitimate argument has been to state that all the negatives aren't worth mentioning because of all the things she's done that you perceive to be good. Sounds like trying to sweep opposition under the rug to me.

How do you expect me to take you seriously if you break your own rules before you've even set them?
EclecticQuill's avatar
You confuse objectivity with content. The work is clearly designed to support a preconceived opinion, that is subjective, not objective. If I were to put an analogy to this poem it would be of the British Empire. Your poem would make the empire a tyranny of thieves and butchers, and would fail to take into consideration the technological and medicinal benefits that also came from the empire. One does not erase the other, but they stand side by side. Would it be objective of me to call you a bad writer and cite only you poorest writings as evidence?
I don't charge you with chronicling every minute detail; only to give light to the good, as well as the bad. To be objective in fact, as well as claim.
Skargill's avatar
"You confuse objectivity with content. " Objectivity is dependent upon content, you can't have one without the other.

"The work is clearly designed to support a preconceived opinion, " That is backed up by the evidence presented, it would be subjective if I removed relevant factors due to my beliefs. Since this work purely concerns negative consequences (Something you keep ignoring) your attempt to cry subjectivity is false. Your argument is not about objectivity at all your arguing against the use of parameters.

"that is subjective, not objective." You keep saying that and that simply isn't how it works. Your arguing against setting parameters for a work, which is simply stupid as it would mean no work at all could even be attempted.

"One does not erase the other, but they stand side by side. " So what? if you really believe they are as important as you claim then why would you object to studying them in detail?

It is perfectly legitimate to study the bad sides of the Empire in detail and vice versa. So long as neither work claimed to be the absolute full story of everything important and everything they presented was truthful, they would meet the criteria for objectivity. This is how research actually works by setting parameters to make it manageable.

Again it is simply an absurdity for you to claim a work must take into account every single possible factor. I have set myself parameters for my work and acted accordingly you do not get to dictate what my parameters are. You do not get to declare something un-objective because it reaches a conclusion you don't like.

" Would it be objective of me to call you a bad writer and cite only you poorest writings as evidence? " That would depend, can you show in an unambiguous way that my writing is poor? If so then yes. If you phrased your argument in an absolutist way then you would have to look at the totality of my writing. The same way that I can objectively say Thatcher did bad things, because I can and have shown she did bad things. This is all I've done, made note of her bad deeds because I believe they are worth acknowledging. Unlike you who would happily sweep it all under the rug. And it amuses me greatly to see how intolerant you and others are of even the hint of a stain on your idol.

Again had I claimed this was the "Complete record" of the Thatcher years you would of had a point. But I didn't so you don't, your argument boils down to "I don't like the parameters of your piece" which is simply tough you don't get to make that decision for anyone.

"I don't charge you with chronicling every minute detail;"

Actually yes you did, in fact you did it right now in this very comment with your analogy. You simply can't have it both ways, either we are allowed to set parameters on our work (in which case you don't have the right to choose what those are) or we do not, in which case we simply must include everything. How exactly do you know what is minute and what is important if you don't study it? The answer is you don't at best you make an unfounded assumption, which is why we have parameters.

" only to give light to the good, as well as the bad. To be objective in fact, as well as claim." No what you are trying to do is get me to change my work to please your petty little whims. You don't want me to be objective you want me to change the parameters of my work to get a conclusion more favourable to your point of view. Only you can't be honest about it which is why your making such a song and dance about someone writing something your not comfortable with.
Panzerfaust45's avatar
This is GREAT!! I never realized what an evil woman she was!
AyeAye12's avatar
I can understand that she was beyond bad and ruined many many lives, but a) getting into flame wars over it is a bit silly and b) celebrating anyone's death is pretty distasteful and kinda disgusting.

I didn't have to experience her rule, and from what I've heard of her philosophy it was pretty terrible, but still... let's have some kind of dignity and not celebrate people's deaths >__>
Skargill's avatar
"a) getting into flame wars over it is a bit silly"

Allowing others to spew insults and factually inaccurate guff isn't something to be encouraged.

"b) celebrating anyone's death is pretty distasteful and kinda disgusting."

Defending someone who committed serious crimes is very distasteful and disgusting. So is using a subjective moral code to impede objective history, which is what you and everyone in the "speak no ill of the dead camp" is advocating. [link]

Besides if you want respect in death you earn it in life. I can remember the government spokespeople going on the BBC and in the papers gloating over the deaths of Northern Irelanders, I can also remember the disgusting campaign of vitriol against the victims of Hillsborough and their families. Not only did her government cheer itself on for murder it used their deaths to create political capital.

"let's have some kind of dignity and not celebrate people's deaths "

That is a ridiculous statement. Politics is not a game,Political actions have consequences and victims. What your actually saying is due to your own personal morality some people aren't entitled to express their opinion for the sake of some bizarre etiquette. That's censorship dressed up as moralism.

I also find it quite offensive given that as far as I'm concerned this poem is nothing more then a list of her crimes, or if thats to undignified for you a "list of her controversial policies and their negative results" so are you actually saying I and others should lie for the sake of a false civility?

How about you show some dignity and stop defending reprehensible people just cos?
AyeAye12's avatar
I'm not defending her at all. I'm defending the fact that celebrating anyone's death isn't nice and won't succeed in much, from my hindsight. Unless there is some kind of long term benefit? I don't know, you are most definitely more experienced with this kind of topic, I don't want to seem incompetent by saying celebrating her death won't achieve much.

Personal morality? Perhaps so, I was just trying to keep some level of civility because getting enraged on the subject won't help anyone.

My comment was ignorant, selfish and hurtful. I understand that now, even though I meant it in no spite, I understand that and all I can do in this situation is give out a pathetic apology.
Skargill's avatar
"I'm not defending her at all." Sorry but that is precisely what you are doing. Your using a moralistic argument to argue against criticism, that is a defensive act. When you see something abhorrent you have an obligation to decry it, otherwise you are complicit in it. Attempting to stifle its criticism no matter your reason is an act of defence because it aids them. Whenever someone powerful dies no matter who they were their supporters always make an appeal to civility in order to shame their opponents into silence. They do that because they want silence in order to present their version of history.

"I'm defending the fact that celebrating anyone's death isn't nice" And I am defending the fact that refusing to speak the truth out of politeness is a compromise to honesty and objective history. I would rather be condemned as rude then as someone who compromised his principles. I have made that choice, you are free to make the opposite choice if you wish, and if you do that's fine no judgement from me.But you are not entitled or capable of making that choice for me.

"and won't succeed in much," You are simply wrong, staying quiet is precisely how myth replaces fact in history.

" Unless there is some kind of long term benefit?"
The long term benefit is an accurate historical account. Learning about the bad things that happen and why is very important as that knowledge my well help future generations avoid repeating them. "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it".

If your still not convinced then look up the truth and reconciliation commissions in South Africa, Northern Ireland, and most of Latin America. The whole purpose of those bodies is to examine the facts and assign condemnation to the appropriate party, even if they are dead. If you genuinely believe that there is no benefit to speaking ill of the dead no matter what they did then you must also think such commissions are a waste of time.

Now I can't comment on the effectiveness of most commissions but I do know that the one in Northern Ireland has on the whole (it certainly isn't perfect) had a positive effect in diffusion tensions and giving at least some of the victims of that period solace.

"I don't want to seem incompetent by saying celebrating her death won't achieve much."

Well I'm not arrogant enough (yet) to think my little verse will ever become iconic or even remembered. But I do know for a fact (because I've seen it happen) that staying silent only allows biased distortions to prosper and their crimes to continue. So with that in mind I'll happily use every platform I can to speak the truth as I understand it.

"My comment was ignorant, selfish and hurtful. I understand that now, even though I meant it in no spite, I understand that and all I can do in this situation is give out a pathetic apology."

Ok look your apology is appreciated but not really necessary.
I'm not angry I just fundamentally disagree with your premise.I did not make this poem to be vindictive (though I admit I enjoyed it)in fact I had been planning to do something like this for a very long time, the news of her death merely gave me some motivation, and a title.

I did it because her crimes to me were crimes, and I have seen plenty of people buy into her governments propaganda and blame her victims already.
Hell I used to be one of her supporters during the period. I used to cheer on the "victories" in Ulster and the crackdowns on dissent. I fully believed the government was right. It wasn't until I grew up and re-examined my life and those events that I realised how wretched that time was and how easy it is to distort reality.
To simply let her admirers use her death to push their rose tinted view of the decade was to me an insult to everyone who suffered under her twisted ideology.

That is the great evil of politics it seeks to make lies the truth and crime a virtue. And that is why it is of extreme importance that those who oppose deplorable acts actually deplore them.
MarcN95's avatar
Well said my friend.
HopeReloaded's avatar
Well, Iron Lady, go rust in hell :D
scart's avatar
Well said. The world is a better place without that bitch in it.
scart's avatar
If you love her so much then fuck off to England you whining lil bitch. Anyone that lived under Thatcher is celebrating because she was a worthless piece of shit & the world is better off without her.
TBSchemer's avatar
You're the worthless piece of shit, celebrating the death of a woman who fought for your freedom to choose how your own money is spent.
scart's avatar
What's more pathetic than a spoilt whining little first-world brat who's humping the corpse of a dead monster & trolling other peoples pages to whine about them exercising their free speech & hating her for being a monster in the first place?
Absolutely. Fucking. Nothing.
TBSchemer's avatar
Yeah, whatever, sheepfucker. You're going to end up in jail.
scart's avatar
Your wit is astounding
Skargill's avatar
"Yeah, whatever, sheepfucker. You're going to end up in jail." Ok I've had enough of this, if your going to use this page as a platform to insult others TB your gone.
TBSchemer's avatar
Pot, meet kettle.
anonymous's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In