Protesters complain at funeral cost

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#agkpZW8

A number of determined protesters have expressed their anger at the pomp and expense of Baroness Thatcher's funeral.

Those opposed to the former prime minister and her policies made their feelings known on the streets of the capital, as well as in South Yorkshire.

In London, protesters took to the streets as the former prime minister's coffin was moved from Westminster to St Paul's Cathedral.

Patricia Welsh, a 69-year-old retired youth worker, joined the Facebook-organised demonstration at the junction of Ludgate Hill and Ludgate Circus.

She said: "I am absolutely furious that Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to spend £10 million on a funeral when normal people are having to face cutbacks, libraries are closing and the NHS is being cut - for the funeral of a Conservative woman. Like anyone else she deserves a decent funeral, but not at the expense of the taxpayer."

Scotland Yard said no-one had been arrested in the capital and thanked Londoners and visitors for their co-operation.

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude, who oversaw the funeral arrangements, defended the spending on the event and claimed it will cost "much, much less" than the reported £10 million.

He did not reveal the actual cost of the funeral but said the state would always pay for the funeral and memorial service of a former prime minister, and Lady Thatcher's family would bear some of the cost.

In the former mining community of Goldthorpe, South Yorkshire, an effigy of the late Tory leader had been strung up in a noose outside the Union Jack social club with signs reading: "Thatcher the milk snatcher" and "Thatcher the scab". There were plans to pull a replica of her coffin through the streets before setting it ablaze.

In Liverpool, the city council made the decision not to show the funeral on the big screen in the town centre in Clayton Square. Lady Thatcher was seen as a particularly divisive politician by many in Merseyside due to her conflicts with the unions which affected thousands of dockers and her perceived lack of interest in the city's problems in the wake of the 1981 Toxteth riots.

Protesters turn back on coffin

Press Association – 17^th April 2013

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#WsiJ4DL

Press Association - Phil Williams from Chester holds a banner outside the Courts of Justice in the Strand prior to the funeral service of Baroness Thatcher

Anti-Thatcher protesters on the streets of London for the former PM's funeral turned their backs as her coffin passed by.

Charmain Kenner, 58, was in Trafalgar Square as the hearse made its way towards St Paul's Cathedral and she highlighted the cost of the funeral as a reason for her protest.

She said: "Thatcher's policies were all about individualistic materialism. She created a much greater divide between rich and poor, she ruined many communities and many industries.

"Basically, she ruined this country and, to add insult to injury, we're expected to pay for her funeral. We're going to be living with Thatcher's legacy for a long time yet."

Ms Kenner, who carried a sign bearing the words "If there's no such thing as society pay for your own funeral", said she had attended a party to celebrate Lady Thatcher's death.

"I've been protesting against Margaret Thatcher since the 1980s and I shall continue to do so," she added.

Patricia Welsh, a 69-year-old retired youth worker, joined the Facebook-organised demonstration at the junction of Ludgate Hill and Ludgate Circus in central London.

She said: "I am absolutely furious that Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to spend £10 million on a funeral when normal people are having to face cutbacks, libraries are closing and the NHS is being cut - for the funeral of a Conservative woman.

"Like anyone else she deserves a decent funeral, but not at the expense of the taxpayer."

Others took a stance against the "glorifying" of Lady Thatcher's funeral and cuts to the welfare state. Dave Winslow, 22, an anthropology student from Durham, said: "The message is that spending £10 million on such a divisive figure in times of austerity, especially when austerity is being imposed on the poor, is wrong, especially when harm is being caused to the disabled and the NHS."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/prime-ministers-presidents-thatcher-forgotten-legacy-105642674.html#fzlzKNz

Of prime ministers and presidents: Thatcher’s forgotten legacy

By Guest writer | Talking Politics

By Tony Hudson

It all started with Maggie.

Before the Iron Lady, Britain's prime minister and the American president seemed to be operating in completely different political systems.

While the US president is often referred to as 'the most powerful man in the world', it may be more accurate to say the president is 'the most influential man in the world' as his actual power – within the US at least – is very limited by the strict institutional rules created by the US constitution.

In the UK, the prime minister was a man operating from a position of potential weakness: everything about his ability to govern depended on the size of his majority in the Commons.

Then came Thatcher. She was the first prime minister to really make the UK premiership 'presidential'. Tony Blair followed in her footsteps, going even further and blurring the boundaries between the two roles at the summit of the US-UK special relationship.

Dr James Boys, a senior visiting research fellow at King's College, London, says the media often likes to talk about the American system being "broken" when a president struggles to get legislation passed.

"What they fail to take into account is that the system is designed that way – it's an invitation to struggle. It is designed to frustrate presidents so that every piece of legislation is scrutinised within an inch of its life."

By the time Thatcher struck up her unusually close relationship with Ronald Reagan, it was clear this unusually forceful prime minister and her constrained colleague across the Atlantic had more in common than most of their predecessors.

In the early years of American independence, the separation of powers was a key part of the new constitution. They wanted to avoid setting up a system which would allow any one person to wield too much influence over the direction of the government.

Things are different in Britain. The prime minister may not be the head of state (that honour falls to the nice lady who lives in the big house by St James' Park) but does not have anywhere near that much difficulty pursuing a political agenda. His or her power is derived from the legislature, rather than being separate from it.

"If you want a strong leader you can get a one with parliamentary system with a huge majority," Boys adds.

"In a presidential system you don't have the potential for a runaway leadership because the president is checked by congress at every step. Tony Blair was elected with a huge majority and was able to get a lot of things done."

There is, however, a trade-off.

Despite having more power with regard to getting an agenda passed through the government, it is actually the prime minister whose grip on the levers of power can be easiest to wrest away.

"We fluctuate between greater power and greater accountability," explains Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a senior consultant on constitutional affairs at Policy Exchange.

"The prime minister has more power with a majority in parliament than a president without a majority of Congress but is in greater danger of dismissal than a US president if there is a loss of confidence."

Pinto-Duschinsky cites the recent examples of Thatcher and Blair as prime ministers who were hurried out of power by their own governing party - as summed up by Norman Tebbit in his tribute to the late Baroness, when he said he regretted leaving her "at the mercy of her friends".

What a difference from the man in the White House, who is very difficult to unseat. The proceedings against Richard 'I am not a crook' Nixon following the Watergate scandal were pre-empted by his resignation and the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton was unsuccessful.

Even when the president leaves office, there is a lengthy period of transition between executives. When a new president is elected in November, they receive the title president-elect until they take the oath of office in January. When there is deeply unpopular president and a wildly popular president-elect – as was the case in 2008 with George W Bush and president-elect Barack Obama, the handover of power takes months.

This is not the case with the premiership.

"Our first-past-the-post system allows for 'removal van government' that allows removal vans to take away the prime minister's belongings the day after a general election," Pinto-Duschinsky points out.

Despite this danger, term limits have historically been something more favourable to a prime minister's retention of power than a president.

When a president is elected, they know exactly how long they have until re-election. Every four years, without fail, the American electorate decides upon their commander-in-chief.

The prime minister, on the other hand, has until recently had the opportunity to call an election whenever it best suited their re-election chances.

If the president had that power, Boys argues, the world could be a very different place, citing the record poll numbers president George HW Bush had in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War.

"If he'd have had a choice, he would have gone to the country right after the Gulf War, been re-elected in a walk and you'd never have heard of Bill or Hillary Clinton.

"As it was, he had to wait two years, domestic concerns took over and Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in the 1992 election on the strength of his economic message."

Even though prime ministers have this extraordinarily advantageous power, knowing when to use it is vital. Gordon Brown enjoyed a spell of great popularity following his succession to the premiership after Tony Blair's resignation but failed to capitalise on it by not going to the country.

If he had, Boys argues, he would have been elected to a five-year term and we'd most likely not have a coalition government today.

The method the two positions are filled is also very different, and can produce very different reactions in the voting public.

The US president's name is on every voting ballot across the country on election day, whereas the prime minister can only attain the top job if the rest of his party performs well enough to secure him a majority (or, as is currently the case, he is able to form a coalition).

"The president is a unifying figure because he's voted for by the entire country, whereas the prime minister is elected as a result of having a party majority," says Boys.

"A lot of people from outside the UK cannot understand how we can have prime ministers that a lot of people hate, but unless you live in Sedgefield, you didn't vote for Tony Blair."

The increasing dominance of political leaders in voters' minds as they make up their minds about which party to vote for started with Thatcher, and is becoming more and more pronounced at each general election.

Labour MP Graham Allen, who wrote The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest About the UK Presidency, believes this may actually be changing as politics and media have become so inextricably linked over the last few decades.

"Over time, MPs in parliament have ceded their political sovereignty to their leaderships. People are increasingly voting based on who they believe should be prime minister rather than who would make the best local MP," he says.

Allen also argues while that may be how it was originally intended, the role of the British prime minister has become increasingly akin to the presidency.

"The power of the prime minister has been rapidly increasing over the last century with no parliamentary constraints.

"However unintended, we have developed a system where the prime minister is, in effect, the UK president. To the electorate, the party leaders have become the party. David Cameron is the Conservative party and Ed Miliband is the Labour party."

There may be many differences between the rules restricting and empowering those sitting in Downing Street and the White House. But in an increasingly globalised and media-centric world, British party leaders are becoming increasingly similar to presidential candidates. It's just yet another way in which Thatcher shaped the Britain we're living in today. As well as transforming the country, she helped fundamentally rework the way Britain views her successors.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#SGBiQw4

Margaret Thatcher: Lingering legacy of hate after battle with 'enemy within’ curbed union power and saved economy

More than 20 years after she left Downing Street, Baroness Thatcher remains a figure of hate for the trade unions whose power she confronted and destroyed.

Anti-Thatcher protesters react to the death of the former Prime Minister as they gather at Trafalgar Square in London Photo: AP

 

By Tim Ross, Political Correspondent 08 Apr 2013

 

Margaret Thatcher: Lingering legacy of hate after battle with 'enemy within’ curbed union power and saved economy

More than 20 years after she left Downing Street, Baroness Thatcher remains a figure of hate for the trade unions whose power she confronted and destroyed.

10:05PM BST 08 Apr 2013

 

Margaret Thatcher: coverage in full
Margaret Thatcher obituary
Margaret Thatcher death: latest reaction

Her decade-long struggle to break the stranglehold of the union barons on British industry made her one of the most divisive figures in political history. Business leaders paid tribute to her reforms for transforming the economy after she cured the debilitating “British disease” of strike fever.

“Baroness Thatcher’s leadership took the UK out of the economic relegation zone and into the first division,” said John Cridland, the director-general of the CBI. “What Baroness Thatcher did to reshape the British economy gave us a generation of growth.”

Simon Walker, the head of the Institute of Directors, said she came to power at a critical time and went on: “Britain was privileged to have a prime minister who understood the importance of entrepreneurs, aspiration and business. She will be sorely missed.”

However, for all the cheer she brought to British entrepreneurs, through privatisation, market forces and union reforms, many on the Left of politics will never forgive her for curbing the influence of organised labour.

During last year’s TUC annual conference in Brighton, one stallholder even sold T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan: “A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher’s grave.” The items were withdrawn, but the episode underlined the depth of animosity she continues to provoke, above all, in the hearts of former mine workers and their families.

David Hopper, the general secretary of the Durham Miners’ Association, who turned 70 on Monday, said Lady Thatcher’s death was the best present he could have hoped for.

“It looks like one of the best birthdays I have ever had,” he declared. “There’s no sympathy from me for what she did to our community. It’s a great day for all the miners.”

The reaction will have been echoed privately in the homes of thousands of former miners and other retired industrial workers. Such enduring bitterness seems likely to remain a part of her legacy for many years. To her supporters, however, it represents a sign of the extent to which she cured the “sick” power balance which had crippled British businesses and politicians before she came to No 10.

In the months leading up to the 1979 general election, the British economy had been brought to brink of collapse by the “winter of discontent”, which saw public sector staff on strike for weeks. Mountains of rubbish accumulated in city streets and, in Liverpool, bodies even remained unburied.

Although the crisis occurred under Labour, it marked the culmination of a period in which politicians of both parties, including her predecessor as Tory leader, Ted Heath, had been humiliated by the unions. When given the opportunity to tackle the power of the union barons head-on, Baroness Thatcher saw it as the domestic equivalent of the Falklands War.

“We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands,” she observed in relation to the miners’ strike. “We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty.”

The recession of the early 1980s had seen Britain’s manufacturing sector shrink, reducing union strength. Then, on March 9, 1984, the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers emerged as the face of her new enemy.

^{Arthur Scargill arrested at Orgreave}

After a wave of job losses and pit closures, Arthur Scargill called his members out on a national strike, without first holding a ballot to gain their support. This handed a major tactical advantage to the Prime Minister as it divided the miners, some of whom, especially in Nottinghamshire, continued to work, keeping the power stations running.

The government later stockpiled coal and MI5 infiltrated both striking and working miners’ groups as the conflict between government and unions escalated. On May 29, violent clashes at the Orgreave coking plant near Sheffield saw 84 pickets arrested and 28 injured, along with 41 policemen. Mr Scargill was among those arrested and charged.

On March 4, 1985, almost exactly a year after the strike was called, miners voted to return to work, handing Baroness Thatcher her victory.

The result of the clash was clear. During her years in office, union power and support melted away. The Conservative government introduced a series of employment laws which curbed the influence of the unions.

Mass picketing was outlawed, ballots had to be held before industrial action could be taken, and union leaders had to face regular elections. Union membership stood at 12 million in the late 1970s but had fallen to almost half that total by the end of the 1980s. The number of working days lost through industrial action slumped from 29 million in 1979, falling to record low levels of less than half a million by the end of the 1990s.

Industrial relations in Britain would never be the same. Many, including David Cameron, believe her actions saved the economy.

Protesters complain at funeral cost

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#agkpZW8

A number of determined protesters have expressed their anger at the pomp and expense of Baroness Thatcher's funeral.

Those opposed to the former prime minister and her policies made their feelings known on the streets of the capital, as well as in South Yorkshire.

In London, protesters took to the streets as the former prime minister's coffin was moved from Westminster to St Paul's Cathedral.

Patricia Welsh, a 69-year-old retired youth worker, joined the Facebook-organised demonstration at the junction of Ludgate Hill and Ludgate Circus.

She said: "I am absolutely furious that Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to spend £10 million on a funeral when normal people are having to face cutbacks, libraries are closing and the NHS is being cut - for the funeral of a Conservative woman. Like anyone else she deserves a decent funeral, but not at the expense of the taxpayer."

Scotland Yard said no-one had been arrested in the capital and thanked Londoners and visitors for their co-operation.

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude, who oversaw the funeral arrangements, defended the spending on the event and claimed it will cost "much, much less" than the reported £10 million.

He did not reveal the actual cost of the funeral but said the state would always pay for the funeral and memorial service of a former prime minister, and Lady Thatcher's family would bear some of the cost.

In the former mining community of Goldthorpe, South Yorkshire, an effigy of the late Tory leader had been strung up in a noose outside the Union Jack social club with signs reading: "Thatcher the milk snatcher" and "Thatcher the scab". There were plans to pull a replica of her coffin through the streets before setting it ablaze.

In Liverpool, the city council made the decision not to show the funeral on the big screen in the town centre in Clayton Square. Lady Thatcher was seen as a particularly divisive politician by many in Merseyside due to her conflicts with the unions which affected thousands of dockers and her perceived lack of interest in the city's problems in the wake of the 1981 Toxteth riots.

Protesters turn back on coffin

Press Association – 17^th April 2013

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#WsiJ4DL

Press Association - Phil Williams from Chester holds a banner outside the Courts of Justice in the Strand prior to the funeral service of Baroness Thatcher

Anti-Thatcher protesters on the streets of London for the former PM's funeral turned their backs as her coffin passed by.

Charmain Kenner, 58, was in Trafalgar Square as the hearse made its way towards St Paul's Cathedral and she highlighted the cost of the funeral as a reason for her protest.

She said: "Thatcher's policies were all about individualistic materialism. She created a much greater divide between rich and poor, she ruined many communities and many industries.

"Basically, she ruined this country and, to add insult to injury, we're expected to pay for her funeral. We're going to be living with Thatcher's legacy for a long time yet."

Ms Kenner, who carried a sign bearing the words "If there's no such thing as society pay for your own funeral", said she had attended a party to celebrate Lady Thatcher's death.

"I've been protesting against Margaret Thatcher since the 1980s and I shall continue to do so," she added.

Patricia Welsh, a 69-year-old retired youth worker, joined the Facebook-organised demonstration at the junction of Ludgate Hill and Ludgate Circus in central London.

She said: "I am absolutely furious that Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to spend £10 million on a funeral when normal people are having to face cutbacks, libraries are closing and the NHS is being cut - for the funeral of a Conservative woman.

"Like anyone else she deserves a decent funeral, but not at the expense of the taxpayer."

Others took a stance against the "glorifying" of Lady Thatcher's funeral and cuts to the welfare state. Dave Winslow, 22, an anthropology student from Durham, said: "The message is that spending £10 million on such a divisive figure in times of austerity, especially when austerity is being imposed on the poor, is wrong, especially when harm is being caused to the disabled and the NHS."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/prime-ministers-presidents-thatcher-forgotten-legacy-105642674.html#fzlzKNz

Of prime ministers and presidents: Thatcher’s forgotten legacy

By Guest writer | Talking Politics

By Tony Hudson

It all started with Maggie.

Before the Iron Lady, Britain's prime minister and the American president seemed to be operating in completely different political systems.

While the US president is often referred to as 'the most powerful man in the world', it may be more accurate to say the president is 'the most influential man in the world' as his actual power – within the US at least – is very limited by the strict institutional rules created by the US constitution.

In the UK, the prime minister was a man operating from a position of potential weakness: everything about his ability to govern depended on the size of his majority in the Commons.

Then came Thatcher. She was the first prime minister to really make the UK premiership 'presidential'. Tony Blair followed in her footsteps, going even further and blurring the boundaries between the two roles at the summit of the US-UK special relationship.

Dr James Boys, a senior visiting research fellow at King's College, London, says the media often likes to talk about the American system being "broken" when a president struggles to get legislation passed.

"What they fail to take into account is that the system is designed that way – it's an invitation to struggle. It is designed to frustrate presidents so that every piece of legislation is scrutinised within an inch of its life."

By the time Thatcher struck up her unusually close relationship with Ronald Reagan, it was clear this unusually forceful prime minister and her constrained colleague across the Atlantic had more in common than most of their predecessors.

In the early years of American independence, the separation of powers was a key part of the new constitution. They wanted to avoid setting up a system which would allow any one person to wield too much influence over the direction of the government.

Things are different in Britain. The prime minister may not be the head of state (that honour falls to the nice lady who lives in the big house by St James' Park) but does not have anywhere near that much difficulty pursuing a political agenda. His or her power is derived from the legislature, rather than being separate from it.

"If you want a strong leader you can get a one with parliamentary system with a huge majority," Boys adds.

"In a presidential system you don't have the potential for a runaway leadership because the president is checked by congress at every step. Tony Blair was elected with a huge majority and was able to get a lot of things done."

There is, however, a trade-off.

Despite having more power with regard to getting an agenda passed through the government, it is actually the prime minister whose grip on the levers of power can be easiest to wrest away.

"We fluctuate between greater power and greater accountability," explains Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a senior consultant on constitutional affairs at Policy Exchange.

"The prime minister has more power with a majority in parliament than a president without a majority of Congress but is in greater danger of dismissal than a US president if there is a loss of confidence."

Pinto-Duschinsky cites the recent examples of Thatcher and Blair as prime ministers who were hurried out of power by their own governing party - as summed up by Norman Tebbit in his tribute to the late Baroness, when he said he regretted leaving her "at the mercy of her friends".

What a difference from the man in the White House, who is very difficult to unseat. The proceedings against Richard 'I am not a crook' Nixon following the Watergate scandal were pre-empted by his resignation and the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton was unsuccessful.

Even when the president leaves office, there is a lengthy period of transition between executives. When a new president is elected in November, they receive the title president-elect until they take the oath of office in January. When there is deeply unpopular president and a wildly popular president-elect – as was the case in 2008 with George W Bush and president-elect Barack Obama, the handover of power takes months.

This is not the case with the premiership.

"Our first-past-the-post system allows for 'removal van government' that allows removal vans to take away the prime minister's belongings the day after a general election," Pinto-Duschinsky points out.

Despite this danger, term limits have historically been something more favourable to a prime minister's retention of power than a president.

When a president is elected, they know exactly how long they have until re-election. Every four years, without fail, the American electorate decides upon their commander-in-chief.

The prime minister, on the other hand, has until recently had the opportunity to call an election whenever it best suited their re-election chances.

If the president had that power, Boys argues, the world could be a very different place, citing the record poll numbers president George HW Bush had in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War.

"If he'd have had a choice, he would have gone to the country right after the Gulf War, been re-elected in a walk and you'd never have heard of Bill or Hillary Clinton.

"As it was, he had to wait two years, domestic concerns took over and Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in the 1992 election on the strength of his economic message."

Even though prime ministers have this extraordinarily advantageous power, knowing when to use it is vital. Gordon Brown enjoyed a spell of great popularity following his succession to the premiership after Tony Blair's resignation but failed to capitalise on it by not going to the country.

If he had, Boys argues, he would have been elected to a five-year term and we'd most likely not have a coalition government today.

The method the two positions are filled is also very different, and can produce very different reactions in the voting public.

The US president's name is on every voting ballot across the country on election day, whereas the prime minister can only attain the top job if the rest of his party performs well enough to secure him a majority (or, as is currently the case, he is able to form a coalition).

"The president is a unifying figure because he's voted for by the entire country, whereas the prime minister is elected as a result of having a party majority," says Boys.

"A lot of people from outside the UK cannot understand how we can have prime ministers that a lot of people hate, but unless you live in Sedgefield, you didn't vote for Tony Blair."

The increasing dominance of political leaders in voters' minds as they make up their minds about which party to vote for started with Thatcher, and is becoming more and more pronounced at each general election.

Labour MP Graham Allen, who wrote The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest About the UK Presidency, believes this may actually be changing as politics and media have become so inextricably linked over the last few decades.

"Over time, MPs in parliament have ceded their political sovereignty to their leaderships. People are increasingly voting based on who they believe should be prime minister rather than who would make the best local MP," he says.

Allen also argues while that may be how it was originally intended, the role of the British prime minister has become increasingly akin to the presidency.

"The power of the prime minister has been rapidly increasing over the last century with no parliamentary constraints.

"However unintended, we have developed a system where the prime minister is, in effect, the UK president. To the electorate, the party leaders have become the party. David Cameron is the Conservative party and Ed Miliband is the Labour party."

There may be many differences between the rules restricting and empowering those sitting in Downing Street and the White House. But in an increasingly globalised and media-centric world, British party leaders are becoming increasingly similar to presidential candidates. It's just yet another way in which Thatcher shaped the Britain we're living in today. As well as transforming the country, she helped fundamentally rework the way Britain views her successors.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#SGBiQw4

Lady Thatcher

Lady Thatcher, who has died aged 87 from a stroke, was not only Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, she was also the outstanding peacetime leader of the 20th century.

Above all, in America and in Eastern Europe she was regarded, alongside her friend Ronald Reagan, as one of the two great architects of the West’s victory in the Cold War. Of modern British prime ministers, only Margaret Thatcher’s girlhood hero, Winston Churchill, acquired a higher international reputation.

 

Margaret Thatcher obituary: Her early life

Margaret Hilda Roberts was born on October 13 1925 at Grantham, Lincolnshire, the second child of Alfred and Beatrice Roberts.

Margaret Roberts, left, aged 4, with her older sister Muriel in 1929 

08 Apr 2013

Introduction and links to full obituary

Her father was a specialist grocer, the owner of two shops, where Margaret, her sister Muriel and their mother often worked. Alfred Roberts was the dominant influence in Margaret’s early life. A largely self-taught, intensely serious man, he was a locally venerated Methodist lay-preacher; he was also highly political.

Although he stood as a ratepayer candidate for the council, becoming alderman and mayor, he was a strong Conservative . Margaret developed what would be a lifelong appreciation of the sense of duty, the good neighbourliness and the civic pride which characterised the best of life in Grantham. She particularly admired the solidarity and generosity which marked out organisations such as Rotary, of which her father was a leading member.

Through Rotary, her family received an Austrian Jewish girl called Edith into their home after the Anschluss in 1938. Edith’s accounts of persecution induced in Margaret a particular loathing of anti-Semitism long before she came to represent the heavily Jewish Finchley constituency. The war years often saw the Roberts family gathered around their wireless listening to Churchill’s broadcasts. It would often be remarked that in later life Margaret Thatcher showed stronger hostility to Nazism — and, indeed, to Germany — than those who had been involved in combat.

She enjoyed her school years in Grantham. But when her thoughts turned to university it was Somerville College, Oxford, not the local Nottingham University, for which she plumped. And it was at Somerville that she duly arrived in 1943 to read Natural Sciences.

Once at Oxford, she proved a competent and hard-working Chemistry student. Her tutor was the Nobel Prize-winning (and extremely Left-wing) Dorothy Hodgkin. Hodgkin was helpful to her charge, obtaining a number of modest grants to help her make ends meet, but Margaret looked for friendship to the Methodist Church and, naturally, to politics.

She had joined the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) as soon as she went up, and in the 1945 general election she campaigned for Quintin Hogg in Oxford and was a warm-up speaker for the Tory candidate back home in Grantham.

The following year this serious, determined and by now extremely attractive young woman was elected OUCA president, only the third woman to hold that position. Among Margaret’s contemporaries at university, her closest personal and political friend was Edward Boyle, for whom she retained a deep affection long after their views had diverged.

In 1947 Margaret Roberts went down from Oxford with a solid second-class degree and a growing political ambition. Yet the possibility of her managing to fulfil that dream looked remote. Having no independent income, she had to start earning a living at once. After several rejections, she began work at BX Plastics, outside Colchester. Later she worked as a research chemist at J Lyons in Hammersmith.

The move to London was necessary because Margaret Roberts had, in 1949, been selected as prospective Tory parliamentary candidate for Dartford. The choice was unusual: Dartford was an industrial seat where, it was then considered, a young woman politician might seem out of place . Aged just 24, she was the youngest woman candidate in the 1950 general election, and her picture appeared in the Illustrated London News and even in the West German press, where she was described as “junge Dame mit Charme”.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8093831/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-her-early-political-life.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: her early political life

In December 1951, Margaret Roberts was married to Denis Thatcher at Wesley’s Chapel in City Road.

November 9, 1959: New MP Margaret Thatcher watches her children Carol and Mark play Photo: PA

 

1:48PM BST 08 Apr 2013

Introduction and links to full obituary

She was the second Mrs Thatcher, Denis having been divorced, and had not intended to marry so soon. But Denis brought stability, and though she had not married him for his money he brought that too, having inherited a family paint firm.

Margaret no longer had to work, and her life as the dutiful housewife of an often absent travelling businessman palled. So she started to study Law at home. In August 1953 she gave birth to twins, Mark and Carol. While still recovering in hospital, Mrs Thatcher sent in her application for the Bar finals, and then decided to specialise in tax law. Arguably this, too, was another way of training for Finance Bills.

In 1954 Margaret Thatcher was shortlisted for Orpington, but a local candidate got the seat. She now wrote to Conservative Central Office to say that she had no further thought of a parliamentary career for many years; but then, in February 1956, she seemed to change her mind and asked to be placed once more on the list of candidates.

The problem for her lay not with Central Office, but rather with the constituency party selection committees, which raised questions about the propriety and practicality of a young married woman with children pursuing a political career. None the less, in the summer of 1958, Margaret Thatcher applied for the safe seat of Finchley, in north London. She was selected, though not unanimously, and it took time to overcome the resentment of the defeated faction. In the 1959 election she was returned with a majority of more than 16,000.

In the House of Commons Margaret Thatcher quickly felt at home. Having come second in the annual ballot for Private Members’ Bills, she decided on a measure to prevent the exclusion of the press from council meetings. Sir Keith Joseph was the junior minister deputed to liaise with the Bill’s proposer. This was a first, but crucial, meeting, for he was later to be one of her key allies. The Thatcher speech introducing the Bill was acknowledged as a minor Commons triumph.

In October 1960 Margaret Thatcher joined Harold Macmillan’s government as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The choice was less a matter of merit than of tokenism — Pat Hornsby-Smith had wanted to leave the government, and so it was necessary to find another woman. But Margaret Thatcher was in the right department to suit her talents. She ever afterwards thought that those capable of mastering the subject of social security were well-equipped for high office; it was one of the reasons why she later conceived such a good opinion of John Major as Minister of State (1986-1987).

In the consultations to select a successor to Macmillan in 1963, Margaret Thatcher told the Whips that she supported Alec Douglas-Home — an unlikely choice, perhaps, for a young female meritocrat. At the election that year she held Finchley with a majority of 9,000. But the Conservatives were out, and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister.

Almost equally unlikely, for different reasons, was the fact that in the new leadership contest Margaret Thatcher supported Edward Heath rather than the favourite, Reginald Maudling. To add to the irony, it was Keith Joseph who persuaded her to switch her vote to Heath. Joseph told her as she wavered: “Ted has a passion to get Britain right.”

Margaret Thatcher and Heath had known each other for some years, and he promoted her to be spokesman on tax under the Shadow Chancellor, Iain Macleod. There had been some speculation that she might enter the Shadow Cabinet, but Heath had apparently decided (as he told Jim Prior) that if she came in they would never get her out again.

In any case, the new portfolio was to Margaret Thatcher’s taste. With her training as a tax lawyer, her head for figures, her retentive memory and her sharp tongue, she excelled in the role. In 1967 she became front-bench spokesman on fuel and power, and the following year was moved by Heath to transport.

 

The Iron Lady used her wardrobe as a weapon

12 Apr 2013

Thatcher tributes from Westminster and beyond

08 Apr 2013

Thatcher's 'austere childhood' shaped success

09 Apr 2013

NPR Audio BY CATEGORY Top Stories  Politics  World  Business  Sports 
 Technology  Health & Science  Arts  U.S. 

VIEW LOCAL VIDEO KVUE-TV Austin  WJZ 13 Baltimore  WBZ Boston 
 WCNC Charlotte  CBS 2 Chicago

CBS 11 Dallas  CBS4 Denver  13 News, WVEC Hampton Roads  11 News Houston  
CBS 2 / KCAL 9 Los Angeles

WHAS TV11 Louisville  CBS4 Miami  WCCO Minneapolis  WWL-TV, 
Channel 4 New Orleans  CBS 2 New York

CBS 3 Philadelphia KTVK 3TV Phoenix  KDKA Pittsburgh  
KGW NewsChannel 8 Portland, Ore.  WRAL.com Raleigh

CBS 13 / CW 31 Sacramento  KENS 5 - TV San Antonio  Channel 8 San Diego 
 CBS 5 San Francisco

KING5 Seattle  KREM.com Spokane/Coeur d'Alene  KMOV 
Channel 4 St. Louis  FOX 11 Tucson

Video by Category
 U.S. Business  World  Entertainment  Sports  Tech  Politics Science 
Health Environment Weather Opinion  Odd 

Video by Topic Campaign '08   Wall Street  Iraq  Gas Prices  Mideast Conflict 
 Climate Change 

More INL News Video !Finance Sports

Video by Category
 U.S. Business  World  Entertainment  Sports  Tech  Politics Science 
Health Environment Weather Opinion  Odd 

Video by Topic Campaign '08   Wall Street  Iraq  Gas Prices  Mideast Conflict 
 Climate Change 

More INL News Video !Finance Sports

Protesters complain at funeral cost

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#agkpZW8

A number of determined protesters have expressed their anger at the pomp and expense of Baroness Thatcher's funeral.

Those opposed to the former prime minister and her policies made their feelings known on the streets of the capital, as well as in South Yorkshire.

In London, protesters took to the streets as the former prime minister's coffin was moved from Westminster to St Paul's Cathedral.

Patricia Welsh, a 69-year-old retired youth worker, joined the Facebook-organised demonstration at the junction of Ludgate Hill and Ludgate Circus.

She said: "I am absolutely furious that Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to spend £10 million on a funeral when normal people are having to face cutbacks, libraries are closing and the NHS is being cut - for the funeral of a Conservative woman. Like anyone else she deserves a decent funeral, but not at the expense of the taxpayer."

Scotland Yard said no-one had been arrested in the capital and thanked Londoners and visitors for their co-operation.

Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude, who oversaw the funeral arrangements, defended the spending on the event and claimed it will cost "much, much less" than the reported £10 million.

He did not reveal the actual cost of the funeral but said the state would always pay for the funeral and memorial service of a former prime minister, and Lady Thatcher's family would bear some of the cost.

In the former mining community of Goldthorpe, South Yorkshire, an effigy of the late Tory leader had been strung up in a noose outside the Union Jack social club with signs reading: "Thatcher the milk snatcher" and "Thatcher the scab". There were plans to pull a replica of her coffin through the streets before setting it ablaze.

In Liverpool, the city council made the decision not to show the funeral on the big screen in the town centre in Clayton Square. Lady Thatcher was seen as a particularly divisive politician by many in Merseyside due to her conflicts with the unions which affected thousands of dockers and her perceived lack of interest in the city's problems in the wake of the 1981 Toxteth riots.

Protesters turn back on coffin

Press Association – 17^th April 2013

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#WsiJ4DL

Press Association - Phil Williams from Chester holds a banner outside the Courts of Justice in the Strand prior to the funeral service of Baroness Thatcher

Anti-Thatcher protesters on the streets of London for the former PM's funeral turned their backs as her coffin passed by.

Charmain Kenner, 58, was in Trafalgar Square as the hearse made its way towards St Paul's Cathedral and she highlighted the cost of the funeral as a reason for her protest.

She said: "Thatcher's policies were all about individualistic materialism. She created a much greater divide between rich and poor, she ruined many communities and many industries.

"Basically, she ruined this country and, to add insult to injury, we're expected to pay for her funeral. We're going to be living with Thatcher's legacy for a long time yet."

Ms Kenner, who carried a sign bearing the words "If there's no such thing as society pay for your own funeral", said she had attended a party to celebrate Lady Thatcher's death.

"I've been protesting against Margaret Thatcher since the 1980s and I shall continue to do so," she added.

Patricia Welsh, a 69-year-old retired youth worker, joined the Facebook-organised demonstration at the junction of Ludgate Hill and Ludgate Circus in central London.

She said: "I am absolutely furious that Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to spend £10 million on a funeral when normal people are having to face cutbacks, libraries are closing and the NHS is being cut - for the funeral of a Conservative woman.

"Like anyone else she deserves a decent funeral, but not at the expense of the taxpayer."

Others took a stance against the "glorifying" of Lady Thatcher's funeral and cuts to the welfare state. Dave Winslow, 22, an anthropology student from Durham, said: "The message is that spending £10 million on such a divisive figure in times of austerity, especially when austerity is being imposed on the poor, is wrong, especially when harm is being caused to the disabled and the NHS."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/prime-ministers-presidents-thatcher-forgotten-legacy-105642674.html#fzlzKNz

Of prime ministers and presidents: Thatcher’s forgotten legacy

By Guest writer | Talking Politics

By Tony Hudson

It all started with Maggie.

Before the Iron Lady, Britain's prime minister and the American president seemed to be operating in completely different political systems.

While the US president is often referred to as 'the most powerful man in the world', it may be more accurate to say the president is 'the most influential man in the world' as his actual power – within the US at least – is very limited by the strict institutional rules created by the US constitution.

In the UK, the prime minister was a man operating from a position of potential weakness: everything about his ability to govern depended on the size of his majority in the Commons.

Then came Thatcher. She was the first prime minister to really make the UK premiership 'presidential'. Tony Blair followed in her footsteps, going even further and blurring the boundaries between the two roles at the summit of the US-UK special relationship.

Dr James Boys, a senior visiting research fellow at King's College, London, says the media often likes to talk about the American system being "broken" when a president struggles to get legislation passed.

"What they fail to take into account is that the system is designed that way – it's an invitation to struggle. It is designed to frustrate presidents so that every piece of legislation is scrutinised within an inch of its life."

By the time Thatcher struck up her unusually close relationship with Ronald Reagan, it was clear this unusually forceful prime minister and her constrained colleague across the Atlantic had more in common than most of their predecessors.

In the early years of American independence, the separation of powers was a key part of the new constitution. They wanted to avoid setting up a system which would allow any one person to wield too much influence over the direction of the government.

Things are different in Britain. The prime minister may not be the head of state (that honour falls to the nice lady who lives in the big house by St James' Park) but does not have anywhere near that much difficulty pursuing a political agenda. His or her power is derived from the legislature, rather than being separate from it.

"If you want a strong leader you can get a one with parliamentary system with a huge majority," Boys adds.

"In a presidential system you don't have the potential for a runaway leadership because the president is checked by congress at every step. Tony Blair was elected with a huge majority and was able to get a lot of things done."

There is, however, a trade-off.

Despite having more power with regard to getting an agenda passed through the government, it is actually the prime minister whose grip on the levers of power can be easiest to wrest away.

"We fluctuate between greater power and greater accountability," explains Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a senior consultant on constitutional affairs at Policy Exchange.

"The prime minister has more power with a majority in parliament than a president without a majority of Congress but is in greater danger of dismissal than a US president if there is a loss of confidence."

Pinto-Duschinsky cites the recent examples of Thatcher and Blair as prime ministers who were hurried out of power by their own governing party - as summed up by Norman Tebbit in his tribute to the late Baroness, when he said he regretted leaving her "at the mercy of her friends".

What a difference from the man in the White House, who is very difficult to unseat. The proceedings against Richard 'I am not a crook' Nixon following the Watergate scandal were pre-empted by his resignation and the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton was unsuccessful.

Even when the president leaves office, there is a lengthy period of transition between executives. When a new president is elected in November, they receive the title president-elect until they take the oath of office in January. When there is deeply unpopular president and a wildly popular president-elect – as was the case in 2008 with George W Bush and president-elect Barack Obama, the handover of power takes months.

This is not the case with the premiership.

"Our first-past-the-post system allows for 'removal van government' that allows removal vans to take away the prime minister's belongings the day after a general election," Pinto-Duschinsky points out.

Despite this danger, term limits have historically been something more favourable to a prime minister's retention of power than a president.

When a president is elected, they know exactly how long they have until re-election. Every four years, without fail, the American electorate decides upon their commander-in-chief.

The prime minister, on the other hand, has until recently had the opportunity to call an election whenever it best suited their re-election chances.

If the president had that power, Boys argues, the world could be a very different place, citing the record poll numbers president George HW Bush had in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf War.

"If he'd have had a choice, he would have gone to the country right after the Gulf War, been re-elected in a walk and you'd never have heard of Bill or Hillary Clinton.

"As it was, he had to wait two years, domestic concerns took over and Bill Clinton was able to defeat him in the 1992 election on the strength of his economic message."

Even though prime ministers have this extraordinarily advantageous power, knowing when to use it is vital. Gordon Brown enjoyed a spell of great popularity following his succession to the premiership after Tony Blair's resignation but failed to capitalise on it by not going to the country.

If he had, Boys argues, he would have been elected to a five-year term and we'd most likely not have a coalition government today.

The method the two positions are filled is also very different, and can produce very different reactions in the voting public.

The US president's name is on every voting ballot across the country on election day, whereas the prime minister can only attain the top job if the rest of his party performs well enough to secure him a majority (or, as is currently the case, he is able to form a coalition).

"The president is a unifying figure because he's voted for by the entire country, whereas the prime minister is elected as a result of having a party majority," says Boys.

"A lot of people from outside the UK cannot understand how we can have prime ministers that a lot of people hate, but unless you live in Sedgefield, you didn't vote for Tony Blair."

The increasing dominance of political leaders in voters' minds as they make up their minds about which party to vote for started with Thatcher, and is becoming more and more pronounced at each general election.

Labour MP Graham Allen, who wrote The Last Prime Minister: Being Honest About the UK Presidency, believes this may actually be changing as politics and media have become so inextricably linked over the last few decades.

"Over time, MPs in parliament have ceded their political sovereignty to their leaderships. People are increasingly voting based on who they believe should be prime minister rather than who would make the best local MP," he says.

Allen also argues while that may be how it was originally intended, the role of the British prime minister has become increasingly akin to the presidency.

"The power of the prime minister has been rapidly increasing over the last century with no parliamentary constraints.

"However unintended, we have developed a system where the prime minister is, in effect, the UK president. To the electorate, the party leaders have become the party. David Cameron is the Conservative party and Ed Miliband is the Labour party."

There may be many differences between the rules restricting and empowering those sitting in Downing Street and the White House. But in an increasingly globalised and media-centric world, British party leaders are becoming increasingly similar to presidential candidates. It's just yet another way in which Thatcher shaped the Britain we're living in today. As well as transforming the country, she helped fundamentally rework the way Britain views her successors.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protesters-rail-over-funeral-cost-082741977.html#SGBiQw4

Margaret Thatcher: Lingering legacy of hate after battle with 'enemy within’ curbed union power and saved economy

More than 20 years after she left Downing Street, Baroness Thatcher remains a figure of hate for the trade unions whose power she confronted and destroyed.

Anti-Thatcher protesters react to the death of the former Prime Minister as they gather at Trafalgar Square in London Photo: AP

 

By Tim Ross, Political Correspondent 08 Apr 2013

 

Margaret Thatcher: Lingering legacy of hate after battle with 'enemy within’ curbed union power and saved economy

More than 20 years after she left Downing Street, Baroness Thatcher remains a figure of hate for the trade unions whose power she confronted and destroyed.

Anti-Thatcher protesters react to the death of the former Prime Minister as they gather at Trafalgar Square in London Photo: AP

By Tim Ross, Political Correspondent

10:05PM BST 08 Apr 2013

 

Margaret Thatcher: coverage in full
Margaret Thatcher obituary
Margaret Thatcher death: latest reaction

Her decade-long struggle to break the stranglehold of the union barons on British industry made her one of the most divisive figures in political history. Business leaders paid tribute to her reforms for transforming the economy after she cured the debilitating “British disease” of strike fever.

“Baroness Thatcher’s leadership took the UK out of the economic relegation zone and into the first division,” said John Cridland, the director-general of the CBI. “What Baroness Thatcher did to reshape the British economy gave us a generation of growth.”

Simon Walker, the head of the Institute of Directors, said she came to power at a critical time and went on: “Britain was privileged to have a prime minister who understood the importance of entrepreneurs, aspiration and business. She will be sorely missed.”

However, for all the cheer she brought to British entrepreneurs, through privatisation, market forces and union reforms, many on the Left of politics will never forgive her for curbing the influence of organised labour.

During last year’s TUC annual conference in Brighton, one stallholder even sold T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan: “A generation of trade unionists will dance on Thatcher’s grave.” The items were withdrawn, but the episode underlined the depth of animosity she continues to provoke, above all, in the hearts of former mine workers and their families.

David Hopper, the general secretary of the Durham Miners’ Association, who turned 70 on Monday, said Lady Thatcher’s death was the best present he could have hoped for.

“It looks like one of the best birthdays I have ever had,” he declared. “There’s no sympathy from me for what she did to our community. It’s a great day for all the miners.”

The reaction will have been echoed privately in the homes of thousands of former miners and other retired industrial workers. Such enduring bitterness seems likely to remain a part of her legacy for many years. To her supporters, however, it represents a sign of the extent to which she cured the “sick” power balance which had crippled British businesses and politicians before she came to No 10.

In the months leading up to the 1979 general election, the British economy had been brought to brink of collapse by the “winter of discontent”, which saw public sector staff on strike for weeks. Mountains of rubbish accumulated in city streets and, in Liverpool, bodies even remained unburied.

Although the crisis occurred under Labour, it marked the culmination of a period in which politicians of both parties, including her predecessor as Tory leader, Ted Heath, had been humiliated by the unions. When given the opportunity to tackle the power of the union barons head-on, Baroness Thatcher saw it as the domestic equivalent of the Falklands War.

“We had to fight the enemy without in the Falklands,” she observed in relation to the miners’ strike. “We always have to be aware of the enemy within, which is much more difficult to fight and more dangerous to liberty.”

The recession of the early 1980s had seen Britain’s manufacturing sector shrink, reducing union strength. Then, on March 9, 1984, the leader of the National Union of Mineworkers emerged as the face of her new enemy.

^{Arthur Scargill arrested at Orgreave}

After a wave of job losses and pit closures, Arthur Scargill called his members out on a national strike, without first holding a ballot to gain their support. This handed a major tactical advantage to the Prime Minister as it divided the miners, some of whom, especially in Nottinghamshire, continued to work, keeping the power stations running.

The government later stockpiled coal and MI5 infiltrated both striking and working miners’ groups as the conflict between government and unions escalated. On May 29, violent clashes at the Orgreave coking plant near Sheffield saw 84 pickets arrested and 28 injured, along with 41 policemen. Mr Scargill was among those arrested and charged.

On March 4, 1985, almost exactly a year after the strike was called, miners voted to return to work, handing Baroness Thatcher her victory.

The result of the clash was clear. During her years in office, union power and support melted away. The Conservative government introduced a series of employment laws which curbed the influence of the unions.

Mass picketing was outlawed, ballots had to be held before industrial action could be taken, and union leaders had to face regular elections. Union membership stood at 12 million in the late 1970s but had fallen to almost half that total by the end of the 1980s. The number of working days lost through industrial action slumped from 29 million in 1979, falling to record low levels of less than half a million by the end of the 1990s.

Industrial relations in Britain would never be the same. Many, including David Cameron, believe her actions saved the economy.

Lady Thatcher

Lady Thatcher, who has died aged 87 from a stroke, was not only Britain’s first woman Prime Minister, she was also the outstanding peacetime leader of the 20th century.

Above all, in America and in Eastern Europe she was regarded, alongside her friend Ronald Reagan, as one of the two great architects of the West’s victory in the Cold War. Of modern British prime ministers, only Margaret Thatcher’s girlhood hero, Winston Churchill, acquired a higher international reputation.

 

Margaret Thatcher obituary: Her early life

Margaret Hilda Roberts was born on October 13 1925 at Grantham, Lincolnshire, the second child of Alfred and Beatrice Roberts.

Margaret Roberts, left, aged 4, with her older sister Muriel in 1929 

08 Apr 2013

Introduction and links to full obituary

Her father was a specialist grocer, the owner of two shops, where Margaret, her sister Muriel and their mother often worked. Alfred Roberts was the dominant influence in Margaret’s early life. A largely self-taught, intensely serious man, he was a locally venerated Methodist lay-preacher; he was also highly political.

Although he stood as a ratepayer candidate for the council, becoming alderman and mayor, he was a strong Conservative . Margaret developed what would be a lifelong appreciation of the sense of duty, the good neighbourliness and the civic pride which characterised the best of life in Grantham. She particularly admired the solidarity and generosity which marked out organisations such as Rotary, of which her father was a leading member.

Through Rotary, her family received an Austrian Jewish girl called Edith into their home after the Anschluss in 1938. Edith’s accounts of persecution induced in Margaret a particular loathing of anti-Semitism long before she came to represent the heavily Jewish Finchley constituency. The war years often saw the Roberts family gathered around their wireless listening to Churchill’s broadcasts. It would often be remarked that in later life Margaret Thatcher showed stronger hostility to Nazism — and, indeed, to Germany — than those who had been involved in combat.

She enjoyed her school years in Grantham. But when her thoughts turned to university it was Somerville College, Oxford, not the local Nottingham University, for which she plumped. And it was at Somerville that she duly arrived in 1943 to read Natural Sciences.

Once at Oxford, she proved a competent and hard-working Chemistry student. Her tutor was the Nobel Prize-winning (and extremely Left-wing) Dorothy Hodgkin. Hodgkin was helpful to her charge, obtaining a number of modest grants to help her make ends meet, but Margaret looked for friendship to the Methodist Church and, naturally, to politics.

She had joined the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) as soon as she went up, and in the 1945 general election she campaigned for Quintin Hogg in Oxford and was a warm-up speaker for the Tory candidate back home in Grantham.

The following year this serious, determined and by now extremely attractive young woman was elected OUCA president, only the third woman to hold that position. Among Margaret’s contemporaries at university, her closest personal and political friend was Edward Boyle, for whom she retained a deep affection long after their views had diverged.

In 1947 Margaret Roberts went down from Oxford with a solid second-class degree and a growing political ambition. Yet the possibility of her managing to fulfil that dream looked remote. Having no independent income, she had to start earning a living at once. After several rejections, she began work at BX Plastics, outside Colchester. Later she worked as a research chemist at J Lyons in Hammersmith.

The move to London was necessary because Margaret Roberts had, in 1949, been selected as prospective Tory parliamentary candidate for Dartford. The choice was unusual: Dartford was an industrial seat where, it was then considered, a young woman politician might seem out of place . Aged just 24, she was the youngest woman candidate in the 1950 general election, and her picture appeared in the Illustrated London News and even in the West German press, where she was described as “junge Dame mit Charme”.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8093831/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-her-early-political-life.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: her early political life

In December 1951, Margaret Roberts was married to Denis Thatcher at Wesley’s Chapel in City Road.

November 9, 1959: New MP Margaret Thatcher watches her children Carol and Mark play Photo: PA

 

1:48PM BST 08 Apr 2013

Introduction and links to full obituary

She was the second Mrs Thatcher, Denis having been divorced, and had not intended to marry so soon. But Denis brought stability, and though she had not married him for his money he brought that too, having inherited a family paint firm.

Margaret no longer had to work, and her life as the dutiful housewife of an often absent travelling businessman palled. So she started to study Law at home. In August 1953 she gave birth to twins, Mark and Carol. While still recovering in hospital, Mrs Thatcher sent in her application for the Bar finals, and then decided to specialise in tax law. Arguably this, too, was another way of training for Finance Bills.

In 1954 Margaret Thatcher was shortlisted for Orpington, but a local candidate got the seat. She now wrote to Conservative Central Office to say that she had no further thought of a parliamentary career for many years; but then, in February 1956, she seemed to change her mind and asked to be placed once more on the list of candidates.

The problem for her lay not with Central Office, but rather with the constituency party selection committees, which raised questions about the propriety and practicality of a young married woman with children pursuing a political career. None the less, in the summer of 1958, Margaret Thatcher applied for the safe seat of Finchley, in north London. She was selected, though not unanimously, and it took time to overcome the resentment of the defeated faction. In the 1959 election she was returned with a majority of more than 16,000.

In the House of Commons Margaret Thatcher quickly felt at home. Having come second in the annual ballot for Private Members’ Bills, she decided on a measure to prevent the exclusion of the press from council meetings. Sir Keith Joseph was the junior minister deputed to liaise with the Bill’s proposer. This was a first, but crucial, meeting, for he was later to be one of her key allies. The Thatcher speech introducing the Bill was acknowledged as a minor Commons triumph.

In October 1960 Margaret Thatcher joined Harold Macmillan’s government as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The choice was less a matter of merit than of tokenism — Pat Hornsby-Smith had wanted to leave the government, and so it was necessary to find another woman. But Margaret Thatcher was in the right department to suit her talents. She ever afterwards thought that those capable of mastering the subject of social security were well-equipped for high office; it was one of the reasons why she later conceived such a good opinion of John Major as Minister of State (1986-1987).

In the consultations to select a successor to Macmillan in 1963, Margaret Thatcher told the Whips that she supported Alec Douglas-Home — an unlikely choice, perhaps, for a young female meritocrat. At the election that year she held Finchley with a majority of 9,000. But the Conservatives were out, and Harold Wilson became Prime Minister.

Almost equally unlikely, for different reasons, was the fact that in the new leadership contest Margaret Thatcher supported Edward Heath rather than the favourite, Reginald Maudling. To add to the irony, it was Keith Joseph who persuaded her to switch her vote to Heath. Joseph told her as she wavered: “Ted has a passion to get Britain right.”

Margaret Thatcher and Heath had known each other for some years, and he promoted her to be spokesman on tax under the Shadow Chancellor, Iain Macleod. There had been some speculation that she might enter the Shadow Cabinet, but Heath had apparently decided (as he told Jim Prior) that if she came in they would never get her out again.

In any case, the new portfolio was to Margaret Thatcher’s taste. With her training as a tax lawyer, her head for figures, her retentive memory and her sharp tongue, she excelled in the role. In 1967 she became front-bench spokesman on fuel and power, and the following year was moved by Heath to transport.

 

The Iron Lady used her wardrobe as a weapon

12 Apr 2013

Thatcher tributes from Westminster and beyond

08 Apr 2013

Thatcher's 'austere childhood' shaped success

09 Apr 2013

 

Margaret Thatcher obituary: Life in the Shadow Cabinet

By joining the Shadow Cabinet, Margaret Thatcher had been drawn by a reluctant Edward Heath into a position of potential influence.

Margaret Thatcher, then Education Secretary, meets children modelling clay at Gospel Oak primary school in 1970 Photo: Bob Hope

But in the ensuing struggle between Heath and Enoch Powell for the soul of the Tory party, Margaret Thatcher played barely a walk-on part; and there is no reason to believe that she understood at the time the magnitude of the issues at stake.

In October 1969 she was appointed Shadow Education Secretary, in succession to Sir Edward Boyle, Bt, who had incurred the wrath of many grassroots Conservatives by his failure to mount an effective defence of grammar schools. Margaret Thatcher was more robust on the issue, having no qualms about the principle of selection. As Education Secretary after the surprise Tory election victory in June 1970, she supported the right of local authorities to decide for or against school reorganisation on comprehensive lines. In practice, this meant that the grammar schools went on closing.

Her strengths were administrative, not conceptual. She was, though, a powerful and effective Secretary of State, fighting obstruction by politically unsympathetic officials on the one hand, and successfully pressing the spending plans of her department upon the Treasury on the other.

It was the minor matter of the ending of free school milk that caused her to be the object of an extraordinary campaign of vilification and won her the cruel sobriquet of “Milk Snatcher”. In November 1971. The Sun newspaper even named her “The Most Unpopular Woman in Britain”.

Margaret Thatcher had made public expenditure savings on milk as a non-educational aspect of her budget in order to protect the rest. But for a paltry £9 million it was never worth the pain. She survived, emerging toughened from the experience and better able to face future hostility. She was then able to benefit from the subsequent loosening of the financial purse-strings . Margaret Thatcher’s White Paper that December, appropriately entitled Education: A Framework for Expansion, with its ambitious targets and open-ended spending commitments, was the last gasp of the old order before the first oil price rise of 1973-74 reimposed economic reality.

Although she had acquired a high political profile at Education, she had also incurred the wrath of teachers, parents, students and the educational press. Perhaps most seriously, she had shown no real grasp of the larger forces which decided the fate of the Heath government and which would shape the world in which she herself would have, in due course, to operate as a political leader.

In Cabinet she had not voiced opposition to the budgetary indiscipline of 1972 or the industrial subsidies, the pay policy, and the effective abandonment of trade union reform through the Industrial Relations Act. When a new confrontation with the miners approached, precipitated by a pay policy introduced in direct contradiction to the party’s 1970 manifesto, she was one of the more hawkish cabinet ministers, arguing for an early election to determine: “Who Runs Britain?”

The Conservatives narrowly lost the February 1974 election, taking 296 seats against Labour’s 301, though with a slightly higher share of the vote than Labour. Out of office, the Conservative Party began to reconsider its approach — or, at least, all but Heath and the circle around him did. On the steering committee of shadow ministers only Keith Joseph, who was now beginning his agonised rethinking from first principles, and Geoffrey Howe, another former apostle of free enterprise who had finished up overseeing prices and incomes policy, seemed equipped to offer any alternative approach.

Margaret Thatcher had, like many others in the Tory hierarchy, become privately convinced that Heath had failed and should go. But no one at this stage felt strong enough to oppose him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8093961/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-The-rise-to-leader.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: The rise to leader

Edward Heath now moved Margaret Thatcher to shadow the Department of the Environment. Since rate rises and soaring mortgage interest payments had inflicted heavy damage on the previous Conservative government, it was an appointment which was bound to put Mrs Thatcher in the public eye.

Her tasks were simplified by Heath’s determination to come up with solutions that had scant regard to either cost or practicability. Thus, under pressure from Heath, she committed the party to abolition of the domestic rates, leaving the alternative revenue source conveniently vague, and to limiting the mortgage rate to a maximum of 9.5 per cent, with the composite rate of tax paid by building societies held down by what amounted to a subsidy. This pledge, though politically attractive, was also, needless to say, a bribe that would have infuriated the later Margaret Thatcher; but she now sold the idea with bravura.

In March 1974 Heath had agreed to Joseph’s setting up the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS). The Centre was sold to the leader as a unit to make comparative studies of the economies of other countries. But in truth, under Joseph’s leadership, and energised by the wayward genius of Alfred Sherman, the CPS quickly became a focus for alternative free-market thinking. In May Joseph asked Margaret Thatcher to become involved, and she immediately agreed to become his vice-chairman.

The decision was a sign of the closeness that had grown up between the two. The relationship was one of friendship and of common instincts, but at this stage Joseph was the mentor and Margaret Thatcher the precocious pupil. As always, she briefed herself with painstaking thoroughness.

It had taken courage to join Joseph at the CPS, not least because, with some reason, he was accused by the leadership of undermining the party’s efforts in the run-up to the October 1974 election campaign. In the event, the Conservatives were again defeated, securing 277 seats to Labour’s 319.

Margaret Thatcher had enjoyed another good campaign. There was even some speculation that she might be a candidate at what now seemed an increasingly inevitable leadership election. She dismissed the suggestion, telling the Evening Standard: “I think it would be extremely difficult for a woman to make it to the top.” She had, in fact, assumed like everyone else that Joseph would be the Right’s candidate.

But on Saturday October 19, Joseph delivered a speech at Edgbaston which included some insensitive remarks about babies born to adolescent mothers “in social classes 4 and 5” threatening the balance of the population. A wave of criticism met the speech, and after a few vain attempts at explanation Joseph crumbled before it.

Heath was by now engaged in a bitter struggle with the 1922 Committee executive, of which his old enemy and another potential Right-wing candidate, Edward du Cann, was chairman. The ’22 wanted an early leadership election. In Heath’s reshuffle of the shadow cabinet, Margaret Thatcher became deputy to the shadow chancellor, Robert Carr. This turned out to be another of Heath’s misjudgments.

Margaret Thatcher spoke almost immediately for the Opposition in the Budget debate, and it was a sparkling performance. On the afternoon of Thursday November 21 Joseph came to see her with the news: “I am sorry, I just can’t run.” On impulse, Margaret Thatcher replied that if he did not run, she would.

The prospect seemed hopeless. When she went to tell Heath of her decision to stand against him, he just turned his back, shrugged his shoulders, and replied: “If you must.” Mrs Thatcher’s chances improved somewhat when Du Cann finally decided not to stand. Airey Neave, a backbencher with a grudge against Heath, would have been Du Cann’s campaign manager, but he now offered his services to her, and she accepted. Neave had the guile, tactical sense and contacts which she lacked.

Although the Heath campaign was confident of victory, that did not prevent their indulging in some dirty tricks. Thatcher was accused, on the basis of some advice given to pensioners in a magazine interview, of being a “hoarder”. She had to invite reporters and cameramen into her house to inspect the modest contents of her larder before the story was laid to rest.

The outcome of the first ballot was a shock; Margaret Thatcher came top of the ballot with 130 votes; Heath scored 119; Hugh Fraser (a crusty Right-winger with no time for women leaders) 16. A large number of Thatcher votes had come from members who were keener to dislodge Heath than to elect her. But once Heath was destroyed, the agent of his destruction acquired a new status as the front-runner.

She was also credited with having had the courage to do what so many in the parliamentary party had not dared. In the second round, William Whitelaw, James Prior, John Peyton and Geoffrey Howe also stood. Heath’s supporters rallied around Whitelaw. But many MPs had doubts about whether he had the toughness required to lead effectively. In the ballot on Tuesday February 11 1975, Mrs Thatcher won even more decisively, gaining 146 votes to Whitelaw’s 79. (Prior and Howe had 19 each, and Peyton 11).

In later years Thatcher would freely admit that she was not a good Leader of the Opposition, and in the technical sense that was true. In the Commons her performances, first against Harold Wilson and then, after Wilson’s surprise resignation in March 1976, against James Callaghan, were often disappointing. She was shrill, over-briefed and, until shortly before the end, lacking in confidence.

Knowing the fragility of her position, Margaret Thatcher defused criticism by ensuring that her reshuffled shadow cabinet presented a moderate face. She offered a job to Heath, though she was relieved when he refused it. Crucially, Whitelaw accepted the post of Deputy Leader. The key post of shadow chancellor went not to Joseph but to Geoffrey Howe. Two figures from the past returned: Lord Thorneycroft, who took over as party chairman, and (a less satisfactory appointment) Reginald Maudling, who became shadow foreign secretary.

On the home front, the most intractable difficulty for the new leader was how to formulate an economic policy which expressed her and Joseph’s (and increasingly Howe’s) convictions, but which sought to defend the approach of the previous Conservative government. It was, in fact, a circle which could not be squared. The role of incomes policy was the main focus of this disagreement.

The matter of trade union power was another, linked, element. In the wake of the failure of the Industrial Relations Act and the experience of the Three-Day Week, there was no enthusiasm within the shadow cabinet for root-and-branch reform of collective bargaining. With the violent industrial dispute at the Grunwick photographic processing factory in 1977, pressure for a more forceful line against trade union power grew.

But it took the strikes of the winter of 1978-79, the so-called “Winter of Discontent”, to cause Margaret Thatcher finally to conclude that the boil of union misrule must finally be lanced, and, equally important, that there was now sufficient support in the country for the operation.

The parliamentary Conservative Party remained in an unhappy state. In successive reshuffles, Margaret Thatcher moved or ejected some of her opponents; but there was a constant murmur of dissent from unhappy shadow ministers, while from Ted Heath it was more a roar than a murmur. The Lib-Lab Pact, which kept the government in power from March 1977, resulted in frustration in the Tory party. This was further deepened when Callaghan postponed what was seen as the inevitable general election in the autumn of 1978.

Yet despite these failures, Thatcher’s leadership had strengthened the party in significant respects. The Conservatives had reconnected with their natural supporters; they had regained a sense of purpose; they had also made deep inroads among hitherto hostile intellectuals and journalists.

This was particularly so among those worried about the advances of the Soviet Union. On such people Margaret’s Thatcher’s important defence speeches in 1975 and 1976 had a large impact. The second of these won her, from the Soviet Army’s official magazine, Red Star, the title of “The Iron Lady”. It was not meant as a compliment, but Margaret Thatcher was delighted, and the phrase stuck.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8094038/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-From-Opposition-to-Government-and-battles-over-the-economy.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: From Opposition to Government and battles over the economy

Whether the Conservatives would have won an overall majority in a general election in the autumn of 1978 is doubtful.

But the breakdown of relations between the Labour Party and the unions over pay policy, widespread disgust at the effects of public sector strikes and the sense that the government was impotent in the face of chaos created a completely different backcloth, one far more conducive to a Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher.

Sidestepping the constraints of ordinary collective responsibility, she appeared on Brian Walden’s Weekend World programme on Sunday January 7 1979, and dramatically hardened the Conservative line on trade union reforms. The difficulty now was to know how far the Opposition could go without running the risk of appearing irresponsible in its criticisms. In the House on Tuesday January 16, Margaret Thatcher accordingly made an offer of co-operation to the government if it would grasp the nettle of trade union reform. But Callaghan, who had built his career on collaboration with the unions, was not going to change now. The Conservatives would face no competition on the issue of union reform — and Margaret Thatcher had secured the moral high ground.

Callaghan was now desperate to avoid an election until the chaos of that winter’s strikes had been forgotten. But the Lib-Lab pact had ended the previous year. The government’s failure to secure popular support for its devolution proposals in referendums meant that the nationalist parties now had no interest either in keeping Labour in office. On the night of Wednesday March 28, Callaghan’s government lost the confidence of the House by one vote.

^{4 May 1979: Margaret Thatcher waves from the doorstep of Number 10 Downing Street (PA)}

The election campaign had, from the Conservative point of view, effectively started the previous summer, when Margaret Thatcher authorised Saatchi and Saatchi, the party’s advertisers, to launch the brilliantly successful “Labour Isn’t Working” campaign. But between the fall of the Labour government and polling day on Thursday May 3 it was Labour which was more proactive and aggressive. Margaret Thatcher’s task was to persuade the country — and at times her own colleagues — that she could be entrusted with the responsibilities that taking office in such circumstances brings.

She was, as always, an effective if temperamental campaigner. The polls suggested that Labour was recovering its support, and one taken in the third week suggested that it was even ahead. But Labour’s assault failed. The Conservatives emerged from the election with a majority of 43 seats over all other parties, having achieved a swing of 5.6 per cent from Labour. The biggest Tory swing was among the skilled working class, those who would always be the most loyal Thatcher adherents.

Margaret Thatcher’s first Cabinet included a majority who were still unconvinced by the monetarist and deregulatory approach which she favoured. She was, therefore, doubly keen to ensure that the main economic departments were in the hands of drys (on the Right) rather than wets (on the Left), as she herself christened them.

Howe as Chancellor was joined as Chief Secretary by John Biffen, an early Powellite monetarist. Joseph took Industry, where he would wrestle with huge loss-making state-owned enterprises such as British Steel and British Leyland. John Nott, a committed monetarist and free marketeer, was appointed to Trade. Beyond that, Whitelaw could always be relied upon to provide support if the Prime Minister required it. Prior retained the Employment portfolio, where he spent his time obstructing any serious attempts to reform trade union law.

These years, from 1979 to 1981, saw a wide-ranging, if only partly successful, attempt to shift the British economy away from state control and towards the free enterprise model. Price controls were immediately abandoned; controls on dividends and wages were avoided. Most revolutionary, perhaps, was the ending of exchange controls that autumn. Of great significance for the future of Britain’s public finances was the early decision to end the link between the state retirement pension and incomes (as opposed to prices).

The government regarded inflation as a monetary phenomenon, and argued that it must therefore be controlled by monetary means. But the theory was tested to destruction. A combination of the previous government’s monetary relaxation, the Clegg Commission’s boost to public sector wage levels and Budget measures sharply increased the rates of Value Added Tax (VAT) and sent the Retail Price Index (RPI) soaring. All this was bad enough. But Margaret Thatcher also found herself faced with a worsening international recession, the result of the 1978-79 hike in oil prices.

Unemployment rose rapidly and remorselessly. This was partly because of world conditions, but mainly due to a combination of an over-tight monetary policy and continuing irresponsibility in wage bargaining. The 1980 budget introduced the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS), whose purpose was to affect expectations by demonstrating a continuing commitment to monetary control and lower inflation. But its prospects seemed bleak.

Margaret Thatcher herself was utterly convinced that, as the phrase of the time had it, “there was no alternative”, and she was prepared to act on that conviction with a determination that, in the eyes of her critics, looked like recklessness. She refused to reflate. The 1981 budget, in which her economic adviser Alan Walters and the head of her policy unit, John Hoskyns, exercised crucial influence, stood the Keynesian consensus on its head.

In order to cut the swelling public sector borrowing requirement, to keep up the pressure of disinflation, and to allow interest rates to fall, so reducing the burden on industrial profits, the Budget did not index income tax reliefs against inflation. In other words, Margaret Thatcher’s stark response to recession was to raise income tax. The strategy was denounced by 364 economists in the letters column of The Times.

Moreover, the outbreak of urban riots in London, Manchester and Liverpool was widely linked to the government’s economic policies and to rising unemployment, which would reach three million by January 1982.

The government’s economic strategy was also the subject of coded attacks from senior Conservative figures, including Lord Thorneycroft and Francis Pym. It was soon clear to the Prime Minister that discipline had broken down irretrievably within the Cabinet. Accordingly, in September 1981 Mrs Thatcher responded with the most crucial and successful of her reshuffles. Ian Gilmour, Christopher Soames and Mark Carlisle were sacked. Prior reluctantly went to Northern Ireland, to be replaced by Norman Tebbit. Nigel Lawson entered the Cabinet, taking over the Energy department. A now somewhat war-weary Joseph went to Education. Thorneycroft handed over the chairmanship to the Thatcherite Cecil Parkinson.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8094153/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-War-on-the-Left-and-in-the-Falklands-re-election.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: War on the Left and in the Falklands: re-election

With her reshuffle, Margaret Thatcher now had a majority of her way of thinking in the key Cabinet positions.

Margaret Thatcher at the British War Cemetary at San Carlos in 1982

She had effectively declared war on the party’s Left, and they replied in kind. But as the months went by there came the first signs of economic recovery.

Whether that recovery on its own would have sufficiently vindicated Margaret Thatcher’s economic policy to ensure the government’s re-election is unclear. But at the end of March 1982 the Prime Minister’s qualities were put to a new kind of test. She always afterwards regarded the Falklands War as the most important period of her premiership.

Hitherto she had taken relatively little interest in foreign affairs. In bringing Rhodesia to legality and independence after UDI she had subordinated her own instincts to the advice of Lord Carrington, who had attained apparently unassailable command over his own portfolio.

Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands, which led to Carrington’s resignation and his replacement by Pym, brought home to Margaret Thatcher that there was more to government than the money supply. As it turned out, the single-mindedness, stubbornness and courage which she had demonstrated in domestic affairs proved to be even more valuable in a war leader.

Having authorised the dispatch of the Task Force to retake the islands, she never looked back — resisting pressure from the Reagan administration to compromise, matching diplomacy to military realities, above all giving the commanders of the operation the material and political support required to allow them to perform their hugely dangerous tasks.

The restoration of British rule in the Falklands was a personal triumph for the Prime Minister. Overseas, Britain’s prestige soared. Against such a background, it is not surprising that the Conservatives were re-elected in June 1983 with a majority of 144, the largest of any party since 1945.

Yet after such beginnings the 1983-87 parliament was, in retrospect, something of a disappointment. In Hong Kong, Thatcher’s early hopes of gaining continued British administration had to yield before Deng Xiao Ping’s determination to restore Chinese rule to the colony; but Mrs Thatcher believed that the resulting Anglo-Chinese Joint Agreement (1984) secured the best deal available.

In contrast, she came to regard both the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 and the Single European Act of 1986 as deviations from her core policies of seeking to bolster the Union and to maintain British sovereignty. The government showed little innovative spirit in dealing with the problems of state quasi-monopolies in health and education or welfare reform.

Economic progress, though, continued. It was now that privatisation — first of state-owned businesses, later of public utilities — gathered pace. At the time of the 1983 general election the list of candidates for privatisation included British Telecom, British Airways, Rolls-Royce, parts of British Steel, British Leyland and airports; gas, water and electricity followed. (Mrs Thatcher remained unconvinced of the merits of privatisation of British Rail or the Post Office). The resulting wider share-ownership (including employee share-ownership) complemented the mass sale of council houses under the “right to buy” scheme in creating a property-owning democracy — one which would (in Thatcher’s words) see “every earner an owner”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8094200/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-The-miners-strike-and-her-second-term.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: The miners' strike and her second term

Margaret Thatcher’s greatest achievement during this parliament was in resisting the year-long national miners’ strike.

Ronald Reagan with his ally Margaret Thatcher on the White House lawn in 1985 

Even more than the government’s trade union reforms, victory in this strike finally broke the back of militant trade unionism and established Britain’s reputation as a safe place in which to invest. Margaret Thatcher’s own steely resolve was again demonstrated by her conduct in the wake of the IRA bomb attack on the 1984 Brighton party conference: hours after the outrage she appeared on the platform to declare: “All attempts to destroy democracy will fail.”

Soon, though, her own position, and indeed her own integrity, were questioned as a result of the upheavals resulting from intra-Cabinet warfare surrounding the future of the Westland helicopter company. The loss of two Cabinet Ministers — Michael Heseltine and Leon Brittan — and doubts about the veracity of Mrs Thatcher’s own accounts of events constituted a blow which many imagined that she would not survive.

The anti-Americanism upon which Heseltine had drawn in his campaign over Westland was also fuelled by widespread political opposition to Britain’s support for America’s raids on Libya in the spring of 1986. Thatcher had needed much persuading by the Reagan administration that the action was required (the raids would be carried out by American F-111s based in the UK). Indeed, Thatcher’s support for Reagan throughout their partnership was never unqualified: she had, for example, disapproved of American policy in Lebanon, and had sharply disagreed with Reagan’s invasion of Grenada. But in public she now robustly defended her old friend’s decision. Although unpopular ar home, her loyalty to the United States at this juncture secured her a unique standing in Washington for as long as Reagan was President.

In fact, from about this time the Prime Minister’s position began to improve domestically as well. The economy was growing; meanwhile, Neil Kinnock was proving an erratic and unconvincing Leader of the Opposition. Above all, by her “discovery” of the future Soviet Leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom she formed a close personal empathy and political friendship, Mrs Thatcher had ensured for herself a unique position on the world stage. Gorbachev, she had claimed in December 1984, was someone with whom the West could “do business”, and her other political friend, Reagan, was prepared to take her word for it. In March 1987 Thatcher made a triumphant five-day tour of the USSR.

That June’s general election was not, however, Thatcher’s finest hour. She was often tetchy (partly the result of toothache) and she became involved in a dispute about private health insurance at the expense of other, less prickly, issues. Some of the radical reforms in the manifesto turned out to have been insufficiently refined. This led to a disagreement with Kenneth Baker, the Education Secretary, over the details of the new Grant Maintained (GM) Schools. It would also later lead to the disaster of the community charge — or poll tax — devised as an ambitious replacement for local authority rates. But the Conservatives and Thatcher were, for the present, untouchable. The party was returned with a healthy majority of 102.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8094213/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-Life-during-her-third-term-in-office.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: Life during her third term in office

The work of Margaret Thatcher’s third parliament was intended to be heavily focused on reforming the public services in order to promote choice and efficiency.

Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Lawson could not reconcile their differences over the ERM Photo: DAVID MANSELL

A certain amount of progress was indeed made in education, liberating state schools from excessive local authority interference and establishing a national curriculum. But at the Department of the Environment, presided over by Nicholas Ridley, Thatcher’s closest ideological ally since the departure of Keith Joseph, the results were disappointing. Attempts to break up and improve public housing estates were met with obstruction by local councils; Labour-controlled councils also successfully sabotaged the new community charge by increasing spending.

Margaret Thatcher had been much more reluctant to embark upon radical reforms of the National Health Service, which was the source of increasing public disquiet because of long queues and inadequate facilities. She toyed with the idea of a Royal Commission. Eventually, the government settled on an approach of simulating markets within a still effectively state-run monopoly. Thatcher appointed the robust, but statist, Kenneth Clarke to implement the reforms.

Yet, with the exception of the community charge, it was not the shortcomings of the public services which would bring the government into crisis and propel Mrs Thatcher out of Downing Street. Chancellor Nigel Lawson’s budgets were acclaimed for their supply-side measures, including in 1988 large cuts in the basic rate of income tax (to 25 per cent) and the higher rate (to 40 per cent). But the “Lawson boom” itself was not sustainable. Since March 1987 Lawson had sought (without Thatcher’s authorisation) to keep sterling shadowing the Deutschmark in preparation for a planned (but equally unauthorised) entry into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). Interest rates had as a result been kept too low for too long. From June 1988 they had to rise. By the autumn of the following year they were up to 15 per cent. Recession beckoned. By then, however, Lawson had (in October 1989) jumped ship in circumstances which minimised the damage to him and maximised the difficulties for Thatcher.

Lawson’s casus belli was Thatcher’s refusal to dispense with the services of her economic adviser Alan Walters, whom Lawson accused of undermining him. But the policy background to Lawson’s resignation was the long-running dispute between Mrs Thatcher and her senior colleagues about the ERM in particular, and European integration in general. Before the June 1989 Madrid European Council at which Jacques Delors’s far-reaching proposals for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) were to be discussed, Lawson and Howe tried to force Thatcher to set a date for sterling’s entry into the ERM. They failed. But the episode caused an irretrievable breakdown of trust.

In the following month’s reshuffle, Howe was thus abruptly ejected from his beloved Foreign Office to become Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House. He never forgave Thatcher — and if he had ever been minded to do so, Thatcher’s own gratuitous humiliations of him in front of his colleagues at Cabinet would have ensured otherwise.

A certain amount of progress was indeed made in education, liberating state schools from excessive local authority interference and establishing a national curriculum. But at the Department of the Environment, presided over by Nicholas Ridley, Thatcher’s closest ideological ally since the departure of Keith Joseph, the results were disappointing. Attempts to break up and improve public housing estates were met with obstruction by local councils; Labour-controlled councils also successfully sabotaged the new community charge by increasing spending.

Margaret Thatcher had been much more reluctant to embark upon radical reforms of the National Health Service, which was the source of increasing public disquiet because of long queues and inadequate facilities. She toyed with the idea of a Royal Commission. Eventually, the government settled on an approach of simulating markets within a still effectively state-run monopoly. Thatcher appointed the robust, but statist, Kenneth Clarke to implement the reforms.

Yet, with the exception of the community charge, it was not the shortcomings of the public services which would bring the government into crisis and propel Mrs Thatcher out of Downing Street. Chancellor Nigel Lawson’s budgets were acclaimed for their supply-side measures, including in 1988 large cuts in the basic rate of income tax (to 25 per cent) and the higher rate (to 40 per cent). But the “Lawson boom” itself was not sustainable. Since March 1987 Lawson had sought (without Thatcher’s authorisation) to keep sterling shadowing the Deutschmark in preparation for a planned (but equally unauthorised) entry into the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). Interest rates had as a result been kept too low for too long. From June 1988 they had to rise. By the autumn of the following year they were up to 15 per cent. Recession beckoned. By then, however, Lawson had (in October 1989) jumped ship in circumstances which minimised the damage to him and maximised the difficulties for Thatcher.

Lawson’s casus belli was Thatcher’s refusal to dispense with the services of her economic adviser Alan Walters, whom Lawson accused of undermining him. But the policy background to Lawson’s resignation was the long-running dispute between Mrs Thatcher and her senior colleagues about the ERM in particular, and European integration in general. Before the June 1989 Madrid European Council at which Jacques Delors’s far-reaching proposals for Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) were to be discussed, Lawson and Howe tried to force Thatcher to set a date for sterling’s entry into the ERM. They failed. But the episode caused an irretrievable breakdown of trust.

In the following month’s reshuffle, Howe was thus abruptly ejected from his beloved Foreign Office to become Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the House. He never forgave Thatcher — and if he had ever been minded to do so, Thatcher’s own gratuitous humiliations of him in front of his colleagues at Cabinet would have ensured otherwise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8094268/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-Ousted-from-Downing-Street-and-the-leadership.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: Ousted from Downing Street and the leadership

By the summer of 1990, Margaret Thatcher’s position within her own Cabinet was exposed — far more so than she or the civil servant advisers on whom she increasingly relied were prepared to recognise.

She imagined, and they could hardly be expected to caution her otherwise, that those whom she had appointed from ideological backgrounds hostile to her own had truly been won over (“converted”, as she always put it), or were at least now beholden by gratitude. In truth, by the end only Cecil Parkinson was a friend. Her other, and more senior, supporter, Nicholas Ridley, had to resign in July because of some injudicious remarks reported in The Spectator. Margaret Thatcher was out of touch with her backbenchers; she was extremely unpopular in the country as a result of the community charge. But it was in the Cabinet that she lost her leadership.

Thatcher’s international standing by the summer of 1990 had also suffered. With the collapse of Soviet rule in Eastern Europe, commentators were quick to consign the Cold War warriors to the dustbin of history along with the Evil Empire. In the United States, Thatcher’s old soulmate Ronald Reagan had been replaced by George Bush. The new President was mistrustful of her influence and anxious at the behest of his advisers to promote the European leadership of Germany, whose reunification Thatcher had opposed up to (and indeed beyond) the last minute. But it was in mainland Europe itself that Thatcher faced challenges which, deprived of sufficient support at home, she lacked the means to defeat.

^{Margaret Thatcher has tears in her eyes leaving No 10 Downing Street for the last time in November 1990}

Margaret Thatcher’s own attitude to European integration had undergone a greater shift than she ever liked to admit. Initially, she had been a moderate Euro-enthusiast. Paradoxically, her successful confrontations with the rest of the EEC over finance in the early years of her premiership — in pursuit of what she undiplomatically described as “our money” — had left behind them a somewhat hubristic belief that Britain’s European partners could ultimately be bullied into falling into line. Hence Thatcher’s willingness to concede national veto powers in a succession of areas in pursuit of the creation of a Single European Market, within which a “real” Common Market would be achieved. But the increased powers of the European Commission, headed by the formidable French Socialist Jacques Delors, were employed to advance a very different programme. Thatcher became increasingly alarmed at the ambitious talk of European federalism.

The result was her seminal Bruges Speech of 1988, which raised the flag of revolt against European centralisation at the expense of nation states. Ths approach received little support in Continental Europe; and while it was enthusiastically welcomed by most of the Conservative Party, it outraged a small but powerful group of pro-Europeans with disproportionate weight in government. By the time of Thatcher’s last European Council at Rome in October 1990, where she found herself isolated over both EMU and moves towards European political union, her party colleagues had no stomach for a new struggle with Europe. (She herself had recognised the weakness of her position by agreeing to her Chancellor John Major’s insistent demands that sterling enter the ERM: it did so on October 5.)

None the less, on her return from Rome she was in no mood to compromise. In the House of Commons she publicly rejected the Delors plans for a federal Europe with its own parliament, executive and senate — to each of which she replied “No! No! No!”. In response to this bold but rash performance, Howe resigned from the Cabinet and later delivered a devastating resignation speech in the House. This in turn precipitated a challenge by Michael Heseltine for the Conservative leadership.

Thatcher was ill-prepared to face it. The previous year Sir Anthony Meyer, acknowledged to be Heseltine’s “stalking horse”, had won just 33 votes. This time the contest would be far more serious. In Thatcher’s favour was the fact that her international star had again risen in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iraq in August. Her resolve and unique experience had been much appreciated by President Bush. For her part, Mrs Thatcher was ever afterwards contemptuous of what she saw as the treachery of her colleagues in ousting her as the country stood on the edge of armed conflict.

Unfortunately, this same international perspective, encouraging as it did her absence at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) summit in Paris, also proved politically fatal. Her incompetently conducted campaign was marred by overconfidence and by the principal’s unwillingness to become personally involved. In the first ballot, on November 20, Thatcher secured 204 votes against Heseltine’s 152 with 16 abstentions — just insufficient to avoid a second ballot. Her power base had been irredeemably damaged.

On returning to London she sought support from her Cabinet, interviewing each member in turn. Adopting suspiciously similar formulas, the great majority expressed the view that she could not win. On November 22 Thatcher tearfully announced to Cabinet her decision not to contest the second ballot. The same afternoon she delivered her last, and perhaps finest, speech to the House of Commons, in defence of her government’s record. Six days later she resigned, having pledged strong support to the candidature of John Major, whom she (again mistakenly) believed shared her way of thinking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/8094280/Margaret-Thatcher-obituary-Life-after-politics.html

Margaret Thatcher obituary: Life after politics

Margaret Thatcher left office temporarily dazed and embittered, but sound in mind and body, full of energy and initially with nothing to do except write her memoirs — upon which she embarked the following year.

May 9, 1994: Michael Howard and Margaret Thatcher attend the opening of the Channel tunnel in Folkestone Photo: Tim Rooke/REX FEATURES

 

She did not consciously wish to undermine her chosen successor; in fact, she consciously wished not to undermine him. But John Major made no attempt to ingratiate himself. Indeed, he sought wherever possible to stress the differences between the new and the old dispensations. For her part, Margaret Thatcher, deprived of the disciplines and bureaucratic protection of office, was often indiscreet in her comments.

She strongly attacked the Maastricht Treaty, which she saw as involving a large step towards the federal Europe she viscerally opposed; she was in turn condemned as a disloyal wrecker. Only with the collapse of the ERM and of the Major government’s reputation for economic competence in September 1992 did her political standing recover, as her warnings were proved correct. From now on she was again a major force within the Conservative Party — though she fully realised that there was no prospect of her ever returning as leader. (She had, in any case, received a life peerage as Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven in June 1992).

Although she delivered the occasional speech in Britain, her energies were mainly engaged by foreign affairs. She denounced the West’s indifference to the genocide in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Her standing remained extraordinarily high in the United States, where she was venerated as one of the greatest figures of the 20th century. There and in Asia she regularly spoke for large sums to appreciative audiences. She raised money for her own Margaret Thatcher Foundation, which spent it on assisting foreign students, on endowing a Chair of Enterprise Studies at Cambridge, and on other worthy causes

Margaret Thatcher published two volumes of memoirs. The first, The Downing Street Years (1993), covered her time as Prime Minister. The final chapters were unnervingly frank about her colleagues, some of whom did not appreciate it. The second volume, The Path to Power (1995), concerned her early life. She also published a magisterial volume on international affairs, Statecraft (2002).

Her relations with John Major’s successors as Conservative Party leader were generally warm. Her intervention probably secured the leadership for William Hague. She also backed Hague’s successor, Iain Duncan Smith, who was still more of Thatcher’s way of thinking. Moreover, she entertained a measure of affection and a spasmodic admiration for Tony Blair. Only the relentless march towards Britain’s submergence within a European superstate continued, to the end of her life, to fill her with deep anxiety.

Margaret Thatcher is survived by her son and daughter. Sir Denis Thatcher died in 2003.

Thatcher statue could be targeted by vandals, Tory MP Conor Burns warns

 

14 Apr 2013

Police: Millwall 'violence' at Thatcher protest

 

A police officer at the Trafalgar Square protests following the death of Lady Thatcher is captured on camera telling members of the public that the crowd had been infiltrated by Millwall football fans.

14 Apr 2013

Francis Maude appeals to Thatcher protesters to show 'respect'

 

A senior Cabinet minister has appealed to people planning to protest at Baroness Thatcher’s funeral to allow the ceremony to take place in a “dignified” way.

14 Apr 2013

Ceremonial funeral for Thatcher a 'mistake', says Bishop of Grantham

 

The Bishop of Grantham said the funeral was "asking for trouble" and should be "more low-key and personal".

14 Apr 2013

Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have worried about BBC 'death song' row, Cabinet confidante says

 

Baroness Thatcher would have been unconcerned about the row over Dong the Witch is Dead being played by the BBC because she would have been watching Songs of Praise instead, one of her political allies has said.

14 Apr 2013

Ind. man with 47 guns arrested after school threat

CEDAR LAKE, Ind. (AP) — A northern Indiana man who allegedly threatened to "kill as many people as he could" at an elementary school near his home was arrested by officers who later found 47 guns and ammunition hidden throughout his home.

Von. I. Meyer, 60, of Cedar Lake, was arrested Saturday after prosecutors filed formal charges of felony intimidation, domestic battery and resisting law enforcement against him. He was being held Sunday without bond at the Lake County Jail, pending an initial hearing on the charges, police said in a statement.

Cedar Lake Police officers were called to Meyer's home early Friday after he allegedly threatened to set his wife on fire once she fell asleep, the statement said.

Meyer also threatened to enter nearby Jane Ball Elementary School "and kill as many people as he could before police could stop him," the statement said. Meyer's home is less than 1,000 feet from the school and linked to it by trails and paths through a wooded area, police said.

Police said in the statement that they notified school officials and boosted security at all area schools Friday — the same day 26 people, including 20 students, were shot and killed at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

On Saturday, officers served warrants at Meyer's home and arrested him. The statement said police had learned that Meyer kept many weapons in his older, two-story home and "is a known member of the Invaders Motorcycle Gang."

Officers searched the home, finding 47 guns and ammunition worth more than $100,000 hidden throughout the home. Many of the weapons were collector's guns.

Cedar Lake is about 45 miles southeast of Chicago.

A dispatcher with Cedar Lake Police said that the police chief was not available for interviews until Monday.

Lake County police spokeswoman Patti Van Til said Sunday that a SWAT team from the department assisted in serving Saturday's warrants.

Jacintha Saldanha's Death: Australian DJs Behind Royal Prank May Face Police Probe

The two Australian DJs who pulled the prank call on the U.K. hospital where Kate Middleton was staying are now in hiding and may soon have to face police after the death of a nurse caught in the hoax.


Kate Middleton and Indian-born mother-of-two Jacintha Saldanha, 46, is thought to have taken her own life. 

 
2Day FM hosts, Michael Christian and Mel Greig.

Questions have been raised by members of the Australian public whether MI5, MI6 and/or their well known murder partners Mossad where involved somehow in the death of  Indian-born mother-of-two Jacintha Saldanha, 46, who the UK media are claiming that she took her own life...
and it is noted that all media reports coming from the United Kingdom only ever call it a suspected suicide... but was it a murder by  MI5, MI6 and/or their well known murder partners Mossad 
to make and example of the nurse who gave out the private information about Kate Middleton  who was in a U.K. hospital...



Australian readers of  INLNews.com and awn.bz who have read all about the murder of Thomas Allwood, 

INL News Under-Cover Investigative Journalist  and co producer with Stephen Carew-Reid and  the INL News Group of Fringe Shows Have Talent TV Shows Have, on the 21st June, 2012 in  Broxburn Scotland which is about an hour's drive from Edinburgh... and how the Scottish Lothian Borders Police and the Scottish Prosecution known in Scotland  as the Procurator Fiscal's Office  and the world's media are clearly not looking closely enough the evidence brought out at the recent trial of Kyle Montgomery heard from the 19th November to the 26th November 2012 in Scotland's High Court in Livingston, who had been charged by the Scottish Lothian Borders Police for the murder of Thomas Allwood ..the evidence clearly indicates strongly that Thomas Allwood was not murdered by Kyle Montgomery who locals in Broxburn say is a well known local mentally depressed Scitzophrenic  at around 2.20am on the 21st July, 2012 ... as implied by his father John Montgomery in his  sworn evidence at by Kyle Montgomery's  trial... when the much more believable independent evidence from two next door neighbours who have a common wall with John Montgomery's house in Galloway Cresent, Broxburn was produced at the trial that say they both heard and felt an enormous bang on their bedroom wall that felt like their bedroom wall was about to cave in...coming from John Montgomery's house at about 3.15 am on the 21st June, 2012.... which was the loudest bang that they had ever heard coming from John Montgomery's house which they stated was like living next door to a pub with drinking, shouting, arguing and fighting went on all the time all hours of the day and night... they said in evidence that before the enormous bang there was loud shouting, screaming, arguing and fighting coming from John Montgomery's house... however as soon as the enormous bang happened that felt like their bedroom wall was about to cave in... there was complete silence coming from John Montgomery's house... and then they heard the back door quietly open and close ... which was first time that that door was ever opened and close without being slammed for the last couple of years since they lived next door to John Montgomery's house..... John Montgomery had given sworn evidence at his sons trial that after his son grabbed a bread knife from his kitchen draw and ran out the back door after Thomas Allwood, who was unarmed when he left the house a few minutes before, and that his son Kyle Montgomery came back into the house a few minutes later with blood on the bread knife admitting to his Dad, John Montgomery, that he had just done something bad... John Montgomery then said he took to bread knife with blood on it from his Son, Kyle Montgomery and calmly placed it back into the draw still with the blook on it... then Kyle Montgomery left the house and John Montgomery calmly had another drink and then fell asleep on the lounge and did not wake up until the police turned up and arrested him at about 5 am on the 21st June, 2012... another person who was at John Montgomery's house that early morning on the 21st June, 2012 was a lady known as Maggie whose name is Margaret Shedden (Galloway being her birth name- a very well connected and influential family in Scotland with a famous politician George Galloway and a Freemason Scottish Police Officer Hugh Galloway  of 7 Tower Place Johnstone Renfrewshire Renfrewshire 791 being member of the family)...John Montgomery's family also are well connnected and respected in Scotland with war heros in the family and a Freemason Police Officer Alexander Montgomery  51 Parkhead Rd Glen Village by Falkirk Stirlingshire 484

also a member of the Montgomery Family.... so it does not seem believable that John Montgomery would not have been awake and/or woken up with the enormous bang coming from his house at about 3.15 that the next door neighbours say was the loudest bang they had ever heard from John Montgomery's house and felt like their bedroom wall was going to cave in... so this clearly indicates along with other evidence that John Montgomery had lied on the witness stand and in doing so has implicated his Kyle Montgomery as the person who was likely to have made a fatal six inch stab wound in the right chest of Thomas Allwood through cloths with a bread knife that would have cerated edge and no sharp point for stabbing anyone through clothing which is only suitable for a sawing acting rather that a stabbing action...however at the same time implicating Kyle Montgomery as the likely person who made the fatal six inch stab wound in Thomas Allwood's right chest that cut through a main archery causing the death of Thomas Allwood... John Montgomery gave evidence which is believed by the jury could get his son off the murder charge his Son Kyle Montgomery was facing and to try and convince the jury that his son

 Kyle Montgomery was only guilty of culperable homicide... which is like an accident homicide crime that resulted in the death of a person without intent in a drunken fight that got out of hand ... even though the bar maid gave evidence at the trial that Thomas Allwood was only drinking soft drinks that night... and Kyle Montgomery had been alcohol drinking heavily since about 1pm on the 20th June, 2012.....and so was his father John Montgomery drinking alcohol heavily since at least 8pm and likely most of the day since he received his government benefit cheque  that day... in fact the jury based mainly on his father's evidence... very conveniently  for all those Scottish Government officials  involved in the investigation into the murder of Thomas Allwood.... and others...  found Kyle Montgomery not guilty of the murder of Thomas Allwood and found Kyle Montgomery guilty of the lesser charge of Culperable homicide (accidental death) of Thomas Allwood....now the evidence that came out at the trial of Kyle Montgomery seems to clearly indicate that there were at least four people... maybe more in the house of Kyle Montgomery from 10pm on the 2oth June, 2012 and about 3.30 am on the 21st June, 2012... and in fact at least voices coming from John Montgomery's house that night and early morning were heard by the next door neighbours ....these seem to include...Thomas Allwood, John Montgomery, Kyle Montgomery and Margaret Shedden (Galloway being her birth name) and maybe others who did not want to make themselves known and kept reasonable quiet while at John Montgomery's house... the evidence seems to clearly indicate that at 2am to 2.30 am on the 21st June, 2012 when John Montgomery states was the time frame when his son Kyle Montgomery was meant to have gone out the back door and meant to have stabbed Thomas Allwood with a bread knife and came back with blood on the knife admitting he has just done something bad...making it fairly obvious to the at least three people left at the house which at the least included John Montgomery, Kyle Montgomery and Margaret Shedden (Galloway being her birth name)... that Kyle Montgomery had just stabbed Tomas Allwood outside in the back yard and/or a nearby street .. and that Thomas Allwood would be likely have been badly hurt from a stab wound and would have needed urgent medical attention.... regardless if  was considered that stabbing of Thomas Allwood by Kyle Montgomery deliberate and/or in self defense... either way it would have been clear to these three people and anyone else that may have been at John Montgomery's house at that time, that they should call an ambulance and the police immediately to make sure that Thomas Allwood obtained urgent medical attention which if had been done then could well have saved the life of Thomas Allwood... sure the fact that neither of these people bothered to ring the police and/or an ambulance to try and get urgent help for Thomas Allwood at around 2.20-2.30 am...if what John Montgomery says id true.... they all should be charged with being responsible for the murder and/or death of Thomas Allwood as they seemed to just let him die on the street or the back yard.. and under Australian law could well be charged as accessories after the fact and at least charged with some serious charge that resulted in the death of Thomas Allwood... very similar to walking away from a serious car accident where it is clear someone had been seriously hurt and not calling the police and/or an ambulance....

Now... when one looks at the evidence of the two next door neighbours that say they both heard and felt an enormous bang on their bedroom wall that felt like their bedroom wall was about to cave in...coming from John Montgomery's house at about 3.15 am on the 21st June, 2012.... which was the loudest bang that they had ever heard coming from John Montgomery's house... then the more believable  truth is that at about 3.15 am Thomas Allwood was king hit by someone and/or some people with either a fist or fists and/or a hard object that was enough to knock out Thomas Allwood.. then the body of Thomas Allwood was carried outside while Thomas Allwood was still unconscious ...then someone stabbed Thomas Allwood... not with a bread knife but a sharp pen knife which made the deep six inch stab wound into the right chest of Thomas Allwood that cut a main archery so that Thomas Allwood was never wake up and would bleed to death... and then quietly they carried Thomas Allwood body to the next streets Clarkson and Pyothall Roads and quietly left the body  there at about 3.30 am where the body was found at about 4.45 am by three boys walking past at that time...the neighbour that had a window open looking right over where Thomas Allwood's body was found says you can hear a pin drop in her street and there was not one sound or noise in her street that early morning... and the only noise that was heard was the sound of the police at about 5am looking at the body and the murder scene... so it is clear that there was not fighting in her street that morning at 2.00-4.00 am where the body was found that morning and so screaming or cries for help from Thomas Allwood in her street that morning at 2.00-4.00 am where the body was found that morning.. why?... because Thomas Allwood was obviously carried and left there and was already unconscious having been knocked out before he was stabbed with the six inch stab wound and then stabbed and then carried to to the next streets Clarkson and Pyothall Roads and quietly left there... private investigators employed by friends and family of Thomas Allwood have a strong belief that the evidence clearly suggests that Thomas Allwood was not murdered and/or even killed by Kyle Montgomery with a bread knife but was murdered by a contract killer well trained to know where and how to stab a person with one six inch stab wound with a very sharp and pointed pen knife which is designed to be able to kill some with just one stab wound.... the people in the world that are well known to be able to know how to murder someone with just one stab wound are agents and/or assets of MI5, MI6 and Mossad... and it is well known they work as agents for the state of the United Kingdom and the UK Prime Minister's Office to carry out murders of people like Thomas Allwood who was an undercover INL News Investigative Journalist who was working on a story to expose state of the United Kingdom and the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron and their Treasury Solicitors and Barristers for knowing being involved with having a false and fraudulent UK Border Agency document and having that false and fraudulent document presented to the High Court of Justice to stop Thomas Allwood from successfully claiming £500 million in damages claim for the wrongful arrest of USA Comedian Ronnie Prouty by the UK Border Agency on the 27th April, 2011 as a favour for the powerful Rupert and James Murdoch and their all powerful media group News Corporation as a way of commercially sabotaging the planned filming of the pilot fo the Fringe Shows Have Talent TV Show in Edinburgh in April- May 2011 being co-produced by Thomas Allwood, Stephen Carew-Reid (the author of the well known bboks The Triumph of Truth -Who Is Watching the Watchers? and the original founder of the INL News Group-formerly known as the Australian Weekend News Publishing Group) and the INL News Group to create an international showcase of talented entertainers that perform at the 60 year old Edinburgh Fringe Festival each year... which has become the biggest arts festival in the world with over 3,000 Fringe shows being performed during August each year in Edinburgh....

Below is some the transcripts of what was said at a court hearing in London's High Court of Justice heard on the 24th July, 2012 where applications were originally listed to be heard by Thomas Allwood prior to his murder on the 21st June, 2012 in Broxburn, Scotland for criminal contempt applications to be heard against  David Cameron the UK Prime Minister, George Osborne, the UK Chancellor, the UK Government, the UK Border Agency and their treasury solicitors  for knowingly having prepared a false and fraudulent UK Border Agency document and presenting such false and fraudulent UK Border Agency document to the High Court of Justice to try to stop Thomas Allwood from suing David Cameron the UK Prime Minister, George Osborne, the UK Chancellor, the UK Government, the UK Border Agency for £500 million in damages caused to the filming of the Fringe Shows Have Talent TV Show by the wrongful arrest of USA Comedian Ronnie Prouty on the 27th April, 2012 at Heathrow Airport as favour David Cameron and George Osborne's good friends at the time...Rupert and James Murdoch and their all powerful multi- billion media group known as News Corporation..the murder of Thomas Allwood on the 21st June, 2012 meant that would stop Thomas Allwood continuing with his criminl contempt applications against suing David Cameron the UK Prime Minister, George Osborne, the UK Chancellor, the UK Government, the UK Border Agency and their treasury solicitors and well as other criminal contempt applications taken out against barristers and solicitors involving another legal fight Thomas Allwood and his de-facto partner Valerie Butler where involved with at the High Court of Justice in their fight over their 25 acre family farm known as Haywicks Farm, Haywicks Lane, Hardwicke, Gloucester in the UK... where Thomas Allwood alleged that powerful and well connected s Freemason solicitors and barrister in Gloucester that Thomas Allwood called the Gloucestershire Legal Mafia (GLM) were involved with the preparing a false will in the name of Valerie Butler's father Herbert Butler and presenting that false will for a wrongful grant of probate so that partners of the Gloucestershire Legal Mafia (GLM) could wrongly obtain the title deed of their 25 acre family farm known as Haywicks Farm, Haywicks Lane, Hardwicke, Gloucester in the UK which they had planned to turn into a multi-million luxury real estate development ... Thomas Allwood also had a firm belief and was not scared to openly say...that Valerie Butler's father Herbert Butler was also murdered as part of the conspiracy he alleged to defraud his de-facto partner Valerie Butler of her rightful ownership of Haywicks Farm..

Some of the reasons why the Private Investigation Team employed by friends and family of the late Thomas Allwood to investigate who and why Thomas Allwood was murdered on the 21st June. 2012 in Broxburn, Scotland strongly believe that the powerful agents of the State of the United Kingdom such as MI5, MI6 and/or Mossad and/or some other professional contract murdered was and/or were involved in the murder of Thomas Allwood on the 21st June, 2012 include:

1. The Scottish Lothian Borders Police and the Scottish Prosecution known in Scotland  as the Procurator Fiscal's Office  and the world's media are clearly not looking closely enough the evidence brought out at the recent trial of Kyle Montgomery heard from the 19th November to the 26th November 2012 in Scotland's High Court in Livingston, who had been charged by the Scottish Lothian Borders Police for the murder of Thomas Allwood ... seem to be risking their worldwide good  reputation by quite openly protecting those at the house of John Montgomery on the evening of the 20th June, 2012 and the early morning of the 21st June, 2012 who according to the evidence of John Montgomery, and including John Montgomery knew that Thomas Allwood was likely badly wounded from a stab wound at about 2.20 am and did niot ring the police of an ambulance and simply went to sleep and left Thomas Allwood to die on the road just a street away from John Montgomery's house

2.  Why is there a complete worldwide media block out.. except for one lone Scottish Journalist Vic Roderick who was the only journalist to cover the trial... who has now been silenced by the world mainstream  media with what is called a "D Notice" on the reporting of the murder/death of Thomas Allwood who was an undercover INL News Investigative Journalist, Poet and TV Shows producer of the Fringe Shows have Talent TV Show...

3. Why is the a mentally sick person such as Kyle Montgomery whom the locals say is a well known Scitzophrenic which is capable to believing and/or repeating any story he is told is the truth.. being made a patsy for the death of Thomas Allwood.. .at about 2.20 am when  the evidence clearly indicates that Thomas Allwood was knocked unconscious in the house of John Montghomery at about 3.15 am on the 21st June, 2012 and then carried out of the house and then stabbed with a six inch wound in the right chest cutting a main archery nd then carried to be let to die on Clarkson and Pyothall Road, Broxburn

With the more believable  truth is that at about 3.15 am Thomas Allwood was king hit by someone and/or some people with either a fist or fists and/or a hard object that was enough to knock out Thomas Allwood.. then the body of Thomas Allwood was carried outside while Thomas Allwood was still unconscious ...then someone stabbed Thomas Allwood... not with a bread knife but a sharp pen knife which made the deep six inch stab wound into the right chest of Thomas Allwood that cut a main archery so that Thomas Allwood was never wake up and would bleed to death... and then quietly they carried Thomas Allwood body to the next streets Clarkson and Pyothall Roads and quietly left the body  there at about 3.30 am where the body was found at about 4.45 am by three boys walking past at that time...the neighbour that had a window open looking right over where Thomas Allwood's body was found says you can hear a pin drop in her street and there was not one sound or noise in her street that early morning... and the only noise that was heard was the sound of the police at about 5am looking at the body and the murder scene...

so it is clear that there was not fighting in her street that morning at 2.00-4.00 am where the body was found that morning and so screaming or cries for help from Thomas Allwood in her street that morning at 2.00-4.00 am where the body was found that morning.. why?... because Thomas Allwood was obviously carried and left there and was already unconscious having been knocked out before he was stabbed with the six inch stab wound and then stabbed and then carried to to the next streets Clarkson and Pyothall Roads and quietly left there... private investigators employed by friends and family of Thomas Allwood have a strong belief that the evidence clearly suggests that Thomas Allwood was not murdered and/or even killed by Kyle Montgomery with a bread knife but was murdered by a contract killer well trained to know where and how to stab a person with one six inch stab wound with a very sharp and pointed pen knife which is designed to be able to kill some with just one stab wound.... the people in the world that are well known to be able to know how to murder someone with just one stab wound are agents and/or assets of MI5, MI6 and Mossad...

Part of the transcripts of hearing before Justice Vos at High Court of Justice in London on the 24th July, 2012

Miss Love: The Border Agency matter.

Mr Justice Vos: I know, but I do not have any of the core papers in the Border Agency matter. What is the action no?

Miss Love: My Lord, it is HC11C04395

Mr Justice Vos: You see that is why, I have been through all the cases, and I do not have any papers in that except your letter and the correspondence.

Miss Love: Right

Mr Justice Vos: If I just pick it up. I have this much stuff on the UKBA, but it really is just your letter and a lot of historical material, and material concerning the famous INL News Group.

Miss Love: Mr Lord, we can remedy that situation _ I am sure your Lordship does not particularily want further copies of the correspondence, but certainly of the original claim form_

Mr Justice Vos: That is what I would like. So there was an application, was there, in that matter that was returnable today?

Miss Love: There was....

Mr Justice Vos: To do what?

Miss Love: If I could just start the procedural history, the claim by Mr Carew-Reid, which in essense was apparently a claim for damages in respect of treatment by the UK Border Agency of an individual known as Mr Prouty was issued on 9th December, 2011...

Page 6:

Miss Love: as you will see, it appears to be some hybrid of striking out and appealing the order of Master Bowles, an application for the cross-examination of myself and Mr Spanton, who was acting Treasury Solicitor and a generalised, if I might respectfully say so, rather difficult to grasp criminal contempt application..

Mr Justice Vos: It is another criminal contempt

Page 8:

Mr Geis: But the point was that Mr Prouty was refused entry into the UK and I've seen the forms that Mr Carew-Reid had, and there was one form which did not have a signature on. Now, I think this does cause for a bit of alarm and I think you should carefully consider this point and. if necessary, make an adjournment.

Mr Justice Vos: Thank you, Mr Gies...

Miss Lean: My Lord may have seen in the more recent correspondence from Mr Reid and INL that clearly they have concerns that this was a murder effected by MI5 or Mossad and/or other agents of the State, but as  far as we are aware it is being dealt with as a criminal murder charge (murder of Thomas Allwood)

Mr Justice Voss: Yes, and who was Mr Allwood- apart from being a party to litigation, did he occupy some important position?....

Miss Lean: My Lord, for completeness, I should mention I am afraid among the many letters and emails from members of the INL News Group I do not have that one. I think I have seen some reference in the correspondence to Mr Allwood being involved with the INL News Group in some capacity so that may be the...

Mr Justice Voss: Right, but he was a associate and friend of Mr Carew-Reid, that is what it comes to?.... Right, thank you. Well Mr Carew-Reid himself says he was a friend of Mr Carew-Reid's side, I do not think we need to go further than that.....

Jacintha Saldanha's Death: Australian DJs Behind Royal Prank May Face Police Probe

The two Australian DJs who pulled the prank call on the U.K. hospital where Kate Middleton was staying are now in hiding and may soon have to face police after the death of a nurse caught in the hoax.

This morning, there are also new questions about whether DJs Mel Greig and Michael Christian, radio shock jocks at Sydney's 2Day FM broke laws after they recorded the private conversation when they pretended to be Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles.

British police have also contacted Australian police about a possible probe into the prank call, The Associated Press reported Sunday.

Rhys Holleran, CEO of Southern Cross Austereo, the parent company of Sydney's 2Day FM radio station said no laws were broken. The prank had been cleared by the Australian radio station's lawyers. Holleran said the DJs followed the company's procedures before broadcasting the call. "I think the more important question here is that we're very confident that we haven't done anything illegal. Our main concern at this point in time is what has happened is incredibly tragic and we're deeply saddened and we're incredibly affected by that," Holleran said Saturday. The hoax has caused public outcry after the death of a nurse, Jacintha Saldanha, who connected the pair to the Duchess' room.

Saldanha was found dead Friday morning after police were called to an address near the hospital to "reports of a woman found unconscious," according to a statement from Scotland Yard. Circumstances of her death are still being investigated, but are not suspicious at this stage, authorities said earlier. Lord Glenarthur, the chairman of King Edward VII's Hospital, the U.K. hospital where the Duchess of Cambridge was receiving treatment, condemned the prank Saturday in a letter to the Max Moore-Wilton, chairman of Southern Cross Austereo, the Australian radio station's parent company.

Glenarthur said the prank humiliated "two dedicated and caring nurses," and the consequences were "tragic beyond words," The Associated Press reported. Max Moore-Wilton, the chairman of Southern Cross Austereo, said in a letter to Lord Glenarthur Sunday that the company is reviewing the station's broadcast policies, the AP reported. "I can assure you we are taking immediate action and reviewing the broadcast and processes involved," Moore-Wilton said in the letter. "As we have said in our own statements on the matter, the outcome was unforeseeable and very regrettable." Saldanha came to England from India nine years ago, with her husband and two children. On Facebook, her 14-year-old daughter wrote this weekend, simply: "I miss you, I loveeee you."

Saldanha worked as a nurse at King Edward VII private hospital for four years. Her family lives 100 miles away in Bristol, but while on shift she slept in a residence for nurses. With no receptionist on duty overnight she answered the prank call and put it through. The hospital called her a "first-class nurse" and "a well-respected and popular member of the staff" and extended "deepest sympathies" to family and friends, saying that "everyone is shocked" at this "tragic event."

The duchess spent three days at the hospital undergoing treatment for hyperemesis gravidarum, severe or debilitating nausea and vomiting. She was released from the hospital Thursday morning. The hospital apologized for the mistake.

A man who stabbed a photographer to death in a drunken street brawl was caught after police found a blood-stained knife in a cutlery drawer.

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/203156-killer-who-stabbed-man-to-death-had-bloody-knife-in-cutlery-drawer/

A man who stabbed a photographer to death in a drunken street brawl was caught after police found a blood-stained knife in a cutlery drawer.

Kyle Montgomery, 24, denied murdering Thomas Allwood after a late-night drinking session but was found guilty of culpable homicide by a jury on Wednesday.

Jurors at the High Court in Livingston took four and a half hours to return a guilty verdict on the lesser charge.

Sentence on the first-time offender, of Winchburgh, West Lothian, was deferred until December 20 for background reports.

Mr Allwood, a 56-year-old photographer who worked for the Australian-based INL News Group, was stabbed in the chest during an incident on June 21.

Giving evidence in his own defence, Montgomery claimed he grabbed the knife to frighten Mr Allwood after being attacked by him at a house in Broxburn, West Lothian.

He said the killing was an accident and that he did not know the blade had sliced through the victim's chest and severed a major artery as he struggled with the victim.

Police who were called to the scene followed a trail of blood from Mr Allwood's body to Montgomery's father’s home. They found the knife, still stained with blood, in a cutlery drawer.

Montgomery was detained as he returned to the house from a nearby shop.

Mr Allwood was a photographer with the Australian-based INL News Group. Although he was born in Scotland, his family emigrated when he was a child and he spent most of his live in Australia.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/murder-trial-told-dna-of-victim-1453803

Murder trial told DNA of victim and alleged killer found on kitchen knife

24 Nov 2012 00:01

THE knife was found in the kitchen of the dad of Kyle Montgomery, who denies murdering Thomas Allwood.

THE DNA of a murder victim and his alleged killer were found on a kitchen knife, a court heard yesterday.

The High Court in Livingston was told the odds of the DNA matching anyone other than the deceased, Thomas Allwood, were 28,600,000-1.

Blood samples lifted from the blade were a billion-to-one match for 24-year-old Kyle Montgomery, who denies murdering Thomas in Broxburn on June 21.

The knife was found in Montgomery’s dad’s kitchen.

Forensic scientist Kirsty McTurk told the jury: “The findings are consistent with Kyle Montgomery having assaulted Thomas Allwood.”

The trial was adjourned until Monday.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/man-caused-stab-death-by-accident-1-2664172

Man ‘caused stab death by accident’

Published on Wednesday 28 November 2012

A MAN accused of murdering an Australian journalist has claimed he must have stabbed the victim to death by accident.

Kyle Montgomery admitted that he armed himself with a kitchen knife and squared up to 56-year-old Thomas Graham Allwood.

He claimed in evidence at the High Court in Livingston that the blade was for his own “protection” and he had no intention of using it.

After being attacked twice by the victim, he said he just wanted to “scare him off” with the knife.

He struggled with Mr Allwood, who was armed with a metal pole or iron bar, but said he was unaware of inflicting the fatal blow which severed the main artery above his heart.

Montgomery, 24, from Winchburgh, West Lothian, denies murdering Mr Allwood in Broxburn on June 21.

In his closing speech yesterday, advocate depute Martin Macari asked the jury to convict Montgomery of murder. He said: “Whatever happened between those men, Kyle Montgomery had returned to the house to get a weapon.”

Derek Ogg QC, defending, said: “If he didn’t realise he’d caused that injury, he could not and did not have any criminal intent towards Mr Allwood.”

Judge Lord Doherty was due to deliver his charge to the jury this morning.

Comment from INL News Reader: Mary Gleeson

I have read all the published stories on the trial of Kyle Montgomery who was charged with the murder of INL Journalist Thomas Allwood, and all other previous media reports I could find on the web since Thomas Allwood was first reported on the BBC website on the 22nd June 2012 that he had been murdered in Broxburn, Scotland and that Kyle Montgomery was charged with Willfull murder of Thomas Allwood... and I have come to the conclusion that the way the evidence has presented at the trial of Kyle Montgomery and what evidence has been given by the witnesses the dots simply do not add up... and the trial has created more questions than answers..... when it seems clear that this Maggie lady, described as a female friend of Thomas Allwood and tJohn Montgomery, the father of the accused ..according to John Montgomery's evidence were in the house when Kyle Montgomery deliberately went outside to chase after Thomas Allwood with a bread knife... rather than jut locking lall the doors and windows of his father's house t make sure Thomas Allwood can not get back into their house....because they were meant to be in fear of him... then ring the police and say that Thomas Allwood was threatening Kyle Montgomery and had attacked Kyle Montgomery in John Montgomery's house ( all according the John Montgomery) and was continuing to bang on their door ... then the police would have come around immediately and arrested Thomas Allwood... who would then have spent the night in the police lock up.... where he would have woken up the next morning alive and be able to explain to a magistrate and/or the police what happened that night... no it all did not happen that way... John and Kyle Montgomery both claim that having removed Thomas Allwood from John Montgomery's house.... and expecting Thomas Allwood to have been unarmed....deliberately ran out of the back door of the house to the back garden for the purpose to chase Thomas Allwood with a bread knife in his hand.... instead of staying safe in his dads house and ringing the police.... now I read in the above article the unbelievable claim by Kyle Montgomery that Thomas Allwood   "was armed with a metal pole or iron bar" and thus was acting in self defence after delieberately going outside to look for Thomas Allwood to attack him with a knife... other purpose  would he have grabbed the knife and run outside with it for... it can only be to stab Thomas Allwood who he thought was unarmed... now Kyle Montgomery seems on the evidence had been drinking heavily since bout 1pm at his dads house and would have been very drunk by 2am the next morning and Thomas Allwood looks like a big man and Kyle Montgomery looks like a small thin boy... and thus could easily be over powered by Thomas Allwood even without Thomas Allwood have a metal pole or an iron bar to defend himself with from a vicious knife attack... we also heard from John Montgomery who said that Thomas Allwood had his son Kyle Montgomery pinned on the floor with his foot on his chest... which shows that Thomas Allwood had no problem in over powering Kyle Montgomery without any weapon of any sort.... then se have the unbelievable story of John Montgomery that at the same time the Thomas Allwood had his son Kyle Montgomery pinned to the floor by having his foot on his chest... Thomas Allwood was meant to have his hands around Kyle Montgomery's throat trying to strangle Kyle Montgomery... this is simply physically impossible for a tall big man to do at the same time as standing up with his foot on the person's chest....it is simply also unbelievable that that Thomas Allwood was armed outside with a metal pole or iron bar because if that was the case having already being told by John Montgomery that Thomas Allwood had no problem about being able to overpower Kyle Montgomery without any weapon, the how the hell is Kyle Montgomery going to be able fatally stab Thomas Allwood with just one six inch stab wound with a bread knife ( bread knife do not have pointy tips and just a cerated edge for a sawing action for bread or meat but not a stapping action) through clothing knowing the exact place to stab (single handed) a big man to kil him with one stab wound in the front chest ( not in the back)  who is well aware that of the identity of the attacked and that the attcked is likely to attack because of a previous disagreement in the house.... and Thomas Allwood is also now armed with a metal pole or an iron bar.... which in one swing would have knocked small frail drunk Kyle Montgomery for six ... there is no way Kyle Montgomery is going to have any chance of being able to make that one fatal stab wound all by himself.... no normal jury is going to beleive this story.. so there seems no doubt what ever happened that morning Thomas Allwood must have been unarmed and Kyle Montgomery would have have to hav had some helpers... if it was really Kyle Montgomery that handed the fatal stab wound on Thomas Allwood...at about 2.15 according to the timing given by his father John Montgomery... then John and Kyle Montgomery and the lasy Maggie have to explain what the enmormous bang against the wall of the next door neighbours bedroom that cam from John Montgomery's house at about 3.5 to 3.15 am that felt to them that their bedroom wall was abourt to cave in... then after there being constant arguing, shouting and fighting etc before this enormous bang at about 3.05 to 3.15 am on the 21st June 2012.. everything from John Montgomery's house suddenly went quiet and for the first tikme ever... the back door was opened and wht and the door was not slammed which indicated clearly that someone or some people went out the door of John Montgomery's very silently and quietly... and the only logical deduction as to what the enormous bang against the wall was just before that nearly push the wall in from John Montgomery's side... was someone king hitting Thomas Allwood with a fist or a heavy object.. making him unconscious....then carrying Thomas Allwood out the door while he was unconscious... then may be making soem more bruses on his boy and then the one fatal stab wound ... all while he was unconscious.... and then carrying the body of Thomas Allwood quietly to where he was found on Clarkson/Pyothall Roads... at about 4.45 am by passers by... 
However if one is to discount that theory and ignore the enormosu bang at 3.05 to 3.15 am coming from John Montgomery's house... and just still to what John Montgomery sated on the witness stand under oath.. that his sone Kyle Montgomery grabbed a bread knife from the kitchen draw and ran out the back door( obviously to go to try and stab Thomas Allwood or at least chase after himw ith the knife) then coming back ten minutes later with blod on the knife and admitting he had done something bad... and John Montgomery not asking any more questions and calmly oputting the knife woth the blood on it back into the draw... having one more drink,,, the son leave the house and he falls asleep on the lounge...and is woken uop at about 5am by the police arresting him... so why didn't John Montgomery, Kyle Montgomery and/or Maggie ring the police and/or an ambulance at about 2.20 am which would haved saved the life of Thomas Allwood..

http://www.lbp.police.uk/information/latest_news/news_archives/2012/november_2012/man_convicted_of_thomas_allwoo.aspx

28 November 2012 15:59

A man who stabbed his victim in the chest, resulting in his death has today been convicted.

At the High Court in Livingston today, Kyle Montgomery was found guilty of culpable homicide after killing 56-year-old Thomas Graham Allwood during a disturbance in Broxburn in the early hours of Thursday 21st June.

Members of the public found Mr Allwood's body in Clarkson Road and alerted police who launched a major investigation to identify his killer.

Detectives quickly traced and arrested Montgomery and charged him in connection Mr Allwood's death.

The 24-year-old is due to be sentenced on Thursday 20th December at Edinburgh High Court.

Detective Inspector Stuart Houston, who led the investigation said: "It is my sincere hope, that following today's verdict Mr Allwood's family can begin to move on with their lives and put this horrendous ordeal behind them.

"I would also like to thank the members of the community who came forward and assisted with this investigation.

"Lothian and Borders Police are committed to tackling violent crime and by working closely with our partners at the Crown Office, ensure that offences of this nature are investigated thoroughly and those responsible are removed from our communities."

Thomas Allwood was born in Scotland but spent most of his life in Australia

First offender Kyle Montgomery will be sentenced next month for the killing



http://www.s1broxburn.com/news/broxburn-killer-montgomery-convicted--1.html

Broxburn killer Montgomery convicted

by Rebecca GarrettWednesday, 28 November 2012

The monster who stabbed Thomas Graham Allwood in the chest in Broxburn, which resulted in his death, has been convicted.

Kyle Montgomery was found guilty of culpable homicide the High Court in Livingston. He killed 56-year-old Allwood during a disturbance in the early hours of Thursday, June 21.

Members of the public found Mr Allwood's body in the Clarkson Road/Pyothall Road area and alerted police. A major investigation to identify his killer was launched.

Detectives quickly traced and arrested Montgomery and charged him in connection Mr Allwood's death. 

The 24-year-old is due to be sentenced on Thursday, December 20 at Edinburgh High Court.

Detective Inspector Stuart Houston, who led the investigation, said: "It is my sincere hope, that following today's verdict Mr Allwood's family can begin to move on with their lives and put this horrendous ordeal behind them.

"I would also like to thank the members of the community who came forward and assisted with this investigation.

"Lothian and Borders Police are committed to tackling violent crime and by working closely with our partners at the Crown Office, ensure that offences of this nature are investigated thoroughly and those responsible are removed from our communities."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-20526345

28 November 2012

Kyle Montgomery found guilty of killing journalist Thomas Allwood

A man who stabbed a journalist to death in West Lothian has been convicted of culpable homicide.

Kyle Montgomery, from Winchburgh, denied murdering 56-year-old Thomas Allwood in Broxburn in June.

A jury at the High Court in Livingston took four-and-a-half hours to find the 24-year-old guilty of the lesser charge.

Sentence was deferred until 20 December at the High Court in Edinburgh for background reports.

Montgomery had said he grabbed a knife to scare off Mr Allwood after claiming he was attacked by him at a house in Broxburn.

He said the killing was an accident and that he did not know the blade had sliced through the victim's chest and severed a major artery during the struggle.

After the attack, Mr Allwood, who was a journalist with the Australian-based INL News Group, was found on Clarkson Road by members of the public.

Police who were called to the scene followed a trail of blood from his body to Montgomery's father house.

They found the knife, still bloodstained, in a cutlery drawer. Montgomery was detained as he returned to the house from a nearby shop.

Mr Allwood was born in Scotland but his family emigrated to Australia when he was a baby and he spent most of his life there.

He was involved in producing a TV show called Fringe Shows Have Talent, to showcase entertainers performing at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival.

Det Insp Stuart Houston, who led the Lothian and Borders Police investigation, said: "It is my sincere hope, that following today's verdict Mr Allwood's family can begin to move on with their lives and put this horrendous ordeal behind them.

"I would also like to thank the members of the community who came forward and assisted with this investigation.

"Lothian and Borders Police are committed to tackling violent crime and by working closely with our partners at the Crown Office, ensure that offences of this nature are investigated thoroughly and those responsible are removed from our communities."

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/203156-killer-who-stabbed-man-to-death-had-bloody-knife-in-cutlery-drawer/

Killer who stabbed man to death had bloody knife in cutlery drawer

STV 28 November 2012 16:45 GMT

Associated Press/Carolyn Kaster, File - FILE - In this Nov. 16, 2012, file photo, President Barack Obama acknowledges House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio while speaking to reporters in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, as he hosted a meeting of the bipartisan, bicameral leadership of Congress to discuss the deficit and economy. Admnistration officials say President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner met Sunda, Dec. 9, 2012, at the White House to discuss the ongoing negotiations over the impeding "fiscal cliff." Spokesmen for both Obama and Boehner said the two men agreed to not release details of the conversation, but emphasized that the lines of communication remain open. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

Stock market is a wild card in fiscal cliff talks

By By CHARLES BABINGTON | Associated Press 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress and the White House can significantly soften the initial impact of the "fiscal cliff" even if they fail to reach a compromise by Dec. 31. One thing they cannot control, however, is the financial markets' reaction, which possibly could be a panicky sell-off that triggers economic reversals worldwide.

The stock market's unpredictability is perhaps the biggest wild card in the political showdown over the fiscal cliff.

President Barack Obama's re-election gives him a strong negotiating hand, as Republicans are increasingly acknowledging. And some Democrats are willing to let the Dec. 31 deadline pass, because a rash of broad-based tax hikes would pressure Republicans to give more ground in renewed deficit-reduction negotiations.

A chief fear for Obama's supporters, however, is that Wall Street would be so disgusted or dismayed that stocks would plummet before lawmakers could prove their newfound willingness to mitigate the fiscal cliff's harshest measures, including deep, across-the-board spending cuts that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says could significantly damage the nation's military posture. SomeRepublicans believe that fear will temper the president's insistence on a hard bargain this month. Obama and GOP House Speaker John Boehner on Sunday held their first meeting between just the two of them since the election, and spokesmen for both emphasized afterward their lines of communication remain open.

The so-called cliff's recipe of major tax hikes and spending cuts can actually be a gentle slope, because the policy changes would be phased in over time. Washington insiders say Congress and the White House would move quickly in January or February to undo many, but not all, of the tax hikes and spending cuts.

Financial markets, however, respond to emotion as well as to research, reason and promises. If New Year's headlines scream "Negotiations Collapse," an emotional sell-off could threaten the president's hopes for continued economic recovery in his second term, even if Republicans receive most of the blame for the impasse.

"Nobody can predict the markets' reaction," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.

Some Republicans are surprised that the White House has not made clearer efforts to reassure Wall Street that if the Dec. 31 deadline is breached, the worrisome pile of tax increases and spending cuts would not hit all at once.

A few liberal commentators are making just that case.

"If we go past the so-called fiscal cliff deadlines and all the resulting budget cuts and tax increases come into force, the administration can minimize the damage," Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote last week. "Obama can publicly announce he is delaying any cuts, on the theory thatCongress will eventually vitiate some of them. And he can make sure the bond markets know of his plans well in advance. ... Everyone (especially Wall Street) should calm down."

Some financial bloggers agree. "Although it would be bad to let the spending cuts and tax hikes fully go into effect, if this thing is addressed in early January, things will be okay," wrote Business Insider's Joe Weisenthal.

So far, the stock markets have stayed calm. The S&P 500 index is up 12 percent for the year.

That might be because investors agree that a temporary trip over the cliff wouldn't be too harmful. Chastened lawmakers, the thinking goes, would quickly minimize the economic damage with a deficit-reduction compromise that eluded them in December.

Or, it's possible that investors view the most pessimistic tones surrounding the fiscal cliff talks as posturing that will give way to a last-minute deal. If that is the thinking — and if the Dec. 31 deadline instead is breached — Obama's fear might come to pass: The expectation of a deal might produce a significant decline in stock prices if it doesn't occur.

As bad as that sounds, some liberals think it will be necessary to force many Republicans to drop their opposition to higher tax rates on the wealthy that Obama says are crucial to trimming the deficit.

Rep. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat who says temporarily going over the cliff wouldn't be so bad, noted what happened on Sept. 29, 2008. The House surprised investors by rejecting a proposed bailout of the crisis-stricken financial sector. Republicans strongly opposed the plan despite then-President George W. Bush's support. The Dow plunged 777 points, its largest one-day point drop ever. Four days later the House, shaken by the market reaction, passed a slightly modified bailout bill. 

Welch said a similar market meltdown next month, in the event of a fiscal cliff impasse, "is what will force members of Congress eventually to act." Few lawmakers in either party are eager to predict how the stocks and bonds markets would react to a failure to reach a fiscal cliff accord by year's end. "Let's not pretend the markets fully understand the politicians, or the politicians fully understand the markets," said Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., who has served in Congress for 37 years.

Follow Charles Babington on Twitter: //twitter.com/cbabington

How the 'Mayan Apocalypse' came from a New Age magic mushroom trip

The 'prophecy' does not stem from the Mayans at all. Instead, the beliefs come from two New Age books in the Seventies and Eighties, says a British academic.

Jose Arguelles, author of The Mayan Factor (Image: Wikimedia)

The so-called 'Mayan' prophecy actually comes from New Age writers in the Seventies and Eighties (Image: Rex)

People who are expecting the world to end on December 21 - the so-called 'Mayan Apocalypse' - should be in for a pleasant disappointment.

The 'prophecy' does not stem from the Mayans at all - or date from thousands of years ago.

Instead, the beliefs come from two New Age books in the Seventies and Eighties. 

The two books predict outcomes as surreal as a 'upgrade' to human consciousness predicted by a spirit from the seventh century. The date itself comes from a prophecy based on a magic mushroom trip.

“December 21st will be just another Friday morning,” said Andrew Wilson, Assistant Head of Social Studies at the University of Derby. “A hippy guru called Jose Arguelles associated the date with the Mayan calendar in a book called The Mayan Factor in 1987. But it's an obsolete form of the calendar, which had not been used since the year 1100AD.”

“He claimed to be channelling various spirits, including the spirit of a Mayan king from the seventh century. He predicted a ‘shift in human consciousness’ - mass enlightenment.”

The actual date of December 21 first appeared in an earlier work - a 1975 book by Terence McKenna,  a writer known for his descriptions of “machine elves” seen while under the influence of drugs.

The date appeared in McKenna's ‘Timeline Zero’ prophecy, and was based on McKenna’s own mathematics, the Chinese I Ching and a magic mushroom trip.

McKenna later met Arguelles and the two became, Wilson says, part of a circle of New Age authors who cited each other’s work, lending the ‘prophecy’ an air of believability.

“The significance of December 21 2012 in ‘New Age’ circles emerged from the work of ‘ethnobotanist’ Terence McKenna as he travelled deep into the Amazon in the 1970s,” says Wilson. His calculations of a ‘zero time wave’ suggested the world would go through a large change on December 21.”

“Arguelles, who had a long-held interest in Native American spiritualties, was inspired by McKenna’s work. He popularised the date in connection with the ‘long count calendar’ of the Mayan people in his new-age circles.”

As the belief has evolved, it has become associated with other, wilder predictions - such as the idea that Earth will be hit by a ‘rogue planet’, Nibiru, or swallowed by a black hole.

“There is no central belief,” says Wilson, “It varies from the ideas that Earth’s magnetic poles might shift, to the idea of a ‘galactic council’ visiting Earth. There’s no one, definite idea - it mirrors the New Age beliefs from which it comes.”

“It’s become part of a lot of religious movements. For instance, ‘The Galactic Federation of Light’ believes that ‘Planet X’ will make a close pass by the earth in 2012 – causing a deep transformation of human life on Earth.

“What this and other apocalyptic dates have in common across new religious movements is that they are often predicted to occur within a believer’s lifetime - making their beliefs urgent and important,” said Wilson.

“However, most people who believe in the significance of December 21 2012 have tempered their predictions of an apocalypse to, instead, signifying some significant change in humanity. Whether that is a change in culture or a world-wide event - most believers in an apocalypse won't be preparing for an earthly end but looking forward to an imminent transformation."

“A lot of people look to this story for reassurance - about the financial climate, or even about fears of, for instance, the Large Hadron Collider.”

“What’s been popularised is the dramatic stuff - but I am definitely still doing my Christmas shopping as normal this year.”

Wilson’s paper, ‘From Mushrooms to the Stars’, will be published by Ashgate in 2013.

Georgia details nuke black market investigations

By By DESMOND BUTLER | Associated Press

 This June 24, 2012 photo shows the Hotel L Bakuria in Batumo, Georgia, Black Sea coast near the Turkish Border. In April 2012, three men gathered in secret at the hotel to talk about a deal for radioactive material for sale. The Georgian seller offered cesium, a byproduct from nuclear reactors that terrorists can use to make a dirty bomb.But one of the Turkish men made it clear he was after something much more dangerous: Uranium, the material used to make a nuclear bomb. The two Turks and the seller businessman Soslan Oniani, were convicted in  September, 2012 in a Georgian court, according to officials, and sentenced to six years in prison each. Despite years and hundreds of millions of dollars spent in the fight against illicit sale of nuclear contraband, the black market remain active in the countries around the former Soviet Union. (AP Photo by Desmond Butler)

This undated handout photo provided by the Georgia Interior Ministry shows components for four cylinders containing radioactive substances seized in Batumi, Georgia on April 10, 2012. Police, who have been tracking Georgian Businessman Soslan Oniani, for over  year, monitored him in a hotel room meeting with two Turskish citizens, trying to sell to sell the cylinders with the materials which included cesium-137 and strontium-90. The two Turks and the seller, Oniani, were convicted were convicted in  September, 2012 in a Georgian court, according to officials, and sentenced to six years in prison each.