Margaret Thatcher was she really that bad?

DB21

Disgusting creature. There's a special circle of hell, just for her.

BrensBenz

A truly appalling person, elected (as mentioned above) by the most bizarre electoral system, i.e. less than 40% of the vote produces the biggest majority of seats of the 20th century. She then set about subduing or eliminating talent in her own cabinet – male and female – thereby guaranteeing her continued leadership of the Tory party. Labour was unelectable so she then set about her campaign of dividing and ruling the country with impunity.
Her derision of all things European was music to the ears of Little Englanders. And that tune is still stuck in the heads of their children, to the detriment of the UK and Europe.
And, let’s not forget “We have become a grandmother”. Now, I’ve little enough time for monarchy but how does Her Majesty’s Prime Minister get away with that?
Fair dues to the Tory party for finally engineering her dismissal but, God, why did they elect her in the first place?

KerranJast

Zaph wrote: »

I think you'll find the miners would disagree with you. And the steelworkers. And those who worked in what was left of the British motor industry.

Given how much of a shambles the British Motor Industry was in the 50s, 60s and 70s I don't think she could have made it worse.

There's a great story of James Cameron nearly throwing in the towel and cancelling production of "Aliens" at Pinewood Studios because the union workers were taking the absolute piss with tea breaks, time off, long weekends etc.

Biggins wrote: »

She wanted to break the back of the unions - at ANY price.
She didn't care what it took, what it cost in people, secondary businesses or primary coal industries.
She just waged her own war against the unions of the time and wanted to win it even if it split the whole of England and at ANY cost.

...Well she got her wish - and boy, what a price many, many had to pay so she could get her way!

The Tory tactics were pretty harsh alright but can anyone seriously argue that modern Britain would be better off with the Unions having as big a grip on power as they had pre-80s?

hooradiation

Biggins wrote: »

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/
(Unitedpeople Ireland and 78,718 others like this.)

'Nuff said!

You stay classy, biggins.

Dyr

Tiocfaidh Armani wrote: »

She didn’t look after her country, she looked out for her class

Pretty much this. Thatcher ran massive faultlines across the UK, as a matter of fact, if the united kingdom bites the big one as a going concern, historians will point to her era as the beginning of the end.

Sanjuro

Thatcher's reverence of Milton Friedman and his free-market capitalism theories directly contributed to the global financial melt-down we're currently enjoying. She practically hated the poorer classes and I'm not sure she had a very high opinion of the Irish either. She was a terrible example of the failure of politics to represent the average person, and while I don't wish her any specific harm, I wont say I'm not glad once she takes the express elevator to hell.

bedrock#1

Richard Hillman wrote: »

She stood up to terrorists and the blackmailing unions. The finest leader of my time. I'd kill for us to have a Thatcher.

If it wasn't for 'blackmailing unions' we wouldn't have a weekend, the 39 hour week, summer holidays, decent working conditions, meal breaks, parental leave, the dole, child labour laws, pensions...... etc. etc. etc.

And you are right, she backed the British Army to the hilt, gave them loads of work too come to think of it....

awec

bedrock#1 wrote: »

If it wasn't for 'blackmailing unions' we wouldn't have a weekend, the 39 hour week, summer holidays, decent working conditions, meal breaks, parental leave, the dole, child labour laws, pensions...... etc. etc. etc.

And you are right, she backed the British Army to the hilt, gave them loads of work too come to think of it....

Absolute crap.

swimming in a sea

I suppose this been an Irish site it may be more anti Thatcher than say an English website, as I can't understand the contempt for her here. She was a democratically elected politician(others say here 42% vote) she drove the agenda of her electorate.
Three times she went before the people just like Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern, added to this the party of the above three could have removed them at any time.

Those that voted for these people, have to take their own share of responsibility.

Dotsie~tmp

First and foremost she was a staunch anti-communist. Britain was on its knees after a populist Labour government had massively overspent and let Unions run wild (sound familiar?). Some comments saying the only way is up from rock bottom are bollox. Terminal decline was looming under another Labour government. She did break the miners. But what many neglect to tell you is that these industries were making huge losses every year and it was being plugged by the tax payer. Its was also getting worse each year. On Norther Ireland people forget that the peace process and negotiation contact began under her government. The personal animosity between side probably meant she couldnt close the deal but she negotiated from a position of strength as was her duty.

She defended British territory from aggressive invasion by an Argentinian dictatorship. Strengthened the right to self determination. A war that had a profound effect on the Britains mind.

On Europe. Remember the UK has turn out being right about a few important things.

Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."


No point asking a rabid lefty for a balanced opinion on her.

forfuxsake

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

First and foremost she was a staunch anti-communist. Britain was on its knees after a populist Labour government had massively overspent and let Unions run wild (sound familiar?). Some comments saying the only way is up from rock bottom are bollox. Terminal decline was looming under another Labour government. She did break the miners. But what many neglect to tell you is that these industries were making huge losses every year and it was being plugged by the tax payer. Its was also getting worse each year. On Norther Ireland people forget that the peace process and negotiation contact began under her government. The personal animosity between side probably meant she couldnt close the deal but she negotiated from a position of strength as was her duty.

She defended British territory from aggressive invasion by an Argentinian dictatorship. Strengthened the right to self determination. A war that had a profound effect on the Britains mind.

On Europe. Remember the UK has turn out being right about a few important things.

Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."


No point asking a rabid lefty for a balanced opinion on her.

Labour repaid more debt than Thatcher.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/14/labour-repaid-much-more-debt-than-thatcher/

There would never have been peace under Thatcher and her contribution was nil. She recruited more into the IRA than they ever could have.

The problem with capitalism is that you use other people's money to pay off huge bank debts.

She made hundreds of thousands of people unemployed and then attacked them for being unemployed.

She was a terrible mother and a horrible person and even her own party realised this.

She not only treated the working class people of England with disdain but also her own colleagues and her children.

RichieC

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

No point asking a rabid lefty for a balanced opinion on her.

Conversely.. :rolleyes:

Biggins

forfuxsake wrote: »

Labour repaid more debt than Thatcher.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/14/labour-repaid-much-more-debt-than-thatcher/

There would never have been peace under Thatcher and her contribution was nil. She recruited more into the IRA than they ever could have.

The problem with capitalism is that you use other people's money to pay off huge bank debts.

She made hundreds of thousands of people unemployed and then attacked them for being unemployed.

She was a terrible mother and a horrible person and even her own party realised this.

She not only treated the working class people of England with disdain but also her own colleagues and her children.

I couldn't have said it better.

RichieC

awec wrote: »

Absolute crap.

Interesting analysis.

KerranJast

forfuxsake wrote: »

The problem with capitalism is that you use other people's money to pay off huge bank debts.

That's not capitalism. If we had true capitalism over the past few years we'd have left banks collapse.

awec

RichieC wrote: »

Interesting analysis.

It didn't even merit a more elaborate response.

Typical nonsense of people thinking we'd all be working 60 hour weeks from age 13 onward for absolute pennys if trade unions hadn't rode in and saved the day. :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I suppose this been an Irish site it may be more anti Thatcher than say an English website, as I can't understand the contempt for her here. She was a democratically elected politician(others say here 42% vote) she drove the agenda of her electorate.
Three times she went before the people just like Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern, added to this the party of the above three could have removed them at any time.

Those that voted for these people, have to take their own share of responsibility.

Unfortunately for the Labour Party, their leaders at the time were unelectable, in particular Michael Foot, a scruffy miserable old git in an old coat. I think that he rather stupidly said in his election manifesto that they would get rid of all nuclear weapons. I think most people thought he was working for the Russians. People also remembered what Britain became under the previous Labour government. They were a bit like FF is now, with a reputation in tatters.

It was only when golden-boy Blair and his spin-doctors came along that people had a Labour leader to vote for.

Yes, she was really that bad.

awec

ejmaztec wrote: »

Unfortunately for the Labour Party, their leaders at the time were unelectable, in particular Michael Foot, a scruffy miserable old git in an old coat. I think that he rather stupidly said in his election manifesto that they would get rid of all nuclear weapons. I think most people thought he was working for the Russians. People also remembered what Britain became under the previous Labour government. They were a bit like FF is now, with a reputation in tatters.

It was only when golden-boy Blair and his spin-doctors came along that people had a Labour leader to vote for.

Blair took Labour away from the left. They are still leftys, but not as nuts as they were before.

Biggins

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

...Britain was on its knees after a populist Labour government had massively overspent and let Unions run wild (sound familiar?).

There is a great difference (in many ways) in reining in unions - as opposed to totally wishing to see them broken completely at ANY utterly devastating cost across and on a whole county!
Its sad if you can't see that.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

...On Norther Ireland people forget that the peace process and negotiation contact began under her government.

ACTUALLY the then peace agreement came about by the work of John Hume for previous years but while in her period of office by (her!) luck, came to eventual fruition in the form of the New Ireland Forum (The NIF) - a forum after many years of work on both sides which she then her very self said famously "No! No! No!" to.
She was some peacemaker alright!

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

...She defended British territory from aggressive invasion by an Argentinian dictatorship.

Funny, she seemed to like dictatorships when it suited her!
...And as for the Falklands war, unlike many modern countries that found themselves in similar 'brink of war' situations (and a lot after, even today), she held feck all peace talks too in trying to settle the matter communicably,

She just went in literally 'all guns blazing' which by coincidence(!) with combined jingoism at the time instigated by her supporters and the government itself with propaganda, help keep her in power when in fact already, many in her own government want even at that stage, her out - never mind the then public!

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

...No point asking a rabid lefty for a balanced opinion on her.

Maybe not - but you might get retorts back sometimes based on actual real facts, how they ACTUALLY happened, who was really involved and not some crap still being spun by a short-sighted view of academic history.
Some of us here actually lived through those era's quite well and remember them too in the finest of details.

Fratton Fred

She was awful, thank god labour kicked the Tories out.

Labour would never start an unprovoked war, decimate the education system or introduce ridiculously slack regulations that the finance industry would eventually bankrupt the country.

No, labour were great and all the steel workers, miners and car workers that git their jobs back when Tony got in must be truly thankful.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

She was awful, thank god labour kicked the Tories out.

Labour would never start an unprovoked war, decimate the education system or introduce ridiculously slack regulations that the finance industry would eventually bankrupt the country.

No, labour were great and all the steel workers, miners and car workers that git their jobs back when Tony got in must be truly thankful.

Funny, I don't recally any mention of labour in the OP.....

RichieC

awec wrote: »

It didn't even merit a more elaborate response.

Typical nonsense of people thinking we'd all be working 60 hour weeks from age 13 onward for absolute pennys if trade unions hadn't rode in and saved the day. :rolleyes:

Read a history book.

Nodin

awec wrote: »

It didn't even merit a more elaborate response.

Typical nonsense of people thinking we'd all be working 60 hour weeks from age 13 onward for absolute pennys if trade unions hadn't rode in and saved the day. :rolleyes:

Course not. The milk of human kindness needs no re-inforcement.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Funny, I don't recally any mention of labour in the OP.....

It's a good comparison though. People hate her mainly for breaking the unions, which is considered worse than a religious crusade against Iraq.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's a good comparison though. People hate her mainly for breaking the unions, which is considered worse than a religious crusade against Iraq.

Actually she's hated for a vast plethora of reasons, and saying its "breaking the unions" would be overstating that factor.

The comparison with labour is irrelevant, as they weren't chosen as an alternative to Thatcher and came subsequently. Nor would any activity of labour be relevant, as the op doesn't ask that she be examined in that context.

summerskin

ejmaztec wrote: »

Unfortunately for the Labour Party, their leaders at the time were unelectable, in particular Michael Foot, a scruffy miserable old git in an old coat. I think that he rather stupidly said in his election manifesto that they would get rid of all nuclear weapons. I think most people thought he was working for the Russians. People also remembered what Britain became under the previous Labour government. They were a bit like FF is now, with a reputation in tatters.

It was only when golden-boy Blair and his spin-doctors came along that people had a Labour leader to vote for.

Almost true. John Smith was a leader that we could/would have voted for and he would have been a great Prime Minister of the UK. His untimely death in 1994 was a sad day for British politics, and it also had the unfortunate side-effect of giving Tony Blair the platform to go for the leadership of the Labour Party and turn it into "Tory-lite".


As for Thatcher, when she dies I'll take the day off to show my respects. Not to her, but to the millions of people whose lives she ruined. She governed the whole UK purely for the benefit of the South East of England and the rest of us could be damned. I'll be delighted when she is gone.

Evil woman.

Son Of A Vidic

forfuxsake wrote: »

Labour repaid more debt than Thatcher.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/05/14/labour-repaid-much-more-debt-than-thatcher/

There would never have been peace under Thatcher and her contribution was nil. She recruited more into the IRA than they ever could have.

The problem with capitalism is that you use other people's money to pay off huge bank debts.

She made hundreds of thousands of people unemployed and then attacked them for being unemployed.

She was a terrible mother and a horrible person and even her own party realised this.

She not only treated the working class people of England with disdain but also her own colleagues and her children.

It's nice to read a nail on the head post, that negates your reason to need to make a contribution.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

Actually she's hated for a vast plethora of reasons, and saying its "breaking the unions" would be overstating that factor.

The comparison with labour is irrelevant, as they weren't chosen as an alternative to Thatcher and came subsequently. Nor would any activity of labour be relevant, as the op doesn't ask that she be examined in that context.

The labour comparison is relevant, because the attacks on Thatcher usually come from that direction.

I hate these threads, because I find myself almost defending a woman I despised, but she was a product of her time as much as anything.

A lot of what she did had to be done, and she did play a big part in bringing the likes of Honda, Toyota and Nissan to the UK.

the miners strike will be her biggest legacy though and unfortunately that seemed to become a personal battle between her and Scargill, a man who imho was every bit as bad as she was.

Biggins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

...she was a product of her time as much as anything...

I would disagree.
She was a product of her upbringing, her own perceived class she was either trying to reach or thought she saw herself in already.
She was possibly a product of her own mind too!