What a great woman she was whilst in power! Completely saved the country with what she did. Privatising inefficient companies, looking after the poor with the right to buy scheme. I only wish this were all in the film so that people could know what a great statesperson she was.
Thumbs up!
She was awesome (and I'm a Yorkshireman)
"and I'm a Yorkshireman"
Me too. "Iron"ically about 5 miles from Orgreave pit (cant say any of that round here though ;).
I sincerely hope that the first three posts are irony.
Oh, and Eckythump is a Lancashire expression.
The church may shout but Darwin roars
Someone does not know the meaning of IRONY.. American by any chance ?
She was the greatest leader GB ever had. Did the hard, dirty work that saved the country from utter ruin.
She embraced corruption at every level, she 'saved' Britain on the backs of the poor while ensuring the rich would have a choice of tax havens from, and much of the wealth that ';saved' Britain came from stolen oil.
Yep, a lady with first class integrity.
She was a total tyrant. She used the Falklands war to gain public support because her popularity was sinking, otherwise people didn't like her at all. She was a failure, but like any other neo-cons she is considered a savior only by the pro market supporters. Pinochet was on the same line just before her. Ask if everybody in Chile if they think Pinochet saved his country. Then ask the americans if they think Regan or Bu junior saved their country. You are going to get quite different view point my friend.
shareNot so. She was a patriot who actually rescued the working class. She brought opportunity and freedom from wage enslavement. She allowed poorer people to buy property at a cut rate. She changed fundamentally the political face of Britain.
shareTheOzyManYou sir,(I use the term loosely)must have been living under a rock
because even her own party got rid of her and Dennis but not soon enough to stop all the damage she had done to the working class people.She certainly changed the face of politics in Britain but sadly it was for the WORSE!!!
Even though I'm a self-described liberal who lived through the Thatcher years, I still have conflicted feelings about her legacy. In her defense, it is true to say that the country was a mess when she took power. In fact, that was the reason she won election in the first place---if the Labour government had been so competent, she would never have been more than a footnote in history. Britain had endured the indignity of an IMF bailout, and had been brought to its knees by unions who had been emboldened to make increasingly unrealistic demands by the capitulations of Conservative and Labour administrations alike.
Some of the harsh decisions that she made in order to get Britain back on its feet were no doubt necessary, even if they were painful at the time. The privatization of British Telecom generated tremendous wealth for both workers and shareholders alike, and vastly improved the performance of a notoriously bureaucratic and inefficient utility (I remember the days when it could take six weeks to get a phone line connected). Similarly, allowing council tenants to purchase their own properties at a reduced price encouraged home ownership among many for whom that would never have been an option. Facing down the miners union was both courageous and necessary, and sent out a message that unions could no longer hold the entire nation to ransom.
But many of her policies were also divisive and, in some cases, downright vicious. Violence in Northern Ireland escalated dramatically under her administration, and it took her successors Major and Blair to find an end to that conflict. Her harsh brand of free market capitalism led to the economic devastation of the industrial north, Wales and Scotland. As a consequence, Conservatives remain almost unelectable in Scotland to this day. The cruel and ill-advised poll tax was an unmitigated disaster, and was one of the factors that led to her downfall. Her intransigence towards Europe, while not always incorrect, diminished Britain's ability to influence the direction of European policy. Her decision to enter the ERM at an unrealistic exchange rate led to the devaluation of Sterling in 1992 and the recession that followed. And she was on the wrong side of history in supporting the violent apartheid regime in South Africa, the tyrannical Pinochet regime in Chile, and for opposing German reunification following the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Had it not been for the Falklands War in 1982 (and some assistance from a militantly incompetent opposition party), she almost certainly would have failed to win a second term in 1983. Had she left office in the mid-80s, her legacy might have been much more positive. But her third term was marked by increased stridency that alienated even many of her own supporters, cruel and divisive social policies, ham-fisted diplomacy that often left Britain isolated in the international community, and a sense that she was becoming increasingly irrational and intolerant in the final years of her administration. Had her own party not shown her the door in 1990, she would have faced certain electoral defeat in 1992.
Like I said, I have conflicted feelings about her, but nobody can deny that she was one of the most historically significant leaders in British political history. And for the record, even though I opposed her at the time, I thought this movie's emphasis on the senility that plagued her twilight years was cruel and unnecessary. Even she deserved better than that.
Props to you for at least being fairminded. It seems most liberals literally would enjoy raising Thatcher from the dead only so they could torture her to death. It's disgusting and sickening in how depraved they are.
One thing to note: I'd argue she was on the right side of Apartheid. South Africa is a joke compared to what it used to be. The quality of life even for South African blacks under Apartheid was significantly higher than it is today. You should read about Nelson Mandela's ANC party. It is among the most corrupt political entities of all time.
I guess that depends on the criteria. In this case, having more black politicians > having a safer, healthier, wealthier society
Sounds like what the West is becoming, favoring putting their preffered minorities on pedestals rather than solving real problems.
Poll Tax was her suicide. She was too soft on Europe, Northern Ireland and race relations.
shareShe was a racist, homophobic bitch who ruined the lives of anyone who wasn't rich.
Same sh!t, different decade
Disagree with O.P, maybe these companies where failing that she privatised such as british gas,electric supplier, BT etc, but I have to ask in the time that they have been privatised who exactly have they been made to run efficent for the general public or the shareholder?
shareAgreed. Not to mention the fact that the old national chairmen of these companies, soon-to-be-appointed CEO's at that time, were each given multi-million pound payoffs to buy their loyalty. I lived through the Thatcher era and it was one of the worst times for the UK economically.
shareCompletely agree with you. She was a tyrant, a bitch.
shareThatcher is an awful woman and human ,it will become more evident as time goes on, what with her connections to Jimmy Savile (pedophile and rapist) and the thieves she delivered the workers of the U.K to be exploited by. It is still not to late to get her and her ilk into court and then prison ( unless they have been privatized and run by G4S who wlll only be to happy to earn from her again)
shareNo leader ever created more billionaires than Margarat Thatcher - on the backs of the poor & middle class, and at the same time creating runaway inflation that made Brazil's look stable by comparison.
lmao! say it how it is, but i totally agree. I Often find when speaking to people, that people who are FOR her earn about 25k or more a year... Yet anyone under that line, well, they are worthless because they are poor.. who cares? ..
>_>
INb4: You are poor because you don't work.. (P.s: only naive people believe that this statement represents everyone.)
Gabe two thumbs up to you and HEAR,HEAR to your post!
shareI think youre misunderstanding the economics of rent. Rent then (and now) is typically more expensive than a mortgage for the same house. So you could pay £500 per month in rent, or about £450 on a 25 year mortgage. Thatcher allowed you to buy your ouse for a fraction of its value, in some cases as low as 15%, making your mortgage round about £100 per month. How is that less affordable?
But if you didn't have a job, you couldn't get a mortgage. My then partner and I bought a flat (not council) in 1987. About a year after that, the mortgage rate gradually went up to 16%. We were the fortunate ones that hadn't had to borrow up to the hilt and didn't lose our jobs so we just about managed the mortgage repayments. I remember there being a huge amount of repossessions and many people being made homeless. Then, because of the right-to-buy scheme, there were no council houses to put them in and they had to go into B&Bs.
shareI remember this quite well. The interest rate peaked at 15% in 1991/2 and the cause was our our involvement in Europe at the time of the very expensive reunification of Germany in 1989. Lots of people lost their homes as a result of both this and the subsequent house price bubble. It had nothing to do with Thatcher. In fact it was the reason John Major pulled us out of the single currency discussion at the signing of the Maastrict treaty. That seems to have worked out quite well for us given the current situation. Thatcher was staunchly anti-Europe and deeply opposed to the single currency and would never have gone to Maastrict in the first place.
Unemployment then peaked at around 3 million, which I think is about the same as the early 80s, and only slightly higher than it is today (about 2.7m). THatcher cant be responsible for all of it! I once heard someone blame her for the power cuts of the early 70s, she was the education secretary at the time.
Most unemployment of the 80s was a direct result of the failures of the 70s governments, including inclusion into the EEC. Most unemployment of the 90s was a direct result of entering the EU with Germany. There seems to be a pattern forming. I say this and Im not even anti-EU.
You did kind of miss the point of what I was saying so maybe I wasn't being very clear. If your policy is to sell off all the decent council housing stock and not bother building more, where were people going to live who'd lost their own house because they couldn't keep up the repayments when interest rates went sky high? And to say none this had anything to do with Thatcher is nonsense.
The Tories did then exactly what the present government is doing now - if in doubt, blame Europe, blame the previous government, then pick on a part of the workforce to use as a scapegoat and try and suggest that, but for them, everything would be just fine because it's entirely necessary that many thousands lose their jobs. But what happens when people have either lost their jobs or are scared of losing their jobs? They either don't spend at all (creating a recession) or they spend on credit (as people do now), which they can't pay back, so they end up declaring bankruptcy or getting one of these new debt relief orders. Either way, creating mass unemployment does not have a beneficial effect on the economy.
As you say, there is a pattern forming and I'm getting that same sinking feeling that I had in the late '80s. As a public sector worker, will I end up losing everything I've worked so hard for? Probably. Sorry if I'm not seeing the big picture, but this time it's even more personal and I am worried.
blame the previous government
if in doubt, blame Europe
If your policy is to sell off all the decent council housing stock
The problems she faced in 1979 were caused by both parties and were deeply ingrained in the political system. The was class divide which she helped break down ... well, partly anyway. She opened up opportunities to the working classes which were only available to the rich, such as privatising the Stock Market and all the nationalised industries whose shares were bought by working class people. Sure there were some mistakes but overall she was a good influence on both the economy and the political system.
shareYou could make the argument that the Tory government at the time directly effected the interest rates by creating the house buying scheme, but the circumstances of the interest rates today are completely inverse of that. However, it's quite disingenuous for you to not acknowledge the way in which over the years Labour governments have usually left the country and this time it's a doozy:
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
The grievances that people have with public sector workers in general is a legitimate one which is born out in the fact that on average public sector employees get paid more, have longer holidays and get better pensions. They also tend to be uniformly inefficient and that's coming from someone who has worked in both public and private sectors. The biggest problem with the public sector is that the larger it grows the less efficient it becomes and the more you must squeeze the private sector to pay for it. That means that private companies invest less into their workforce and thus lies the inequality that people take issue with.
Now don't get me wrong I have no dog in this fight, I seriously don't see much of a difference between any of the political parties and ultimately it doesn't really matter who comes to power because the country has already been boned! We essentially have a choice now out of years of negative interest rates or bankrupting the country.
Like her or loath her she had more balls than Cameron, Clegg and Miliband put together, so you may yet wish for someone like Thatcher to fix this mess!
She tryed to destroy scotland for that i will never forgive the old bastard she can rot in hell once she gets there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shareOur best Prime Minister since Churchill.If only she hadn't been daft enough to bring in the Poll Tax!She was too wet on race,immigration,Europe,Rhodesia ansd N.Ireland.
shareI agree with you!
share"But if you didn't have a job, you couldn't get a mortgage."
If you don't have a job, what on earth makes you think that you should be entitled to own a flat or house? It's mind boggling that people have this kind of attitude. So someone who IS working should pay higher taxes so that YOU can own your own house without having to lift a finger or do a single day's work for it? Unbelievable.
[deleted]
Here in the USA, people prefer to own their own homes when possible. The only people who do not own homes are those who don't have a decent paying job over a long period of time. Unfortunately, the housing bubble in combination with the demise of the dollar's value made housing prices rise out of sight. Hence, more people cannot afford their own homes. Both the political left and political right supported government guaranteed subprime loan programs, but that caused even worse economic problems.
“There is NO such thing as a free lunch.” - Milton Friedman
>The only people who do not own homes are those who
>don't have a decent paying job over a long period of time.
Not true in some areas where it is expensive to buy a house, like the San Francisco Bay Area.
Yes, in the San Francisco Bay Area, we can thank rent control policies for the shortage of affordable apartments, and we can thank piles of fees and regulations on developers from the California Department of Real Estate for the shortage of affordable housing.
“There is NO such thing as a free lunch.” - Milton Friedman
There is rent control in some cities in the SF Bay Area but not all.
shareAnd how are you doing paying your service charges?
shareI really thought your were being sarcastic before I saw your later replies in this thread. "Yorkshireman". Like the Python sketch right? Come on, you're being sarcastic. Or are Yorkshiremen exactly like in the Python sketch in real life, totally full of sh*t?
sharePersonally I'd have called it that, maybe a little more like "The Lady that saved the World" just to troll people.
Sig: I give up on having opinions, it always turns out I'm wrong.
Great post.....The film shows she did not shy away from the tough decisions and gave our country some pride and made us strong internationally..This film made me proud to be British again..something we have since lost
shareSo because of the "Right to Buy" scheme we can tick that she helped the poor on ever level? How wonderful it must be to live in your world!
shareThis post is for "the woman that saved britain" the post for "the woman that ruined britain" is further up..
shareThe OP has to be trolling. The woman, if she can be justly described as such, destroyed the morality of Britain, introduced a culture of greed that still prevails toady and ended up supping tea with a wanted international criminal, having won an election through recourse to a wholly unneccessary war. Oh and of course she crushed the UKs industries while lining the pockets of the rich and selling off everything the public owned, resulting in a rail system that few can afford to use and trains that regularly crash. She didn't 'save'anything' other than her son from being justifiably locked up for trying to start a military coup!!!...allegedly.
share"resulting in a rail system that few can afford to use"
If that's the case how come there are more train journeys taken today than at any time since the 1920s (when there was twice the track)?
[deleted]
"The alternative way to lookig at this is that most rail journies are pursued by the higher social classes"
So poor people should subsidise 'higher social classes' through general taxation?
I don't think the principle of 'user pays' is unreasonable....
Wow - when it comes to rebuttals for arguments this has to be the stupidest ever.
Go and do some research on this and then come back with your head in your hands.
Thatcher made UK a very class-divided country, like Brazil, instead of modernizing it and trying to make it a class-free country like Scandinavian countries.
In the UK, you live well, only if you're rich.
Not so in Scandinavia where almost everyone has a quality life.
Sorry, for the misplaced reply, I wasn't meaning to respond to you, and so flippantly. And, by the way, I totally agree with you re quality of life in Scandinavia.
shareOh Thank God, a little humour injected, just in the nick of time!
shareBritain walked tall under Thatcher. Since then she has been bound down again by the ligatures of Lilliputian leftists and cowardly conservatives.
shareI think the game between today's dementia and her old self was somehow a comparison. Her reality was not integrating real problems, but rather she was struggling with her own "thoughts and ideas" (and not feelings, she tells the doctor). She is the perfect example of the biggest errors of modernity.
She made decisions based on what "the party would think", how "she had to stay strong for the party", but totally unattached of what was going on outside her comfortable palace.
She was a disgrace for society. There is no softer word for her actions, except dictatorship, although democratically ellected. So much so that her OWN PARTY had to make her resign. A clear example that her errors go beyond politics, on to State violence.
What complete and utter rubbish.
The economy was rapidly rising when she took office and then she took it to the dogs. It eventually rose again down to our investments in east asia and cheaper countries which was inevitable anyway.
Her policies have led to current credit crisis, globally speaking so anybody who thinks she did something good for this country with the rise in all bad and lowering of living standards really just hasn't got a clue but has a clear need to want to fall for any propaganda possible.
What complete and utter rubbish.
Her policies have led to current credit crisis, globally
What are you talking about? Who mentioned the world economy? I would stay away from the news and actually do some research.
The UK economy was rising when she took office and after 2 years it nosedived. Do your research. You have no idea what you are talking about.
What a woman? Of course we won't see anybody as dense as her again. She was way out of her depth and the Americans used her as a puppet. Surprise, surprise it was their press that gave her the kudos but you won't know anything about that now, would you.
What a woman? Of course we won't see anybody as dense as her again. She was way out of her depth and the Americans used her as a puppet.
You're right and far from being the woman that saved Britain she was the woman who destroyed Britain. The damage she did to the north of England was immense - apalling woman.
I will always be on the side of those who have nothing - F G Lorca
What are you talking about? Who mentioned the world economy?
Her policies have led to current credit crisis, globally speaking
The economy was rapidly rising when she took office
You should travel up to Scotland and see how many people agree with the utter bullsh!t you are talking. Although, I suppose she didn't choose to have her soul stolen and replaced by Satan himself.
All you have to decide, is what to do with the time that is given to you
As a Yank, my understanding is that London and much of the UK looked like a toilet in the 1970s and this was largely due to the out-of-control unions who held power back then.
Indeed, my understanding is that England was in a steady and perceptible decline in the 1970s.
Do you think it was? And do you think it was in a better place ten years later?
I completely agree with OP.
The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out others people money
http://inbetweenmen.com/
[deleted]
[deleted]
No socialism is not about taxation for financing health care, housing, education etc. These are things that even non socialists wants.
It is about a class less society with no rich and poor people. Were democracy is also including the economic sphere.
If you think Scandinavian countries are so great I can inform you that neo-liberal politics have been dominating in Scandinavia for the last 20 years with massive privatizations, massive degradation of the welfare system and EU membership.