Agreed. Unfortunately, Margaret Thatcher polarised opinion and continues to do so. When she got it right, she got is very right. When she got it wrong, she got is spectacularly wrong. It is human nature to focus on the negative and those that consider themselves particularly affected by her policies will make the most of the opportunity to express their bile-flecked, vitriolic joy at her parting. What none of us will ever know, of course, it what sort of Britain we'd all be living in had she not ascended to power in 1979. The "anti-Thatchers" amongst us will hold a certain belief that it would have been a much better place. They cannot know this. Thirteen years of the New Labour social democratic project, followed by 3 years of the Con-Dem social democratic project have not made this country a better place than the Britain than Major tried his Royal best to screw up. Many of us remember the rubbish piling up on the streets, the power outages, the seemingly endless industrial action and the death knell of the British motor industry. Was what Thatcher offered worse than what we we served with by Heath, Wilson and Callaghan? Really? The accusation that she heralded the end of "society" is not altogether without foundation, however. It was not a deliberate policy, but a side effect of the new Britain she marshalled in. She was guilty of neglecting this, but the British people - and most of the people of the Western World - happily embraced the Brave New World that emerged. It is a fact that many of those that made serious money during this time and as a direct consequence of the Tory policies held and continue to hold left-wing, liberal socialist views. There are a vast number of hypocrites at large who count themselves amongst the joyous throng dancing on her grave, but directly and greatly benefited from the country she helped transform. There are a vast number of hypocrites that happily amassed their fortunes, climbed their ladders and did not lift a solitary finger to help the disadvantaged. Oh no, that was somebody else's responsibility.
This thread one of the undeniable truths of her 'legacy' - she divided people to the point of violence. I lived abroad for all but 4 of the years she was in power (and for 3 of those - the first 3 - I was the beneficiary of free tertiary education of very high quality). But I have lived with the consequences ever since, we are as near as we dare get to a full on market economy (push it much further and we will descend into anarchy), where we are materialist consumers rather than human beings. But if you ask me if I would return to the state run balls up of the semi command economy of the seventies - no way. If we don't ruin ourselves even more first, the next revolution will be about quality - quality of service from both the private and state sectors, but above all quality of life.
Apologies Ubes. Macbeth quote at the news of the demise of his wicked, loony lady. One for Stan really who was spot on in his post. Fact is Maggie's always been marmite. Loved by the right and loathed by the left - and never the twain shall meet in this or any other forum. As a lefty, the one thing I'll say for MT (other than that's exactly what she was before the Falklands opportunity arose) is that she was ironically the only Tory with bollox in a long time!
Bankers can gamble wildly and rake in the millions when they get it right, get it wrong and its the tax payers that bail them out. So basically they get rich off the poor supporting any failures.
I very much disagree that she only looked to aid the financial elite. Giving the poorest people the opportunity to get on the property ladder through hugely subsidised house prices seems pretty Socialist if anything. What did miners expect? To just keep mining forever however much cheaper and/or better the job could be done elsewhere? There's no perfect system, but you'll struggle to find a credible modern economist that advocates a large State. Someone will always be worse off under any change in government, but she gave people the chance to be rich or at least relatively rich rather than just have everyone scraping by.
That's not incorrect, but deregulation created a great deal of wealth over many years- more than it has played a part in costing over the last few.
Lads, lads, she had no more idea about economics or economic strategy than TF. Useless on economics, failed to see consequences. Terrible. Benefited greatly from North Sea oil. Aided the selling off of social housing stock, don't even start me. The Big Bang, that was her, and **** me, are we dealing with those consequences.
If deregulating banking was such a terrible idea then plenty since Thatcher have had the opportunity to bring regulation back. Don't think you can blame the UK's woes of 2013 on her.
Why would anyone do that when they are financed by them? Im sure the parties do quite well out of it. Its just another example of how every government only does whats best for them and the people who give them money.
Absolutely serious. If Thatcher's free market economics was so wrong, despite just about all modern economists advocating it and most of the developed world moving in the same way, then Labour had 13 years to do something about it. The reality is that a small state with as little intervention as possible is the way to go.
This is not a time for celebration. The death of Margaret Thatcher is nothing more than a salient reminder of how Britain got into the mess that we are in today. Of why ordinary working people are no longer able to earn enough from one job to support a family; of why there is a shortage of decent affordable housing; of why domestic growth is driven by credit, not by real incomes; of why tax-payers are forced to top up wages; of why a spiteful government seeks to penalise the poor for having an extra bedroom; of why Rupert Murdoch became so powerful; of why cynicism and greed became the hallmarks of our society. Raising a glass to the death of an infirm old lady changes none of this. The only real antidote to cynicism is activism. Don't celebrate - organise! I wish I had written this, for it crystalises my feelings completely. But of course as I am sure Stainesy will know, it was written by Billy Bragg
This for me is the very essence of good government. For those that advocate a more liberal-socialist Britain seemingly deliberately ignore the power of basic human nature, which is the mistake that those sort make time and time again. In general, us humans want to ascend the ladder, want to do best for our families and our loved ones and want to receive appropriate reward and recognition for our own endeavours. Of course there are those that wish to receive reward for little or no endeavour, and of course there are those denied the opportunity of reward due to the absence of opportunity. But these are in the minority, possibly a significant minority, but nevertheless the minority. To move to a liberal-socialist Britain - as was begun by the Great Blair Disaster and continues today through the faux-Tory administration - requires bigger government, a huge and complex welfare system and the State as the largest employer. To build such a society requires a thriving private sector because it is the private sector that creates the wealth, the wealth that creates the tax revenues and the tax revenues that finances the State. It is no surprise that the wealth creators resent the substantial taxes they are required to pay and it is no surprise that those employed by the State would continue to vote for political parties most likely to maintain the status quo and keep them in employment. Turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas. It is also no surprise that those on benefits would also wish to keep them. It is an outrage that the welfare state has grown so substantial that it remains more lucrative to stay unemployed than otherwise, just as it is an outrage that many are denied jobs in the first place. But it is also an outrage that one should pay disproportionately more in tax just because one earns more in order to fund the systems we have today. That is my opinion. Those that bemoan the time of the Poll Tax clearly disagree with the principle that everybody of adult age that enjoy the same services, have their refuse removed, have a police force (now 'service') and a local council attending to their community (not always effectively, of course) etc. should have to make a contribution to this. Looking at property rates or council tax as the alternative, why should somebody pay disproportionately more for exactly the same services simply because they have a bigger house? Why is this right and proper? Why shouldn't everybody make a standard contribution for a basic level of services? Seems wholly reasonable to me, but will invite such ire from my respondees, no doubt. Of course Thatcher got a lot wrong and was negligent in many aspects, most significantly her ignorance of what was happening to the basic fabric of our society. But the answer wasn't - and still isn't - an increased welfare state, larger government, higher taxes and a huge state payroll. You have to have a burgeoning private sector creating wealth and jobs. You have to put Britain first ahead of the needs of Europe and other economies. You have to put greater controls on immigration and instead get the unemployed in Britain working, perhaps in part to maintain their benefits. We need a system that continues to reward those that strive and achieve, whilst helping through welfare, benevolence and philanthropy only those that are trying to help themselves; not simply rewarding sloth, idleness and breeding. [Note: I am not for a second suggesting that everybody on benefits are thus, but there is a significant minority for whom this applies. If you want to attribute words or sentiment that I have not communicated then that would be a falsehood.] Thatcher failed in this area. Blair failed in this area. Con-Dem are failing in this area. What is the answer?
We didn't even think about her last week. She has 907 deaths just from the Falklands to answer for IMO so she may be burning for quite a while. I have turned by TV to face the wall in respect or rather to keep my dinner down as I imagine the reporting of her death will be the biggest emetic of all time?
