Lady Thatcher is dead

[Ed Anger]

Thatcher gets my love for killing Argies.


Also, for having a boomer nearby just in case. 

[The Brain]

Of course people will hate Thatcher. She is a strong woman who was successful in a man's world.

[Josephus]

So J's dislike is just based on blind ideological leanings?

No. Sheesh. I said she's ugly and I can't stand her voice.

BTW.....I'll give her one other point.

She was the inspiration behind The Final Cut, the last real Pink Floyd record in 1983.

What have we done?
Maggie what have we done?
What have we done to England?
Should we shout, should we scream?
What happened to the postwar dream?
Maggie! Oh Maggie what did you do?

[citizen k]

What have we done?
Maggie what have we done?
What have we done to England?
Should we shout, should we scream?
What happened to the postwar dream?
Maggie! Oh Maggie what did you do?

If anything, Maggie rekindled the postwar dream that by the late 70's was in jeopardy of going out for good.

No Thatcher, No Cool Britannia

[Neil]

What happened to the postwar dream?  Somehow, I doubt the British people had the 60s and 70s in mind as their ideal world.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The entire period 1914-1950 was pretty grim, at least for the bulk of the population (the 1920s was also a period of recession here, unlike in the US). I think the 1960s came as a relief even though some were disturbed by declining social cohesion.

[Admiral Yi]

The case for Thatcher: Conservative.
The case against Thatcher: Conservative.

That about sums it up.

The case for: she broke the stranglehold enjoyed by organized labor on economic policy and ended the constant drain on public finances propping up a dying industry.

The case against: she threw hundreds of thousands (?) of Britons out of work and devastated entire communities.

[Ed Anger]

Franco is still dead.

[Gups]

The case for Thatcher: Conservative.
The case against Thatcher: Conservative.

That about sums it up.

The case for: she broke the stranglehold enjoyed by organized labor on economic policy and ended the constant drain on public finances propping up a dying industry.

The case against: she threw hundreds of thousands (?) of Britons out of work and devastated entire communities.

Case for: Brought the Britsish economy into the 20th century, beat inflation, passed laws forcing secret ballot on unions before striking thuse breaking their power, defeated inflation

Case against: Permanently and delibrately ruined UK's industrial base to break unions power (talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater), chose to accept high employment to keep wages and inflation down thus creating a legacy of welfare dependence still with us today.

In both cases, it somewhat hard to seperate the UK economy from the ROTW's (e.g. low inflation, high unemployment).

[Josquius]

Case for:
Privatised the railways, privatised electricty, broke the unions, liberalised banking practices, developed the city of London, encouragment of rampant capitalism, she created a depressing backdrop which led to some of the best music ever.
...
wait. This was supposed to be case for right?
So...she was only good if you're a banker or other financial person...sort of... we all know where a over reliance on financial services got us.

Case against:
Ruined the unions- not just weakened them as was needed but totally messed them up leaving them in a rather useless purgatory, ruined the economy, ruined society (charvas= her doing), the Falklands War, destroyed communities,  privitisations, she didn't want to harm the status quo in Europe, education slashing

[Warspite]

Another few points in the "against" box:

- Politicised the civil service
- Was directly responsible for the disastrous defence review that allowed the Argenties to invade the Falklands
- Sold off valuable state enterprises for far less than they were worth.

I am not saying that these are ncessarily true: merely that they are what her opponents also stack up against her.

My own view is that history will likely view Thatcher as a leader who did what was needed, but did not try and soften the social impact of her policies.

As a result, the south east of the country did very well because it was suited for the coming changes. But the north and west fared poorly because the sectors they relied upon were demolished wholesale with little to replace them.

In that, it is possible that the state could have had more of a role in cushioning the transition. But this did not fit in with her strict ideology. As others have said already in this thread, the wholesale destruction of jobs in failing sectors, while ultimately necessary, was handled in such a way to rip the heart out of entire communities. It was not just a case of saying 'on your bike': there were no jobs anywhere in these regions.

I would not claim that such a structural correction could ever be painless, but one does get the sense that the government could have done more to ease, to some extent, the unemployment problem. Unfortunately its focus was inflation, inflation, inflation.

A side point: many of the sectors gutted in the 1980s had actually be uncompetitive on an international scale since the 1920s. That gives some idea of the scale of the problem.

[Richard Hakluyt]

One of her biggest errors, in my opinion, was her failure to dismantle planning restrictions. She dismantled untenable industries in the the periphery; the obvious corrollary of this would be a flood of people to the SE of England to take up the new employment opportunities there. The flood never took place because housing was just too expensive down there; especially for unemployed ex-miners and their ilk, they found it better to sign on, sometimes as unemployed, sometimes as "disabled". Many of the best and brightest could afford the move of course, thus further disadvantaging the periphery.

As I see it she sorted one half of the problem, the inefficient industries, but then failed to provide the conditions for the remedy, ie the restructuring of where people live. So we end up with the chavs and the hopeless, with the situation set in stone by the housing problem and certain other rigidities (eg national pay agreements for teachers and nurses).

[BVN]

Point against: in a case of budget cuts she more or less kicked psychiatric patients out of the institutions and onto the streets

[grumbler]

Case against: Permanently and delibrately ruined UK's industrial base to break unions power (talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater),

  Love this one!

Did Thatcher permanently and deliberately ruin the baby, too, before before she threw it out with the bathwater?

[grumbler]

My own view is that history will likely view Thatcher as a leader who did what was needed, but did not try and soften the social impact of her policies. 

Absolutely agree.

As a result, the south east of the country did very well because it was suited for the coming changes. But the north and west fared poorly because the sectors they relied upon were demolished wholesale with little to replace them.

The North and West fared poorly because their economies were based on endless subsidization of their inefficiencies by the rest of the economy.  Once there was a rational hand on the economic tiller, the guild sysytem was doomed.

In that, it is possible that the state could have had more of a role in cushioning the transition. But this did not fit in with her strict ideology. As others have said already in this thread, the wholesale destruction of jobs in failing sectors, while ultimately necessary, was handled in such a way to rip the heart out of entire communities. It was not just a case of saying 'on your bike': there were no jobs anywhere in these regions.

Agree that Thatcher was disinterested in ameliorating the effects of rationalizing the economy.  The destruction of jobs in these sectors, of course, had occurred decades before, under the disastrous administrations that preceded Thatcher.   Once she pointed out that the Emperor had no clothes, of course, people stopped getting paid for their non-existent jobs and entire communities who had been dependent on a non-existent industry were devastated.  Most of the workers who lost their non-existent jobs lacked a decent education and so preferred to go on welfare rather than move a hundred miles to where the jobs were.  Luckily, enough immigrants moved thousands of miles to take those jobs and pay taxes that Britain could afford to pay these welfare queens until a new generation of people replaced them as wage earners.

I would not claim that such a structural correction could ever be painless, but one does get the sense that the government could have done more to ease, to some extent, the unemployment problem. Unfortunately its focus was inflation, inflation, inflation.

Agreed.  The great mark against Thatcher is that she lacked balance. I don't think she even tried to investigate a policy that would steer between generalized suffering (inflation) and specific suffering (unemployment). [/quote]