Jump to content

Baroness Margaret Thatcher Has Died


Amadeus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 327
  • Created
  • Last Reply

There is no doubt that her reign of power was extremely divisive in many ways and many suffered as a result. However despite largely disagreeing with her politics, there is no doubt that Britain was on its knees in 1979. I think she turned that situation around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No point in buying (or downloading) a paper tomorrow.

 

I don't know as I would like to find out what Major General Julian Thompson CB OBE has to say about her.

 

He was the man on the ground in charge of the troops in the Falklands. He was ordered to attack Goose Green for essentially political reasons as there were no strategic military ones. He was so disgusted that his men would die obeying his orders for posturing politicians that he announced prior to the battle that he would win the islands back for the politicians and then he would leave the service.

 

So when they held "Thatchers victory parade" the man who had actually done the business of leading the troops to attain their objective had already left the service and was no-where to be seen.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt that her reign of power was extremely divisive in many ways and many suffered as a result. However despite largely disagreeing with her politics, there is no doubt that Britain was on its knees in 1979. I think she turned that situation around.

Yes the country is in a fine position now...errrr

 

...all down to her and her protege Blair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go with the litany of abuse and insults about a dead woman...

It is a difficult one. I can not stand the woman, I was an adult during her conservative governments, but generally I would not bitch or abuse somebody who has just died. However if people are going to praise her and describe her as magnificent then I think it is only fair that those who have a contrary view have their say.

 

My opinion that she is a symbol of much what was wrong with the right wing in politics rather like Scargill illustrated all that was wrong with left wing and the unions.

 

It is hard to deny that there needed to be changes to working practices and other matters at the the time and she stood up and saw them in. However in my view her ideology saw them go to far and and rather than stop at the necessary changes in her determination to crush she ruined industries that should still have productive roll in the UK. Her push for privatisation and deregulation I would suggest went to far and the UK suffered as a consequence.

 

I look at the behaviour of those in authority e.g the police during her time, and see those she supported out of control and not held to account. As for her big success the Falklands which is the oly reason she won a second election. This still costs the UK about £75 million per year and cost many lives. It was an Island that Thatcher's Govt had given every indication of abandoning, the only patrol vessel was being withdrawn and not replaced and if the Argentinians had been a bit more patient I fairly sure that the Falklands would long ago have reverted to Argentinian control.

 

Her Government did some good things but as I said I believe that the negatives probably equal the positives. I have to admit I sometimes see her Government and Blair's that followed as an argument against Governments winning additional terms. When I was young the conservative and labour seemed to win alternate elections which appeared to keep matters more in check

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dominant politician of not only her generation, but also of the two generations that followed her.

 

She transformed the UK. That transformation was a traumatic process, but I believe it was a necessary evil to stop the stagnation the UK slipped into in the 1970s.

 

I'm a child of the 80s so much prefer its brashness compared to the beige decline of the 70s.

 

It would be great if the world owed you a living. But it doesn't and Maggie knew that, a country can't continue to throw good money after bad. She stopped that rot, and it wasn't til the Spin Meisters of NuLabour replaced substance with spin (and debt) that her message was forgotten.

 

She, no doubt, created division, but it is a mugs game to wonder if things could have been done differently. She had the strength to wrench the country onto a better path. No one else had the gumption to do it - definitely not Foot, or Kinnock. That is why she was the Iron Lady, and I very much respect her ability to follow through.

 

The country will remember her divisiveness, but she was a truly great politician. And I am pretty sure the UK is a better place because of her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He was ordered to attack Goose Green for essentially political reasons as there were no strategic military ones.

 

How many times does that happen though?

 

Blair was rather keen to invade Iraq despite the lack of WMD

 

The enormous difference between Blair and Thatcher was that Blair knew it would almost certainly damage him politically however for Thatcher it was damage limitation. She needed action whereas Blair didn't.

 

Incidentally if Iraq had no WMD just what did kill all those thousands of Iranian Pasdaran and the Kurds at Halabja?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She, no doubt, created division, but it is a mugs game to wonder if things could have been done differently. She had the strength to wrench the country onto a better path. No one else had the gumption to do it - definitely not Foot, or Kinnock. That is why she was the Iron Lady, and I very much respect her ability to follow through.

 

The country will remember her divisiveness, but she was a truly great politician. And I am pretty sure the UK is a better place because of her.

 

I disagree. No-one would argue that change was needed. But not the way she did it. You certainly got one thing right though. The hardship and suffering her policies caused meant she was remembered with hatred for generations....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Margaret Thatcher's reforms put the UK through massive turmoil and division.

While heavy industry was, undoubtedly, declining, the Thatcher government's decision to move as much as possible into the free market and to privatise undoubtedly exacerbated the decline.

 

France, on the other hand, was run by the (semi) socialist Francois Mitterand at more or less the same time. His tenure began in 1981, two years after Thatcher. But he lasted in office till 1995, five years after Thatcher.

He, and subsequent French governments, went along enthusiastically with the EU's social chapter and the sort of thing that Thatcher and Major said restricted the economy. Blair and Brown largely followed suit.

 

The French also went into the Euro, which the Thatcherites said and continue to say would stunt growth and the nimble British economy.

 

While the British "reformed" trade unions, the French unions are still militant and strong.

 

While the British stopped pouring money into their state industries, the French continued. Loss-making Renault got far more money than British Leyland ever got, for example, and which company is still making cars and employing more than 100,000 people?

 

Now the French work shorter hours, have marginally longer life expectancy and a health service that's said to be the best in the world.

 

So, when you look at the figures, it does make you wonder what the Thatcher revolution actually achieved.

 

UK population: 62,641,000 (World Bank)

France population: 65,436,552 (World Bank)

UK GDP: $2.43 Trillion (World Bank)

France GDP: $2.77 Trillion (World Bank).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...