Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

[Elentári]

I have purposefully stayed out of this thread...mainly because I do not have strong opinions either way on Lady Thatcher. I was not old enough to vote when she was in power. I do agree with Di that we are certainly not mourning a much-loved figure. But neither should we be demonizing a human being - she was no Hitler or Stalin. A government (in the UK, at least,) is more than one person.

The point Lord M raised in his OP is one that I think is being conveniently overlooked in all this vilification going on in the UK:

Mrs Thatcher was not only re-elected twice by the people, but by an overwhelming majority both times.

[axordil]

I understand the survivors did eventually recover, though.

[Túrin Turambar]

The point Lord M raised in his OP is one that I think is being conveniently overlooked in all this vilification going on in the UK:

Mrs Thatcher was not only re-elected twice by the people, but by an overwhelming majority both times.

Pretty much. All this talk of her being a tyrant and reviled in the UK ignores this pretty important fact. Her opponents in her home country made up (and make up) a minority, even if an extremely and disproportionately vocal one.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

The Conservatives won because the Left was split as it has been since the 1920's. That's what happens with three parties in a first past the post system.
In 1983 13,012,316 people voted for the Conservatives: 16,237,883 for the two main left of centre parties.

In 1987 13,760,935 voted for the Conservatives: 17,370,921 for the two main left of centre parties.

Sure she won, her party definitely won more than either of the two main opponents. She did not win a majority of support at any time. Eventually the electorate learned how to vote tactically.

[eborr]

The point Lord M raised in his OP is one that I think is being conveniently overlooked in all this vilification going on in the UK:

Mrs Thatcher was not only re-elected twice by the people, but by an overwhelming majority both times.

Pretty much. All this talk of her being a tyrant and reviled in the UK ignores this pretty important fact. Her opponents in her home country made up (and make up) a minority, even if an extremely and disproportionately vocal one.

Wrong she has some support for the forelock touchers, he double glazing salesman and spivs in the south of England

She is hated in the midlands, in the north in Scotland and in Wales, she did more damage to the British economy than occured during the blizt, she created the underclass in Britain and together with Reagan promulgated greed as good. I just wish she had died 40 years ago

[eborr]

Having read much of the rest of the thread and the comments I would just like to say how people like LM who have doubtless studied history through the books, have gained a very jaundiced view of the period prior to the Thatcher administration.
The received wisdom that Britain was on it's backheels is simply wrong, there were some financial problems but they had been caused bythe labour chancellor Denis Healey engaging in a tory type austerity agenda, adn a short term tactic to get funds from the IMF. He knew well that North Sea Oil revenues were on the cusp of coming in and would have swept the deficit away.

Instead of investing the north sea oild money wisely THatcher used it to pay off the massive increase in benefits payments for the 2 million people who were put out of work.

Perhaps most devastating of all is that the effects of unemployement were centered in certain areas - where towns like Shotton and Consett had their whole purpose destroyed for no appreciable benefit.

THe thatcherite apologists will come along with the line, that these subsidized industries were inefficient and relied on state subsidy, but the reality is that if you added all the subsidies that our mass employing primary industries enjoyed it was always dwarfed by the subsidies paid out to the farmers.

So dear friends so many of you have been tricked by the smoke and mirrors