By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
‘You either love her or hate her’ people would say to me. Just by this thread you can see how she gets the blood boiling. In these situations I always look to split it into two thing’s; what impact Thatcher had on me personally, and what impact I think she had on the country as a whole, be it positive or negative.
For me personally, Thatcher made my family richer via reducing income tax, enabled my Dad to buy his own house, and contributed to me travelling freely in Europe. For our country she won a war and kept us at the ‘top table’ amongst other nations. She halted the apparent decline of our country and helped us get some cash back from Europe. Ultimately though when I think of her I think negatively, the motivations behind her decisions, the long term affects of what she did, I just feel it’s made too many people become wan*ers.
When I was at school my teaching wasn’t the best. I went to a state school that was embarrassingly underinvested in. We only had access to one computer, in an age when technology was the future, what a missed opportunity. It’s all very well trying to make the sick man of Europe well again by controlling the money supply, targeting inflation etc, but sometimes there are things you should spend money on and investing then in education was the right thing to do.
My parents certainly got richer under Thatcher, my Dad got his own house, years later it went for a huge sum, my Dad’s take home pay went up. I had a more affluent lifestyle as a result but as I grew up and particularly now looking back, I can see a lot of change in people and their attitudes. Manners people show towards one another, their chosen way of life, I can’t help but think its heavily influenced by what Thatcher and her government did. The gap between the rich and the poor, those kids that have everything, and those that don’t. London riots and the scum that emerged that day are ultimately responsible for their own actions, but the work shy, money driven, individualistic society we created can’t have helped.
Growing up in London I feel I’ve had it relatively easy compared to some of the Northern communities and their experiences. But I’ve seen the effects of what unemployment does to people. Back in the 80s you had people fighting so they could continue to go down coal mines FFS. Can you imagine some of the rich London kids living off their parents money doing a day’s work down a coal mine?
Yes our international reputation was restored, yes we can still sit at the top table with the other super powers, yes we managed to get some money back from Europe, yes we reversed our long term decline, yes British politics has forever been changed etc, but at what cost? I live in a country that measures success by the wealth that people generate, and as a result I’m surrounded by di*kheads. I’m off to stand on a train that costs a ridiculous amount of money, probably running late, amongst people playing on their Iphones or blackberry whilst a 80 year old bloke hopes one of them will offer him a seat,,..’f*ck off mate I paid for this, it’s mine’. What a legacy.
Without doubt the most succint post on this subject so far, I am now totally indifferent to her demise, having lived through decades of politicians who tried their hardest to wreck this country with idelogical mantras both left and right.
This board will have their points of view dependant on how well financially they have come out after many years of indifference to the majority and her detractors will hammer home the upset many still feel due to her policies..
We have become no matter what your political persuasion totally indifferent to our nation as a whole, nothing wrong in trying to better our society but, Thatcher and Blair created a nation that many did not want or adhere to.
Germany has a much smaller proportion of social housing than the UK and yet has not had a house price boom. Think you're barking up the wrong tree with that one IMO.
That's because in Germany, and other European countries, they don't have the same desire to home-ownership that we now have and have had for the last 30 years. Quite frankly, they think we're loony to pay the purchase prices we do. Renting for them is quite the norm.
In France they even have 10-year fixed agreements with their landlords. Tenants are often happy to pay for redecorating, updating kitchens etc out of their own pocket knowing they get the full use out of it during its useful lifespan and their tenancy.
In the UK, you're never more than a month away from having to leave. How stable is that??
Right-to-Buy actually started in the 70's but trickled along and was pushed through in the 80's as a way to generate income for the Treasury, without the housing stock being properly replenished. Same as selling off the amenities, it was all about short term financial income without thinking/looking at/caring about the long term consequences.
I did economics at school and one of the first things we were taught was the basics of supply and demand. This is why there is no house boom in Germany, because there's no demand for it. In the UK, it's totally demand-driven and disproportionate to its actual value, a bit like PL players wages! ;o)
By creating this notion that "an Englishman’s home is his castle" it has accelerated the desire for people to buy their homes and as demand went up, so did the prices. What I meant by 'worth' is that houses I don't think are actually worth what we pay for them but that's the situation we're in today. It's like people over-bidding for something in an auction... people end up paying what they are willing to pay in desperation to buy it rather than what it's actually worth.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, as Voltaire once said…… Just that there’s no need for people to be abusive.
edit: it has been recently proved that her government and those connected to it lied about Hillsborough, will we see the same about other aspects of her stewardship? And for parity, to show I have no political bias, I hope the same comes out under Blair's tenure.
edit edit: PhilmyRs has made a good post. Yes, people became wealthy but at what long term cost? We now live in a me, me, me, society. I don't want communism either, that clearly never worked. It seems we can never have parity, only an extreme of one kind and they are as bad as each other.
Opta's Duncan Alexander on Twitter: "QPR were in the top-flight relegation zone on the day Thatcher became PM, the day she was ousted and the day she died."
‘You either love her or hate her’ people would say to me. Just by this thread you can see how she gets the blood boiling. In these situations I always look to split it into two thing’s; what impact Thatcher had on me personally, and what impact I think she had on the country as a whole, be it positive or negative.
For me personally, Thatcher made my family richer via reducing income tax, enabled my Dad to buy his own house, and contributed to me travelling freely in Europe. For our country she won a war and kept us at the ‘top table’ amongst other nations. She halted the apparent decline of our country and helped us get some cash back from Europe. Ultimately though when I think of her I think negatively, the motivations behind her decisions, the long term affects of what she did, I just feel it’s made too many people become wan*ers.
When I was at school my teaching wasn’t the best. I went to a state school that was embarrassingly underinvested in. We only had access to one computer, in an age when technology was the future, what a missed opportunity. It’s all very well trying to make the sick man of Europe well again by controlling the money supply, targeting inflation etc, but sometimes there are things you should spend money on and investing then in education was the right thing to do.
My parents certainly got richer under Thatcher, my Dad got his own house, years later it went for a huge sum, my Dad’s take home pay went up. I had a more affluent lifestyle as a result but as I grew up and particularly now looking back, I can see a lot of change in people and their attitudes. Manners people show towards one another, their chosen way of life, I can’t help but think its heavily influenced by what Thatcher and her government did. The gap between the rich and the poor, those kids that have everything, and those that don’t. London riots and the scum that emerged that day are ultimately responsible for their own actions, but the work shy, money driven, individualistic society we created can’t have helped.
Growing up in London I feel I’ve had it relatively easy compared to some of the Northern communities and their experiences. But I’ve seen the effects of what unemployment does to people. Back in the 80s you had people fighting so they could continue to go down coal mines FFS. Can you imagine some of the rich London kids living off their parents money doing a day’s work down a coal mine?
Yes our international reputation was restored, yes we can still sit at the top table with the other super powers, yes we managed to get some money back from Europe, yes we reversed our long term decline, yes British politics has forever been changed etc, but at what cost? I live in a country that measures success by the wealth that people generate, and as a result I’m surrounded by di*kheads. I’m off to stand on a train that costs a ridiculous amount of money, probably running late, amongst people playing on their Iphones or blackberry whilst a 80 year old bloke hopes one of them will offer him a seat,,..’f*ck off mate I paid for this, it’s mine’. What a legacy.
Good post Philmy. Usually enjoy your stuff.
Thatcher is the absolute case study on how one's opinion is determined by the perspective from which you are viewing.
Like you, for my parents, given their life situation when she took power (mid-late 20s, employed in marketing, well educated, etc) she was very good for them. The economy grew, job opportunities were aplenty for those in what you'd class as skilled service sector work, house prices rose, taxes were low (to what they would otherwise have been with a Labour government). Frankly, and brutally honestly, she was good for my dad's bank balance. As a result, I enjoyed a good education, nice upbringing, nice house, nice area, lots of privileges, etc, etc.
Like you, I fully recognise that for a lot of people in the country: those in lots of Northern communities and those in the manufacturing industry, they had the opposite experience. She was bad for their standard of living. Very bad.
As someone born in the mid 80s, and looking at the state of Britain now, economically and socially, I can't help feel she got some things right and some things wrong.
She's certainly been proved right with regards to Europe and the single currency. That latter she was very right on, and in the last 30 years there's been one hell of a lot of people who were in favour of that (noticeable how few admit to it anymore!).
I also think, whilst she went far too far and did so callously, she did redress the power of the unions. I can completely understand why she is the devil to them. And, IMO, she went to far. But they did need curbing at that time for the good of the majority.
However,
Given my perspective, as someone who entered the working world and was almost immediately hit with our biggest recession for decades and astronomical house prices, I can't help feel she got more wrong than right.
The role she and Reagan played in the deregulation of the banks undoubtedly planted the seeds for the crash in 2008. Yes, it helped create growth for years, leading to the boom in the banking sector in the mid-00s (note, Blair, a thatcherite at heart, fully endorsed and continued her approach to the banking sector), but it is the core underlying cause of the all the key causes of the banking crisis.
In addition, privatisation, whilst helping grow the economy at the time and allow the reduction in income tax (massively helping my Dad), in the long run has been a bad thing for the UK.
Cost has gone up completely out of kilter with inflation, and service, pro-rata, has not improved. You have utility companies bordering on monopolies. The consume is bent over a barrell with their trousers by their ankles. And yet, these companies have been announcing "record profits" almost every year.
Perhaps her biggest error was her attack on the manufacturing industry. It sounds simple and crass, but it's true and a big problem, we don't make much anymore. Again old Tony did nothing to reverse this. Thatcher wanted us to export our intellectual and financial service sector capability as opposed to physical products and technology. Well, the former may drive short term growth, but they come with big risks. It's the latter that is always the true fuel for an economy. All the tiger economies throughout history and all the big growing economies produce stuff. It's the single biggest reason we're struggling to emerge from this recession - a lack of a manufacturing sector providing employment opportunities for young people (and the associated consumer spending that follows) and providing products for us to export.
After all this, there is the wider social point you make, Philmy. You're completely right. The "there's no such thing as society" approach, has, I think, led to Britain being a worse place to live. She promoted the culture of 'me' not 'us'. It began with her. Again, old Tony didn't do anything to prevent it, but it began with Thatcher.
Ever since selfishness and greed have grown. Those traits have always existed but she outwardly embraced them as the key to "growing the economy". But she did so without any thought for how it would affect the social make-up of the country.
This is one of the toughest to judge. But like you, I look at Britain and think that the manner and attitudes of the public are changing, very noticeably, for the worse. The 'me, me, me' mentality pervades every single walk of life. It's so sad and I can't help but feel she started that ball rolling.
May I say how much I appreciate every single post on this thread...because she's dead!
And to all the people on this site that I've called "Thatcherite a*se-licks" (actually only one, buit several others come close), may I say, 'Have a cup of tea, otherwise now your tongue will get cold'.
agree 100%. Unlike the career driven scumbags we get these days. No doubt TV will be wall to wall with the usual leftie vermin, driven by envy, saying they are glad she's dead. And they call the Tories the 'nasty party' - do me a favour.
" the usual leftie vermin"
That's exactly what her old mate Pinochet thought of them when he was throwing them out of helicopters.
Thatcher is the absolute case study on how one's opinion is determined by the perspective from which you are viewing.
Like you, for my parents, given their life situation when she took power (mid-late 20s, employed in marketing, well educated, etc) she was very good for them. The economy grew, job opportunities were aplenty for those in what you'd class as skilled service sector work, house prices rose, taxes were low (to what they would otherwise have been with a Labour government). Frankly, and brutally honestly, she was good for my dad's bank balance. As a result, I enjoyed a good education, nice upbringing, nice house, nice area, lots of privileges, etc, etc.
Like you, I fully recognise that for a lot of people in the country: those in lots of Northern communities and those in the manufacturing industry, they had the opposite experience. She was bad for their standard of living. Very bad.
As someone born in the mid 80s, and looking at the state of Britain now, economically and socially, I can't help feel she got some things right and some things wrong.
She's certainly been proved right with regards to Europe and the single currency. That latter she was very right on, and in the last 30 years there's been one hell of a lot of people who were in favour of that (noticeable how few admit to it anymore!).
I also think, whilst she went far too far and did so callously, she did redress the power of the unions. I can completely understand why she is the devil to them. And, IMO, she went to far. But they did need curbing at that time for the good of the majority.
However,
Given my perspective, as someone who entered the working world and was almost immediately hit with our biggest recession for decades and astronomical house prices, I can't help feel she got more wrong than right.
The role she and Reagan played in the deregulation of the banks undoubtedly planted the seeds for the crash in 2008. Yes, it helped create growth for years, leading to the boom in the banking sector in the mid-00s (note, Blair, a thatcherite at heart, fully endorsed and continued her approach to the banking sector), but it is the core underlying cause of the all the key causes of the banking crisis.
In addition, privatisation, whilst helping grow the economy at the time and allow the reduction in income tax (massively helping my Dad), in the long run has been a bad thing for the UK.
Cost has gone up completely out of kilter with inflation, and service, pro-rata, has not improved. You have utility companies bordering on monopolies. The consume is bent over a barrell with their trousers by their ankles. And yet, these companies have been announcing "record profits" almost every year.
Perhaps her biggest error was her attack on the manufacturing industry. It sounds simple and crass, but it's true and a big problem, we don't make much anymore. Again old Tony did nothing to reverse this. Thatcher wanted us to export our intellectual and financial service sector capability as opposed to physical products and technology. Well, the former may drive short term growth, but they come with big risks. It's the latter that is always the true fuel for an economy. All the tiger economies throughout history and all the big growing economies produce stuff. It's the single biggest reason we're struggling to emerge from this recession - a lack of a manufacturing sector providing employment opportunities for young people (and the associated consumer spending that follows) and providing products for us to export.
After all this, there is the wider social point you make, Philmy. You're completely right. The "there's no such thing as society" approach, has, I think, led to Britain being a worse place to live. She promoted the culture of 'me' not 'us'. It began with her. Again, old Tony didn't do anything to prevent it, but it began with Thatcher.
Ever since selfishness and greed have grown. Those traits have always existed but she outwardly embraced them as the key to "growing the economy". But she did so without any thought for how it would affect the social make-up of the country.
This is one of the toughest to judge. But like you, I look at Britain and think that the manner and attitudes of the public are changing, very noticeably, for the worse. The 'me, me, me' mentality pervades every single walk of life. It's so sad and I can't help but feel she started that ball rolling.
[Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
This is the best post on the subject on this board.
I have done quite well financially out of her policies over the years but that doesn't mean I don't give a shit about my fellow man and woman struggling in the north, the dispossessed and the trampled on.
She epitomises everything that is wrong with the selfish , me, me, me culture that now pervades throughout our society. What a legacy that woman left....
‘You either love her or hate her’ people would say to me. Just by this thread you can see how she gets the blood boiling. In these situations I always look to split it into two thing’s; what impact Thatcher had on me personally, and what impact I think she had on the country as a whole, be it positive or negative.
For me personally, Thatcher made my family richer via reducing income tax, enabled my Dad to buy his own house, and contributed to me travelling freely in Europe. For our country she won a war and kept us at the ‘top table’ amongst other nations. She halted the apparent decline of our country and helped us get some cash back from Europe. Ultimately though when I think of her I think negatively, the motivations behind her decisions, the long term affects of what she did, I just feel it’s made too many people become wan*ers.
When I was at school my teaching wasn’t the best. I went to a state school that was embarrassingly underinvested in. We only had access to one computer, in an age when technology was the future, what a missed opportunity. It’s all very well trying to make the sick man of Europe well again by controlling the money supply, targeting inflation etc, but sometimes there are things you should spend money on and investing then in education was the right thing to do.
My parents certainly got richer under Thatcher, my Dad got his own house, years later it went for a huge sum, my Dad’s take home pay went up. I had a more affluent lifestyle as a result but as I grew up and particularly now looking back, I can see a lot of change in people and their attitudes. Manners people show towards one another, their chosen way of life, I can’t help but think its heavily influenced by what Thatcher and her government did. The gap between the rich and the poor, those kids that have everything, and those that don’t. London riots and the scum that emerged that day are ultimately responsible for their own actions, but the work shy, money driven, individualistic society we created can’t have helped.
Growing up in London I feel I’ve had it relatively easy compared to some of the Northern communities and their experiences. But I’ve seen the effects of what unemployment does to people. Back in the 80s you had people fighting so they could continue to go down coal mines FFS. Can you imagine some of the rich London kids living off their parents money doing a day’s work down a coal mine?
Yes our international reputation was restored, yes we can still sit at the top table with the other super powers, yes we managed to get some money back from Europe, yes we reversed our long term decline, yes British politics has forever been changed etc, but at what cost? I live in a country that measures success by the wealth that people generate, and as a result I’m surrounded by di*kheads. I’m off to stand on a train that costs a ridiculous amount of money, probably running late, amongst people playing on their Iphones or blackberry whilst a 80 year old bloke hopes one of them will offer him a seat,,..’f*ck off mate I paid for this, it’s mine’. What a legacy.
A well reasoned post. I dont entirely agree but one thing is for certain, Thatcher was responsible for the "me" attitude which prevails to this day. I am 71 & my feeling is that she was responsible for a dog eat dog culture which has fundamentaly changed the way we relate to each other. She also started the wave of privatisations which mean I pay a fantastically higher price than I used to for telephoning,gas,water rates etc,you name it she flogged it and boy are we now paying for it. The other biggie on her doorstep is how she wrecked British industry. I think here in the South it is difficult for us comprehend just how many lives were wrecked & probably still are due to her obsession with Trade Unionism. Your obviously a lot younger than me Philmy but you have a good handle on what happened as a result of this evil person coming to power. It worries me a wee bit that this is all a ruse and she is not really dead & one day when Cameron really blows it she will emerge in some Valrykie outfit screaming venom in that dreadful voice of hers. I cannot find the words to say just how much I loathed her. Tonight let the wine flow!
You have to look at Blair's (and Howard's) contributions as George dubbyas suggestions that 'you're either in it or you're out of it (do you wanna be a world player?)'. They couldn't resist.
After yesterday's alcoholic excess, the kunt has to go on a Monday to further irritate me just when i wasn't going to have a drink. Still, a promise is a promise. The first, is a bottle of Bollinger 1990. Somehow this seems right.
taken from an article on the guardian website, so no doubt some on here will reject it out of hand, but it's an interesting riposte to those who say she was a necessary evil.
This is a politician, after all, who never won the votes of more than a third of the electorate; destroyed communities; created mass unemployment; deindustrialised Britain; redistributed from poor to rich; and, by her deregulation of the City, laid the basis for the crisis that has engulfed us 25 years later.
Thatcher was a prime minister who denounced Nelson Mandela as a terrorist, defended the Chilean fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet, ratcheted up the cold war, and unleashed militarised police on trade unionists and black communities alike. She was Britain's first woman prime minister, but her policies hit women hardest, like Cameron's today.
A common British establishment view — and the implicit position of The Iron Lady — is that while Thatcher took harsh measures and "went too far", it was necessary medicine to restore the sick economy of the 1970s to healthy growth.
It did nothing of the sort. Average growth in the Thatcherite 80s, at 2.4%, was exactly the same as in the sick 70s — and considerably lower than during the corporatist 60s. Her government's savage deflation destroyed a fifth of Britain's industrial base in two years, hollowed out manufacturing, and delivered a "productivity miracle" that never was, and we're living with the consequences today.
What she did succeed in doing was to restore class privilege, boosting profitability while slashing employees' share of national income from 65% to 53% through her assault on unions.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
