Even Neil Kinnock on last night's "Newsnight" said that Scargill had a significant contribution to the demise of the mining communities and that his "all or nothing" attitude made her increasingly intransigent on the matter. It's convenient to lay ALL the blame at her door but the truth is much less one sided.

Except I'm not as I acknowledged that Scargill was far from a saint. If anything you're being more unequivocally anti-Scargill than I and Simon are anti-Thatcher.

 

What makes me really angry is that people have so much loathing for Thatcher, but no doubt when Blair dies he will be remembered as a hero rather than the outrageous bullshitter of a war criminal he is. Whatever you thought about Thatcher, at least she was open and honest about her intentions. That Blair deliberately deceived us into going to war and is still profiting from that deceit, making millions from giving talks around the world, makes me quite ill. But the sheep-like public can only make simple associations like "right wing = evil" and "left = jolly lovely". I probably sound very right wing myself now. I'm not. I just loathe Blair and think for people to condemn Thatcher as the worst PM ever, when her (perceived) crimes have nothing on Tony's, is infuriating.

 

I disagree. Look at today's front pages - mixed reaction from the left, blanket adulation from the right. Can you honestly imagine the Guardian being so gushing about Blair, let alone the Telegraph?

Now I own my own house

 

Good for you, but this is exactly what I mean about our selfish culture post-Thatcher. I'm ok, don't really give a sh*t about anybody else though.

Can we try not to compare Margaret Thatcher to brutal dictators who slaughtered millions of their own people (Hitler, Stalin et al). She's most definitely not as bad as they were, regardless of her actions, and unnecessary hyperbole is never helpful.

 

I'm not too sure where exactly I stand on Margaret Thatcher. I was only a few months old when she was ousted from power, so have no real experience of living under her regime. My parents however are unequivocal in their feelings for her (with my father comparing her to the Grand Wizard of the KKK).

 

What's interesting from my perspective is that she was hated by both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. The nationalists hated her for her actions against the Hunger Strikers, allowing them to starve themselves to death, including a sitting MP. Unionists on the other hand hated her for signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which gave the Republic a say in the future of Northern Ireland, paving the way for the Good Friday Agreement.

 

So I guess I'm somewhere in the negative in regards to Thatcher, although nowhere near the venom that some people have towards her.

There's a big difference between the likes of James Dyson who has something tangible he can point to as an achievement and senior executives who award themselves massive pay rises every year regardless of the performance of their company and then go on to award themselves massive bonuses as well. Before Thatcher came to power, senior executives justified their large salaries (which were tiny by today's standards) by pointing to the top rate of tax of 83%. What happened when the top tax rate was cut to 60%? They awarded themselves huge pay rises. They did the same when the rate was cut from 60% to 40%. Yes, it is true that, to some extent they had previously rewarded themselves in different ways that allowed them to avoid tax. However, they didn't give up those extras when they increased their salary.

 

The ratio between pay at the top of a company and the bottom was around ten to one in the late 70s. Now it is more like 100 to one.

 

I'm not saying some people aren't grossly overpaid as some may be underpaid but if some banker or consultant is earning 500k a year, it may be extortionate but I just don't believe that if any of us were offered similar jobs we would say no to the big salary. Its about doing the best for the people you care about.

 

I currently work for a multi millionaire as Personal Assistant, he could afford to pay me much more and not even miss it. A small rise would make a huge difference to me. However I don't come home every night and resent what he has. He works all the hours god sends and never sees his family and when on holiday never relaxes and constantly calls the office. Quite frankly I'd rather be me. Money isn't everything. A cliche but its true.

My thoughts on some of the things said so far:

 

A) I think people seem to be confusing indecisiveness with pragmatism. Having one belief and sticking with it isn't indicative of strength more than one is blinkered or stubborn. Thatcher genuinely thought the Poll Tax was a good idea and pushed the policy through to the objection of many of her own party. A better leader would have dropped the policy when they saw the signs rather than charging ahead

 

B) The worst element of Thatchers legacy, in my eyes, is the creation of a society that not only cares only for money and posessions but also demonises the poor (If you haven't read 'Chavs' by Owen Jones, please do!). Thatcher's rhetoric about striking unions ect being 'The enemy within' and the like has really permeated through into the mainstream that people on benefits ect are "lazy scroungers who have eight children each by different fathers" rather than victims of circumstances beyond their control.

 

P.S. I might have not been around whilst she was in government but I did get 93% on an exam about her time in office so I think I've got enough knowledge to comment on this.

 

And for the record, my opinion on Blair is pretty much identical to my opinion on Thatcher. I abhor both of them.

Good for you, but this is exactly what I mean about our selfish culture post-Thatcher. I'm ok, don't really give a sh*t about anybody else though.

 

Excuse me?? Maybe you should read the whole post. I am not living the life of Reilly far from it. Because I worked hard from nothing and own my own house I don't care? How ridiculous. I care about people that struggle in low paid jobs and get no help but not about people who choose to have multiple children they can't pay for.

 

If I'm selfish for working hard and earning my keep, what is sitting on your backside while others pay for your irresponsibility?

 

Society is warped!

This as always is not a black and white issue.

 

I agree in the main "rich" people tended to like Thatcher but its by no means exclusive. My family were very "working class" and my Dad was unemployed for many years under her reign but he admired her strength greatly and her "Lady is not for turning" attitude.

 

Frankly I prefer someone who sticks to what they believe in even if I disagree with it, than the MP's of today who change their mind at the drop of a hat when some group or other gets offended by their view. I didn't agree with much of what she did but like most Political parties now there isn't one that I agree with entirely. I don't think things are that black and white. Also as someone has previously mentioned, young people nowadays who vote for the same party as their father etc etc just because of class need to think outside the box a bit more and actually look at the issues.

 

I don't like politics of envy and I have no problem with someone who makes something of themselves and gets rich. The vulnerable need looking after yes, but people need to help themselves also and take some personal responsibility. I was made redundant recently after almost 18 years but I don't see that as the governments fault, I had to look for another job, its the way of the world. There is no such thing as jobs for life and why would you keep an industry going in its not making money? Times Change.

 

I guess what I'm saying is people STILL blaming Mrs Thatcher for their woes so many years later really shouldn't be. Its not her fault if you choose to have kids that you can't afford to keep etc and expect the taxpayer to pay for them. One of many examples of a society we live in where no one seems to be responsible and others have to pick up that tab.

 

I won't lose any sleep over her passing but I think some of what I have read on social network sites is absolutely disgusting and says more about the people posting it than it did about her.

 

There were certainly SOME poor people supported her, but they really were the minority by any measure.

 

I think, from what I've heard, at the time she did get quite a lot of support from working-class retired people (because they were unaffected by the mass unemployment she caused), which is why she was able to win quite a lot of seats in working-class areas. But since then, most of those people have died off, and the young people who are replacing them in poor areas grew up with Thatcher's legacy all around them and basically have it ingrained them that she was evil, while the new generation of retirees haven't forgotten what she did. Which is why, in political terms, Thatcher's greatest legacy is making it close to (not completely) impossible for the Conservatives to win an election.

 

 

I find any comparison with Stalin et al quite ludicrous and find it difficult to take seriously anybody making that argument. Let's compare like for like, rather than a divisive leader without an evil dictator. I think she is best compared to Reagan. Similar policies, ideologies and leadership ability.

 

What makes me really angry is that people have so much loathing for Thatcher, but no doubt when Blair dies he will be remembered as a hero rather than the outrageous bullshitter of a war criminal he is. Whatever you thought about Thatcher, at least she was open and honest about her intentions. That Blair deliberately deceived us into going to war and is still profiting from that deceit, making millions from giving talks around the world, makes me quite ill. But the sheep-like public can only make simple associations like "right wing = evil" and "left = jolly lovely". I probably sound very right wing myself now. I'm not. I just loathe Blair and think for people to condemn Thatcher as the worst PM ever, when her (perceived) crimes have nothing on Tony's, is infuriating.

 

 

I'm sorry, but this isn't true either. I mean, in Thatcher's first election, the centrepiece of her campaign was that unemployment at the time was much too high ("Labour Isn't Working" with a picture of a dole queue obviously being the famous poster) and that she would bring it down, when in reality she was planning to make it rocket!

B) The worst element of Thatchers legacy, in my eyes, is the creation of a society that not only cares only for money and posessions but also demonises the poor (If you haven't read 'Chavs' by Owen Jones, please do!). Thatcher's rhetoric about striking unions ect being 'The enemy within' and the like has really permeated through into the mainstream that people on benefits ect are "lazy scroungers who have eight children each by different fathers" rather than victims of circumstances beyond their control.

Not buying this. The demonising of benefit 'scroungers' in the press is a much more recent phenomenon, as in post-2000. And this is more reflective of the political ideology behind the right wing press than it is of the people's opinions about the poor. The only people demonising the poor are the ones who believe everything the Sun and the Daily Mail tell them. Thatcher isn't responsible for that.

 

In a roundabout way Thatcher's opinion of the poor/the working classes was actually in line with the core values of Labour - that is that life is or should be a meritocracy, hard work rewarded by success etc. She came from a working class background herself, she was not a silver spoon case. I don't believe any of her political actions represented a hatred or contempt for the poor whatsoever.

 

Not buying this. The demonising of benefit 'scroungers' in the press is a much more recent phenomenon, as in post-2000. And this is more reflective of the political ideology behind the right wing press than it is of the people's opinions about the poor. The only people demonising the poor are the ones who believe everything the Sun and the Daily Mail tell them. Thatcher isn't responsible for that.

 

In a roundabout way Thatcher's opinion of the poor/the working classes was actually in line with the core values of Labour - that is that life is or should be a meritocracy, hard work rewarded by success etc. She came from a working class background herself, she was not a silver spoon case. I don't believe any of her political actions represented a hatred or contempt for the poor whatsoever.

 

Very nicely put.

One of the most annoying things I've personally found about this whole thing is the amount of uninformed teenagers who don't know anything about Thatcher and the politics of the 80s but are celebrating her death because they've been taught to hate her or they're merely following the crowd.

This is winding me up too, but from another perspective. I know absolutely zero about Margaret Thatcher, and I don't claim to - the amount of statuses I've seen in the past 24 hours is bizarre from people who you just know, really don't have much of a clue, aside from their parents.

Excuse me?? Maybe you should read the whole post. I am not living the life of Reilly far from it. Because I worked hard from nothing and own my own house I don't care? How ridiculous. I care about people that struggle in low paid jobs and get no help but not about people who choose to have multiple children they can't pay for.

 

If I'm selfish for working hard and earning my keep, what is sitting on your backside while others pay for your irresponsibility?

 

Society is warped!

 

Apologies, but the tone of your post suggested that because you had done ok from Thatcher's policies, that you weren't concerned about others that are willing to work and are where you once were, but unable to afford a house or pay the bills. I didn't say anything about those who refuse to work not being selfish - but we should be careful not to demonise everyone who is unemployed like hate propaganda machine Daily F(M)ail

Apologies, but the tone of your post suggested that because you had done ok from Thatcher's policies, that you weren't concerned about others that are willing to work and are where you once were, but unable to afford a house or pay the bills. I didn't say anything about those who refuse to work not being selfish - but we should be careful not to demonise everyone who is unemployed like hate propaganda machine Daily F(M)ail

 

No worries. I didn't mean that. I just meant that from the background I had, if I could buy my own house etc, others could too. Mainly in response to comments about Thatcher making it impossible for many to afford housing.

 

I was unemployed for 6 months in between jobs and it was stressful as because I own my home and have made sacrifices and effort I got very little help. While other who never contribute get looked after. I just think things should be fair. I'm not a fan of a certain section who almost frown upon people who do the right thing. My main point is that hard work and sacrifice should pay off and there nothing wrong with wanting better for my children than I had for me.

 

When I was unemployed, I saw many things, like the people signing on the same time as me regularly arranging to go the pub afterwards, while I was applying for 20 jobs a day. I saw other genuinely wanting to find work. Like I said in my original post its complex.

My parents have never shaped my political views for me. I've come up with my own conclusions myself.

 

Some people have done well because of Thatcher's policies and some people have not. It's interesting to see that the people who do not support Thatcher are much more outspoken than the people who do support her.

I'm not saying some people aren't grossly overpaid as some may be underpaid but if some banker or consultant is earning 500k a year, it may be extortionate but I just don't believe that if any of us were offered similar jobs we would say no to the big salary. Its about doing the best for the people you care about.

 

I currently work for a multi millionaire as Personal Assistant, he could afford to pay me much more and not even miss it. A small rise would make a huge difference to me. However I don't come home every night and resent what he has. He works all the hours god sends and never sees his family and when on holiday never relaxes and constantly calls the office. Quite frankly I'd rather be me. Money isn't everything. A cliche but its true.

But that culture of presenteeism is another problem today. There are plenty of times when it would be more effective to employ five people doing 40 hours per week raather than four people doing 50 hours. It also hardly fits in with "family values" if one parent hardly ever sees their family. As for phoning the office when supposely on holiday, unless it's a very small company, that could be said to show a lack of confidence in the people who are meant to be running the company in his absence.

No worries. I didn't mean that. I just meant that from the background I had, if I could buy my own house etc, others could too. Mainly in response to comments about Thatcher making it impossible for many to afford housing.

 

I was unemployed for 6 months in between jobs and it was stressful as because I own my home and have made sacrifices and effort I got very little help. While other who never contribute get looked after. I just think things should be fair. I'm not a fan of a certain section who almost frown upon people who do the right thing. My main point is that hard work and sacrifice should pay off and there nothing wrong with wanting better for my children than I had for me.

 

When I was unemployed, I saw many things, like the people signing on the same time as me regularly arranging to go the pub afterwards, while I was applying for 20 jobs a day. I saw other genuinely wanting to find work. Like I said in my original post its complex.

 

Ok, yes sorry for the huge assumption. I think we share the same view ultimately - though we probably disagree about the way Thatcher went about it. It is frustrating isn't it, but in order to have a fair society I think it is a necessary part of it sadly? Like for instance we pay every month through taxes to fund the NHS and I may ultimately never end up really needing it through my life, but I have no problem paying into it in order that those who can't afford care can be looked after and helped when they genuinely need it most... unfortunately we therefore have to put up with this money being used at the expense of fat people using stomach belt operations or those with heart/liver problems brought about by their unhealthy lifestyles.

Edited April 9, 201312 yr by Doctor Blind

There were certainly SOME poor people supported her, but they really were the minority by any measure.

 

I think, from what I've heard, at the time she did get quite a lot of support from working-class retired people (because they were unaffected by the mass unemployment she caused), which is why she was able to win quite a lot of seats in working-class areas. But since then, most of those people have died off, and the young people who are replacing them in poor areas grew up with Thatcher's legacy all around them and basically have it ingrained them that she was evil, while the new generation of retirees haven't forgotten what she did. Which is why, in political terms, Thatcher's greatest legacy is making it close to (not completely) impossible for the Conservatives to win an election.

I'm sorry, but this isn't true either. I mean, in Thatcher's first election, the centrepiece of her campaign was that unemployment at the time was much too high ("Labour Isn't Working" with a picture of a dole queue obviously being the famous poster) and that she would bring it down, when in reality she was planning to make it rocket!

The increasingly upwardly mobile nature of the working classes fromt eh 80s onwards shows that many in the working classes considerably benefited from Thatcherism (my family included) and to suggest that somehow she PLANNED to make unemployment rocket is ill advised to say the least. In what world would this be politically a good thing? In fact it proved to very damaging and salvaged only by the Faulklands.

Ok, yes sorry for the huge assumption. I think we share the same view ultimately - though we probably disagree about the way Thatcher went about it. It is frustrating isn't it, but in order to have a fair society I think it is a necessary part of it sadly? Like for instance we pay every month through taxes to fund the NHS and I may ultimately never end up really needing it through my life, but I have no problem paying into it in order that those who can't afford care can be looked after and helped when they genuinely need it most... unfortunately we therefore have to put up with this money being used at the expense of fat people using stomach belt operations or those with heart/liver problems brought about by their unhealthy lifestyles.

 

Its ok :) Yes I can relate to most of that. I always said I wouldn't have a problem paying more taxes if the money was going to the best causes (imo more teachers, health care, further education etc) but I get resentful of people who take take take and think the world owes them a living. You should contribute to society as a whole. As I said I am a divorced single parent and sometimes I am so exhausted I can't see straight and would love to be home when my kids come home from school and not being going shopping at 6pm, cooking and cleaning an hour later and doing the same day in day out. Its hard. But ultimately I would rather do that and show my kids the right way to go and that work pays and there is a good feeling that when you achieve something its from your own hard work.

But that culture of presenteeism is another problem today. There are plenty of times when it would be more effective to employ five people doing 40 hours per week raather than four people doing 50 hours. It also hardly fits in with "family values" if one parent hardly ever sees their family. As for phoning the office when supposely on holiday, unless it's a very small company, that could be said to show a lack of confidence in the people who are meant to be running the company in his absence.

 

Yes I agree some people work far too many hours. Its about balance.

 

The job I was previously made redundant from took my work (and there was plenty) and shared it around much higher paid people giving them even more stress and making them less productive. All they cared about though was saving money not the welfare of their employees.

 

Yes the Company I work for is relatively small (15 ppl or so) and the Boss is a complete control freak and workaholic. Not what I'm used to being previously working for a huge retail company where I had much more freedom to make decisions.

The increasingly upwardly mobile nature of the working classes fromt eh 80s onwards shows that many in the working classes considerably benefited from Thatcherism (my family included) and to suggest that somehow she PLANNED to make unemployment rocket is ill advised to say the least. In what world would this be politically a good thing? In fact it proved to very damaging and salvaged only by the Faulklands.

 

Whether or not her policies helped the working-class in the long-term is a different issue. But, in the short term, it was never in doubt that her policies were going to result in a sharp increase in unemployment for atleast several years, and so I don't see how it could be described as anything other than dishonest to base a whole election campaign around a promise to do the exact opposite. They would later say that short-term unemployment was a "price worth paying" for the supposed long-term benefits (which I would argue against), but she certainly wasn't upfront about it before she started it.

Edited April 9, 201312 yr by Danny