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.

I'd like to see a party running on "vote for us and unemployment will rocket" ticket, a period of transition from public to private sectors will always result in a spike in unemployment as the creation of "new jobs" is beyond the government's direct control (unlike vice versa), it may be true that they anticipated an increase (though not to the extent that it produced) I wasn't there so I can't categorically say either way, but I don't think any political party runs on a platform of nothing but the truth, and certainly the 83 and 87 election were considerably more upfront than the 79 one and they resulted in landslides. Unemployment is NEVER an election winner though, though what we've seen since 1997 has been a policy to promise less before you get in and then you can't be called out on your promises- is that better?

On a side note- Perspectives forum OFFICIALLY ALIVE AND WELL! :D

Her reputation as an election winner is slightly warped, '79 is one thing but '83 and '87 were entirely reliant upon a split opposition - and obviously the Falklands with the former. It's hard to argue that she was crushingly popular, despite the parliamentary majorities.

I'd like to see a party running on "vote for us and unemployment will rocket" ticket, a period of transition from public to private sectors will always result in a spike in unemployment as the creation of "new jobs" is beyond the government's direct control (unlike vice versa), it may be true that they anticipated an increase (though not to the extent that it produced) I wasn't there so I can't categorically say either way, but I don't think any political party runs on a platform of nothing but the truth, and certainly the 83 and 87 election were considerably more upfront than the 79 one and they resulted in landslides. Unemployment is NEVER an election winner though, though what we've seen since 1997 has been a policy to promise less before you get in and then you can't be called out on your promises- is that better?

Landslides won on a LOWER share of the vote than they got in 1979. They were entirely due to a split opposition, not Tory popularity. The manifesto may have been more upfront but their campaigns in both 1983 and '87 were based almost entirely on the record of the 1974-79 Labour government.

I'd like to see a party running on "vote for us and unemployment will rocket" ticket, a period of transition from public to private sectors will always result in a spike in unemployment as the creation of "new jobs" is beyond the government's direct control (unlike vice versa), it may be true that they anticipated an increase (though not to the extent that it produced) I wasn't there so I can't categorically say either way, but I don't think any political party runs on a platform of nothing but the truth, and certainly the 83 and 87 election were considerably more upfront than the 79 one and they resulted in landslides. Unemployment is NEVER an election winner though, though what we've seen since 1997 has been a policy to promise less before you get in and then you can't be called out on your promises- is that better?

 

Absolutely, but I was disputing the idea that she was "whatever you thought of her, atleast she was honest about what she was going to do". In reality, she was no different to Blair and all of today's politicians when it comes to misleading people, the '79 election being one example of that.

Edited April 9, 201312 yr by Danny

Landslides won on a LOWER share of the vote than they got in 1979. They were entirely due to a split opposition, not Tory popularity. The manifesto may have been more upfront but their campaigns in both 1983 and '87 were based almost entirely on the record of the 1974-79 Labour government.

As you know she got more people to vote for her in 1987 than in 1979 and percentage wise it was negligible in decline. That the Labour party produced a joke of a manifesto in 1983 has been well documentated which helped that year undeniably, I don't argue that she was phenomenally popular but that to imply that she was somehow foisted on the UK population who didn't want her is also a lie- 13 million voters in each election voted for her, and more in 79 and 87 than voted for Blair in 1997

Absolutely, but I was disputing the idea that she was "whatever you thought of her, atleast she was honest about what she was going to do". In reality, she was no different to Blair and all of today's politicians when it comes to misleading people, the '79 election being one example of that.

Ah I see! Politicians do tend to "omit" rather than "lie" I'm sure they'd say but your right. I think what people are probably referring to is that you knew what she believed in and the philosophy of life that she was endorsing

As you know she got more people to vote for her in 1987 than in 1979 and percentage wise it was negligable in decline. That the Labour produced a joke of a manifesto in 1983 has been well documentated which helped that year undeniably, I don't argue that she was phenomenally popular but that to imply that she was somehow foisted on the UK population who didn't want her is also a lie- 13 million voters in each election voted for her, and more in 79 and 87 than voted for Blair in 1997

Given variations in the size of the electorate and turnout, the share of the vote is far more relevant than the number of votes. Six successive elections saw the winning party win between about 41 and 43% of the vote and gain majorities of 42, 144, 100, 21, 179 and 165. Pretty bonkers system really.

Yes exactly! There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of that opportunity. I came from a family of Del boys who took everything they could from the system, refused to work and I had hand me downs and sometimes nothing to eat. At 20, I bought my first home after working for two years with my future husband. I was earning 6.000 at the time and him not much more. If I could do that, on my low wage, I fail to see how Thatcher was responsible for people not being able to buy homes etc. Now I own my own house and I'm a single parent working full time to keep it. I get sick of people blaming others for everything they don't have. Now its an old lady who was ousted over 20 years ago! I'm not saying everyone can find the job they want but choices can be made by the individual that can prevent more pain. Economics can dictate but its a joint responsibility. It annoys me that someone like me is classified with the "haves" when its still a struggle to pay the bills etc and all I hear is about the so called less well off who don't work for years and get their bills paid and when they are asked to take some responsibility, we are told they are hitting the "vulnerable".

 

The latest "forcing people to live on £53 a week" headline was testament to the above and how things are twisted to suit an agenda.

 

Sorry its that's a little off topic.

Hang on there. The difference between then and now is immeasurable. I currently earn way in excess of what you were earning and I have absolutely no chance of getting on the housing ladder. Banks were ready to take more chances with lending and property prices were much lower. Now when did the property boom happen and why did it happen? Because the policies of a certain government sold off housing and encouraged home ownership, driving up prices until we get to the property market we have today. And then the banks aren't lending because of what happened in the financial crash, the seeds of which were sown during which government. You were just lucky, along with Gezza's parents, to buy at just the right time.

 

It's not just about the black and white of the workers and the scroungers. There are plenty of working people who a snowball's chance in hell of owning a house. These are as much the people who are getting hit now by this idiotic current government, the percentage of the population who are living off credit just to make ends meet.

Oh and who was responsible for driving people off unemployment benefit and onto incapacity benefit so the figures didn't look quite as bad as they should have, another factor in the establishment of dole culture and the current "scrounger" class.

 

I detest the policies this woman brought upon this country. She was deluded and blinkered to the extreme. And this country will not be free of her legacy for quite some time.

Even voting percentages are misleading. Labour voters in safe Labour seats are less likely to vote than Tory voters in safe Tory seats, so the figures naturally skew towards the Tories.

 

Regardless, I think it's dismissive to regard the 1983 Labour manifesto as a joke. It was undoubtedly brave, perhaps a little naive but it could have easily seen them elected in differing circumstances and set a new political agenda as Thatcherism did.

Hang on there. The difference between then and now is immeasurable. I currently earn way in excess of what you were earning and I have absolutely no chance of getting on the housing ladder. Banks were ready to take more chances with lending and property prices were much lower. Now when did the property boom happen and why did it happen? Because the policies of a certain government sold off housing and encouraged home ownership, driving up prices until we get to the property market we have today. And then the banks aren't lending because of what happened in the financial crash, the seeds of which were sown during which government. You were just lucky, along with Gezza's parents, to buy at just the right time.

 

It's not just about the black and white of the workers and the scroungers. There are plenty of working people who a snowball's chance in hell of owning a house. These are as much the people who are getting hit now by this idiotic current government, the percentage of the population who are living off credit just to make ends meet.

Yes but those parents now have houses to hand to their children which otherwise they wouldn't have had.

 

mortgages were heavily regulated pre the 80s so in fact the opportunity to own your house was limited in different ways.

 

I don't quite understand this argument of "selling off houses" if those houses had not been sold off then the same council tenants would probably be sitting in them now (or their children/ family) so houses were not "lost" they were kept in families just as they would have been had it been left in the states hands. Also my parents were no luckier than any other parents around at the time, some took the opportunity and some did not, it still meant my parents taking on a mortgage which was just as big a commitment then as it is now (having just recently bought my first house recently I know what a massive worry this is but hey ho)

Even voting percentages are misleading. Labour voters in safe Labour seats are less likely to vote than Tory voters in safe Tory seats, so the figures naturally skew towards the Tories.

 

Regardless, I think it's dismissive to regard the 1983 Labour manifesto as a joke. It was undoubtedly brave, perhaps a little naive but it could have easily seen them elected in differing circumstances and set a new political agenda as Thatcherism did.

I got the quote wrong it was "the longest suicide note in history" from Gerald Kaufman- my apols

Yes but those parents now have houses to hand to their children which otherwise they wouldn't have had.

 

mortgages were heavily regulated pre the 80s so in fact the opportunity to own your house was limited in different ways.

 

I don't quite understand this argument of "selling off houses" if those houses had not been sold off then the same council tenants would probably be sitting in them now (or their children/ family) so houses were not "lost" they were kept in families just as they would have been had it been left in the states hands. Also my parents were no luckier than any other parents around at the time, some took the opportunity and some did not, it still meant my parents taking on a mortgage which was just as big a commitment then as it is now (having just recently bought my first house recently I know what a massive worry this is but hey ho)

Yeah mortgages were heavily regulated pre 80s but the rules were relaxed during the 80s weren't they?

 

No but the selling off resulted in less social housing as Maggie stopped councils building more, resulting in more people privately renting with housing benefit footing the bill. The lack of available housing will always drive prices up so contributing to the house bubble. And with the Tories accelerating demand due to their policies/beliefs, the bubble just grew and grew as people got greedy.

 

TBH I think it's more of a commitment than ever before to own your home.

 

EDIT: Mortgages were deregulated in 82.

Yeah mortgages were heavily regulated pre 80s but the rules were relaxed during the 80s weren't they?

 

No but the selling off resulted in less social housing as Maggie stopped councils building more, resulting in more people privately renting with housing benefit footing the bill. The lack of available housing will always drive prices up so contributing to the house bubble. And with the Tories accelerating demand due to their policies/beliefs, the bubble just grew and grew as people got greedy.

 

TBH I think it's more of a commitment than ever before to own your home.

 

EDIT: Mortgages were deregulated in 82.

It would be foolish to argue that not building new council houses to replace the ones sold off wasn't ideological, any more or less so than the decision to build them in the first place. The whole premise of Thatcherism was that people shouldn't rely on the state (or to the least degree possible) and be responsible for their own decisions, hence council houses were seen as part of the problem re nanny state. What has also driven prices up is the deep desire within the national conciousness that to own your own place is something which we should all aspire to (and obviously one I've fallen for!), indeed this seems to be an aspiration which the British public took too very eagerly. That more houses need to be built is not in question, the flooding of the market should assist in prices going down naturally but with some 70% of the population owning their houses there is a hefty majority who would (openly or not) oppose such a move.

Even voting percentages are misleading. Labour voters in safe Labour seats are less likely to vote than Tory voters in safe Tory seats, so the figures naturally skew towards the Tories.

Very true. That's why the claim that the current constituency boundaries discriminate against the Tories is highly misleading. The turnout in some ultra-safe Labour seats tends to be pitifully low while many safe Tory seats still get very respectable turnouts.

I got the quote wrong it was "the longest suicide note in history" from Gerald Kaufman- my apols

I know the quote, and the fact that it's coming from a Labour man doesn't mean it's true - Blairism and revisionism go hand in hand, after all.

I know the quote, and the fact that it's coming from a Labour man doesn't mean it's true - Blairism and revisionism go hand in hand, after all.

The 1983 manifesto was a disaster though. However much you may agree with some (or all) of it, it could hardly have been better designed to go against national opinion at the time.

The 1983 manifesto was a disaster though. However much you may agree with some (or all) of it, it could hardly have been better designed to go against national opinion at the time.

Be that as it may, was it that different from what Foot and co had been saying all the way through that first term with a huge opinion poll lead?

After several years of factory jobs and unemployment, I and all of the generations of the rest of my family moved south out of necessity. Not everyone has that option in devastated communities and the south would soon explode if everyone tried to do the same.

 

Right To Buy: obviously if the taxpayer just gave you £70000 (this IS the current discount rate round the South coast) for nothing you would be very happy. I dont see why the taxpayer should be paying for something that is NOT free market. The free market house-owners get no support from the taxpayer, Right To Buy is and always was being used to buy votes. This is not in any way as a result of working hard and just rewards, its a free gift. End of.

 

Thatcher supporters should give people some credit and come up with some concrete long-lasting benefits to society rather than just call everyone who doesnt agree a stroppy leftie. There's a long list of cuirrent massive problems which can be traced back to her: not the unions. Her. The unions damage was reversed in 5 to 10 years. The current damage wont be fixed for 10 to 20, if even then.

 

As for my Falklands innuendo, tthats all it is. High risk strategy?, probably she didnt do it on purpose. She was just an idiot for pulling out the navy in a high risk area. Either way she didnt look very good at political leadership decisions on the world stage.....

 

 

 

 

Oh and incidentally THIS! :D

 

My parents were also working class, came from Scotland and had to move to move south to England to find employment, bought their council house thanks to Thatcher and even bought some shares in the privatisation whilst all the time being labour supporters and calling her all the names under the sun. I suspect they weren't the only ones- and probably some of the same people who are being so derogatory now, my mother admitted in much later years that without that break she probably would never have been able to buy a house, they now have a fair better legacy to leave to their children.

 

 

It was all about a change in mindset under the radical right wing - she took all her views from the chicago school of economics and Hayek and Friedmann - new liberalism instead of keynesian state driven economics this led to a more individualistic society in comparison to a greater collective post war society the positives were more entrepreneurial and creative society but less equal.

 

I personally would rather the collective more equal society as they are more harmonious. This quote from the Guardian sums it up for me -

 

"Her legacy is of public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed, which together shackle far more of the human spirit than they ever set free"

 

Amazing quote imo