Margaret Thatcher Thread - Read the first post before posting

[Lotusflower]

I'm just using forum language

 

Mmmm, very Freudian!

[poppet2]

Why is you don't profess to be a fan? What reasons are you not a fan?

 

See my posts 87, 102, 116, 155, & 163.

[Lotusflower]

I will say one thing for this thread...it is certainly proof positive of what a divisive woman she was.

[fishy_taste]

 

Oh dear, another typical uninformed post. All based on 'wot it sez in the SUN'

For Christs sake, THINK !!! Use a little grey matter. Are you allowed out on your own ???

 

So, are you saying everything was rosy in the garden of England before she came to power? There were no strikes by numerous Unions? There was no 3 day week? There was no 33% income tax (and no concessions for the low-paid)?

 

I must have lived in a parallel universe back then and read and been taught the wrong history at school. Perhaps I should have used the Comrade Janet and John abridged version of British history, written by the great historian Hans Christen Anderson.

 

Only the myopic could defend the mess that Britain was in towards the end of the 1970's and ony the brainwashed could refute that militant unions had anything whatsoever to do with the state of the nation at that time.

 

Some may or may not agree with Thatcher's policies, but I defy anyone who lived through the 1970's to say, without conviction and sincerity that Britain was a truly great country to live in then - unless you were a member of a union or, more importantly, a union leader.

 

I see, despite the hardship in 1984-85, Arthur Scargill did alright out of it. Home and flat paid for by the NUM. His members might have suffered, but he sure as hell made sure he did not. So much for being all in it together.

 

I think, I read and I don't read the Sun (or The Mirror). I read various accounts of events written by those pro and those against. I take views and opinions from all sides before coming to my conclusions.

 

So, give the rest of us the benefit of your profound and unbiased wisdom - as you appear to know the truth (your version of...)

[skinz]

She divided the country by appealing to people's greed. But you could say that applied to all those people who voted for her because they believed in her policy of buying your council home. I notice New Labour didn't change this policy.

Wonder why that was?

 

 

What an epitaph. And you think she had balls because of this..or something else?

Edited April 10, 2013 by skinz

[mikem8634]

I can happily accept that Thatcher improved the lives of those that support her legacy. That seems logical, why else would they support her?

 

The problem I have with it is that she did it at the expense of so many cities and communities.

 

I don't doubt that some changes were necessary but a truly skilled politician would have presented a solution that catered for, as far as possible, all of the people, and not simply cut vast swathes adrift without comprehensive frameworks of support to foster adaptation and reintegration into the new model.

 

If you benefitted from Thatcherism can you accept that others were decimated by it?

[El Cid]

Can we have a Government that does not devide the country? We still have a 2 party political system, so its bound to devide, we just have the Liberal Democrats in the middle with sensible policies

[fishy_taste]

I wonder how many who criticise her do so from the council house they now own or bought at a vastly reduced market rate and sold on for a handsome profit, and used the profit to buy shares in various companies or buy a larger house or to start up their own business; who work and pay low income tax?

 

When you analyse, from an objective point of view (rather than an emotive, die-hard socialist/neo-communist perspective) and list the policies her govt's instigated that had a positive effect on the lives of many over a longer period of time, I get the feeling it will be a little like The Life of Brian and the 'what did the Roman's ever do for us'...!

 

Judging by many blogs, forums and news reports, few can view Maggie with objectivity. Too much (negative) emotion.

Edited April 10, 2013 by fishy_taste

[mikem8634]

I wonder how many who criticise her do so from the council house they now own or bought at a vastly reduced market rate and sold on for a handsome profit, and used the profit to buy shares in various companies or buy a larger house or to start up their own business; who work and pay low income tax?

 

When you analyse, from an objective point of view (rather than an emotive, die-hard socialist/neo-communist perspective) and list the policies her govt's instigated that had a positive effect on the lives of many over a longer period of time, I get the feeling it will be a little like The Life of Brian and the 'what did the Roman's ever do for us'...!

 

Judging by many blogs, forums and news reports, few can view Marggie with objectivity. Too much (negative) emotion.

 

Let's see your list then and let's analyse it from an objective point of view.

[harvey19]

It's not about recouping the cost of building the property - it's about how councils provide housing for those who need it. With reduced levels of council housing, taxpayers end up paying more than they otherwise would to house people in private rented accommodation. Much of this is ex council properties that were sold at below replacement cost (let alone market value). Here's an example of that from Right to buy turns ex-council homes into buy-to-let 'goldmine':Read that carefully - taxpayers pay over four times a much to house people in ex-council flats. As a tax payer, do you think that's a good idea?

There's a difference between subsidising people who would otherwise have nowhere to live and selling council owned property at below value so people make an instant profit on it.

 

 

 

Not necessarily - see article linked to above.

 

Please answer my complete post and not just sections of it.