The people who suffered in the regions did not do so solely on the basis of state subsidies that were withdrawn. What you apparently fail to appreciate is that the swingeing hatchet-job she took to the economy after 1979 hurt competitive industry as well as uncompetitive industry as her over-tight squeeze on spending dragged the economy into depression. Recession was already guaranteed due to the 1979 energy crisis, but the tight squeeze made it much worse and forced out of business companies that would have made it through otherwise.
Nothing but leftist hyperbole. Industrial output and manufacturing rose exponentially under Thatcher. Even coal output was higher when she left office, despite the pit closures. It's a wonder what you can do when you trim the fat.
I guess you liked the fat subsidies under Wilson though, eh comrade? When are you moving to Greece?
I'm not a student of history, well what the hell are you a student of if you think that Thatcher was a supporter of gay rights?
That is one of the most laughable comments on here. I can see why people praise her for privatisation, smashing the unions, etc (i profoundly disagree with them, but they are legitimate points of view) but gay rights? apart from anything else, if you were a student of politics, you'd know that the path of section 28/clause 2A started in 1979 and was only formalised in law in the late 80s. unless you're saying that thatcher was especially vulnerable throughout her reign, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Only if you are uneducated. Thatcher was one of a small handful of Conservative MPs to vote in favour of decriminalising homosexuality in the '60s. She was a young, female politician and it was not a smart career move. It was a commendable act of bravery and shows that it was a matter she felt strongly on.
In the 1980s she was under a great deal of pressure from Knight and the back bench to support the Section 28 bill in the face of the AIDS epidemic. It was not something she proposed, but if she had not supported it then she would have caused ructions with the great majority of her party.
I see that you quote the daily mail to back up your point of view. this is the same newspaper who called out the labour-led council which provided such progressive books as "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin" in school libraries and then ridiculed them and passed them off as perverts, etc.
I posted it because of the facts it contained. Unless you dispute the facts the publication it comes out of is irrelevant, because it is not an opinion piece.
But since you mention it, I don't suppose you have noticed that 3 of every 4 critical opinion pieces about Thatcher that have been posted in this thread are from the Guardian? Didn't think so.
as for the falklands, i know exactly how the war started, and sure, thatcher took advantage of argentina's actions for her own ends, but essentially she went to war over nothing of consequence except the last dregs of the empire. she then cosied up to pinochet and brought forward the general election to 1983 to capitalise on the jingoism (and downright racist nationalism) that the war provided.
Yes, how dare she authorise a strike on a squadron of ships that were moving upon British sovereign territory with hostile intent, in violation of prior warnings during a heightened state of military confrontation.
I suppose you would have rolled out the red carpet for them.
I like that 1. you admit that entire regions suffered under her and that 2. you say it like it's some sort of revelation that it's the people she harmed that don't like her.
And here is demonstrated the shitty logic used by all of your ilk.
Just because they suffered under her doesn't mean that she should be blamed. The fate of the North was preordained. She merely administered the coup de grace.
Not to mention that saying that "the North had to take its medicine" as if it was a one-time spoonful of distasteful policy that magically fixed the disease is BS. Entire communities still suffer to this day; The Economist (a US publication that is nowhere close to being left-wing or even center-left) just last year referred to Thatcher and the role she played in exacerbating the Glasgow effect and the increased income inequality her tenure ushered in.
You cannot make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. England was in cardiac arrest in 1979. Drastic action was needed. The North suffered so badly because for two decades previously, governments had fiddled while Rome burned. Uneconomic coal mines alone were costing the country over a billion pounds a year, and the unions were demanding 10% pay rises.
Thatcher could have dealt with the North less harshly but it would have been at the expense of the overall economy. That was something Britain could ill afford.
Yup, not to mention that Thatcherism led directly to the economic collapse of 2008.
Well, I guess if you are going to grasp at straws you may as well make them the big ones.