The results do indeed speak for themselves. Short term boom, long term bust. Fixing the immediate problem and sowing the seeds for the next, worse one.
Dribble. Blaming the failures of her successors on Thatcher is the height of peevishness.
Huge damage done to communities across the country which still have not recovered. Inequality wide, wider and widening. One time gains for the exchequer leading to long term problems for the people as they are gouged on housing, utilities and rail by private companies with no concern for the affordability of their services.
More dribble. The damage was done well before she came to power, the fate of the North was predestined. Wilson closed more mines than Thatcher. The writing was on the wall.
If anything, Thatcher did what could be done to revitalise the industry. She slowed the rate of decline in coal production and productivity increased exponentially.
What she did with the country she rescued was sow the seeds for more problems. The country was in a hell of a mess in 1990 when she was ejected by her own MPs from the office she loved.
Yet more dribble. Unemployment was steadily declining, manufacturing production was up, industrial production was up, productivity was up. The whole planet was in the grip of a recession but Britain was weathering it a hell of a lot better than most countries, and it was thanks to those achievements.
There were reasons why she was kicked out, a fact conveniently overlooked by her supporters.
The Community Charge. That's it. It was a massive mistake and she'd pinned her credibility to it. The only way for the Tories to win the next election was to dump it, and they couldn't dump it without dumping her.
And we can see now the long-term effects of the policies she instigated have been no less damaging to the country than the situation pre-1979 was. Then it was out of control unions, now it's out of control international corporations and finance. The only difference is, nobody is bothering to bring them under control, as Thatcher did with the unions.
More peevish rubbish. You realise there have been four Prime Ministers since Thatcher, right? Over a quarter of a century? And the bulk of that period has been governed by the left party?
That subsequent governments took similar policies to extremes is no indictment of Thatcher. The fact that you resort to citing such tangential rubbish shows that your arguments lack substance.
She denounced local education authorities for teaching children that 'they have an inalienable right to be gay.' Forced on her?
Section 28, outlawing a 'pretend family relationship.' Can government be anymore condescending? Section 28 had a devastating effect on a number of students at my school. A derogatory homophobic remark could be shouted and any teachers present were suddenly deaf. Homophobic bullying was rife and teachers ignored it in my first year and in my fifth. In RE classes at schhol we were taught the basics of the jewish faith, I ain't jewish. How can gay be taught?
Lord Halsbury, who was 'responsible' for this hateful law - 'Some homosexuals are suffering symptoms of promiscuity, exhibitionism & boasting of achievements.' 'Reservoirs' for VD.
If the homosexual part is ignored, in East Manchester this is known as lad culture.
1987 - Election campaign featured a billboard with a line of young men wearing badges such as 'Gay pride' and 'Gay sports day' with a slogan, 'This is Labour's camp. Do you want to live in it?.' Surely she approved the campaign?
She supported the campaign. The campaign was wrong. Where have I denied it? I am merely saying that her motives were more political than personal.
I find this as 'shocking' as Verd. 'the regions that suffered' - Yorkshire, Merseyside & Greater Manchester combined contain more people,
about a million more than all/self important (Gr)London? Of course few are aware of the fact as London dominates the UK like no other capital city (dominates their country) on earth.
It's not about the North, or the South, or Liverpool, or Manchester, or London. It's about the collective national interest.
What about the banking subsidies? The 90+ billion given to four UK banks in 2009 + 2010. 2011, another 30+ billion. Oh yeah they're not manufacturing industries & more importantly the SE would be affected.
See above. When you resort to criticising a PM for the acts of governments decades later, you're conceding you've not a leg to stand on.
Nobody intelligent enough to turn on a PC could possibly believe this garbage, so I am going to assume you're just a liar.
Strong argument. Your lack of substance is noted.