Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How would one describe Thatcher's Britain

Announcements Posted on
TSR wants you: get involved with Power Hour. 10-04-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    Ha! Take a look at the late 1970's, and ever heard of the Winter of Discontent? This 'great' nation was on the brink of collapse, and Thatcher saved it through a lot of radical changes that were needed at the time.

    Thatcher saved the UK, simple as.


    Nope, she simply set us up for a later fall that another future PM is going to have to deal with (arguably we are already trying to deal with it).
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azog 150)
    Nope, she simply set us up for a later fall that another future PM is going to have to deal with (arguably we are already trying to deal with it).
    Surely that can be said of anyone saving anything ever. I you save a child from drowning, it can be argued that you've merely set it up to die of something else later.

    Of course Thatcher didn't permanently save the UK, but she gave us a relatively stable economy which delivered over a decade of prosperity.
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Ah, thank you very much

    What I understand from what you wrote; Thatcher sees that if socialism were to go on, everyone would be eventually made poorer and the rich will be less rich because no progress would be made, just for the sake of equality over prosperity.

    Would that be correct?
    Essentially yes. The idea is that socialism would suffer universal poverty for the sake of universal equality, while Thatcher would rather some people be extremely rich, provided that nobody was starving.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Very divisive- ask anyone of my parents' generation and they either hated her or loved her.
    • 27 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Essentially yes. The idea is that socialism would suffer universal poverty for the sake of universal equality, while Thatcher would rather some people be extremely rich, provided that nobody was starving.
    "You have reached the limit of how many posts you can rate today!"
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Surely that can be said of anyone saving anything ever. I you save a child from drowning, it can be argued that you've merely set it up to die of something else later.

    Of course Thatcher didn't permanently save the UK, but she gave us a relatively stable economy which delivered over a decade of prosperity.



    She has made this country entirely reliant on the notoriously unreliable financial sector, which in turn is what left us very exposed to the financial crisis. Our over reliance on the financial sector and our lack of a manufacturing industry has also left us in a poor position to profit off of the growing BRIC economies.

    Not to mention all the unemployment black spots she left dotted about the country which are now home to a large underclass and generation after generation of people living off benefits. Prosperous indeed.

    Now I'm not saying she didn't bring a level of prosperity not seen in the 1970's, but the way in which she went about bringing it was incredibly short sighted.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    I was disappointed that you didn't go on. Please do =>
    Increased inequality, increased poverty, increased working hours (for the same or lower reward).
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Essentially yes. The idea is that socialism would suffer universal poverty for the sake of universal equality, while Thatcher would rather some people be extremely rich, provided that nobody was starving.
    Which would all sound great, if it weren't for the fact that poverty went up under Thatcher and only the rich got better off, and growth was slower than the post-war social democratic (NB: not socialist) period, which had also achieved relatively egalitarian growth.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Britain only survived financially by the skin of the teeth due to the receipts from North Sea Gas and Oil in thatcher's first term. Her first term was so disastrous that she had the lowest approval rating of all post world war 2 leaders. It was only by the fortune of the Falklands Conflicts which saved her, and even then it was down to the fact that America pressured the French into not arming the argentinians.

    And lets not forget the war crime she committed which was the sinking of the General Belgrano, a ship which was in international waters
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pogiberto)
    Britain only survived financially by the skin of the teeth due to the receipts from North Sea Gas and Oil in thatcher's first term. Her first term was so disastrous that she had the lowest approval rating of all post world war 2 leaders. It was only by the fortune of the Falklands Conflicts which saved her, and even then it was down to the fact that America pressured the French into not arming the argentinians.

    And lets not forget the war crime she committed which was the sinking of the General Belgrano, a ship which was in international waters
    Fairly sure you can sink a warship which is international waters if you are at war with the country who owns it. Otherwise you would station all your aircraft carriers just inside international waters and bomb enemy shipping with impunity. As to sinking the Belgrano, it was a tough call, but it effectively ended the Argentine Navy's involvement in the war, potentially saving hundreds of British soldiers and sailors. If you want to blame somebody for the Belgrano, try blaming the people who invaded British territory in the first place.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    Fairly sure you can sink a warship which is international waters if you are at war with the country who owns it. Otherwise you would station all your aircraft carriers just inside international waters and bomb enemy shipping with impunity. As to sinking the Belgrano, it was a tough call, but it effectively ended the Argentine Navy's involvement in the war, potentially saving hundreds of British soldiers and sailors. If you want to blame somebody for the Belgrano, try blaming the people who invaded British territory in the first place.
    It was a war crime= simple as.

    If Argentina had done the exact same thing Britain had done, you would not be very happy about it
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    yet still poets, who are essentially the second most useless profession after trade union leaders, enjoy complaining about her ...
    Poetry is one of the best things man ever created, you an uneducated barbarian.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pogiberto)
    It was a war crime= simple as.
    Just point me to your authority that you can't sink your enemy's ships in time of time of war, will you?
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    The thing is, people often confuse 'Thatcher's Britain' with what Thatcher would ideally have everyone living like. Sorting out our finances should rightfully come before all the comfort a money spending, and then borrowing, Labour party would bring us.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Just point me to your authority that you can't sink your enemy's ships in time of time of war, will you?

    im not saying that there was nothing wrong with sinking enemy ships, but in the context off
    It was in international waters
    It was sailing away from the conflict area.

    Its a pretty cowardly attack to be honest.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pogiberto)
    im not saying that there was nothing wrong with sinking enemy ships, but in the context off
    It was in international waters
    It was sailing away from the conflict area.

    Its a pretty cowardly attack to be honest.
    No.

    You said it was a war crime. That has a very specific meaning.

    It was in international waters.
    So was the Bismark.

    It was sailing away from the conflict area.
    It wouldn't have mattered if it was sitting in Buenos Aries harbour.

    The Royal Oak as well as other battleships have been legitimately sunk in harbour.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomcol23)
    Thats a bit of a broad question dont you think?
    You said "Some coal miners for example now congratulate Thatcher closing down the mines".

    Who?
    • 2 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferdowsi)
    Poetry is one of the best things man ever created, you an uneducated barbarian.
    Me no an uneducated barbarian, you an uneducated barbarian.

    Seriously, poetry is very good, but it is not useful. Poetry does not feed anyone, nor does it clothe them, house them or provide them jobs or means to survive.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chrisawhitmore)
    I think your argument is that, as wages have not grown as a share of GDP since Thatcher, then workers must therefore be worse off. The problem with this argument is that it does not allow for an increase in GDP above inflation, increasing the wealth of everyone without wages necessarily increasing as a share of the overall GDP.
    Eh? You'll have to explain how an increase in GDP makes everyone richer, when wages have stagnated.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
    Ha! Take a look at the late 1970's, and ever heard of the Winter of Discontent? This 'great' nation was on the brink of collapse, and Thatcher saved it through a lot of radical changes that were needed at the time.

    Thatcher saved the UK, simple as.
    It doesn't look "saved".

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: March 28, 2012
Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.