Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    Indeed. But it begs the question - how could a society become so much monetarily richer en masse? Where was the extra money coming from?

    Drastic cost cutting over an extremely short period of time:

    1) 3 million unemployed instead of the relatively little unemployment that she inherited.

    2) Educational / cultural cut backs. Unlike the massive expansion in the 60s, no new universities were built during her time.

    3) Lax attitude to crumbling structures / health and safety matters : There were 2 well known fires during this time caused by similar types of circumstances . The Bradford Fire and Kings Cross Fire caused by accumulated rubbish catching fire.

    Who knows how much the social conditions of the early 80s, originally begun by some of the darker days of the 70s but cumulating in to a divide between the prospective middle class and the prospective unemployed in the early 80s, lead to the public order / drug problems , the suspicion of football fans en masse and their suffocation behind state erected bars at Hillsborough?

    'There is no such thing as society'. No religious person (and she called herself a Methodist) could truly want that to be.

    If there is no society then there is simply no country. A virtual country dependent on cash amounts in castles in the sky.

    Thatcherism went some way to destroying the working class intellectual and replacing it with the ideology of the grocer's profit counting in every respect, no matter what the human cost to that what we used to call a soul.
    1) That mass employment was due to artificial propping up from the government, which cost ridiculous amounts of money and rewarded the lazy a lot more than the hard working. Which is manifestly unfair and unsustainable.

    2) There wasn't a need for more universities - they should be the reserve purely of academia. Professions should be taught on the job or in colleges.

    3) You can hardly blame Thatcher for every division of resources decision made. Allowing fire risks to accumulate is obviously stupid, but government regulation is not the way to deal with that, employing people with common sense is.

    'There is no such thing as society' is used to illustrate that you shouldn't rely on others to help you, you should help yourself. It did not mean that no-one should help one another, but that that help should not be depended upon.

    In business a soul isn't tradable, so profit is what should matter when at work. But work isn't the be-all and end-all of everything, and the sort of person you are intellectually is incredibly important in that, and with the increase in disposable income for a large sector of the public she brought about that could be more ably realised for many.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    It does negate her legacy and says a lot about her philosophy. Regarding the apologist statement, it was implied when you (I'm paraphrasing) claimed people accuse just for the sake of it. If I misunderstood then I apologise (pardon the pun lol)
    With the Belgrano, of course it's relevant whether it was sailing away or not. It was a rutheless act.

    A ruthless act requested by the task force commander.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rs-reveal.html


    It was tam dalyle from labour who led the charge. It's no difference today. Politicians in opposition will always try and exploit the opposition in any way they can. The above link shows that the left were wrong in this case
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    I think the captain of the ship and Argentine navy's view is going to be more important than just about any one else's views. Especially given that its backed by plenty of other evidence such as intercepted messages. But it's pretty clear she was fully justified in that choice. War is full of choices like the one she made. Seems you should just have a problem with the nature of war rather than Thatcher....
    Read the second part of my previous post.

    As for my problem, it's with both really. I do have a problem with war, I can't see why anyone else doesn't. Whatever the outcome, it's horrible.
    I do have a problem with Thatcher, but not because of the war. Try huge unemployment, poverty, inflation and relationships with dictators instead.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No, the economy was growing faster and the poor were getting richer at a faster rate than during the 1970s, the rich were simply getting much, much richer.
    http://www.measuringworth.com/m/datasets/ukgdp/

    In the 12 years from 1979 to 1991, UK Real GDP grew around 26%. In the previous 12 years, it grew around 35%.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Except they don't help. Iran is no closer to stopping it's nuclear programme. Kim Jong-Un is as chubby and fat as ever. I have my own personal views on individual policies and issues; I don't blindly agree with things just because that is what Cameron's Tories are doing.
    Well, can you blame Iran? I'd imagine that desposing of a democratically elected leader, who's only crime was to nationalise oil, is going to anger some Iranians

    Oh, Im sure the Iranians are going to welcome you with open arms, for getting rid of a leader with a human side to an authoritarian dictatorship....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Harold Wilson stopped free milk for secondary school pupils in 1968, but Thatcher in 1971, who was education secretary, ended free school milk for children over the age of seven. So it's not a myth.

    You forgot the high inflation, high unemployment, declining North, widening class gaps, the Belgrano, and support for dictators.

    May her soul rest in peace. I admire her determination, but not much more.
    Ken Clarke (who knew her back then fairly well) is saying that it was the Treasury who ended the milk thing and she took the rap. Peter Hennessey, a fairly widely respected historian on recent British politics, says the same in his books.

    The Belgrano might have been a pretty inevitable consequence of the rules of engagement established, the need to defend the armed forces down there, perceptions of Argentine threat, especially missiles, and its behaviour. Doubtful that a different decision could have emerged once we were at war down there.

    Inflation oscillated up and down during her 'reign', but only stabilised at the long-term lower rate a few years after she left office.

    The big myth is her alleged anti-EU position - she was very pro-EU, she was a part of the Yes campaign for joining and her rants about federalism only came much later on and could be taken with a pinch of salt given the political situation within the party at the time.

    She also opposed German reunification (people often seem to think she favoured it) and was against the removal of all nuclear weapons. To some extent, she supported a continuation of the Cold War, just a more 'manageable' model of it, with a friendly Gorbachev, 'with whom she could do business' in the Kremlin.

    She did not "win the Cold War" as is often said. Gorbachev decided to end it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Read the second part of my previous post.

    As for my problem, it's with both really. I do have a problem with war, I can't see why anyone else doesn't. Whatever the outcome, it's horrible.
    I do have a problem with Thatcher, but not because of the war. Try huge unemployment, poverty, inflation and relationships with dictators instead.
    It's amazing that a legitimate military action has been so condemned (admittedly by those who, in general, have little understanding of military affairs).

    The response of the Argentine Admiral commanding the task force:

    "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano"


    The response of the Captain of the Belgrano:

    "The limit [exclusion zone] did not exclude danger or risks; it was all the same in or out. I would like to be quite precise that, as far as I was concerned, the 200-mile limit was valid until 1 May, that is while diplomatic negotiations were taking place and/or until a real act of war took place, and that had happened on 1 May"

    Let's not forget as well that the Argentinians sank 7 British ships, only 4 of which were Royal Navy warships.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    http://www.measuringworth.com/m/datasets/ukgdp/

    In the 12 years from 1979 to 1991, UK Real GDP grew around 26%. In the previous 12 years, it grew around 35%.
    I like how you included 1991 in your figure, a year Thatcher wasn't in office, simply so you could duke the stats and include the early 90's recession.

    Regardless, those figures do not stack up to the ONS' ones-
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...h-economy#data
    In 11 years, growth under Thatcher averaged 2.8%, in the 11 years before that it averaged 2.4%.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    While technically true, misleading. Before Thatcher, rich and poor had been getting richer at more or less the same rate - the rate the economy was growing. Under Thatcher, the economy continued growing at that rate, but the rich started richer at a much more rapid rate whereas the poor were getting richer at a much slower pace.
    Aha, link me to the source of where you got that from
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by de_monies)
    Well, can you blame Iran? I'd imagine that desposing of a democratically elected leader, who's only crime was to nationalise oil, is going to anger some Iranians

    Oh, Im sure the Iranians are going to welcome you with open arms, for getting rid of a leader with a human side to an authoritarian dictatorship....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
    I have deep respect for Mossadeq and what the US/UK did to Iran in 1953 is morally and practically one of the worse acts of politics in peace time 20th century. But I must say, the current Iranian regime is the most brutal state since Stalin's USSR, and I stand by that.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Ken Clarke (who knew her back then fairly well) is saying that it was the Treasury who ended the milk thing and she took the rap. Peter Hennessey, a fairly widely respected historian on recent British politics, says the same in his books.

    The Belgrano might have been a pretty inevitable consequence of the rules of engagement established, the need to defend the armed forces down there, perceptions of Argentine threat, especially missiles, and its behaviour. Doubtful that a different decision could have emerged once we were at war down there.

    Inflation oscillated up and down during her 'reign', but only stabilised at the long-term lower rate a few years after she left office.

    The big myth is her alleged anti-EU position - she was very pro-EU, she was a part of the Yes campaign for joining and her rants about federalism only came much later on and could be taken with a pinch of salt given the political situation within the party at the time.

    She also opposed German reunification (people often seem to think she favoured it) and was against the removal of all nuclear weapons. To some extent, she supported a continuation of the Cold War, just a more 'manageable' model of it, with a friendly Gorbachev, 'with whom she could do business' in the Kremlin.

    She did not "win the Cold War" as is often said. Gorbachev decided to end it.
    So why do the USA, Obama, and most sources suggest that she did play a major role in the ending of the cold war? The Russians gave her the nickname of the Iron lady for a reason, typical left wing view that if someone they dont like does something right then IT WASNT THEM IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE!

    The reunification of Germany, so what if she was seemingly against it? Youre pretty much a socialist surely you were.

    During WW2 Germany had the largest Economy and was run through dictatorship, Thatcher said that the reunification may cause instability in Europe as the West was constrained to get over the previous Nazi past, whereas as the East was pretty much still under dictatorship.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Yes and no.
    British manufacturing was losing out due to traditional British mistakes (not investing in modernisation) so when it failed, it should have rightfully been left to die. That is how capitalism works.
    However, where she did **** up and what you are ignoring, is how she did not then help new industries to form to replace the ones that had folded. She left areas with mass unemployment and basically said "**** off" to the working class. That was wrong and very stupid.
    I was just just dispelling myths..

    It's no myth that many communities were allowed to virtually collapse- it was recently revealed some in her cabinet wanted Liverpool to be left to managed decline though Thatcher shrewdly said No to them!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Ironically it was Labour that removed school milk from secondary school students in 1968!
    School used to give out free milk?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)

    The big myth is her alleged anti-EU position - she was very pro-EU, she was a part of the Yes campaign for joining and her rants about federalism only came much later on and could be taken with a pinch of salt given the political situation within the party at the time.
    She later said her only two mistakes were not leaving the EU and of course poll tax-the thing which ended her premiership 2 years before the next election. Her position changed over time- see how she fought Brussels to get a rebate!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Ken Clarke (who knew her back then fairly well) is saying that it was the Treasury who ended the milk thing and she took the rap. Peter Hennessey, a fairly widely respected historian on recent British politics, says the same in his books.

    The Belgrano might have been a pretty inevitable consequence of the rules of engagement established, the need to defend the armed forces down there, perceptions of Argentine threat, especially missiles, and its behaviour. Doubtful that a different decision could have emerged once we were at war down there.

    Inflation oscillated up and down during her 'reign', but only stabilised at the long-term lower rate a few years after she left office.

    The big myth is her alleged anti-EU position - she was very pro-EU, she was a part of the Yes campaign for joining and her rants about federalism only came much later on and could be taken with a pinch of salt given the political situation within the party at the time.

    She also opposed German reunification (people often seem to think she favoured it) and was against the removal of all nuclear weapons. To some extent, she supported a continuation of the Cold War, just a more 'manageable' model of it, with a friendly Gorbachev, 'with whom she could do business' in the Kremlin.

    She did not "win the Cold War" as is often said. Gorbachev decided to end it.
    Unemployement was higher when she left than when she took office. Twelve million were in poverty, gaps between rich and poor were increased, she supported dictators at her wish later on, she encouraged the sale of as many British weapons as possible to Saddam Hussein during his eight year long war with Iran, while opposing Mandela and sanctions to South Africa.
    Her political philosophy is what I oppose the most. Like Dawkins always says, a social darwinist society.

    Regarding the Belgrano, I admit defeat. Sort off. It proves her personality, I'm not sure she knew about any orders but still ordered the sinking.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NotMyToothbrush)
    School used to give out free milk?
    Yes,it did!

    The state did everything those days!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Margaret Thatcher did NOT destroy British industry.
    Manufacturing output actually increased under her watch.
    It seems she closed down the unprofitable parts and her tax cuts allowed the profitable parts to thrive
    news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1475644.stm
    When she was Education Secretary she argued against cutting school milk for 7-11 year olds. But as she was the minister she took the rap!

    Ironically it was Labour that removed school milk from secondary school students in 1968!

    Please feel free to add some more
    Good on you, sir!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Read the second part of my previous post.

    As for my problem, it's with both really. I do have a problem with war, I can't see why anyone else doesn't. Whatever the outcome, it's horrible.
    I do have a problem with Thatcher, but not because of the war. Try huge unemployment, poverty, inflation and relationships with dictators instead.
    She did reduce inflation-eventually
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordan-James)
    So why do the USA, Obama, and most sources suggest that she did play a major role in the ending of the cold war? The Russians gave her the nickname of the Iron lady for a reason, typical left wing view that if someone they dont like does something right then IT WASNT THEM IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE!

    The reunification of Germany, so what if she was seemingly against it? Youre pretty much a socialist surely you were.

    During WW2 Germany had the largest Economy and was run through dictatorship, Thatcher said that the reunification may cause instability in Europe as the West was constrained to get over the previous Nazi past, whereas as the East was pretty much still under dictatorship.
    There's a difference between what you say those leaders said - "she played a major role in the ending of the cold war" and what I said - that she "did not win the cold war". Of course she played a role. The point is - did she really want it to end? I don't believe the hawks in Washington really did, it was too good for business and I don't believe she really did. They wanted a modified version of the cold war, with downscaling, but not abolition, of the nuclear weapons threat and a continued, but managed, gradually transforming Soviet Union. To be honest, given the chaos that emerged when Gorbachev was taken down and the madness into which Russia then descended and the ghastly Putin government that has subsequently emerged, I think her instinct to defend Gorbachev (who by no means wanted an end to the Soviet Union) and for gradualism in the ending of the Cold War was probably sound.

    My point about her not ending the Cold War was about the usual trumpeting of the Right that Greenham Common and the deployment of cruise missiles somehow "ended the Cold War". I was simply pointing out that it was Gorbie who ended it, nothing to do with all of that.

    Your jibe about me supporting Stasi-controlled E. Germany as a 'socialist' is pathetic. I hate the way the Soviet system was run and it was a wonderful day when the iron curtain came down. I was just pointing out that Maggie did not support reunification (doubtless for the reasons you state) and that was wrong and muddled. She had many skills and fine qualities, but she could be very wrong too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amineamine2)
    Read the second part of my previous post.

    As for my problem, it's with both really. I do have a problem with war, I can't see why anyone else doesn't. Whatever the outcome, it's horrible.
    I do have a problem with Thatcher, but not because of the war. Try huge unemployment, poverty, inflation and relationships with dictators instead.
    You have reached rock bottom and are continuing to dig.

    You have been nicely rolled by just about every other poster here re: Belgrano, yet you are still banging on.

    Just answer, what exactly was a warship such as the Belgrano doing out of its home port and hanging around the Falkland Islands - whether inside or out of the exclusion zone - in the first place, if not engaged in opportunistic or otherwise attempts at warfare?

    I suppose next you will be trying to argue it was on a pleasure cruise:confused:

    EDIT - I see in a post between the quoted one and mine, you have conceeded the point, and its to your credit...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.