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

Maggie Thatcher - The worst PM in UK's history and an economic failure watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by C_G)
    Is your post a criticism of Thatcher, an admiration, a mourn or all?

    I think the video is great btw such videos reinforce my allegiance to the Labour Party, having the courage to uphold the resentment towards Iron Lady's politics despite her being newly deceased.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConsciousWorker)
    Is your post a criticism of Thatcher, an admiration, a mourn or all?

    I think the video is great btw such videos reinforce my allegiance to the Labour Party, having the courage to uphold the resentment towards Iron Lady's politics despite her being newly deceased.
    The Labour benches were half empty
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think Thatcher was not radical enough.

    She did not privatize NHS, schools, transport & infrastructure, police and army etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by l'ancien régime)
    She wasn't the worst PM.

    What about William Pitt the Younger? (Ignore the fact that I'm French)
    Don't be ridiculous you pleb. William Pitt the Younger was the best and the most sophisticated British PM ever.

    Thatcher was okay but not right wing enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronessMiller)
    I think Thatcher was not radical enough.

    She did not privatize NHS, schools, transport & infrastructure, police and army etc.
    Stop trolling.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Stop trolling.
    I'm being serious. She was not right wing enough and should do more privatization.

    Back in the glorious days of 17th/18th century major powers of Europe and their noble houses had their own private armies and that way they were more efficient on the battleground.

    Or even before that the private journies of the Vikings such as Eric the Red or Bloodaxe.

    Consider the British East Indies private divisions with the expeditions of various of our Lords.

    Read about the privatized Teutonic Order of the Germans

    Here you've got the example of efficiency of privately operating Polish hussars against statist Swedish infatry!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm

    Now, we should privatize the army too and we're out to conquer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  905784_318034121656280_499493534_o.jpg
Views: 246
Size:  402.0 KB
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Morgsie)
    The flaws of the electoral system is a different argument. You have failed to look at the 1983 and 1987 Elections
    The flaws of the electoral system are completely relevant.

    Fine, lets look at the elections shall we?


    1983:

    In 1982 opinion polls showed that Thatcher was one of the most unpopular prime ministers in British history, a manufactured war in the falklands helps Thatcher, again looking at the history of war-time pm's this is not surprising. Thanks to that and a typical right wing press campaign she is re-elected again in 1983 with what percentage of the vote? YOU GUESSED IT, a whopping 42.4%

    1987:

    Britain comes out of a traumatic recession, and a boom in north sea oil hand Thatcher her final life line. The conservatives are returned to power with a reduced majority of 102 seats having captured.............drum roll please!

    42.2% of the vote.





    Couldn't put in any simpler.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luca-cunn)
    The flaws of the electoral system are completely relevant.

    Fine, lets look at the elections shall we?


    1983:

    In 1982 opinion polls showed that Thatcher was one of the most unpopular prime ministers in British history, a manufactured war in the falklands helps Thatcher, again looking at the history of war-time pm's this is not surprising. Thanks to that a typical right wing press campaign she is re-elected again in 1983 which what percentage of the vote? YOU GUESSED IT, a whopping 42.4%

    1987:

    Britain comes out of a traumatic recession, and a boom in north sea oil hand Thatcher her final life line. The conservatives are returned to power with a reduced majority of 102 seats having captured.............drum roll please!

    42.2% of the vote.





    Couldn't put in any simpler.
    In your opinion the electoral system is flawed, however the opinion of the majority in the country, as demonstrated by the AV referendum is that our electoral system does not need changing. Thus your argument is based on and opinion of your own which you have attempted to state as fact.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    As usual the verbal-minority-left is making use of numerous threads because they're clearly not making enough of an impact in one or two...

    Nice list you copy and pasted by the way. Elaborate the points and I might consider rebutting them...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronessMiller)
    I think Thatcher was not radical enough.

    She did not privatize NHS, schools, transport & infrastructure, police and army etc.
    Hahaha.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaronessMiller)
    I think Thatcher was not radical enough.

    She did not privatize NHS, schools, transport & infrastructure, police and army etc.
    CORRECTION: She started private companies operating in the NHS under the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 which introduced the internal market into the NHS.

    Deregulation of Buses under the 1985 Transport Act. She privatised BR ferries, hotels etc.

    EDIT: And British Airways was privatised in 1986 and floated in early 1987
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Somebody clearly hasn't heard of Gordon Brown!

    Our elders who experienced her first hand clearly disagree with you... http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-...han-churchill/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    In your opinion the electoral system is flawed, however the opinion of the majority in the country, as demonstrated by the AV referendum is that our electoral system does not need changing. Thus your argument is based on and opinion of your own which you have attempted to state as fact.
    An AV referendum of a general public disinterested in politics? In a general public with minimal levels of education concerning alternative voting systems?

    Please instead of scimming over my point offer some form of alternative, i know its going to be difficult, but have a go.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luca-cunn)
    An AV referendum of a general public disinterested in politics? In a general public with minimal levels of education concerning alternative voting systems?

    Please instead of scimming over my point offer some form of alternative, i know its going to be difficult, but have a go.
    You argue that the electoral system is flawed, yet your only reasoning for so is your own opinion of what an electoral system should look like, without saying why it would be better objectively.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    You argue that the electoral system is flawed, yet your only reasoning for so is your own opinion of what an electoral system should look like, without saying why it would be better objectively.
    Christ did you read my first two posts, there is definitive proof of my statements there. Also i hadn't given my opinion on what an electoral system should look like, your creating an issue where there isn't one. I live in Scotland and use Scottish hybrid electoral system, which In my eyes is much more representative and is close to my ideal voting system.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    You argue that the electoral system is flawed, yet your only reasoning for so is your own opinion of what an electoral system should look like, without saying why it would be better objectively.
    Come on, it's an accepted fact that FPTP entrenches a two-party system. Why is this bad? Well, it's not to begin with, but eventually a consensus develops, as it did in 1947 (Conservatives conceded the welfare state) and somewhat belatedly in 1995 (Labour's removal of Clause IV).

    That sounds lovely but it means it takes a lot of strain for the consensus to break. This means when a reformist like Maggie comes to power, all the changes happen suddenly and people who set up their careers according to the old model fall through the cracks en masse.

    I feel a plural environment lends itself to people voting for what they actually want, rather than what they don't want. Surely that is more representative. And because it is more proportional to the voting share it means voters' concerns are more likely to at least get airtime in Parliament.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This list is ridiculous starting at 1.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WalkingTolerance)
    Thatcherism produced:

    1) Shifting of the means of production to the developing countries for cheap, exploiting labour power

    2) Record levels of unemployment reaching higher than what can be witnessed in the present-day ordoliberal Poland

    3) Making the British economy entirely dependent on the finance sector, more so than Switzerland

    4) Creating the gigantic monopolies and oligarchs alongside, such as the Six main banks, Six main energy companies so that we could compete with perestroikan Russia

    5) Destroying the leftover of respect, dignity and influence for the organized labour which has been remarked by the greatest faculties of mind as essential for the commodity producing society, i.e. Adam Smith

    6) As far as practicing fierce capitalism, Baroness was willing to give in to American companies in Westland Affair

    7) Marketization of education which, as opposed to 'parentocracy' created the A-C economy with millions being permanently written off and the wealthy having a substantial socio-economic advantage in education ever since

    8) Devastated the concept of social mobility and meritocracy with repealing of the measures despite the Black Report of 1980

    9) Despite being the outspoken Eurosceptic, Baroness in fact passed more power and always complied with the Brussels policy

    10) Failed at Hong Kong

    11) Falklands War Criminal

    12) Poll tax was the final blow to any concept of fiscal justice

    13) Led to the record levels of crime

    14) Destroyed the socialized NHS with market influence of private companies, making the private sector medical services superior to public

    15) Portrayed the Celtic nations as inferior, especially in the case of Northern Ireland struggle or Wales

    16) Britain's childhood-poverty rate in 1997 was the highest in Europe

    17) During her government Britain's Gini coefficient reflected this growing difference, going from 0.25 in 1979 to 0.34 in 1990.

    18) Shifting back the Victorian societal values undermining ethnic minorities, different sexual orientations, different family units and any 'deviance from mainstream'

    19) Re-enchantment of the world with her Methodist beliefs and damaging the process of secularization

    20) Inflicted a severe damage upon the pensioners and the safety net system desired for them despite the most loyal contribution to the British economy and wealth creation throughout their best years of their lives

    21) Last but not least, Baroness alienated the Britons from their communities. Philosophically speaking: separation of the subject from the object was at its zenith. Record levels of suicide, mental illness, depression and millions of lives betrayed from childhood, parenthood and senility.
    3, 4, 16 and 17 are the most important points in my opinion.

    Did you really expect the OP to write you an essay on each of her points? You wouldn't read it you bloody ignorants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Come on, it's an accepted fact that FPTP entrenches a two-party system. Why is this bad? Well, it's not to begin with, but eventually a consensus develops, as it did in 1947 (Conservatives conceded the welfare state) and somewhat belatedly in 1995 (Labour's removal of Clause IV).

    That sounds lovely but it means it takes a lot of strain for the consensus to break. This means when a reformist like Maggie comes to power, all the changes happen suddenly and people who set up their careers according to the old model fall through the cracks en masse.

    I feel a plural environment lends itself to people voting for what they actually want, rather than what they don't want. Surely that is more representative. And because it is more proportional to the voting share it means voters' concerns are more likely to at least get airtime in Parliament.
    It however does also help prevent hung parliaments whilst simultaneously representing to an extent the views of We the electorate. Thus it is a pragmatic approach which also allows for the views of the electorate to be expressed. In my opinion our political sphere in the UK includes three parties not two.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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