She wasn't a socialist. She challenged many socialist economic principles both in theory and practice. She won. These are things like levels of taxation and the effect on the economy, the amount of government regualtion and its effect on the economy, etc.
Since the socialists were losing the debate, they turned to villifying her personally. That's called an ad hominem attack and it's quite common in politics.
She also took a hard stance, with Reagan, against Communism, instead of continuing the policies of detente (appeasement). She also fought to keep the Falkland Islands instead of ignoring their invasion by the Argentine government.
2007-01-16 04:29:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Arthur M 4
·
5⤊
4⤋
Margaret Thatcher came from a Methodist background and when she became PM she put all of her training and beliefs into her job. She knew from her own upbringing that the only money a family will ever have is that which they earn and save. She was right. She also right to remove the power of the unions who thought they had a God given right to rule UK. They did not and do not. UK is rules by the House of Commons, the members of which (MPs) are elected by the people.
It was not the Labour Movement which removed Margaret Thatcher from power, it was a coup from within her own party.
2007-01-18 07:22:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
its largely a regional thing. i live in the north east and i know my parents dislike her and her time in government. im too young to remember personaly. a lot of people were put out of work over 3 million were unemployed ive heard it said that this was nescessary to save the economy by some people. the country moved from a manufacturing to a service industry during her time in power. perhaps the country was better after she left then before she came into power. but more should have been done to help the unemployed i feel. others argue a lot of people became wealthy at the time but this was at the exspense of many people becoming poorer. its finely balanced i dont think any british prime minister divides opinion more these are just things ive heard so people older at the time will give more informed opinions i gaurantee you you will get passionate opinions here though.
3 million unemployed vs stronger economy in the long run?
3 million is really a lot of people and a lot of communities isnt though.
2007-01-16 12:35:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by vibrance0404 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
I think you are wrong to presume that she was hated. The fact that she was returned to power on three occasions in a decade indicates the true regard she was held in by the British public.
She enabled us all to become homeowners instead of renters from the State. She created the circumstances that enabled workers to have a say in whether they should be on strike and not forced to by union bosses. She created the circumstances where businesses that had become overmanned and had expensive overheads were eventually in a position to compete with overseas markets.
She had to turn the country round from the mess it had been left in and despite having to administer some unpleasant medicine to bring that about she still was returned with large support from the public.
At a time when the country was modernising with computers reducing the numbers of people needed for businesses to function and at a time when it was necessary to turn to other forms of energy it is amazing what she achieved.
The foundations for the current economic conditions were made during her period in office.
2007-01-16 13:02:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by frank S 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Only lefties and liberals didn't like her. She tamed the unions, which was desperately needed, and rescued Britain from the apalling financial mess that the Labour party had created, as they always do. Those that attack Thatcher, aren't worth listening to.
2007-01-16 16:55:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Veritas 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
Most ppl didnt hate mrs thatcher.
The only ppl that did came from areas that seemed to be disadvantaged by her govt.
Voted in 3 times in a row was obviously proof of her popularity.
Mrs thatcher needed to rescue britain from the rot and apathy of the previous labour govt.
The medicine was bitter,the alternative was continuing decline.
The decline in heavy industry blamed on mrs thatcher was simply releasing the tax payer from the burden of subsidizing a naturally declining indusrial west.The rising unemployment,again a consequence of controlling inflation,originally out of controol under labour.The taxpayer shouldnt need to employ millions in the public sector(as they do now) with 3 ppl doing the job one could do.
Only the lazy,naive,short sighted and those wanting money for nothing had reason to complain about the thatcher govt.#
The freedoms and possibilities given to the public by mrs thatcher has meant a chance for 100s of thousands of small businesses to thrive.Many now employing hundreds or thousands.
The monetary system adopted by mrs thatcher is now the satndard of all developed democracies world wide(and used by tony blair).
It was a time when britain strutted proudly on the world stage,among other successes britain was instrumental in the disintegration of the soviet union and ending of the cold war.
The poll tax,misunderstood by many.(Especially ignorant unemployed louts who went on protests for an afternoon out).Was the catalyst that lead her cabinet to stab her in the back.
The thatcher govt left the economy the strongest for a 100 years.And although managed well by the major govt,he just didnt have the charisma the job needed.
Her strongest opponents, the bitter miners,lead to disaster by their communist union leader arthur scargill(who lives in luxury paid for by union subs).Mostly retrained and have gone on to be much more successful than when they were being paid to sleep in the coal mines and thieve coal.
Anyone who doesnt recognise the skills and success of mrs thatcher just needs to take a look at the broken,bleeding sickly,corrupt country we live in under tony blair.
2007-01-16 15:06:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
this is thatcher, if you have a council house on the front of a main through road,and the fence breaks, it would be fixed within aweek, if you live in a back street it could take six years. two firms wanted gov backing for a business one company wanted money for a super rich motor car called a delorean. the outher was for off road machinery like diggers and such, a scotts outfit called stone field they got tuned down. thatcher was all cosmetic the posh car company went bust, i believe stonefield went to america i dont know. she used the brit police as her personal army against workers like miners, abolished their strike pay and starved them into submition. convinced people to buy their own homes, afterwards wiped out their jobs by destroying hundreds of companies and put thousand and thousands out of work. the purpose was to create a service nation, and she did it. and tony blair has kept it going.thats why we are a nation of colonised european slaves. an idiot nation and a laghing stock of europe.
2007-01-16 13:16:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by trucker 5
·
1⤊
4⤋
Right ? Well, how about a quote from a popular band to answer that, especially regarding Argentina !
" And Maggie, over lunch one day, took a cruiser.. with all hands.. . . ... .. apparently to make him(Galtieri) give it back ". Hmmm , "take all your overgrown infants away, somewhere . And build them a home. . ..a little place of their own . The Fletcher Memorial, home for incurable .. . Tyrants and Kings " . Thank you .
2007-01-16 12:30:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Thatcher put up unemployment from a million to three million in the space of a year after 1979. School leavers' chances of a job were just about zero. Also, she deliberately destroyed the coal communities. Global warming shows we needed to get away from using coal fuel, but her deliberate spite against the lives of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people (to retaliate against the coal strikes of 1972 and 1974) was despicable.
Thatcher destroyed about a quarter of British manufacturing industry in three years 1979 - 1982. That was much more than German bombing destroyed in World War II, or indeed that British bombing then detroyed in Germany. The nearest comparable destruction of British industry is by Blair, who has also destroyed over a quarter of British manufacturing industry by policies mainly geared to supporting the financial sector.
The Thatcher years were those in which the UK benefited from North Sea oil. Her predecessor as Prime Minister, Jom Callaghan, had wanted to invest this windfall. Thatcher instead used it to eubsidise her destruction of British industry and her huge defence expenditure on Trident submarines. The defence chiefs are believed to have been opposed to this waste, with its implications for Britain's conventional defence, but the vehement (and I suspect Soviet backed, to the shame of the protestors) campaigns of CND and the like made it a divisive issue in which a split into political camps prevented the application of common sense. There are obvious lessons for future UK defence investment, when we won't have the funds from an oil surplous or a need to win the Cold War.
I have concentrated on the economic effects of Thatcher's early years. In 1988 -1990 she presided over an unsustainable boom in house prices followed by increased interest rates and a house price collapse as a result of which many people with mortgages lost their homes. Not a few of them have never recovered. Another lesson Blair and Brown haven't learned from, as I fear you will see in the near future.
The tense of your question is wrong. Many of us still hate Thatcher now for what she did (although we are sorry for her current pityable personal state: I believe she has health and family problems I wouldn't wish on anybody).
2007-01-16 12:47:42
·
answer #9
·
answered by Philosophical Fred 4
·
2⤊
4⤋
Her downfall was the poll tax (now council tax) that was the beginning of the end. In my book, she was the best thing that happened to the UK at that time obviously, she wasn't perfect NO PM is perfect even the beloved Churchill. I liked her as she was strong and wouldn't back down - not like blair who rolls over to have his tummy tickled by bush.
2007-01-16 12:28:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bexs 5
·
4⤊
2⤋