2 ms·

If you're having a discussion with people who like Sturgeon & Ardern, who have some issues with Merkel & May, raising one of the most hated women in recent hist

If you're having a discussion with people who like Sturgeon & Ardern, who have some issues with Merkel & May, raising one of the most hated women in recent history seems an unusual take. Thatcher (& Reagan) are rightly recognised today as being responsible for untold suffering. Even the UK Conservative party (Hague) have since spoken out against her approach. She didn't "rescue" the UK from anything, unless when you say "UK" you exclusively mean "UK shareholders". Her policies caused skyrocketing unemployment & poverty, the only positives anyone has cited were macroeconomic & even Blair thought those changes resulted from societal shifts rather than from Thatcher's political interventions. The environment was reactively hostile - the hostilities more than justified.

fidgewidge 4y ago
That's nonsense, there are lots of people in the UK who rate Thatcher as one of the best PMs ever. The UK finished the 80s in a drastically better position than at the start in terms of poverty and employment, the latter of which only skyrocketed at the start of her first term because the previous government was socialist, and had been manipulating the economy to prioritize people putting in jobs even if those jobs were useless. The USSR also had low unemployment, but that doesn't mean they had a good economy.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > there are lots of people in the UK who rate Thatcher Very true. Too many. I did say "most", which doesn't mean "universally". Thankfully the (far too large) set of fans in the UK don't represent any kind of global majority. > The UK finished the 80s in a drastically better position than at the start in terms of poverty and employment This... isn't remotely true. Poverty went from 13% before Thatcher to over 22% after. You acknowledge unemployment skyrocketed, but the reduction at the end of her term was minor - overall rate finished much higher than before she was in office. > The USSR also had low unemployment, but that doesn't mean they had a good economy. Bringing the USSR in here is a strawman because any rebuttal from me can come across as being in support of the USSR, of I'm not - I strongly believe the stats here are not representative of reality. But Soviets aside, the fact you don't think people having income is inherently "good" but instead prioritise something abstract called "the economy" says a lot about your priorities. Can I ask what exactly is "good" about a "good economy" if more people are in poverty?

fidgewidge 4y ago

That's nonsense, there are lots of people in the UK who rate Thatcher as one of the best PMs ever. The UK finished the 80s in a drastically better position than at the start in terms of poverty and employment, the latter of which only skyrocketed at the start of her first term because the previous government was socialist, and had been manipulating the economy to prioritize people putting in jobs even if those jobs were useless. The USSR also had low unemployment, but that doesn't mean they had a good economy.

lucideer 4y ago
> there are lots of people in the UK who rate Thatcher Very true. Too many. I did say "most", which doesn't mean "universally". Thankfully the (far too large) set of fans in the UK don't represent any kind of global majority. > The UK finished the 80s in a drastically better position than at the start in terms of poverty and employment This... isn't remotely true. Poverty went from 13% before Thatcher to over 22% after. You acknowledge unemployment skyrocketed, but the reduction at the end of her term was minor - overall rate finished much higher than before she was in office. > The USSR also had low unemployment, but that doesn't mean they had a good economy. Bringing the USSR in here is a strawman because any rebuttal from me can come across as being in support of the USSR, of I'm not - I strongly believe the stats here are not representative of reality. But Soviets aside, the fact you don't think people having income is inherently "good" but instead prioritise something abstract called "the economy" says a lot about your priorities. Can I ask what exactly is "good" about a "good economy" if more people are in poverty?