6 ms·

Or - She saved a country from economic collapse and restored the UK to a position of being one of the world's most powerful voices. The UK was as Greece is tod

Or - She saved a country from economic collapse and restored the UK to a position of being one of the world's most powerful voices. The UK was as Greece is today in 1979. Hell there were three months of strikes by miners employed by the government in an unsustainable, unprofitable industry BEFORE she even took office. And people still bitch that their kids didn't get free milk at school for lunch.

JPKab 14y ago
As an American, I don't think I can possibly understand the mentality of late 70's/early 80's Britain. Is there a large percentage of the population in Britain that views WHAT she did as wrong or is it HOW she did it? I can understand the HOW, but why would people think that handouts aren't first hand-ins? Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? When I hear about the mining strikes causing 3 day work weeks for the entire country, my thought is the same as any other sane individual: You, sir, are cancelled.
- rahoulb 14y ago
  Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consensus was formed that the British state would step in and help people - hence the NHS, hence free school milk (as rickets was a very common disease). The unions had too much power for much of that time, but British industry also had terrible management practices so I would put both "sides" as bad as each other. But while Thatcher shook things up and modernised many parts of the economy, she did it in an extremely divisive and many would say callous way - by devastating communities (especially in the north of England), destroying British manufacturing and putting unemployment up to 3 million (with millions more on disability, to make the jobless figures look better). And these are legacies that still live on today - where I grew up there are still houses with barbed wire between neighbours who have lived there for years - as a result of the miner's strike. The north is still significantly poorer than the south, with much higher unemployment. The current government has just pushed through an extremely painful reform of disability allowance that appears to be punishing the genuinely disabled as much as the "skivers". And in Scotland she is so despised that you can't even say her name in public after shutting down much of the country's industry and taking North Sea oil revenue down south. For the most part, nowadays, the question isn't whether the reforms were needed, but whether they had to be done so painfully and whether the benefits of those reforms were shared fairly. There is definitely a north-south divide within the country on that.
  - omegaham 14y ago
    (American here - I have a basic grasp of the events, but I don't know the entire picture) Was there a less painful way to do it? From what I've read, Britain was in some really serious trouble. I wouldn't say that they were at Greece's level of stagnation and financial trouble, but they were definitely hurting. People were going to get hurt regardless of what policy was implemented, and I think it was better to get it all done in one harsh, nasty blow than to slowly cut away the problems and create decades of uncertainty.
    - rahoulb 14y ago
      I honestly don't know about the economics of it. But threatening to leave a whole city (Liverpool) to rot was typical - and the fact that she is still sung about at football matches over 20 years after she was forced out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-4FJcnX0i8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x...) shows how deep the scars run. Some people think she was involved in a class war - I don't, I think she honestly believed in social mobility (unlike the current government which is rule by the rich for the rich). But she did devastate huge parts of the country and just regarded it as a fact, not even something to be regretted.
      - jrabone 14y ago
        Having grown up near Liverpool in the 80's, frankly I wished they'd just bulldoze the place. Does no one remember Derek Hatton and the loony left?
        matthewjhughes 14y ago
        You should have a look at Liverpool now. It's doing really well for itself. We have a vibrant startup and technology scene, and the city center has been drastically transformed since 2008 when it was Capital Of Culture. I can honestly see it becoming the San Francisco of the UK.
        14y ago
- robotresearcher 14y ago
  | Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? No. The milk was good systems thinking. In the post-war period it was cheaper to provide milk to help reduce the incidence of childhood malnutrition than pay for the resulting health problems. People were happy to pay for it because it was cheaper than not paying for it. The miracle of the post-war government was that they managed to explain this to people. Perhaps wartime had trained people to believe in top-down authority and expect a decent outcome. By the 1970s wealth and diets had improved and malnutrition was a smaller problem. Only children of the poorest and poorest educated had the problem. Thus it didn't make financial sense any more and the government cut it. But this really did hurt the poorest, most vulnerable people in the country. Political nightmare. A similar argument applies for the mining and other industries. It was worth running unprofitable mines for a while since the cost to society of thousands of unemployed men would be too high. At some point this would change, as the employment opportunities widened with new technology. But holy hell this was a difficult period in British history. Opinion is polarized: either Thatcher did a hard job with firmness and saved Britain, or she put economics (some say incorrect economics) over compassion and screwed the poorest to the benefit of rich and upper-middle class. Both of these things _could_ be true at the same time. It's hard to explain now how passionately hated Thatcher was in popular culture back then. Imagine if the George Bush hating of the 2000's magnified until people rioted in the street and burned their own downtown area in their fury.
richardjordan 14y ago
She didn't save the economy for the long term. She sold the family silver, squandered the resulting cash on tax cuts at the top, and left the same or worse structural problems in place.
- MisterBastahrd 14y ago
  Same thing is happening in Louisiana currently. Bobby Jindal is an extremely intelligent man, but he has sold his soul to the Republican Party because he wants to be president. He is selling everything that isn't nailed down to the floor in an effort to balance budgets, has been hellbent on destroying the state pension system, has turned down federal money which would help to fund social programs, and is now trying to implement a ridiculously regressive taxation system.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    You do your argument a disservice in saying he sold his soul to the Republicans. I think it's more likely that his goal is using his "extreme intelligence" for the things he wants to do, and it just so happens the Republicans decided to fund his "startup" (so to speak).
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    How does refusing to govern like a Democrat imply a sale of his soul? Just to take one example: Where do you think that Federal money comes from?
    - MisterBastahrd 14y ago
      Who said anything about Democrats? It'd be nice if he simply didn't govern like a complete imbecile. He's raided the state's emergency funds and sold off state assets in order to prove that he can balance a budget, and has in effect put the state in a worse position than it was under the previous administration, and THAT'S saying something.
  - penny500 14y ago
    So basically Republican economic policies are all evil, now? There is virtually zero empirical proof that any of their policies work economically? I'm afraid HN is slowly progressing into Reddit.

JPKab 14y ago

As an American, I don't think I can possibly understand the mentality of late 70's/early 80's Britain. Is there a large percentage of the population in Britain that views WHAT she did as wrong or is it HOW she did it? I can understand the HOW, but why would people think that handouts aren't first hand-ins? Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? When I hear about the mining strikes causing 3 day work weeks for the entire country, my thought is the same as any other sane individual: You, sir, are cancelled.

rahoulb 14y ago
Britain was bankrupt after the Second World War (and in hock to the US for billions of dollars as well). As part of the attempt to rebuild the country a consensus was formed that the British state would step in and help people - hence the NHS, hence free school milk (as rickets was a very common disease). The unions had too much power for much of that time, but British industry also had terrible management practices so I would put both "sides" as bad as each other. But while Thatcher shook things up and modernised many parts of the economy, she did it in an extremely divisive and many would say callous way - by devastating communities (especially in the north of England), destroying British manufacturing and putting unemployment up to 3 million (with millions more on disability, to make the jobless figures look better). And these are legacies that still live on today - where I grew up there are still houses with barbed wire between neighbours who have lived there for years - as a result of the miner's strike. The north is still significantly poorer than the south, with much higher unemployment. The current government has just pushed through an extremely painful reform of disability allowance that appears to be punishing the genuinely disabled as much as the "skivers". And in Scotland she is so despised that you can't even say her name in public after shutting down much of the country's industry and taking North Sea oil revenue down south. For the most part, nowadays, the question isn't whether the reforms were needed, but whether they had to be done so painfully and whether the benefits of those reforms were shared fairly. There is definitely a north-south divide within the country on that.
- omegaham 14y ago
  (American here - I have a basic grasp of the events, but I don't know the entire picture) Was there a less painful way to do it? From what I've read, Britain was in some really serious trouble. I wouldn't say that they were at Greece's level of stagnation and financial trouble, but they were definitely hurting. People were going to get hurt regardless of what policy was implemented, and I think it was better to get it all done in one harsh, nasty blow than to slowly cut away the problems and create decades of uncertainty.
  - rahoulb 14y ago
    I honestly don't know about the economics of it. But threatening to leave a whole city (Liverpool) to rot was typical - and the fact that she is still sung about at football matches over 20 years after she was forced out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x-4FJcnX0i8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=x...) shows how deep the scars run. Some people think she was involved in a class war - I don't, I think she honestly believed in social mobility (unlike the current government which is rule by the rich for the rich). But she did devastate huge parts of the country and just regarded it as a fact, not even something to be regretted.
    - jrabone 14y ago
      Having grown up near Liverpool in the 80's, frankly I wished they'd just bulldoze the place. Does no one remember Derek Hatton and the loony left?
      - matthewjhughes 14y ago
        You should have a look at Liverpool now. It's doing really well for itself. We have a vibrant startup and technology scene, and the city center has been drastically transformed since 2008 when it was Capital Of Culture. I can honestly see it becoming the San Francisco of the UK.
        14y ago
robotresearcher 14y ago
| Do people really believe there is a such thing as FREE milk? No. The milk was good systems thinking. In the post-war period it was cheaper to provide milk to help reduce the incidence of childhood malnutrition than pay for the resulting health problems. People were happy to pay for it because it was cheaper than not paying for it. The miracle of the post-war government was that they managed to explain this to people. Perhaps wartime had trained people to believe in top-down authority and expect a decent outcome. By the 1970s wealth and diets had improved and malnutrition was a smaller problem. Only children of the poorest and poorest educated had the problem. Thus it didn't make financial sense any more and the government cut it. But this really did hurt the poorest, most vulnerable people in the country. Political nightmare. A similar argument applies for the mining and other industries. It was worth running unprofitable mines for a while since the cost to society of thousands of unemployed men would be too high. At some point this would change, as the employment opportunities widened with new technology. But holy hell this was a difficult period in British history. Opinion is polarized: either Thatcher did a hard job with firmness and saved Britain, or she put economics (some say incorrect economics) over compassion and screwed the poorest to the benefit of rich and upper-middle class. Both of these things _could_ be true at the same time. It's hard to explain now how passionately hated Thatcher was in popular culture back then. Imagine if the George Bush hating of the 2000's magnified until people rioted in the street and burned their own downtown area in their fury.

richardjordan 14y ago

She didn't save the economy for the long term. She sold the family silver, squandered the resulting cash on tax cuts at the top, and left the same or worse structural problems in place.

MisterBastahrd 14y ago
Same thing is happening in Louisiana currently. Bobby Jindal is an extremely intelligent man, but he has sold his soul to the Republican Party because he wants to be president. He is selling everything that isn't nailed down to the floor in an effort to balance budgets, has been hellbent on destroying the state pension system, has turned down federal money which would help to fund social programs, and is now trying to implement a ridiculously regressive taxation system.
- rhizome 14y ago
  You do your argument a disservice in saying he sold his soul to the Republicans. I think it's more likely that his goal is using his "extreme intelligence" for the things he wants to do, and it just so happens the Republicans decided to fund his "startup" (so to speak).
- twoodfin 14y ago
  How does refusing to govern like a Democrat imply a sale of his soul? Just to take one example: Where do you think that Federal money comes from?
  - MisterBastahrd 14y ago
    Who said anything about Democrats? It'd be nice if he simply didn't govern like a complete imbecile. He's raided the state's emergency funds and sold off state assets in order to prove that he can balance a budget, and has in effect put the state in a worse position than it was under the previous administration, and THAT'S saying something.
- penny500 14y ago
  So basically Republican economic policies are all evil, now? There is virtually zero empirical proof that any of their policies work economically? I'm afraid HN is slowly progressing into Reddit.