Maggie Thatcher passes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kaninchen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is legalizing abortion to full term for the life and health of the mother, and even in regard to the disability of the baby (dependent on how that is defined), the equivalent of abortion on demand? It may not be in accord with the Catholic faith, but some Protestants (including the late Margaret Thatcher), as well as those of other religions, may accept such conditions. What is then so wrong with Margaret Thatcher’s legalizing this? Isn’t England still primarily a Protestant nation, and is legalizing abortion according to these conditions denying Catholics the right not to have an abortion under any circumstances?
Abortion was legalized before Thatcher came to power. She extended the abortion act. She also relaxed divorce laws.

England still has and established church - which is Anglican, but they are not a religious nation. What surprises me is Catholics in America who would not vote for a pro-choice politician, yet were supportive of Thatcher.
 
That would be nice, yes.
In the first instance I’m a Trade Unionist. Always have been always will be.
I am working class and grew up in culture where class distinction and belonging to a Trade Union was important to people. I appreciate criticism of Trade Unions is not unwarranted, but Thatcher wanted to make it illegal to belong to one at all and Trade Unions were the only voice the working classes had - particularly Irish Catholics. She succeeded in passing a law preventing certain civil servants from belonging to one. No working class Trade Unionist could support Thatcher.

Putting personal bias to the side -

Poverty rose dramatically during the Thatcher years as a consequence of her policies. Her treatment of the working classes and the poor was diabolical. Even former members of her own cabinet said that, and said it was the reason they resigned from her cabinet.

She was undemocratic and in fact a dictator. If any of her cabinet disagreed with her she got rid of them. She gets credit for being the ‘Iron Lady’ and refusing to budge. However their is time to listen to the advice of others and a time to negotiate. She wouldn’t listen to her own ministers. ministers she appointed, when they were giving her sound advice. She ignored them to the point where her own cabinet ousted her. Political commentators have suggested John Major was put forward in the hope the Tories would loose the election as another term in office would have destroyed the Tory Party - which was Thatcher’s doing. Major won the election and it did destroy the Tory Party. Not that I personally minded that having no love for the British Conservative Party, but it demonstrates what those closest to her and her one time ardent supporters really thought of her, contrary to what they are currently saying publicly.

She gerrymandered elections to stay in power and gagged the press. On one occasion Thatcher was elected to power on a 38% majority.

She said she was going to make Britain a nation of homeowners which she did. However, she then crippled homeowners with interest rates as she refused, against the advice of economists and her own cabinet, to control inflation by any means other than interest rates. Thousands of people lost their homes, the suicide rate soared, and it cost the country a fortune putting families up in B & B’s because they were homeless.

She destroyed industry and replaced it with nothing. Unemployment was at an all time high during the Thatcher years and to this day the UK has still not recovered from the Thatcher years.

She handled the hunger strike badly - further polarizing nationalists and unionists and was the cause of the escalation in violence. Had she handled it better which if she is elected PM she is supposed to be able to do, quell the situation rather than inflame it, much could have been avoided. In addition, the whole time she was saying ‘we will not negotiate with terrorists’ a senior minister was secretly engaged in discussions with the IRA which she was aware of. When the hunger strike ended I believe he was sent to Argentina.

She gets credit for the Falklands War and her role in the Gulf War. Many a soldier who served in these wars will tell you how badly the Thatcher government treated them on their return home.

I’m a nationalist I was willing to support the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, it was a dictated peace in that she gave people here who wanted to remain British no voice on the matter. She didn’t even consult with local politicians. Unionist’s were outraged - more violence - because it was a dictated peace and they felt she had betrayed them, yet she was willing to send men to fight in the Falklands because people there wanted to remain British. At that time, Thatcher was behind in the opinion polls and it was coming up to the General Election. She may well have made the same decision had that not been the case, but I don’t think anyone can say it wasn’t an influential factor.

She destroyed the NHS and her policies on education prevented the working classes from obtaining a university education.

She destroyed communities and ‘Thatcherism’ produced a narcissistic, materialistic, self-centered generation.

She did nothing for women, or the elderly. She encouraged women to stay at home and be good mother’s, as of course she did, :rolleyes: and people who had paid into the state pension all their working lives, some who had fought for their country found themselves living on the poverty line as a consequence of her treatment of them.

The ‘brain drain’ was a consequence of ‘Thatcherism’ as the only work that was available to smart, young people was low-paid service industry jobs. One of the reasons why the UK now has a very high percentage of people over 60.

She kept income-tax down but phenomenally increased indirect taxes on every day goods and many other things, and gave big tax cuts to the rich.

There is no doubt there were people who prospered during the Thatcher years, most did not. It can be argued she strengthened the economy, but at what cost and who benefited most?
 
In the first instance I’m a Trade Unionist. Always have been always will be.
I am working class and grew up in culture where class distinction and belonging to a Trade Union was important to people. I appreciate criticism of Trade Unions is not unwarranted, but Thatcher wanted to make it illegal to belong to one at all and Trade Unions were the only voice the working classes had - particularly Irish Catholics. She succeeded in passing a law preventing certain civil servants from belonging to one. No working class Trade Unionist could support Thatcher.

Putting personal bias to the side -

Poverty rose dramatically during the Thatcher years as a consequence of her policies. Her treatment of the working classes and the poor was diabolical. Even former members of her own cabinet said that, and said it was the reason they resigned from her cabinet.

She was undemocratic and in fact a dictator. If any of her cabinet disagreed with her she got rid of them. She gets credit for being the ‘Iron Lady’ and refusing to budge. However their is time to listen to the advice of others and a time to negotiate. She wouldn’t listen to her own ministers. ministers she appointed, when they were giving her sound advice. She ignored them to the point where her own cabinet ousted her. Political commentators have suggested John Major was put forward in the hope the Tories would loose the election as another term in office would have destroyed the Tory Party - which was Thatcher’s doing. Major won the election and it did destroy the Tory Party. Not that I personally minded that having no love for the British Conservative Party, but it demonstrates what those closest to her and her one time ardent supporters really thought of her, contrary to what they are currently saying publicly.

She gerrymandered elections to stay in power and gagged the press. On one occasion Thatcher was elected to power on a 38% majority.

She said she was going to make Britain a nation of homeowners which she did. However, she then crippled homeowners with interest rates as she refused, against the advice of economists and her own cabinet, to control inflation by any means other than interest rates. Thousands of people lost their homes, the suicide rate soared, and it cost the country a fortune putting families up in B & B’s because they were homeless.

She destroyed industry and replaced it with nothing. Unemployment was at an all time high during the Thatcher years and to this day the UK has still not recovered from the Thatcher years.

She handled the hunger strike badly - further polarizing nationalists and unionists and was the cause of the escalation in violence. Had she handled it better which if she is elected PM she is supposed to be able to do, quell the situation rather than inflame it, much could have been avoided. In addition, the whole time she was saying ‘we will not negotiate with terrorists’ a senior minister was secretly engaged in discussions with the IRA which she was aware of. When the hunger strike ended I believe he was sent to Argentina.

She gets credit for the Falklands War and her role in the Gulf War. Many a soldier who served in these wars will tell you how badly the Thatcher government treated them on their return home.

I’m a nationalist I was willing to support the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, it was a dictated peace in that she gave people here who wanted to remain British no voice on the matter. She didn’t even consult with local politicians. Unionist’s were outraged - more violence - because it was a dictated peace and they felt she had betrayed them, yet she was willing to send men to fight in the Falklands because people there wanted to remain British. At that time, Thatcher was behind in the opinion polls and it was coming up to the General Election. She may well have made the same decision had that not been the case, but I don’t think anyone can say it wasn’t an influential factor.

She destroyed the NHS and her policies on education prevented the working classes from obtaining a university education.

She destroyed communities and ‘Thatcherism’ produced a narcissistic, materialistic, self-centered generation.

She did nothing for women, or the elderly. She encouraged women to stay at home and be good mother’s, as of course she did, :rolleyes: and people who had paid into the state pension all their working lives, some who had fought for their country found themselves living on the poverty line as a consequence of her treatment of them.

The ‘brain drain’ was a consequence of ‘Thatcherism’ as the only work that was available to smart, young people was low-paid service industry jobs. One of the reasons why the UK now has a very high percentage of people over 60.

She kept income-tax down but phenomenally increased indirect taxes on every goods, and gave big tax cuts to the rich.

There is no doubt there were people who prospered during the Thatcher years, most did not. It can be argued she strengthened the economy, but at what cost and who benefited most?
Ah I see. Thank you. I can honestly say I didn’t know anything more than the name before this. (Not even who the name belonged to, so to speak.) so this gives me a lot of insight.
 
Abortion was legalized before Thatcher came to power. She extended the abortion act. She also relaxed divorce laws.

England still has and established church - which is Anglican, but they are not a religious nation. What surprises me is Catholics in America who would not vote for a pro-choice politician, yet were supportive of Thatcher.
It doesn’t surprise me .

It leaves me dumbfounded and flabbergasted . :confused:🤷:confused:
 
Steyn (=genius, imho)
Nevertheless, she won. In Britain in the Seventies, everything that could be nationalized had been nationalized, into a phalanx of lumpen government monopolies all flying the moth-eaten flag: British Steel, British Coal, British Airways, British Rail . . . The government owned every industry — or, if you prefer, “the British people” owned every industry. And, as a consequence, the unions owned the British people. The top income-tax rate was 83 percent, and on investment income 98 percent. No electorally viable politician now thinks the government should run airlines and car plants and that workers should live their entire lives in government housing. But what seems obvious to all in 2013 was the bipartisan consensus four decades ago, and it required an extraordinary political will for one woman to drag her own party, then the nation, and subsequently much of the rest of the world back from the cliff edge.
Thatcherite denationalization was the first thing Eastern Europe did after throwing off its Communist shackles — although the fact that recovering Soviet client states found such a natural twelve-step program at Westminster testifies to how far gone Britain was. She was the most consequential woman on the world stage since Catherine the Great, and Britain’s most important peacetime prime minister. In 1979, Britain was not at war, but as much as in 1940 faced an existential threat.
Mrs. Thatcher saved her country — and then went on to save a shriveling “free world,” and what was left of its credibility. The Falklands were an itsy bitsy colonial afterthought on the fringe of the map, costly to win and hold, easy to shrug off — as so much had already been shrugged off. After Vietnam, the Shah, Cuban troops in Africa, Communist annexation of real estate from Cambodia to Afghanistan to Grenada, nobody in Moscow or anywhere else expected a Western nation to go to war and wage it to win. Jimmy Carter, a ditherer who belatedly dispatched the helicopters to Iran only to have them crash in the desert and sit by as cocky mullahs poked the corpses of U.S. servicemen on TV, embodied the “leader of the free world” as a smiling eunuch. Why in 1983 should the toothless arthritic British lion prove any more formidable?
nationalreview.com/articles/345435/mrs-thatchers-losing-victory-mark-steyn
 
Is legalizing abortion to full term for the life and health of the mother, and even in regard to the disability of the baby (dependent on how that is defined), the equivalent of abortion on demand? It may not be in accord with the Catholic faith, but some Protestants (including the late Margaret Thatcher), as well as those of other religions, may accept such conditions. What is then so wrong with Margaret Thatcher’s legalizing this? Isn’t England still primarily a Protestant nation, and is legalizing abortion according to these conditions denying Catholics the right not to have an abortion under any circumstances?
In fact it was the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 which amended the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (which had made abortion illegal) which first amended the law so that an abortion carried out to save the Mother would not be illegal.

*The Infant Life Preservation Act 1929
In 1929 the Infant Life Preservation Act amended the law stating it would no longer be regarded as a felony if abortion was carried out in good faith for the sole purpose of preserving the life of the mother. The Act made it illegal to kill a child ‘capable of being born live’, and enshrined 28 weeks as the age at which a fetus must be presumed to be viable. Importantly the Act allowed a doctor to perform an abortion legally if he/she was ‘satisfied that the continuance of the pregnancy was liable to endanger the health of the expectant mother’. *

In answer to your second point the 2011 census showed that 59.4% of people declared themselves Christians in England (if you include the figures for the rest of the UK the percentage would be higher) Of that 59.4%, 8.6% are estimated to be Roman Catholic so yes, it is primarily a protestant nation and was more strongly so in the past so this undoubtebly has influenced attitudes to abortion.
 
You have real good posts LiturgyLover, I’m sorry we had a disagreement some months ago, I apologize if there was any offense, you’ve probably even forgotten but you’ve had very good posts in this thread and elsewhere.👍
 
I was born in the largest “council house” (public housing) estate in Europe - Wythenshawe. My parents lived in council houses, so did their parents. I went to state school. I lived in England in the 60’s and 70’s. I’m working class - the first in my family ever to go to University.

But Thatcher was right - coal mining was dying, Steel was going offshore, the unions were too powerful.

It was terrible to watch people losing their livelihoods and communities - but it was inevitable and it was already happening.

She was right about the Falklands.

She was wrong about Mugabe and South Africa.

She was right about Bobby Sands, but she was wrong about Ireland.

She was right about the Soviet Block.

She was right about the Euro.

She wasn’t likable. She wasn’t sexy. She wasn’t hip. She wasn’t witty. She wasn’t compassionate. But she was strong and she was right most of the time.
 
You have real good posts LiturgyLover, I’m sorry we had a disagreement some months ago, I apologize if there was any offense, you’ve probably even forgotten but you’ve had very good posts in this thread and elsewhere.👍
Thanks Broomwagon. No offence taken and I enjoy reading your posts too. Best wishes
 
I was born in the largest “council house” (public housing) estate in Europe - Wythenshawe. My parents lived in council houses, so did their parents. I went to state school. I lived in England in the 60’s and 70’s. I’m working class - the first in my family ever to go to University.

But Thatcher was right - coal mining was dying, Steel was going offshore, the unions were too powerful.
I wouldn’t say she was wrong on the point coal mining was dying and steel was going offshore. The solution was wrong. She did nothing to develop modern industries or anything else to replace what had died. She let things lay dead.
It was terrible to watch people losing their livelihoods and communities - but it was inevitable and it was already happening.
And she did nothing in terms of damage limitation and didn’t need to go about things the way she did.
She was right about the Falklands.
I wouldn’t say she was wrong to send troops into the Falklands - if that’s what you mean by ‘right.’ She was wrong to treat soldiers who served in the Falklands so badly when they returned. If it hadn’t been an election winner she may not have done it at all. And many Ulster Protestants/Unionists feel she did not give them equal treatment as British citizens as compared to the Falklands and in that was wrong.
She was right about Bobby Sands, but she was wrong about Ireland.
I don’t know what you mean by being ‘right’ about Bobby Sands, but she was one of best recruitment officers the IRA ever had. Her handling of the hunger strike revived support for the IRA that had been waning in epic proportions. I would argue had it not been for way she handled the hunger strike, Gerry Adams would not have been elected.
She was right about the Soviet Block.
In what sense?
She was right about the Euro.
You’ve got me there. But let’s be honest, Thatcher took Britain into the Common Market and in the beginning she was very pro-European. The lady who ‘wasn’t for turning’ did turn - she did a complete u-turn on Europe.

In terms of being a good leader, I suppose that all depends on what your definition of a ‘good’ leader is. It is true when she made her mind up she refused to budge. Is that always a good thing?
 
Thatcherite denationalization was the first thing Eastern Europe did after throwing off its Communist shackles —
…not because it intended to, but because the IMF forced it to perform a massive sell-out of assets below the market value. The whole thing was essentially a ploy to transfer national wealth of these countries into private hands 🙂
 
You’ve got me there. But let’s be honest, Thatcher took Britain into the Common Market and in the beginning she was very pro-European. The lady who ‘wasn’t for turning’ did turn - she did a complete u-turn on Europe.

In terms of being a good leader, I suppose that all depends on what your definition of a ‘good’ leader is. It is true when she made her mind up she refused to budge. Is that always a good thing?
Actually she didn’t bring the UK into the Common Market, that was Edward Heath in 1973, but you are right that she was a supporter of the European framework as it existed then and before it morphed into the more bloated and bureacratic EU - she also negotiated a huge rebate on the UK contribution.

On the second point it’s not fair to say she refused to budge - she was happy to be challenged if there was a coherent argument (but she seriously misjudged on the poll tax and that was her downfall. Some of the papers released under the 30 year rule give a fresh insight into the discussions and negotiations that took place.

I also agree that her governments did not do enough for the areas devestated by
industrial closure, but lifting restrictive practices and monopolies created a multitude of jobs and by the end of her tenure GDP and average earnings had risen considerably but the price was sadly large communities that are still dependent on welfare.

The sad thing is that both Labour and Tory governments had tried gentle reformation with the unions but their militancy virtually brought the country to a standstill so a tougher stance was needed, but could have been counterbalanced with more support.
 
Actually she didn’t bring the UK into the Common Market, that was Edward Heath in 1973, but you are right that she was a supporter of the European framework as it existed then and before it morphed into the more bloated and bureacratic EU - she also negotiated a huge rebate on the UK contribution.
Your right it was Heath.

On the second point it’s not fair to say she refused to budge - she was happy to be challenged if there was a coherent argument (but she seriously misjudged on the poll tax and that was her downfall. Some of the papers released under the 30 year rule give a fresh insight into the discussions and negotiations that took place.

Probably not, but I would say she budged more than she wanted anyone to know about. I have no doubt papers that can now be released will tell a different story than the public image. They very often do - when no one except history and politics students really care.
I also agree that her governments did not do enough for the areas devestated by
industrial closure, but lifting restrictive practices and monopolies created a multitude of jobs and by the end of her tenure GDP and average earnings had risen considerably but the price was sadly large communities that are still dependent on welfare.
I honestly have to say I don’t know where these jobs were created. It can’t be disputed unemployment was at an all time high during the Thatcher years. It is true some people’s earnings increased considerably. However, the gulf between low earnings and high salaries increased dramatically.
The sad thing is that both Labour and Tory governments had tried gentle reformation with the unions but their militancy virtually brought the country to a standstill so a tougher stance was needed, but could have been counterbalanced with more support.
I’ve been an active Trade Unionist from I started work. For years the only political voice the working classes had was the union. But I have always said strike again should be a last resort, when your back’s to the wall and you have no alternative, and a serious enough issue is at stake because no one wins in a strike. The best you can hope for is damage limitation and strikes harm the workforce as much if not more than the employer.

It’s fair to say though, that people who were supportive of Thatcher’s dealings with the unions are people who by and large don’t support them. It is also a fact she wanted to pass a law making it illegal to even belong to a trade-union, was successful in passing a law preventing some senior civil servants, who were mostly middle-class, not militant and had a no-strike policy from being members of a trade union. That’s a bit extreme - to say the least.

Still, nice to know we can have a civilized discussion irrespective of our contrasting views. 🙂
 
I think the actions of Britain’s unions in the 70’s and 80’s (and I’m not anti-union) did alot to turn public opinion against them. In spite of that, how often to you hear the truth that the Miners Strike in 84-85 was led by a Communist who openly admires Lenin and Joe Stalin.
 
I think the actions of Britain’s unions in the 70’s and 80’s (and I’m not anti-union) did alot to turn public opinion against them. In spite of that, how often to you hear the truth that the Miners Strike in 84-85 was led by a Communist who openly admires Lenin and Joe Stalin.
Are you referring to Arthur Scargill?

I think the unions did turn public opinion against them. Initially the public were on their side. However it was another episode in history Thatcher could have handled much better. If she had, things would not have reached the epic proportions they did.

Public opinion is arguably the most influential element in terms of whether or not strike action will be successful. If a strike drags on public opinion wanes because people want their lives back. A couple of years ago classroom assistants in my kids school held a series of strikes. Parents and the community were completely supportive of them, but they can only cope with disruption for so long.
 
It’s fair to say though, that people who were supportive of Thatcher’s dealings with the unions are people who by and large don’t support them. It is also a fact she wanted to pass a law making it illegal to even belong to a trade-union, was successful in passing a law preventing some senior civil servants, who were mostly middle-class, not militant and had a no-strike policy from being members of a trade union. That’s a bit extreme - to say the least.

Still, nice to know we can have a civilized discussion irrespective of our contrasting views. 🙂
It is nice to be able to have a civilised discussion, and I am a supporter of good strong and constructive unions too. But as a former Senior Civil servant who was a member of the FDA and later Prospect, I am puzzled by the reference to banning union membership for senior civil servants. Even our Permanent Secretary is a union member. When did this happen? - it certainly passed me by somehow.
 
She was right about the Euro.
.
How was she right about the Euro ?

It was the Maastricht Treaty of 7th Feb 1992 which agreed to create a single currency which became known as the Euro , although without the participation of the UK , by January 1999 .

She had been turfed out of office by her own Conservative Parliamentarians in 1990 , and it was John Major who negotiated for the UK on the Maastricht Treaty .

Another Thatcher Myth laid to rest ! 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top