I don't know it's as easy to judge as people on both sides seem to sometimes think.

ST has listed some of the down sides of the Thatcher legacy, and there are more besides. Many of them are nasty and very unpalletable, but we have no way of knowing what would have happened had she not been in charge.

We were coming off of the back of power shortages, the three day week, and final the winter of discontent when seemingly the whole country was grinding to a halt in strikes supporting ridiculous pay claims of 40% or more.

If Thatcher had not taken on the unions, would that have just got worse with the unions basically holding the country to ransom, or would the calming down of the economy and the reduction of inflation have poured oil on the troubled waters anyway? I guess we'll never know.

One thing's pretty certain, the Falklands would now be Argentinian (probably not a big deal for any of us, but a pretty massive one if you happen to live there).

So, did she get everything right? Of course not, but I can't think of another high profile politician of the time - with the possible exception of Heseltein (sp) and Tebbit - who would have had the brass b0llocks to take them on.

I would call her a product of the time, and necessary, with a little lapse into megalomania!

I loved her.

Two points in reply:

1. If you were ‘too young’ you shouldn’t comment
Someone on here (I shan’t name names, but it was someone who doesn’t like Thatcher) said that anything I said, even if it was based on well-researched books and biographies, was irrelevant, because I was “too young” when Thatcher was around. Whereas his memory is presumably flawless and perfect after 30 years. It’s bollocks. Desperation from a scoundrel who has run out of proper arguments.

2. The “Thatcher made us great” myth
I agree that the myths around Thatcher are bollocks. But that’s true on both sides. One problem is there is no counterfactual. What would have happened if she hadn’t taken over? Three words: IMF, inflation, unions. We could write tomes and tomes on the pros and cons, but bottom line: she definitely fixed some problems. She exacerbated some others and created a fair few of her own, but if she wasn’t all good, then equally she couldn’t have been all bad.

With respect, most of the rest of your post is frankly just piggy-backing various injustices (idleness, sloth, selfishness, greed) on the back of a woolly concept (“Thatcherism”) as though you’re saying, ‘if it wasn’t for her everything would be dandy’. If that’s not a bullsh*t myth then I don’t know what is.

I would respond to the other points if I had more time.

One thing I do have to pick you up on:

Being ignorant, bigoted and selfish are character flaws.
Are you saying you think holding conservative views is a character flaw? Will definitely find the time to argue about that one if you are.

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...

What a wonderful woman and she changed this country for the BETTER until Labour took over with Boy Blair in charge who really made a pigs ear of running the country and getting us into the biggest debt crisis we have ever known...Also we have so many immigrants that we are overflowing and all our services are stretched to the limit.....All because he wanted the votes from his unchecked migration plans.......Boy are we suffereing now and will be for some time yet!!!!

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Did you dig her up then?

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

At the risk of going off on a tangent, I would dispute that ‘Thatcherism’ was in any way socially conservative. Closing down traditional industries, flogging off council houses, centralising power at number 10, Thatcher was anything but a social conservative. She was a radical.

Economically she was ultra-liberal. I have a lot of sympathy for that (I am a strange, conflicted mixture of social conservatism and economic liberalism) and I think she achieved a great deal. Take privatisation. Many sclerotic state-run industries became economic powerhouses (eg, British Airways, British Telecom) and transformed the British economy permanently for the better. Indeed the rest of the world copied and continues to copy her with much success. (There were of course exceptions, eg, utilities and railways.)

Interestingly, there are also some world-leading British chemical and manufacturing companies which you don’t hear about in the mainstream media (unless you’re sad like me and listen to lots of business programmes on the radio) which were spun off out of the likes of ICI. Thatcherism isn’t all about fat cats and inequality.

Which isn’t to say it was all to the good. A socially more conservative PM would have recognised that you can’t just let the market rip up traditional industries and not expect a massive social fall-out. She was either naïve or just indifferent to that bit.

If she was indifferent, then you might justifiably call her cruel and callous. Personally, I suspect she was more naïve than indifferent. She once expressed regret that charitable giving and volunteering didn’t increase as she cut taxes. Coming from a strict Methodist background, she just assumed that if you got government out of the way, then you’d free up space for people to look after each other. It wasn’t her fault that most of them chose only to look after themselves.

I’m interested by your comments on Capitalism. For me, capitalism is just a fact of life, like gravity. Of course you can *officially* banish market forces, but ask anyone who lived in East Germany, capitalism was at work there alright, albeit preferring those with access to political capital rather than the financial kind.

As for “working towards egalitarianism”: I’d say that ideology’s been responsible for even more damage than Thatcherism!

...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread...