Did she save Britain?

Did she save Britain?

If yes, why do leftists hate her?
If not, why hasn't any government reverted her measures yet? It's been over 30 years

Do you believe Thatcher economics would save Greece?

Other urls found in this thread:

gregpalast.com/sell-the-lexus-burn-the-olive-treernglobalization-and-its-discontents/)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

She wass good at starting fights not great at economics or negotiation.

So she's the quintessential brit?

Scot Economist Mark Blythe argues that austerity is a surefire way to push a country further into debt by destroying its ability to grow the healthy portions of its economy.

So, if he's right, then she, and any Austerity fiscal politicians were a sickness not a cure.

Check out her immigration policy, mongoloid

No. Hope that bitch is burning in hell. Tried to make voting pay-to-play.Turned Scotland red. Sold off/shut down our heavy industry - now tata owns British steel, and we buy French coal. Flogged our utilities, which are now all foreign owned. Etc

No. We don't start the fights, we finish them.

True

Strong and botch jobs. 75 billion pound deficit; the poo in loo colony surpasses you economically; hallways medicine; wins with the jock cup party or something. Duppy duppy sippy cup party

Yeah we kill all subhuman Russians here.

I never understood why we gifted you an alphabet, perhaps out of pity.

austerity saves the skin of the rich rather than give stability and future economic growth to a country as a whole

>would a british PM have saved greece
no and british politic style wouldn't either. greece should fix itself instead of looking outside for help. they need philosophy grown at home for the modern time, rather than foreign thought from decades ago.

northern mongs blindly hate her because she just continued labour policy of mine closures and cracked down on benefit cheats. thatcherite southerners blindly idolise her because of muh falklands and how she became tougher on europe

reality is between the two, good and bad. ultimately thatcher was pretty decent but not many modern prime ministers have been worth much compared to those from before, primarily because party politics mattered a lot more now and in the last 100 years.

I've just had a brilliant idea. What if we just... write the deficit off? You know, just tell it to fuck off?

Putting the country in debt or taking from those who produce to those that don't are both worse ideas.

R A R E
A
R
E

>Putting the country in debt

How can a country be in debt to itself? Do you not see how ridiculous that is?

...

She was too stubborn as was Skargill.
We could have had finance and heavy industry and kept the EU at arms length.

She put in motion the downfall of British industry, destroyed whole sectors to prove points and refused to back down on pretty much anything. She did do good things, selling off council houses cheap to tennants for example, but didnt think into the future (didnt reup the stock of council houses.)

All in all Id say she did more harm than good. But, then again, all politicians are parasites so this isnt a surprise.

are you serious?

Brought the country out of a terrible economic and social situation, left us with lost of long term and insidious problems by destroying tarditional structures (trade unions, all of our industry, unified england [she greatly increased the north-south divide], fucked our oil, worker's rights etc.).

She famously said 'there is no such thing as society'. Pretty much the most anti-conservative statement you could make. She really set the tone for neolib tories vs neolib (and occasionally commie) labour that we're stuck with now, with no actual conservative, nationalist, socially conscientious option.

Globalist cuck who completely destroyed what little manufacturing base we had left and turned us into a (((service-based economy))). She's the reason Northern England is still so much worse off than the South. Her role in ending the Cold War is also vastly over exaggerated. She basically made us into America's bitch. A position we still occupy to this day. Her only """""achievements"""" were winning that stupid meme war with Argentina and abolishing jus soli.

>Do you believe Thatcher economics would save Greece?
If by "save", you mean vastly increasing childhood poverty, then sure.

Where does the Bank of England get its money from? Itself. Who owns the Bank of England? The public. The public are paying back "debts" created by governments and financial institutions who were using public money for private gain, and when it goes wrong, who foots the bill? That's right, the public.

So how the fuck do you wonder how internal debt can exist you retard?

No. She killed it.

Man you guys have ruined the word cuck. Margaret Thatcher of all people being called one is just...lol

Yeah maggie was based :^)

Because we believe it does, but it's a belief in an idea, it is an ideology, not reality.

Bitch, do you even know what FIAT currency is?

What are you on about? Nothing wrong with closing a few coal mines and buying it cheaper elsewhere

>itt butthurt commies

Yes, an idea, an ideology.

Does it give you bread to eat?

Can't really say didn't live through her era

No, a wheat farmer and a baker etc does.

You don't buy it with money?

Money is a representation of something's value, not the value itself. It is a way for value to be represented in an objective way. It is only an idea of value, not the value itself.

She didn't just close a few coal mines, she decimated even private industry with high interest rates.

>it's communism to want your country adequately defensive instead of trying to withdraw to a north atlantic sub hunting role, a position which would later be proved right when the falklands war started against a backdrop of negotiating the sales of aircraft carriers and landing ships to the australians and poos.
>it's communism to want policies that don't harm private enterprise for the benefit of the financial sector

>Did she save Britain?
Undoubtedly

>If yes, why do leftists hate her?
Because she rekt them in three successive elections and forced the left to move right-wards to win

>If not, why hasn't any government reverted her measures yet? It's been over 30 years
Telly you all you need to know, even someone like Corbyn who is considered far-left is only proposing to reverse a tiny portion of what she accomplished.

His big proposal to hit the wealthy is to increase the top rate of income tax to 50% - when Thatcher entered office it was 83%

Do you buy real things with money?

>forced the left to move right-wards to win
fucking hell read "the abolition of Britain"
on cultural issues she did basically nothing, even legalizing homosexuality in Scotland.

She Americanised our society. That's all. That Tony Blair could ever be regarded as an achievement (except in creating the most contemptible political synthesis possible.) says it all. Lest we forget for all her later crowing, she also signed the Single European Act.

She embraced individualism, and did her best to remove post-war elements which were related to the Beveridge Report.

Leftist hate her, but she must of done something right considering she got elected so often.

she saved it from some things and doomed it to plenty of others

In simple terms, she told the striking unions that they could strike until they starved, she stopped using government money to prop up unprofitable industries like coal and others, she brought down red tapes and liberalised the market and she caused Britain to essentially put all its eggs in finance and the city of London as a big money-making scheme which has worked to make Britain's economy richer and more efficient so far. She also put emphasis on less gibsmedats and more "get on your bike and create wealth for yourself".

Leftists hate her precisely because of the effects of doing this. Working class people who had entire communities based around their propped-up jobs were suddenly destroyed and all of them left unemployed. Less red tape an less union power = more opportunity to "exploit" workers. Less welfare and redistribution means a tougher time for "ordinary" or lazy people.

She should be praised for doing all of the above that leftists hate, so yes she was good for Britain.

However, she can be criticised. She didn't put enough effort into creating profitable high-tech industries and instead just went all finance. If finance fucks up Britain's economy fucks up too, unlike Germany who's industry gives it more versatility during economic collapses.

Some social conservatives value close-knit community culture and heritage protection as well, so by making everything about money social conservatives like Peter Hitchens and some of Brit/pol/ criticise her as well.

I have done yes. Are you then saying money is not a real thing?

Bump

Yes and that the argument "money is not real" is bullshit not because it is real but because being "imaginary" doesn't affect the way it works at all.

>cucked Britain for daddy Murica so they get even more gibs
>outsourced everything
>persistent warmonger
>founded cuckservatism in Britain same way Reagan did here

She was shit. I'm sorry. We haven't had a good head of government in a century. She only seemed good compared to what succeeded and immediately preceded her. Ultimately, she was of no consequence to us. She didn't halt the biblical inflow of wogs, she didn't prevent us becoming a minority in our capital, she made no attempt to reverse the cultural and moral rot that had set in since the Second World War, and most of all I think the fact that people who purport to be "conservatives" today revere her so is a testament to our moribund society. Crowning achievement was presiding over the Falklands War, trash-talking socialists in parliament and generating hard-left outrage to this day. Scratch the surface and you have a bog-standard economically liberal, socially liberal titular "conservative" though, which is why I discount her.

Money is not only imaginary, it's a pretend belief that an imaginary thing exists.

>we
You have as much relation to Socrates as Jamal has to George Washington.

Stop smoking crack.

Is WASP landing in Plymouth is of same stock as the average "American"? Is pure Englishmen similar to 1/2 German 1/4 Irish 1/8 English 5/64 Polish 1/64 negro, 1/32 Sioux """"""White"""""" American?

You are a grekoi mongrel, not Hellenic.

She didn't cut red tape, she transformed red tape.

Where once we had an inefficient nationalised railway*, we now have a series of inefficient privatised railways still subsidized by the state (especially since the private sector made such a balls of running the tracks that they had to be renationalised to avoid the total collapse of the rail network.) and owned by foreign countries who nationalised their own railways. Same with power: EDF isn't a cute little acronym that means nothing, it's "Électricité de France". These people do things no cheaper and no more efficiently than we used to do them, they just prop up a certain clique of data-collecting management type instead of some illiterate povo union member.

*I know railways were privatised under Major, but it's a nice example. Major and Blair really ramped up the natural conclusion of this ideology, and Blair even had Thatcher's blessing.

Bump.

I know that this is the popular view among the left, but let me present an alternative view.
Callaghan, the leader of the Labour party at the time, got us into a deal with the IMF in 1976. Some say that such a deal wasn't necessary, but whatever.

Now, if you've read Greg Palast's article "Sell The Lexus, Burn the Olive Tree" (link here: gregpalast.com/sell-the-lexus-burn-the-olive-treernglobalization-and-its-discontents/) you may have heard of what happened when Equador went to the IMF for assistance - read to find out about the Equador Interim Country Assistance Strategy, which laid out the blueprints for IMF """"assistance"""", namely:

>1: Privatisation
A sovereign nation's industries can now be sold to foreign interests and run for profit, asset stripped, whatever.

>2: Capital Market Liberalisation
The money made from privatisation can now be allowed to flow out of the country to the pockets of foreign investors, when the market sees that the flow of money keeps flowing out of the country instead of inward investment, they shit themselves and the scene is set for:

>3: Market-based pricing
Food, water and energy prices get hiked through the roof for profit, in order to cover the deficits caused by the above capital market liberalisation, hence riots in various countries about the price of gas, water, etc.

>4: Free trade agreements
The corpse of what is left of the country can be picked to the bone for whatever can be sold to turn a fast profit.

Looks a lot like what happened in the UK since the 80's, doesn't it? Except it would be bad for business if the UK was to admit publicly that it was now beholden to the IMF and essentially bankrupt, so now there is a huge reliance on the City of London's financial services industry, which could be used to prop up the failing system with ever more creative ways of creating more and more debt.

I believe that Thatcher did the best with the situation she inherited.

>Some say that such a deal wasn't necessary, but whatever.
It's worth noting one of those people was the chancellor at the time, Denis Healey. The treasury (through cockup or conspiracy, in the atmosphere of the time the latter not incomprehensible) overestimated the public borrowing requirement. Healey insists if he had an accurate figure he'd never have requested the loan, but there you go.

Definitely right about the evil of the IMF though. There are some fun quotes kicking about from James Callaghan's advisor about the idea the IMF specifically wanted to undermine them, actually. They came across evidence the IMF were encouraging people not to aid the socialist government in Portugal so that it would collapse or be forced to take punitive IMF terms. (This is all also codified as the "Washington Consensus" set of policies the IMF promotes.)

>Callaghan’s advisor, Bernard Donoughue: ‘…was privately summoned to the United States Embassy for a secret meeting with a very senior official there who said, “You should be aware of something, which is that parts of the Treasury are in very deep cahoots with parts of the US Treasury and with certain others in Germany who are of very right-wing inclination and they are absolutely committed to getting the IMF here and if it brings about the break-up of this Government, they will be very, very happy.” He actually showed me a copy of a secret communication between London and Washington which seemed to confirm this view.’

1/2

>In his book Prime Minister, Donoughue commented:‘We were not being paranoid in 1976 in our suspicion that the IMF was capable of launching economic “remedies” which would destroy Governments (especially Governments of the left). A year later in November 1977 the IMF mission to Portugal (including a senior member of the 1976 mission to the UK) refused to grant a credit tranche to the socialist minority Government led by Mr Soares because he would not make immediate savage economies, which would certainly have brought down his administration and allowed back into power the old anti-Democratic parties of the far right. An internal IMF briefing, which we saw among diplomatic papers in Downing Street at that time, stated quite brutally that the IMF policy was to create a foreign exchange crisis over the next two months. The IMF staff explicitly asked the Western Governments of the United States, Germany, Japan and Britain to withhold financial and economic aid in order to create a foreign exchange crisis which would bring the Soares Government to its knees and so force it to accept the harsh IMF prescription.’
>He also noted that:
>I then spoke also to one or two friends in Washington, on the State Department side, who were convinced that something was going on and there was some agitation in Downing Street. What this adds up to I don’t know but I was intrigued a year or so later when in Downing Street we happened to come across a telex relating to the IMF in Portugal which actually specifically said that this economic crisis might possibly be a means whereby an undesirable, which meant socialist, government might be replaced by something a bit more acceptable … there was no doubt that I think some people, on an individual basis … did raise the possibility of getting rid of the Labour government. When I spoke to Ed Yeo he told me that a domestic deficit of more than 3% was not just a question of economics but was a moral issue reflecting the immorality of our government

>Right to Buy
>Good

Right to Buy is good in theory until you look at the influx of immigrants from inside and outside the EU, the lower number of houses built and the lack of social housing

then people being able to buy their council houses just makes things worse