Society & Culture0 min ago
A Fitting Monument To One Of The Greatest Prime Ministers Of The 20Th Century
187 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“If only she'd been equally clever in replacing the houses she used to buy votes with we'd be in a better situation today.”
“But the refusal to allow Councils to use the money raised, to build replacement homes was a grave mistake…”
The idea was to remove from the taxpayer the burden of providing “social” housing. There would not have been much point if one lot of subsidised accommodation had simply been replaced by another.
“As well as this high rate of unemployment, her fiscal policies resulted in mortgage rates of 17% in the early 80's !....I know as my monthly mortgage payments resulted in nearly 60% of my take home pay.
But all these consequences are carefully forgotten about by her supporters,…”
They are not forgotten by me, Mikey. I suffered similarly and they were regrettable. But instead of looking at it in isolation you need to examine the cause. This was principally that in the previous decade or two the trade unions had held the nation to ransom by making ridiculous demands, most of which were met. This led to the situation where, at the end of the 1970s, the country was financially broke and many vital services were all but impossible to manage.
To argue whether the Falklands affair was a conflict or a war is fatuous and regrettable. I’m quite sure it didn’t cross the minds of Balders and his mates when they set off for the South Atlantic to rid a British Overseas Territory of foreign invaders. It is unsurprising that they were easily invaded. They are 8,000 miles from the UK, had no military defences to speak of and had a mainly civilian population of under 3,000. The fact is that had somebody other than Mrs T been PM it is highly likely that the Falklands would have been sacrificed. To give an illustration, only yesterday Mr Corbyn suggested he would only defend the Falklands “as a last resort”. I'm not too sure what he means by that because Mrs Thatcher’s decision to defend them was a “last resort” as the Argentinians had no intention of leaving. The difference is she was immediately loyal to the 3,000 souls that lived there whereas I cannot imagine many other politicians (either past or present) who could be similarly relied upon.
Mrs T’s statue is well deserved, long overdue and in fact should be placed permanently on the “fourth plinth” instead of the mish-mash of assorted rubbish that has been placed there in recent years.
“But the refusal to allow Councils to use the money raised, to build replacement homes was a grave mistake…”
The idea was to remove from the taxpayer the burden of providing “social” housing. There would not have been much point if one lot of subsidised accommodation had simply been replaced by another.
“As well as this high rate of unemployment, her fiscal policies resulted in mortgage rates of 17% in the early 80's !....I know as my monthly mortgage payments resulted in nearly 60% of my take home pay.
But all these consequences are carefully forgotten about by her supporters,…”
They are not forgotten by me, Mikey. I suffered similarly and they were regrettable. But instead of looking at it in isolation you need to examine the cause. This was principally that in the previous decade or two the trade unions had held the nation to ransom by making ridiculous demands, most of which were met. This led to the situation where, at the end of the 1970s, the country was financially broke and many vital services were all but impossible to manage.
To argue whether the Falklands affair was a conflict or a war is fatuous and regrettable. I’m quite sure it didn’t cross the minds of Balders and his mates when they set off for the South Atlantic to rid a British Overseas Territory of foreign invaders. It is unsurprising that they were easily invaded. They are 8,000 miles from the UK, had no military defences to speak of and had a mainly civilian population of under 3,000. The fact is that had somebody other than Mrs T been PM it is highly likely that the Falklands would have been sacrificed. To give an illustration, only yesterday Mr Corbyn suggested he would only defend the Falklands “as a last resort”. I'm not too sure what he means by that because Mrs Thatcher’s decision to defend them was a “last resort” as the Argentinians had no intention of leaving. The difference is she was immediately loyal to the 3,000 souls that lived there whereas I cannot imagine many other politicians (either past or present) who could be similarly relied upon.
Mrs T’s statue is well deserved, long overdue and in fact should be placed permanently on the “fourth plinth” instead of the mish-mash of assorted rubbish that has been placed there in recent years.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
There seems to be a misapprehension that statues are built only to honor the popular which I find very confusing. Thatcher's legacy utterly transformed Britain and even Labour's current manifesto - the most anti-Thatcher manifesto of any major party since she left office - does not stray completely from her vision (it is very hard to imagine her ever privatising Royal Mail, for instance).
When British history is taught in the future, it simply won't be possible to understand the late twentieth and early twenty-first century without reference to Thatcher. A statue is thus inevitable.
When British history is taught in the future, it simply won't be possible to understand the late twentieth and early twenty-first century without reference to Thatcher. A statue is thus inevitable.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Body & Soul8 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News10 mins ago
Crosswords17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.