FairwayDodger
Money List Winner
A pretty balanced article attached
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...reedom-for-workers-nations-and-the-world.html
Hmmm... I think we have a different definition of the word "balanced" it puts a certain spin on things and contradicts my recollection of her handling of SA (it was a long time ago, admittedly!
Regardless....
I also consider it crass and inappropriate to celebrate her death. She achieved a lot, and deserves credit for being the first female PM. Sadly not for many of her policies.
She was a polarising figure - an idol of the right, enemy of the left and people's views of her will be shaded by their own political perspective. For me, as a student in the latter years of her time as PM, I was not an admirer. In addition to everything raised here already how about abolishing student grants and introducing "Section 28"?
I'm too young (don't get to say that often enough any more!) to know what working in the 70s was like and whether posters are correct to suggest that she needed to tackle the unions and close down so much of our heavy industry. Consider this, however. Assuming it's true that these industries were inefficient and dependant on government subsidy at least they provided jobs and respect for people. All that was really achieved by encouraging the free market and international capitalism and allowing these industries to die was that the work moved to low-cost economies.
Now we have millions unemployed and millions more underemployed relying on benefits and working tax credits; much has been made of this by the tory supporters on here. Which was better - subsidising industries to provide real jobs or subsidising the people who can't find jobs paying a living wage?
Perhaps there was another option that she was too ruthless or dogmatic to explore?
The poll tax thing is interesting. I had long bought into the line that it was "tried out" in Scotland first but have actually been persuaded overnight that wasn't the case at all. It seems English councils weren't as prepared for it as up here and the secretary of state pushed for it to go ahead to try to deflect the grief he was receiving over the rates system. Possibly the best argument to support this is that is it had just been a trial why didn't she cancel the roll out in England since it was such a disaster up here?