Do you think part of the vitril/hate aimed at Thatcher is because she is a woman?

[lesley33]

Okay Margaret Thatcher enacted a lot of policies that made a lot of people very angry and she certainly didn't set out to do anything to promote the rights of women.

But I am struck about the amount of vitriol that is still aimed at her all these years later. There have been male politicians - Norman Tebbitt springs to mind - who have been responsible for similar policies and have been hated at the time, but I never read about people still hating these politicians many years later.

I'm not sure if this is just because Thatcher was PM or is it because she is a woman and by behaving the way she did, she stepped well outside traditionally permitted female behaviour?

What do you think about this?

It's not easy to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when the coal mine where you work closes down, there is nothing else for miles around so you go to London, expecting to get a job and end up sleeping on the streets.

which is what happened.

A bit like Cameron today, telling claimants to get a job. Could he get off his backside and create some jobs please.

Wealthy people always assume that if they were to find themselves in the position where they had no work, hungry children, they would get on their bike and find a job, like some sort of MGM musical, complete with Dick Van Dyke doing a wee jig and doffing his cap to his betters.

I think that people who are highly skilled (which often correlates with wealthy) do find it easier to up sticks and find another job. I know plenty of people who have moved across the world for a job because they couldn't find one in Paris (or London). It isn't just fond imagining. But circumstances are different.

Well littlealbert I am the daughter of a miner who was made redundant so to some extent I agree with you.

There are some situations where everyhting seems to conspire againt you. And that of course is precisely what the welfare state is for.

But I am often astonished at how passive people. And not only during times of adversity. When things are going okay, they seem happy to just bumble along, assuming it would seem that nothing will change. The complacancy I see on MN is breathtaking.

But in the 80's she was destroying the UK's manufacturing base. What were those people to do when the factories, steel, coal closed down? Go to Paris?

LittleAlbert I agree.

I always contrast this attitude with the Tory support for landowners in the countryside whose livelihoods were decimated by CJD/foot and mouth/the ban on foxhunting. I don't recall them being told to get on their bikes/horses and look for work or adapt to the changing economic times that we live in.

And in answer to the OP, no. I hate her for her actions, her inactions and her utter lack of compassion and would (and do - see W.G Bush) hate a man every bit as much for such disregard for fellow human beings.

I don't understand the "she was destroying" part of your post. Industries that become uncompetitive have to be restructured.

But also - haven't human beings always bumbled along? I don't think it's too much to ask for a job with a living wage, where you can live in peace and safety, have a holiday once a year, sit in your garden and have a laugh.

That is what many people want out of life - certainly I grew up on an estate and that is what most people did. And they were bus drivers, milkmen, toilet cleaners, secretaries etc

"I don't think it's too much to ask for a job with a living wage, where you can live in peace and safety, have a holiday once a year, sit in your garden and have a laugh.

That is what many people want out of life - certainly I grew up on an estate and that is what most people did. And they were bus drivers, milkmen, toilet cleaners, secretaries etc"

It is outrageous to think that that is what you deserve out of life

Why is that outrageous? Why is it outrageous for working class people to have somewhere to live and quality of life? Do a productive job which enables them to live? Do you disagree with minimum wage? You live in a country where the wealthy are taxed very heavily, do you disagree with that?

In the Western world no-one in future is going to get a house and garden and holiday for a manual job. It's a non-starter. People are going to have to be a hell of a lot more productive to have that kind of lifestyle.

Why do we need drive and ambition? Surely if you require all the population to be risk-taking and driven, what you end up with is a lot of people who are burnt out or have lost out. What Thatcher did was change a society in which most people got a job for life and worked at it and had a family life as well to one where you had to be driven and where work is vastly more important than everything else.

I understand the need to look at whether industries are profitable or not, but what Thatcher did was too much, too fast, and stopped people from having the chance to react.

In response to the OP: I think that Thatcher gets a lot of hatred because she was PM for so long. She was the 5th PM to be appointed in the 70s and remained there until the 90s. This means she gets a lot more flack than the "blur" of PMs prior to then.

I live in a country where the quality of accommodation is far lower than British people are used to. Where middle-class professional families rarely have enough bedrooms for each child to have their own; where parents sleep on a sofa bed in the living room. And no-one thinks it is strange or that they are badly off for doing so.

wordfactory - What do you mean by the complacency you see on mns?

Then it's a sad state of affairs when the Western world cannot provide housing for manual workers. A wee council house with a garden and friendly neighbours (you know, a community) Someone should tell the French government...

For God's sake, it's not sad, it's economics. Who is supposed to pay for the house/garden/holiday lifestyle?

I have family in France who live in a new-build near Rennes with an entire upper floor they do not use as they have so much room. And my cousin is out of work.

In London, (as in Paris) it is not unusual for families to live in cramped accommodation (I live in a two bed flat with three children) but in the suburbs and further out it is not unusual to have a small house, and I am sure it is the same in rural France.

I am a damn socialist Bonsoir - there is plenty of money, it just needs redistributing
Anyway I have to get on with an assignment

Have you seen a French council estate? "I am sure it is not unusual...". Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Wake up. You are dreaming about middle-class lifestyles funded by taxpayers for manual workers. No major Western economy can ever afford that sort of luxury.

We did in the past.

Why the hell should people who slog their guts out year in year out, shouldering huge responsibilities leading companies that provide a living for many others while living in cramped inner city accommodation pay for rural manual workers doing 9 to 5 jobs to live in houses and gardens and have holidays?

The world has changed, LittleAlbert. We don't live in the past anymore and Western Europe is no longer the richest part of the planet. Sorry to have to let you know (but suggest you start reading the newspapers...).

Would it make it all better if they were living in cardboard boxes? Would the responsibility feel lighter?

Bonsoir - You are now being rude.

Bonsoir - that would explain fewer disposable luxaries. As a nation we have no less land as Asia rises however, so should still be able to provide reasonable housing for everyone.