What opinion does Veeky Forums have on Thatcher?

Most people here would beat the fucking shite out of you

I am indian, they would beat the shit out of me either way.

We call her Witch because bitch would be unkind to dogs.

>completely decimating the north
>economic reality
Tons of industries that don't make money are kept alive by our low as fuck interest rate, they're probably doing far more damage to the economy than the mines, hell with our new found position as a country with a weaker currency having coal infrastructure would've been pretty fuckin' helpful in getting some exports people want.

Glorious. I'm sure Corbyn will deliver you all from evil

Fuck Unions, Argentinians and coal miners

And double fuck leftist shitbags

Margie was good value

>tory

>fuck people who work, the chinese and people who work
Business's always have advantage in deals with their workers because they can just fire them, don't want to fire them? well do some fucking negotiation you lazy cunt, if the labour's that valuable to you fucking pay for it.

Excessively low interest rates are the forte of neo-keynesians while Margaret was a monetarist who raised rates to control inflation in the early years.

Maggie would have kept the economy lean and competitive, traditional manufacturing would decline only to be replaced by high-tech manufacturing. She would also keep the EU thoroughly whipped so no brexit would be needed.

Also the workers can leave for another company. The business has to pay competitive salaries to keep valuable workers. You'd know this if you had a proper job

/pol/ types love her because "muh free market" but she's literally the reason London is a non white city today

lmao you really have no clue about what monetarism really achieved in economics do you

hint: it's in the name, mainly the importance of monetary policy rather than fiscal

low interest rates in a stagnant economic climate and low inflation doesn't go against monetarism at all, neo-keynesians would also raise interest rates to control inflation (because it's a monetarist and keynesian synthesis), which is irrelevant right now because inflation is low

No idea what you're talking about.

...

the >muh grammar schools post

still lauded to this day as having achieved social mobility even with no evidence they did anything to help the poor rather than just the general social conditions of the time

Controversial, but when people are asked to name their favourite PM they usually say Thatcher or Churchill so she must have done something right.

Not my point - even from a conservative perspective she was a failure who could have done so much more but decided to piss away ten absolutely crucial years fighting unions which ceased to be relevant in the end thanks to globalisation of trade through the EU anyway

Like it or not, your opinion is in the minority, especially among conservatives.

>people still correlate freer markets with mass immigration

Please stop doing this it drives me fucking insane.

I don't really think they're conservatives though, they're just libertarians who enjoy the fact that she angered left-wing people after twenty years of their dominating politics, they treat it like a football game

>having achieved social mobility even with no evidence
Intelligent students from poorer backgrounds being able to access good education generally does help social mobility, yes. Two good examples being David Starkey and Andrew Neil, both of who were born in poverty and managed to be socially mobile thanks to grammar schools.

Perhaps you prefer the current condition when only the rich are able to access decent education?

>wtf why do people correlate selling off our country and letting employers do what they want with bringing cheaper labour to the UK????

Fuck off lolbertarian, your ideology cannot work with nationalism.

and there are kids who went to comps who achieve prominent roles to this day, the education secretary would be an example

i went to a comp, i'm a middle class professional, but actually look into the data of social mobility - who went to grammars back in the 'good old days' and all that, the poorest kids 90% of the time in grammars left the earliest or didn't get in in the first place

i realise it makes some intuitive sense, but this is why i said there is no evidence they actually helped. basically grammars failed at what people said they did (don't buy into anecdotes, read a journal paper on it), they boosted middle class kids much more than poor ones

add to that the kids that didnt go to grammars end up doing worse than what would be expected or compared to other systems without selection, our aggregate goes down and we're all worse off and you get people who lose their manufacturing job but don't have any of the skills to find something else

>and there are kids who went to comps who achieve prominent roles to this day

Far less. So much potential is wasted in comprehensive schools.

>they boosted middle class kids much more than poor ones

I'd prefer that to poor children not getting any chance whatsoever.

>add to that the kids that didnt go to grammars end up doing worse than what would be expected

Then improve comprehensives rather than removing the only decent system.

hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2016/11/can-anyone-be-impartial-or-independent-about-grammar-schools-thoughts-on-the-epi-report.html

God damn it you beat me to it

Overall positive.

Good
>Wrecking Unions
>Ending state dependent inefficient industry
>Financial deregulation

Bad
>Right to buy while preventing like for like replacement with the resultant funds
>Selling off natural monopolies for the ideological sake of it, e.g. utilities
>Grubby foreign policy - including supporting the fucking Khmer Rouge (This alone condemns her to an eternity spit roasting on Satans fiery dick)

I come from a lower middle class family and a grammar school got me into uni

If you ask people outside of Britain, those are the only two pre-Blair PM's we know.

Fuck off back to /britpol/

>Far less. So much potential is wasted in comprehensive schools.

far less that private schools sure, same as it ever was even with grammars, middle class kids at comps do fine, so do plenty of poor immigrants kids, it's far more than the actual schools themselves

>I'd prefer that to poor children not getting any chance whatsoever.

the problem is you can't just look at low social mobility is now vs then and say it boils down to grammar schools, our society is hugely changed

in post war (40s, 50s and stretching to 60s) the middle class was relatively small, and many more 'middle class' jobs were being created, by necessity this meant some people from the lower class simply had to eventually end up in middle class professions, this would have happened without grammar schools and did in countries without them

>Then improve comprehensives rather than removing the only decent system.

with a grammar school system they'll always be a second tier (third if you want to include private but that's another issue really), the name doesn't matter (secondary modern or comp)

i'm fully for improving comps, london's comps were improved massively and i think similar can certainly be done for other cities, poor rural and poor coastal towns have much more difficult issues

hitchens best argument here is the idea of creating elites, or elitely educated to improve the lives of the many, alas this tends to show a misunderstanding of society, economics and how the school system works

the reports also show that while not boosting social mobility (and if anything harming it) a grammar system also diminishes the overall educational attainment and thus makes a society poorer (just look at all the money pumped to our more poverty stricken towns, some of the poorest in western europe)

so do i and a comp got me into uni, unis are chock full of mediocre lower middle class kids just like us grammar or not

No they wouldn't you wanker. Stop trying to act hard on the internet.

A jew and white genocidal.

No no no. What the honorable gentleman is saying is that he'd rather be ruled by jews. JEWS.

>why do people correlate selling off our country and letting employers do what they want with bringing cheaper labour to the UK????

1. Immigration is wholly dependent on Government ruling and in regards to Britain can be immediately traced to the Labour governments of 1997-2009 and the Conservative governments 2010-Present. Labour had no interest in supporting freer markets at all. France has horrific mass immigration despite being ran by Socialists in the 80's.

2. Comparative advantage means it would make sense for the UK to specialise in certain areas while importing efficient goods and services from other nations, which was even the case pre 1979

3. The economy Thatcher inherited was a disaster and comparable to that of Italy's, notably at the time of the 1973–75 recession. Thatcher did tremendous work rebuilding it.

That doesn't really contradict what I said. Monetarists aim for the correct interest rates while neo-keynesians like Krugman try to push it as far down as they can get away with, they would raise rates but not as much as monetarists and not as much as needed, hence the pickle we are in today.

>Started a war that was not necessary
She knew her actions would lead to war and she did it, solely so she could get a boost in popularity just before an election.

No matter what her other actions were she should be remembered as a warmonger.

She didn't support the fucking Khmer Rouge. Well, yes, but in the same way Trumps supported the Bernies and Europe's establishment supported the Farages.

>Khmer Rouge are gonna fuck up Cambodia, genocide millions of lemonheads, war Vietnam and Laos , generally fuck up the entire region and be a thorn in the side of ''''communism'''' international public image

>What should a righteous britishconservative like me do?? Shill hard for the Khmer while at the same time pander against the evils of communism. Obvious.

If you're thinking of the Falklands war, then a whole of 1 (one) person died in it. Hardly makes her a warmonger, does it?

What? How on earth is she to blame? She deliberatly didn't build bases on the falklands so as not to provoke argentina.

hundreds died

If Hillary and Hitler had a baby

>Right to buy while preventing like for like replacement with the resultant funds

You realize the houses brought using "right to buy" were mostly run down council estate terraces right? they were worthless, no shit they couldn't have replaced them, building new housing is expensive.

I think she did manage to keep the economy afloat but all her reforms are coming back to bite us in the ass now.

She also probably kept the troubles going for like a decade longer than it should have otherwise lasted.

...

>withdrawing military forces from the region and negotiating with the Argentinians makes her a warmonger.
I really can't tell if you're trolling, or if the left is so desperate to believe in Thatcher's evil that they've convinced themselves that she caused the Falklands War.

>refusing to protect jobs and industries that held communities together

What's wrong with that?

>Thatcher is evil for enacting economically liberal policies and closing the coal mines

>Trump is evil for want to enact economically protectionist policies and wanting to keep the coal mines open

How leftists can get away with such hypocrisy?

Liberalism is a form of mental illness.

Thatcher didn't even "close the coal mines", they literally couldn't afford to open without ridiculously massive government subsidies, she tried desperately to find a way make them profitable but the miners made it impossible.

She was a witch, a woman without a shed of compassion it goodwill. The effects of her policies and the ruthless way she pursued them will impact Britain for generations.

>destroyed British industry, putting millions out of work
>crushed the unions and the rights of workers
>depleted the social housing stock by selling off council homes, a policy which greatly contributes the the housing crisis today
>degregulated the banking industry which was the main factor in the 2008 economic crisis
>escalates the troubles by refusing to recognise the struggle or legitimate grievances of Irish republicans
>apologist for apartheid and the fascist regime of Pinochetp

British Industry destroyed British Inustry
It wasn't Thatcher who mismanaged the British automotive industry into ruin during the 70's.

>no actual historical connection
umm full offense sweaty but the islands were actually populated by argentines in the early XIX century and british pirates literrally siezed the island by force so...

A piece of shit at a personal, pollitical and historical way, just admired by alt right faggots who want to "trigger" lefties.

the islands were first discovered by the english, then settled by the french and english almost simultaenously.

and then they left

so

the quintessential cuckservative. like Reagan, she betrayed her own nation's workers in the name of free trade and globalism. modern day Brexit/Trump supporters who like her (or Reagan) are completely retarded

The irony is that Trump/Brexit is a specific refutation of Reagan/Thatcher style neoliberalism.

Conservatives who once voted for Reagan and Thatcher in droves have now all but completely abandoned their ideals

What's wrong with free trade, exactly?

she sucked up to deng and refused to call his bluff, giving the commies Hong Kong on a silver platter.

Also enabled Robert Mugabe and ousted the Rhodesian government.

>Chinese clay that was rented

rented with who? The Chinese government that signed that treaty were ousted by the revolution, the commie PRC had basically zero legal rights and it was basically their excuse to try and force negotiations.

The new territories were ceded into the rest of HK the moment their government stopped existing (and this was what the British government THEMSELVES pointed to in the 60's when Mao was sabre rattling), it was British clay but thatcher was weak.

POO

They didn't have ideals in the first place, unless shameless opportunism counts as an ideology. Neo-liberalism was perceived as an interesting tool to make lotta shekels for the upper echelons and they went for it disregarding the effects on the whole of society. Then they backpedaled because it's no longer so good and want to turn to some sort of neo-protectionism that 'somehow' channels the flux of shekels back to the same upper echelons within 'some specific and limited trade relations with some specific and limited actors'. It's essentially the same thing.

How do you sell that to cletus and mick from Dixieland and Coventry?

By making great caps and blaming mexicans and eastern europeans. The same people they were 20-30 yrs ago lecturing about the goodness of neo-liberalism.

Shameless opportunism.

What exactly is wrong with unions?

>What's wrong with the people who made it impossible for people to heat their homes in one of the harshest winter in history, caused billions of economic damage and contributed to the early death of thousands

Capitalists?

And people on Veeky Forums ponder why left-wing politics are dying.

>people shouldn't be allowed to strike for better wages

>We shouldn't subsidize Israel and the military industrial complex who employ hundreds of thousands of workers that generate significant economic returns and provides free college education to thousands of pupils every year
>But we should further subsidize a industry which hadn't turned a profit in years and pay uneducated glorified button pushers a wage in excess of triple the national medium

Unionized businesses hire less workers and are more likely to go bankrupt: economics.byu.edu/frandsen/Documents/nonrandomelections2.pdf

Labor unions cause slower job growth during an economic recovery: csun.edu/~vcecn007/publications/Unions_and_Employment_Growth.pdf

Collective bargaining is associated with lower profitability, decreased investment in physical capital and research and development (R&D), and lower rates of employment and sales growth: www2.gsu.edu/~ecobth/Fraser_Union_Performance.pdf

The economic cost of unions (determined by combining lost income and output over the period 1947 to 2000) for the US economy exceeds $50 trillion, according to estimates by economists Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway. Unionization lowers incomes for all, albeit more in the relatively higher income states that on average have higher levels of unionization.
A state with a 10 percent unionized work force can expect a 0.7 percent increase in its unemployment rate. For each four additional workers who become unionized, one less person works: deltafa.org/pdf_library/do unions help the economy.pdf

The available empirical literature provides a negative answer to the question whether or not labor unions improve workplace safety: sole-jole.org/15566.pdf

I used a similar tactic to troll people who supported Clinton because muh female president.

In general nothing, but they were getting pretty fucking out of hand in '70s Britain.

What are the economic returns to subsidizing Israel?

I don't think the government should subsidize anything. If you believe in a free market then you believe in the right of workers to unionize and take union action to support themselves.

They spend pretty much every subsidy on American goods, allow every major US company to build R&D centre and signed a one-sided free trade agreement which allowed us to import pharmaceuticals and diamonds by the bucketload.

>Give Hong Kong to the ROC

So the PRC could immediately annex it?

>What's wrong with that?

Look up the Rust Belt.

It has benefits and drawbacks. Benefits include cheaper prices for goods, overseas economies develop as jobs relocate there. In theory, that opens new markets in the future for domestic industries to export to. Drawbacks include industry leaves for overseas, which can cause major economic downturns in areas which once depended on those industries, and most of the new profits from the free trade only go to those at the top, so while on paper free trade makes a nation appear more prosperous, for the majority their quality of life goes down.

Unions need to have their power checked. If they gain too much influence, they no longer just serve the interests of the workers, they serve the interest of the workers at the expense of the economy at large and can cause major damage to industries by rendering them noncompetitive. This is what happened to the US steel industry in the 1970s and 80s, where unions and their policies cause domestic steel to be too expensive compared the foreign steel and prevented innovation in the steel making process to protect their own jobs, The result was that the US steel industry collapsed.

>in the long run

Yeah you will probably lose your job and spend the rest of your life mired in relative poverty as you struggle to find work and what little work you do find you must do for a pittance as you have to compete against foreign labour that works for cents on the hour in conditions where there are no standards for health and safety, but the benefit is, in the long run, your children will be able to buy nike shoes for slightly cheaper (except they won't because the effect of the cheap labour of free trade on these corporations isn't more competition that forces prices down but a further and more drastic entrenchment of their market power, so likely the price of the shoes will be the same or higher)

>They spend pretty much every subsidy on American goods, allow every major US company to build R&D centre and signed a one-sided free trade agreement which allowed us to import pharmaceuticals and diamonds by the bucketload.
>pay people to spend money you paid them on you
That's beyond Keynesian m8.

Great material for trolls; Always starts a thread.

Otherwise an overrated politician and living fail amplifier utterly dependent on destroying the work of others for her own, if you could call it so, popularity.

'Thatcher Fail Radiation' turning others' gold to shit:
youtube.com/watch?v=cwaX_DgHZkM

youtube.com/watch?v=DQ6TgaPJcR0

8D chess

XD chess

All those retards who think we can bring the 1950's back are in for a rude awakening when protectionism sends us into a self-imposed recession.

...

Reagan in a dress

What do you mean you can't afford a $2000 phone?

...

>There is no such thing as society
>There are only individuals
>I am a conservative
U WOT M8?

She tore the heart out of this community.