Margaret Thatcher was also a scientist b4 she got into politics and was very successful in both, and what's more she accomplished all this without quotas like we experience today preferencing ppl based on genders for various occupations.

@Dan.Dawson She was definitely a career politician - her careers as a chemist then barrister were just a means to that end. From an early age, she was obsessed with becoming a politician and it is likely she had deep-seated narcissistic traits, possibly inherited from her father who, if the rumours are to be believed, was a most unsavoury character. As for having political convictions, she did and didn't. On the surface she did, but in reality she did not really practice what she preached in most areas. She was responsible for the Single Market (despite claiming to be against European integration), British membership of the ERM (despite claiming to be against moves to a single currency), the vast expansion of the state (despite claiming to want to "roll back the state", she actually increased the role of the state in people's everyday lives), the National Curriculum (what happened to keeping the state out of people's lives?), she softened the criminal justice system, and she initiated backdoor negotiations with the Provisional IRA (despite her hard public stance against them). On the other hand, she did develop a meglomaniacal conviction in the liberal economic ideas of Hayek and she applied them as a catholic dogma, blind to the consequences of such policies on a complex society. Her hard industrial policies loosened and destroyed social cohesion in parts of the country - especially in the north of England. That is not to say her views lacked merit. I somewhat agree that, on paper, British coal mining and other areas of manufacturing, and the various state industries, needed to become more efficient from a business point of view. The coal industry, for instance, was ridiculously overmanned and outdated compared to other countries and modernisation was needed, but her execution of the necessary remedies was guided too much by academic textbook philosophy and too little by a genuine feeling for people and an understanding of the society in which business and industry are situated. Her narrow, ultra-rationalist approach to industry had a revolutionary, Year Zero, almost Maoist flavour to it, partly motivated by a desire to destroy the political base of the Left. She could have achieved the same thing differently. She showed a tin ear to the wider economic and social consequences and ramifications of shutting down pits and breaking British industry. This was people's lives, not just numbers on a spreadsheet, and ironically for a trained scientist who claimed to be adroit in economics, she failed to appreciate the scientific nature of an economy, in that it is akin to an ecological system in which the different parts are co-dependent and set within a complex society. She saw things in terms of the morality of self-help, perhaps influenced by her Methodist upbringing. When commenting on the miners in her political memoirs, she stated (words to the effect): "We were not there to provide outdoor relief for miners". She was a crank. She was a preachy, sanctimonious, supercilious clothead. At bottom, I think she lacked sensitivity and understanding for people whose experiences were different to hers, and paradoxically (and admittedly, contrary to her intentions), the state expanded under her premiership to address the needs of all the unemployed she created - and that legacy is still with us today, in the lingering multi-generational social problems, with swathes of people who have never worked in full-time employment because there is no industry and, with so much immigration (labour hyper-competition), employers can be ultra-choosy for what jobs there are. Her approach was Philistinist and uneducated, and I roll my eyes when I hear similar appeals today. This is why, while she certainly had her good points and was not all bad, I don't believe she deserves the uncritical admiration she receives. At the same time, I don't believe she deserved all the hate she received, nor should her memory be tainted by such hate today. We must bear in mind that she was a creature of her time: she spent most of her political career as essentially a social democrat, in common with most post-war British politicians. That changed with Heath, who was the first real proto-thatcherite - a fact now widely forgotten. He had to reverse his free market policies in the face of industrial opposition, which explains much of what Thatcher later did. Had Labour won the 1979 general election, they would have implemented a scaled-down type of "thatcherism" and closed pits and reduced manufacturing, and would have had to confront militant trade unionists, and so on. The underlying forces were for this. It was wrong, but whether it was by scheme and design or just incompetence, I cannot say. It wasn't all down to one person, that's for sure. She was the servant of other masters. We call it "Thatcherism" rather than, say, "Heathism" or "Callaghanism" or something else, because she happened to be the person in charge at the time, not because these views and beliefs were specific or unique to her.

😂😂😂

Because of the bloody woke infested snowflakes. I mean, my honourable friends have some great ideas but lack spunk and leadership because they can’t say what they want for fear of offending the doorstop that holds the house of common’s door open. I’m LGBT and I do not get offended by a strong leader as long as the honourable leader has a good heart and the best interest of their constituents.

@@jakemcgovern8111 Yea, the woke snowlfakes elected Boris Johnson, Theresa May, David Cameron, and Tony Blair. lmfao haven't got a clue what you're on about

She was not great all of the time, look at Section 28, for example

​@@H-Marina-Sas-Pige-TapaBear in mind that awful policy was also supported by many Labour MPs and Peers.....

What has anal - penile intercourse got to do with real education in schools? It's filthy and spreads disease, because the anal passage is designed for the excreting of faeces from one's body, and NOT sexual penetration. That is what the female vagina is for.

Right??? Seems like hearing Meloni.

@@n3493 and she is right .

Not very

Not very, as he was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time.

Nor would she have plunged us into lockdown.

What specifically did you like? Give me 5 policies

She was running the country into the ground by 1990

Well heard. Lol.

he said "Reisewagen". it was a german firm he said.

The third Reichswagen

Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan always bested her in the Commons

Woahh.

She was based af

Good old fashion common sense. It still exists. It's just that people who have it are afraid to use it.

Turns my stomach as to what we’ve become. MT bang on the money, once again.

@@billmarsh1971 She didn’t stop immigration

Pish posh

That’s Margaret Beckett

Her entire cabinet looked like something out of a horror movie eg. Nigel Lawson, Geoffrey Howe, Douglas Hurd, Michael Howard, on and on...

I agree with you for the most part. However, I believe that while some of her policies were mistakes (such as poll tax and anti-LGBT laws) she did more good than harm that no one else was willing to do. The unions had brought the economy to its knees and our industry was no longer profitable, it needed to be privatised so the country wasn't constantly bankrupt, as well as the power of the unions being restricted. No other MP was willing to admit that Consensus was failing and that the problem lied at the size of the Welfare State and the out of control unions. But yes, I think she got too big for her boots and lost touch with the people (like all succeeding politicians)

@@mattyhew5121 The economy needed reform but Thatcher was an extremist. She was basically the right wing version of Corbyn. A mixed economy is a much better alternative rather than just leaving everything to the markets like Thatcher did.

​​@@mattyhew5121 Privatisation has lead to price rises in every area. Fuel, aviation, communications and transport all cost far more today and the private companies running them are raking in record profits.

@@kevinlongman007 yes but public ownership means that while they may be cheaper, everything else isn't cause the country is broke. Privatisation allows the economy to grow and therefore more money for everybody. Thats just how economics works

@@mattyhew5121 Bigger profits for the private companies and their shareholders...the rich get richer and the poor get squeezed more, while the service provided does not necessarily improve. You only have to look at the railways and water companies to see that.

He was always a leftist. The Tory party was full of them even then.

Is that you Klaus?

Nobody should be allowed to push capitalistic exploitation of poor people in any country

In a free democracy, people should be allowed to push any political ideology they wish

​@@richardchasonthat's exactly the point. We must ban democracy, because 99.9999% of citizens/subjects/residents do NOT have the proper political and historical education and thus do NOT deserve the right to vote

I see you know your judo well.

@@erniemccracken2429 sorry I was eating a succulent Chinese meal

Neither did his predecessor Michael Foot

His clichés are horrendous. A mere show off. No political basis at all

Wilson was the only leader she faced in which she was always outperformed, I’m talking very early on in 75-76, because she was then inexperienced in leading the party, unlike Wilson.

@@liamb8644 Yes, you are right. Wilson was a very skilled politician and performer in Parliament. Interesting to note that Mrs. Thatcher became close friends with Mary Wilson in later years.

@@liamb8644Jim Callaghan also bested her in debates and At questions

Hate to break it to you, The Royal Family have no executive power over the UK. There's a lot of ceremony that takes place but thats about it

They are the head of state. They control the armed forces and they sign bills into law and can fire the primary minister at anytime. I hate to tell you but you need to educate yourself again. There certainly doing their speaking at the speakers club parle-ment with the primary minister present

@@pa7447 Are you British? I am and I fully know what powers the Royal Family have and they most certainly cannot fire Prime ministers. Your getting ceremony mixed up with operations. Ceremonally it's called His Majestys Government, that doesn't mean King Charles gets to decide if he wants them or not or can fire them. Parliament decides if a Prime Minister is fired. The power in the UK is held within 2 parliaments - House of Commons and Lords.

Think you'll find that was Gordon Brown by turning a budget surplus into a gigantic deficit and selling gold at the bottom of the market.

English

Mature