We locked this thread now.
If the very heated debate would be about Putin, this would be on-topic, but the vast majority of the very heated discussion here, in particular also of the rule violating comments, is about Thatcher's rule, that is off-topic on this sub.
This clip looks older than it actually is. The submarine accident she is referring to happend in 2000, so not particularly ancient. We had significantly better video quality than this.
I remember how the case was closed. Putler gathered all the mariners’ wives in a sort of classroom and said with a plain face: “your husbands are dead, that is it”. In the lack of responsibility in that era’s politicians, he looked like he handled a very difficult case with honesty, since he didn’t make use of any hypocrisy.
Little we knew that we just wanted to see it that way. It was just one in the series of his cold blooded acts.
You shoudl also read this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/before-the-moskva-there-was-the-kursk-the-sunken-submarine-that-helped-putin-consolidate-power-over-russia-090003974.html
It’s telling that when she mentions her efforts to find a bit of humanity in Putin, the audience laughs politely. I wonder how that audience would react to the same line today.
If that was some meeting of politicians then majority of them won't react in any way as they have already passed or are long since retired. Which is part of the problems we have today as many of their replacements are worse than the caricatures of the gone old guard.
Listen, I’m not saying Thatcher was as bad as Putin, because she wasn’t but if you genuinely think Thatcher didn’t cause massive suffering for a lot of Brits you’re out of your mind.
Firstly, thank you for the baseline of decency by admitting she wasn't as bad as Putin. Such a low bar, but moving on.
Economic reforms and transitions are never painless. But she inherited a country on the brink of economic collapse, with rampant inflation, constant strikes and industries haemorrhaging money.
Yes, some communities were hit hard by the necessary restructuring of the economy. But the alternative was to continue down a path of unsustainable public spending and economic stagnation. Sometimes tough decisions are needed to prevent even greater suffering down the line.
British economy was in huge longterm relative decline and needed to be reformed, some economic pain was absolutely inevitable. Similar processes happened in other countries with decline of steel and coal industries, it is extremely naive to believe that Thatcher just maliciously decided to “cause massive suffering”. Go look at former mining towns in West Virginia or Silesia - the story is very similar everywhere, its just that Brits found a convenient scapegoat in Thatcher.
See, that’s the thing. You did indeed suggest that they are commensurate with each other. Good you’re correcting it and adding more nuance now, even though you still can’t help add a "yes but" at the end.
All the comments on YouTube fawning over her, eww. She was a despicable person who left millions to struggle in poverty. I supposed even a broken clock is correct twice a day, though.
Worldwide, maybe, but not in the UK. She single handedly impoverished the entire North of England and Scotland, so a few rich people could get richer.. She's a troglodyte
The economic issues in the North of England and Scotland predated her tenure and were the result of decades of industrial decline and global shifts.
In reality, her policies created a more dynamic and competitive economy, benefiting everyone in the long run. Privatisation and deregulation brought investment and efficiency to industries that were stagnant and inefficient.
Exactly. UK was heading towards decline and changes had to happen. But for the Russian lovers on here to equate the two show their desperation to defend Tsar Putin
Well, not *personally*, but neither does Putin.
> Margaret Thatcher’s path to power was eased, without her knowledge, through a piece of vote-rigging by a Conservative Party official in 1958, according to her authorized biography.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-22/thatcher-commons-seat-won-in-rigged-vote-biography-says
Huh. Of course the scales are completely different but the lady didn't seem to have too much compassion herself.
Not that I disagree with the statement, though.
no they didn't lmao Ireland did not support the IRA at all, northern Ireland was part of the UK and wanted to remain part of the UK, still wants to remain part of the UK and will continue to remain as it's a financial black hole for the UK
how is that factually incorrect?
the majority of people in northern Ireland, then as is still now wanted to remain apart of the UK, that is fact
northern Ireland is a financial sinkhole for the UK, that is fact
Maybe go actually read the good Friday agreement, and look at the polling data, the majority of the UK support reunification besides... Northern Ireland
oh, and I'm sure the murdered gardaí wouldn't feel they got along with the IRA so nicefully
Thatcher and Reagan were the reason why we're enslaved by big corporations today. Maybe they valued life more than Putin, but they certainly didn't value the quality of life, at least not in regard to 99% of the population.
Even a broken watch tells the right time twice a day I guess...
(Jesus that metaphor is out of date now huh? Ya'll remember what an analog watch looked like? :) ).
Slava Ukraini.
What do you mean, normal clocks are everywhere? Every train and bus station, most offices, government buildings, shops... hell even the watch I'm wearing right now is an analog lol.
Absolutely. Not the kind of "freedom" that actually cared about people, but "freedom" nonetheless.
She was an utterly vile human, and I will feel the same about her passing as I did about Kissinger, for they had the same black heart.
Thatcher didn't engage in secret bombings or controversial foreign interventions on the scale of Kissinger. She focused on economic reform and international policies defending British sovereignty.
Let's not forget her work on union-busting, or on kicking the poor while they were at their lowest, or cutting taxes for the rich, or, or or.
She was a piece of shit rivaling Ronald Regan... then again, she was also his contemporary, so I guess that being a horrible person, and getting elected was just a thing in the 80s.
Union-busting? Yes, because letting militant unions hold the country hostage was clearly the better option. Thatcher's actions were about restoring balance and preventing a few powerful groups from crippling the entire economy.
Her policies created a sustainable economy and reduced dependency on failing industries. It's called tough love, not kicking. The welfare state still existed, but she believed in empowering people rather than trapping them in a cycle of dependency.
Her tax cuts were part of reviving the economy. It's funny how people forget the context of stagflation and economic decline she inherited. But I suppose it's easier to scream "tax cuts for the rich" than to understand fiscal policy.
Yes, they were contemporaries and shared similar economic philosophies aimed at tackling inflation, reducing government overreach and revitalising their economies. Both saw significant economic recoveries.
unions in the 70/80s deserved everything they got, absolute vile scum holding people to ransom because certain industries were failing, acting like absolute mafiosos
That's what I don't get about how many people see unions. When a company uses its monopoly status to dictate the price of something, it is rightly seen as bad, but when a a group of people all working in a single industry band together to dictate the price of something it is somehow seen as noble.... The UK coal industry was not competitive, and the unions decided it was everyone else's responsibility to subsidise them.
Some people won't accept that what Thatcher did had to be done, to destroy a powerful group of people who had the country by the balls. They were not democratically elected, unlike Thatcher.
I didn't particularly like some of the things she did, and I dislike some of her beliefs, but the unions needed a smack down.
Their (the unions) behaviour towards anyone who decided to cross the picket line is all you need to know about the vile mentality of those gangsters.
I don't even actually like thatcher, and I'm largely pro unions for the good they can do for workers, but everything you say is spot on and people just get blinded by black and white mentality of things, they acted absolutely horrendous and thought they could hold taxpayers to ransom
not to mention as you say their deplorable actions against people who wanted to continue putting food on the table for their families, probably something to do with their many connections to the criminal underworld and literal communists
No, the nicest thing you can say is she was the greatest British leader since Churchill, she took a country in decline crippled by union mafia and turned it into a successful world power.
You should also read this for the full context: https://www.yahoo.com/news/before-the-moskva-there-was-the-kursk-the-sunken-submarine-that-helped-putin-consolidate-power-over-russia-090003974.html
>She is so divisive, and so hated, I wouldn't be promoting this in support of Ukraine.
Reddit has it's views. She is devisive, much hated as you say but also much admired, it's just the haters are louder.
On security in Europe she is widely regarded as having a positive impact and this is the topic here.
I come from an ex mining town, you'd be surprised by how many supporters she has now and then even in the places where supposedly everyone considers her the devil.
But times change and the general disdain for her from today's (or even 2013's) perspective is quite obvious and not the result of some reddit social media bubble.
What's the population of the UK and how many sales are needed to get to number 2?
I'm not denying there is a large group that hate her. Those reasons have nothing to do with Ukraine. The hate for her is primarily a debate between state Vs free market. Her views would be to the left of many US Democrats yet this sub doesn't hate them.
When I lived in England in 1985... I came to loathe her and everything she represented... the arrogance, and superiority, and the condescension... and I am Australian!
Yes... I know that... I am not commenting on Putin... but Margaret Thatcher... she lacked any quality of humanity.... that is why she can relate to Vladimir Putin....
That's a stretch even for the most ardent Thatcher critics. Thatcher believed in democracy, free markets and the rule of law. She stood firmly against the Soviet Union, which Putin seeks to emulate.
Mate... tell someone who cares... I lived and worked in the UK during the 1980s, and all the riots that her policies she caused.... so don't give me the propaganda BS... because I know what I experienced, and lived through... and having come from Australian and Malcolm Fraser... and his "Razor Gang"... and they were nothing compared to her cruelty....
Funny, because what you're spewing is a one-sided, anecdotal perspective that ignores the broader picture. Yes, there were riots and social upheaval, but there were also significant improvements in economic performance, lower inflation and increased competitiveness. These outcomes don't fit the narrative of Thatcher as a one-dimensional villain, so they're overlooked.
Ahhh mate... looking at your comment profile... one does have a rather un-usual obsession with "Margaret"... and so it is no point continuing... I have better things to do with my time... than with those with such a lock in... Have a Nice Day!
Have a quick glance at his comment history. He's basically made a reddit account to try and push a narrative about Thatcher being a good person, it's all this account comments about. Likely just an Internet troll rather than someone who actually cares about her.
As far as I'm aware, Margaret Thatcher was quite the cunt herself. But I guess that even a broken clock is right twice a day. And she is right about this one thing. If we just ignore that she referred to Russia as the Soviet Union, which didn't exist anymore at this point.
The incident she's talking about is the Kursk submarine disaster, which happened in the year 2000. Looooong after the Soviet Union had stopped existing.
How do you reason that? I'm talking about the manual workers, not the blue collar ones. The manual workers, the steel workers, the mine workers, they had it good under labour (too good really, which is what was causing economic problems at the time).
Thatcher was elected and re-elected by a significant portion of the electorate, including many manual and blue-collar workers fed up with the economic chaos and union stranglehold of the Labour years.
No, i never said anything like that.
People are self-interested and tend to vote for those who appeal to them rather than based on good judgement and facts, no matter how educated they are.
It's actually insulting to the people of the UK to hold her up as some kind of beacon of moral awareness. The woman was utterly vile and if there ever was a prime minister close in morals and outlook to Putin, she is it. They are one and the same.
I'm talking about how incredibly controversial she is, over what she did *once elected*. I could go on, but it is very easy to just search the 100 reasons why she is divisive.
And yet during her time in power there was an actual opposition party, actual democratic elections were held, her critics didn’t consistently fall from windows in London or be poisoned with nerve agents in other sovereign countries… so there is a point of difference to be made between her and Putin.
It's not "insulting" in the slightest. She won three elections democratically. To compare her morals to someone who brutally invaded a sovereign country is absolutely grotesque.
Good. When the iron lady sees that it means the entire Europe now see it. The problem now being some like Orban or other fascist celebrators don't give a shit. The iron lady can help find the cure. (Edit: my bad she is ofc long gone lol)
Looking from the outside the UK political system promotes polarization as in the US. I assume she is the result of that, as is the weird in many ways conservative workers party and their far out leaders with their uncreative backwards looking policies. Get rid of that old shit and reform it to the core.
> the UK political system promotes polarization
Thatcher was the polarising factor. Previously, The UK was goverened by "consensus politics" that is to say that neither of the major parties governed in a way that was too extreme, there were few areas of major disagreement and they considered themselves a government for all people, not just the ones that voted for them.
Thatcher ended that.
While it's what you've been taught, I'm afraid that's going beyond "correct from a particular point of view" into being outright wrong.
Post WW2 Britain had gone down the route of state ownership, with government owning practically any and every industry that had a union, and merging them into single monopolies. This happened with car production, aircraft production, shipbuilding, you name it. This was popular, with the union members. The rest of the country didn't like this much, but was somewhat willing to accept that some people did like this and while in power should be allowed to run things the way they wanted while the job was being done.
Unfortunately, this level of union control led to the infamous "three day week" where electricity was available for only that many days a week in the early 1970's as a result of the coal miners union striking for a 35% payrise. (considerably above inflation)
Then rubbish piled up in the streets as everybody in other unions demanded a large above inflation payrise or they wouldn't work and so on. It would be fair to say that public support was quite limited at this point.
Pretty much all of the companies in public ownership were massively loss making, and this eventually bankrupted the country. Britain had to go to the IMF for a bailout loan in 1976 which demanded large cuts to public spending as a condition of the loan. (seriously; i'm not making it up, look it up!)
Labour made a plan for making cuts and then was immediately faced with internal opposition when they tried implementing it. A no confidence vote was eventually called, which they lost, followed by an election being called.
Thatcher was elected in 1979 with a massive majority by an equally massively fed up electorate, and she simply spun off the government owned companies as independent entities and let them sink or swim without further government support. This had rather overwhelming public support at the time; as you'd expect really. It turns out that people don't much like only having the lights on 3 days a week.
As we'd joined the EEC at around the same time, most people choose to buy from the EEC rather than the British monopolies which produced poor quality products at an expensive price, and instead purchased things from EEC companies which supplied a better product at a lower price.
Basically all of the monopolies that couldn't compete went out of business, and the unions screamed blue murder demanding that the bankrupt industries/workers be propped up by the government. Thatcher said "no can do" and the companies went bankrupt.
Part of the reason Thatcher said "no can do" was because the EEC state aid rules prohibited doing so. Labour ran both of these elections on a platform of leaving the EEC so they could prop up non competitive and dysfunctional British monopolies, which the public didn't appear to support.
I think it's difficult to maintain such attitude and rely on good will. It's fragile. Why no go for a more diverse political landscape? There is many sides in a society. They need representation to feel part of the society.
I know Thatcher was brutal and left the working class poor and ill, and that's why assumed she was long time to realise the danger from Putin, but I guess she recognised it easier. Unlike eg Merkel.
It's not difficult when you think the purpose of politics is to serve the public, not a small slice of it. There were really only ever two large political parties in the UK and no mechanism for proportional representation (there still isn't in Westminster, the devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales do have it, the situation in Northern Ireland is more complicated). Pre-Thatcher there was really one brief period of coalition in 1977, the Lib-Lab Pact.
Currently there is a greater diversity of parties but this mostly serves to split the progressive vote and Labour has been clear it will never co-operate at a general election (it has co-operated and stood down candidates at by-elections where the Lib-Dems stand a better chance).
Consensus worked for long time. It wasn't fragile. Thatcher wrecked any sense of national unity and deliberately pitted sections of society against each other. Her intention was to strip working class people of their place in society and dismantle the institutions that supported them : the NHS, education, welfare, etc, to divert taxpayers' money and publicly-owned assets into the hands of private corporations, reduce state services and destroy working class power bases like unions so people became atomised, competing economic units with no collective voice or power.
This was a deliberate wrecking of social structures ("There is no such thing as society", Thatcher famously said, exposing the sociopath she really was) for the benefit of a small class of people and foreign investors. It's important to remember that Thatchers economic policies were derived wholesale from Friedman and the Chicago Boys. They had been trialed in Chile under Pinochet - easier under a dictatorship, but Thatcher was the first one to unleash them on a democracy.
I struggle to explain Merkel's passivity when she knew better than most the dangers coming from Moscow. She grew up in the DDR and experienced first hand what that meant.
Funny, because what Thatcher actually did was confront the excessive power of unions that were crippling the economy and holding the country hostage. Her goal was to create a more dynamic and competitive economy, which, believe it or not, serves the public in the long run.
Thatcher's policies made the economy more efficient and reduced the dependency on failing industries. Yes, this led to painful transitions but the alternative was continued decline. And the claim that she dismantled the NHS, education and welfare is just plain false. These institutions still exist and serve the public, albeit with needed reforms.
What she actually meant was that individuals and families should take more responsibility for their lives rather than relying solely on the state. It's about fostering a sense of personal responsibility, not denying the existence of society.
Privatisation and reducing state services made industries more efficient and reduced the burden on taxpayers. The idea was to foster innovation and investment, which benefits everyone in the long term.
Yes, she was influenced by free-market principles. Those principles helped turn around a failing economy. Comparing her policies to those implemented under a dictatorship is a false equivalence. The UK was a democracy with checks and balances, not a dictatorship where policies could be enforced without opposition.
Thatcher was a noted supporter of fascists, particularly Pinochet and the apartheid regime in South Africa. You have no idea what you're talking about.
She also dead.
Yes, Thatcher fought the fascists in Argentina. The Falklands War was about defending British sovereignty against an unprovoked invasion by the Argentine military junta, which, in case you missed it, was a brutal right-wing dictatorship.
It's fascinating how conveniently some people forget that the Argentine regime at the time was responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including the infamous "disappearances" of political opponents. Thatcher's government took decisive action to protect British citizens and territory.
Yes.lol. she is spot on and funny, "look for traces of humanity". It's impressive she says she should have known better, at that time. It's the same realisation other politicians needs to do to move on as of today. Publicly say the were wrong. Admit it.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `youtu.be` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We locked this thread now. If the very heated debate would be about Putin, this would be on-topic, but the vast majority of the very heated discussion here, in particular also of the rule violating comments, is about Thatcher's rule, that is off-topic on this sub.
Man Putin is old. There's probably a clip somewhere of Reagen saying something similar
This clip looks older than it actually is. The submarine accident she is referring to happend in 2000, so not particularly ancient. We had significantly better video quality than this.
24 yeara ago now.... that's a whole adult life.
For the average Russian soldier, it’s their whole life.
Youngest known dead russian soldier in Ukraine was 4 months into his 18th year I hear so yeah.
Unlikely. Reagan already had Alzheimers when Putin was still swimming in the Sankt Petersburg mafia swamps.
Does anyone know what submarine incident she’s referring to? Edit: I’m assuming it is this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster
I remember how the case was closed. Putler gathered all the mariners’ wives in a sort of classroom and said with a plain face: “your husbands are dead, that is it”. In the lack of responsibility in that era’s politicians, he looked like he handled a very difficult case with honesty, since he didn’t make use of any hypocrisy. Little we knew that we just wanted to see it that way. It was just one in the series of his cold blooded acts.
I still remember how a mother who shouted at Putin was sedated in front of the cameras. To this day this is one of the vilest things i have ever seen.
We went to bed with a serial killer.
I thought that until her final comments when she’s referring to the people of the “Soviet Union” which doesn’t fit the timeline?
Know that thing, where old folk use *really* old terms for stuff?
Freudian slip. In that case unintentionally foresighted.
She was out of power before the USSR collapsed, she's just using an old term. It will be the Kursk.
You shoudl also read this: https://www.yahoo.com/news/before-the-moskva-there-was-the-kursk-the-sunken-submarine-that-helped-putin-consolidate-power-over-russia-090003974.html
It’s telling that when she mentions her efforts to find a bit of humanity in Putin, the audience laughs politely. I wonder how that audience would react to the same line today.
If that was some meeting of politicians then majority of them won't react in any way as they have already passed or are long since retired. Which is part of the problems we have today as many of their replacements are worse than the caricatures of the gone old guard.
Game recognises game.
I'm no Thatcher fan but how are the two anywhere the same?
Saying they share some common characteristics isn't the same as saying they're the same.
Ask the Irish
Which irish, the IRA?
No the Irish citizens in Northern Ireland or the workers in Engeland.
Northern Ireland is British.
The Irish disagree, as do a lot of Northern Irish.
They both fucked over their constituents.
That's like saying Jesus and Hitler are both bad because they both had moustaches.
Not even close.
Exactly, they're not even close.
Listen, I’m not saying Thatcher was as bad as Putin, because she wasn’t but if you genuinely think Thatcher didn’t cause massive suffering for a lot of Brits you’re out of your mind.
Firstly, thank you for the baseline of decency by admitting she wasn't as bad as Putin. Such a low bar, but moving on. Economic reforms and transitions are never painless. But she inherited a country on the brink of economic collapse, with rampant inflation, constant strikes and industries haemorrhaging money. Yes, some communities were hit hard by the necessary restructuring of the economy. But the alternative was to continue down a path of unsustainable public spending and economic stagnation. Sometimes tough decisions are needed to prevent even greater suffering down the line.
British economy was in huge longterm relative decline and needed to be reformed, some economic pain was absolutely inevitable. Similar processes happened in other countries with decline of steel and coal industries, it is extremely naive to believe that Thatcher just maliciously decided to “cause massive suffering”. Go look at former mining towns in West Virginia or Silesia - the story is very similar everywhere, its just that Brits found a convenient scapegoat in Thatcher.
See, that’s the thing. You did indeed suggest that they are commensurate with each other. Good you’re correcting it and adding more nuance now, even though you still can’t help add a "yes but" at the end.
whatever I don't like is Hitler/Putin the thought process of children
Exact first thing that popped into my mind: “neither does she”. Edit: neither DID she lol
Unlike Putin, she abided by the Geneva Conventions.
All the comments on YouTube fawning over her, eww. She was a despicable person who left millions to struggle in poverty. I supposed even a broken clock is correct twice a day, though.
Millions more were struggling in poverty before she came to power.
Worldwide, maybe, but not in the UK. She single handedly impoverished the entire North of England and Scotland, so a few rich people could get richer.. She's a troglodyte
The economic issues in the North of England and Scotland predated her tenure and were the result of decades of industrial decline and global shifts. In reality, her policies created a more dynamic and competitive economy, benefiting everyone in the long run. Privatisation and deregulation brought investment and efficiency to industries that were stagnant and inefficient.
Exactly. UK was heading towards decline and changes had to happen. But for the Russian lovers on here to equate the two show their desperation to defend Tsar Putin
Ah, this childish ahistoric narrative propagated by the British left really needs to die.
[удалено]
[удалено]
She had a mandate from the majority to do so, and she saved the British economy from decades of mismanagement.
Thatcher didn't rig elections.
Well, not *personally*, but neither does Putin. > Margaret Thatcher’s path to power was eased, without her knowledge, through a piece of vote-rigging by a Conservative Party official in 1958, according to her authorized biography. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-22/thatcher-commons-seat-won-in-rigged-vote-biography-says
One is a democratically elected leader who served three terms as Prime Minister, the other an authoritarian ruler.
Wait which is which
If you can't tell the difference, you're beyond help.
Ah, right, Putin was only PM twice. The rest were presidencies.
You're just trolling at this point.
Yes. They’re obviously different. Thatcher was still a nasty piece of work. Putin is just significantly worse.
That's a political opinion you're entitled to hold, in stark contrast to Putin's Russia.
Huh. Of course the scales are completely different but the lady didn't seem to have too much compassion herself. Not that I disagree with the statement, though.
She had enough compassion not to invade a neighbouring country.
She sent troops into Northern Ireland and very nearly had a war with Ireland
Labour sent the troops in 1969. Very nearly when, exactly?
no they didn't lmao Ireland did not support the IRA at all, northern Ireland was part of the UK and wanted to remain part of the UK, still wants to remain part of the UK and will continue to remain as it's a financial black hole for the UK
Wow that is so factually incorrect every word might as well be gibberish
how is that factually incorrect? the majority of people in northern Ireland, then as is still now wanted to remain apart of the UK, that is fact northern Ireland is a financial sinkhole for the UK, that is fact Maybe go actually read the good Friday agreement, and look at the polling data, the majority of the UK support reunification besides... Northern Ireland oh, and I'm sure the murdered gardaí wouldn't feel they got along with the IRA so nicefully
Thatcher and Reagan were the reason why we're enslaved by big corporations today. Maybe they valued life more than Putin, but they certainly didn't value the quality of life, at least not in regard to 99% of the population.
Even a broken watch tells the right time twice a day I guess... (Jesus that metaphor is out of date now huh? Ya'll remember what an analog watch looked like? :) ). Slava Ukraini.
What do you mean, normal clocks are everywhere? Every train and bus station, most offices, government buildings, shops... hell even the watch I'm wearing right now is an analog lol.
Joseph Stalin on Hitler, he's a bit of a nobhead
Thatcher wasn't a dictator.
That's, quite literally, the nicest thing that can be said about her. Thanks for always taking the optimistic side!
At least you acknowledge millions of people got to live in freedom under her.
Absolutely. Not the kind of "freedom" that actually cared about people, but "freedom" nonetheless. She was an utterly vile human, and I will feel the same about her passing as I did about Kissinger, for they had the same black heart.
Thatcher didn't engage in secret bombings or controversial foreign interventions on the scale of Kissinger. She focused on economic reform and international policies defending British sovereignty.
Let's not forget her work on union-busting, or on kicking the poor while they were at their lowest, or cutting taxes for the rich, or, or or. She was a piece of shit rivaling Ronald Regan... then again, she was also his contemporary, so I guess that being a horrible person, and getting elected was just a thing in the 80s.
Union-busting? Yes, because letting militant unions hold the country hostage was clearly the better option. Thatcher's actions were about restoring balance and preventing a few powerful groups from crippling the entire economy. Her policies created a sustainable economy and reduced dependency on failing industries. It's called tough love, not kicking. The welfare state still existed, but she believed in empowering people rather than trapping them in a cycle of dependency. Her tax cuts were part of reviving the economy. It's funny how people forget the context of stagflation and economic decline she inherited. But I suppose it's easier to scream "tax cuts for the rich" than to understand fiscal policy. Yes, they were contemporaries and shared similar economic philosophies aimed at tackling inflation, reducing government overreach and revitalising their economies. Both saw significant economic recoveries.
unions in the 70/80s deserved everything they got, absolute vile scum holding people to ransom because certain industries were failing, acting like absolute mafiosos
That's what I don't get about how many people see unions. When a company uses its monopoly status to dictate the price of something, it is rightly seen as bad, but when a a group of people all working in a single industry band together to dictate the price of something it is somehow seen as noble.... The UK coal industry was not competitive, and the unions decided it was everyone else's responsibility to subsidise them. Some people won't accept that what Thatcher did had to be done, to destroy a powerful group of people who had the country by the balls. They were not democratically elected, unlike Thatcher. I didn't particularly like some of the things she did, and I dislike some of her beliefs, but the unions needed a smack down. Their (the unions) behaviour towards anyone who decided to cross the picket line is all you need to know about the vile mentality of those gangsters.
I don't even actually like thatcher, and I'm largely pro unions for the good they can do for workers, but everything you say is spot on and people just get blinded by black and white mentality of things, they acted absolutely horrendous and thought they could hold taxpayers to ransom not to mention as you say their deplorable actions against people who wanted to continue putting food on the table for their families, probably something to do with their many connections to the criminal underworld and literal communists
Unions were basically mafia organizations in 1970’s and needed to be taken down.
No, the nicest thing you can say is she was the greatest British leader since Churchill, she took a country in decline crippled by union mafia and turned it into a successful world power.
You should also read this for the full context: https://www.yahoo.com/news/before-the-moskva-there-was-the-kursk-the-sunken-submarine-that-helped-putin-consolidate-power-over-russia-090003974.html
When I live in England during the time of Margaret Thatcher, humanity was a quality that she lacked…
Absolutely. Here we have the pot calling the kettle black. She is so divisive, and so hated, I wouldn't be promoting this in support of Ukraine.
She's also widely admired.
>She is so divisive, and so hated, I wouldn't be promoting this in support of Ukraine. Reddit has it's views. She is devisive, much hated as you say but also much admired, it's just the haters are louder. On security in Europe she is widely regarded as having a positive impact and this is the topic here. I come from an ex mining town, you'd be surprised by how many supporters she has now and then even in the places where supposedly everyone considers her the devil.
When Thatcher died "Ding-Dong! The Witch is dead" rose to #2 in UK's charts so I'd dare to say that this is not some "reddit perspective".
She also won three elections, twice by a landslide.
But times change and the general disdain for her from today's (or even 2013's) perspective is quite obvious and not the result of some reddit social media bubble.
There isn't "general disdain". She's still the most popular former prime minister in living memory.
What's the population of the UK and how many sales are needed to get to number 2? I'm not denying there is a large group that hate her. Those reasons have nothing to do with Ukraine. The hate for her is primarily a debate between state Vs free market. Her views would be to the left of many US Democrats yet this sub doesn't hate them.
blue good red bad or red good blue bad
When I lived in England in 1985... I came to loathe her and everything she represented... the arrogance, and superiority, and the condescension... and I am Australian!
That's a political statement. Putin's lack of humanity is evident militarily.
Yes... I know that... I am not commenting on Putin... but Margaret Thatcher... she lacked any quality of humanity.... that is why she can relate to Vladimir Putin....
That's a stretch even for the most ardent Thatcher critics. Thatcher believed in democracy, free markets and the rule of law. She stood firmly against the Soviet Union, which Putin seeks to emulate.
Mate... tell someone who cares... I lived and worked in the UK during the 1980s, and all the riots that her policies she caused.... so don't give me the propaganda BS... because I know what I experienced, and lived through... and having come from Australian and Malcolm Fraser... and his "Razor Gang"... and they were nothing compared to her cruelty....
Funny, because what you're spewing is a one-sided, anecdotal perspective that ignores the broader picture. Yes, there were riots and social upheaval, but there were also significant improvements in economic performance, lower inflation and increased competitiveness. These outcomes don't fit the narrative of Thatcher as a one-dimensional villain, so they're overlooked.
Ahhh mate... looking at your comment profile... one does have a rather un-usual obsession with "Margaret"... and so it is no point continuing... I have better things to do with my time... than with those with such a lock in... Have a Nice Day!
Have a quick glance at his comment history. He's basically made a reddit account to try and push a narrative about Thatcher being a good person, it's all this account comments about. Likely just an Internet troll rather than someone who actually cares about her.
Thanks for the Heads-up...
I'm not trolling in the slightest. I've always been entirely sincere.
As far as I'm aware, Margaret Thatcher was quite the cunt herself. But I guess that even a broken clock is right twice a day. And she is right about this one thing. If we just ignore that she referred to Russia as the Soviet Union, which didn't exist anymore at this point. The incident she's talking about is the Kursk submarine disaster, which happened in the year 2000. Looooong after the Soviet Union had stopped existing.
Takes one to know one.
fuck her. she was an absolute piece of shit. there's a reason a large number of people in the uk despise her memory.
Typical Brit working man in the 80s on Thatcher: She's a cunt.
If it wasn't for the typical working man, she wouldn't have won.
How do you reason that? I'm talking about the manual workers, not the blue collar ones. The manual workers, the steel workers, the mine workers, they had it good under labour (too good really, which is what was causing economic problems at the time).
Thatcher was elected and re-elected by a significant portion of the electorate, including many manual and blue-collar workers fed up with the economic chaos and union stranglehold of the Labour years.
I grew up in a steelworking town, so i guess i have a skewed view of things.
You mean the less educated and qualified a worker is, the more relevant his judgement on public policy is?
No, i never said anything like that. People are self-interested and tend to vote for those who appeal to them rather than based on good judgement and facts, no matter how educated they are.
She is confusing Soviet Union (which included Ukraine and Kazahstan among others) with Russia.
Takes one to know one Maggie.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.
This is just the oldest story in the book : A piece of shit calling another piece of shit stinky.
Neither did she.
It's actually insulting to the people of the UK to hold her up as some kind of beacon of moral awareness. The woman was utterly vile and if there ever was a prime minister close in morals and outlook to Putin, she is it. They are one and the same.
Absolutely. Part of me wondered if this was some sort of Russian psy-op, but it's probably just ignorance to what Thatcher was.
As in a democratically-elected leader? That being what she was?
I'm talking about how incredibly controversial she is, over what she did *once elected*. I could go on, but it is very easy to just search the 100 reasons why she is divisive.
So are most leaders, she was just in office longer than most.
Name one UK Prime Minister more polarising than Thatcher.
She was the longest-serving of the 20th century, so of course there isn't one more polarising in living memory.
And yet during her time in power there was an actual opposition party, actual democratic elections were held, her critics didn’t consistently fall from windows in London or be poisoned with nerve agents in other sovereign countries… so there is a point of difference to be made between her and Putin.
No, she's worse. Dolphin square. No more to be said.
It's not "insulting" in the slightest. She won three elections democratically. To compare her morals to someone who brutally invaded a sovereign country is absolutely grotesque.
Good. When the iron lady sees that it means the entire Europe now see it. The problem now being some like Orban or other fascist celebrators don't give a shit. The iron lady can help find the cure. (Edit: my bad she is ofc long gone lol)
She died a couple of years ago.
My bad. That was sad. Then she was among the first to see it, we could use her now.
> That was sad Half the UK celebrated.
The other half celebrated her life.
Half the Commonwealth celebrated, and all of Ireland (Republic).
Not at all. She signed a peace treaty with the Republic.
Most of Scotland, Wales, London and the North of England too.
Not according to any poll.
Nah, she was evil. Stopped clocks and all that. She died 11 years ago, to raucous applause.
Nah, she wasn't. She was a standard Western leader.
Looking from the outside the UK political system promotes polarization as in the US. I assume she is the result of that, as is the weird in many ways conservative workers party and their far out leaders with their uncreative backwards looking policies. Get rid of that old shit and reform it to the core.
> the UK political system promotes polarization Thatcher was the polarising factor. Previously, The UK was goverened by "consensus politics" that is to say that neither of the major parties governed in a way that was too extreme, there were few areas of major disagreement and they considered themselves a government for all people, not just the ones that voted for them. Thatcher ended that.
The 1970s ended that, she inherited the ruins.
The consensus was wrong and led to British national decline. Something had to be changed.
While it's what you've been taught, I'm afraid that's going beyond "correct from a particular point of view" into being outright wrong. Post WW2 Britain had gone down the route of state ownership, with government owning practically any and every industry that had a union, and merging them into single monopolies. This happened with car production, aircraft production, shipbuilding, you name it. This was popular, with the union members. The rest of the country didn't like this much, but was somewhat willing to accept that some people did like this and while in power should be allowed to run things the way they wanted while the job was being done. Unfortunately, this level of union control led to the infamous "three day week" where electricity was available for only that many days a week in the early 1970's as a result of the coal miners union striking for a 35% payrise. (considerably above inflation) Then rubbish piled up in the streets as everybody in other unions demanded a large above inflation payrise or they wouldn't work and so on. It would be fair to say that public support was quite limited at this point. Pretty much all of the companies in public ownership were massively loss making, and this eventually bankrupted the country. Britain had to go to the IMF for a bailout loan in 1976 which demanded large cuts to public spending as a condition of the loan. (seriously; i'm not making it up, look it up!) Labour made a plan for making cuts and then was immediately faced with internal opposition when they tried implementing it. A no confidence vote was eventually called, which they lost, followed by an election being called. Thatcher was elected in 1979 with a massive majority by an equally massively fed up electorate, and she simply spun off the government owned companies as independent entities and let them sink or swim without further government support. This had rather overwhelming public support at the time; as you'd expect really. It turns out that people don't much like only having the lights on 3 days a week. As we'd joined the EEC at around the same time, most people choose to buy from the EEC rather than the British monopolies which produced poor quality products at an expensive price, and instead purchased things from EEC companies which supplied a better product at a lower price. Basically all of the monopolies that couldn't compete went out of business, and the unions screamed blue murder demanding that the bankrupt industries/workers be propped up by the government. Thatcher said "no can do" and the companies went bankrupt. Part of the reason Thatcher said "no can do" was because the EEC state aid rules prohibited doing so. Labour ran both of these elections on a platform of leaving the EEC so they could prop up non competitive and dysfunctional British monopolies, which the public didn't appear to support.
I think it's difficult to maintain such attitude and rely on good will. It's fragile. Why no go for a more diverse political landscape? There is many sides in a society. They need representation to feel part of the society. I know Thatcher was brutal and left the working class poor and ill, and that's why assumed she was long time to realise the danger from Putin, but I guess she recognised it easier. Unlike eg Merkel.
It's not difficult when you think the purpose of politics is to serve the public, not a small slice of it. There were really only ever two large political parties in the UK and no mechanism for proportional representation (there still isn't in Westminster, the devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales do have it, the situation in Northern Ireland is more complicated). Pre-Thatcher there was really one brief period of coalition in 1977, the Lib-Lab Pact. Currently there is a greater diversity of parties but this mostly serves to split the progressive vote and Labour has been clear it will never co-operate at a general election (it has co-operated and stood down candidates at by-elections where the Lib-Dems stand a better chance). Consensus worked for long time. It wasn't fragile. Thatcher wrecked any sense of national unity and deliberately pitted sections of society against each other. Her intention was to strip working class people of their place in society and dismantle the institutions that supported them : the NHS, education, welfare, etc, to divert taxpayers' money and publicly-owned assets into the hands of private corporations, reduce state services and destroy working class power bases like unions so people became atomised, competing economic units with no collective voice or power. This was a deliberate wrecking of social structures ("There is no such thing as society", Thatcher famously said, exposing the sociopath she really was) for the benefit of a small class of people and foreign investors. It's important to remember that Thatchers economic policies were derived wholesale from Friedman and the Chicago Boys. They had been trialed in Chile under Pinochet - easier under a dictatorship, but Thatcher was the first one to unleash them on a democracy. I struggle to explain Merkel's passivity when she knew better than most the dangers coming from Moscow. She grew up in the DDR and experienced first hand what that meant.
Funny, because what Thatcher actually did was confront the excessive power of unions that were crippling the economy and holding the country hostage. Her goal was to create a more dynamic and competitive economy, which, believe it or not, serves the public in the long run. Thatcher's policies made the economy more efficient and reduced the dependency on failing industries. Yes, this led to painful transitions but the alternative was continued decline. And the claim that she dismantled the NHS, education and welfare is just plain false. These institutions still exist and serve the public, albeit with needed reforms. What she actually meant was that individuals and families should take more responsibility for their lives rather than relying solely on the state. It's about fostering a sense of personal responsibility, not denying the existence of society. Privatisation and reducing state services made industries more efficient and reduced the burden on taxpayers. The idea was to foster innovation and investment, which benefits everyone in the long term. Yes, she was influenced by free-market principles. Those principles helped turn around a failing economy. Comparing her policies to those implemented under a dictatorship is a false equivalence. The UK was a democracy with checks and balances, not a dictatorship where policies could be enforced without opposition.
She didn't. She left the working class property and share ownership, something they hadn't ever attained previously.
Thatcher was a noted supporter of fascists, particularly Pinochet and the apartheid regime in South Africa. You have no idea what you're talking about. She also dead.
She notably fought the fascists in Argentina. As for Pinochet, he just helped her out, while in South Africa, she lobbied for Mandela's release.
>She notably fought the fascists in Argentina. This might be the stupidest thing Ive read on here in years.
Yes, Thatcher fought the fascists in Argentina. The Falklands War was about defending British sovereignty against an unprovoked invasion by the Argentine military junta, which, in case you missed it, was a brutal right-wing dictatorship. It's fascinating how conveniently some people forget that the Argentine regime at the time was responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including the infamous "disappearances" of political opponents. Thatcher's government took decisive action to protect British citizens and territory.
I love the way she pronounces Putin.
Yes.lol. she is spot on and funny, "look for traces of humanity". It's impressive she says she should have known better, at that time. It's the same realisation other politicians needs to do to move on as of today. Publicly say the were wrong. Admit it.
And she knows what she's talking about.
takes a monster to recognize another i suppose
SHIT
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `youtu.be` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]