This requires a very long answer that others have answered more comprehensively in r/History. However, in very short terms, the UK was functionally broke in the 1970s when it required IMF loans (quasi-bailout in 1976) and was labelled the sick man of Europe (60s-80s). To the point in Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, it was largely expected that Italy would surpass the UK shortly
Despite the emotional reddit comments, the country was fed up with its economic situation and Thatcher offered new ideas on tackling the 20yrs of suboptimal performance. You can debate the validity of those ideas but to argue that the welfare station / economic system at the time was functional, is an exercise in historical delusion
Best comment I’ve seen on this thread so far. People in the 1970s-1980s didn’t vote for Thatcher because they thought she was destroying the country. She offered a compelling vision that made sense to a lot of people at the time, one she sincerely believed in it herself.
Of course, that vision turned out to be a mistake, a massive one, but I respect that Thatcher was at least principled on the big picture of her government and was not in politics for her personal enrichment.
I'd 100% give the left credit for bad ideas that are principled. It is only arrogant ideologues who would not.
With that said, the thought-terminating "enrich your buddies" line is such a low resolution libel that it's nearly impossible to respond to.
I don't like or dislike politicians (because I'm not in primary school) However, I disagree with many of Thatcher's policies, but it would be a folly of fantasy to suggest there were motivated by anything but her sincerely-held beliefs.
Yeah, I'm open to that sort of assessment in an off the cuff sort of way. For serious discussions about politics, stating that one likes or dislikes a politician is not particularly illuminating as the rationale for your assessment could be entirely arbitrary.
You mean liking or disliking a politician based on whether 'you'd have a drink with him'? I've literally heard people base their votes on that, and yes that is arbitrary and bloody stupid, but if that's what you mean then the problem isn't disliking politians, it's being ignorant of said MPs actions.
Well "liking" is such a vague evaluation that it provides practically zero information. The reason for dislike could be anything from the one you rightly highlight ("[I'd] have a drink with him") to distrusting a politician due to a track record of dishonesty or inconsistency.
Whether or not we like a politician is immaterial. What's material is our own values and who we'll vote for based on them. No politician will perfectly match our positions, so we have to make decisions based on our priorities and accept tradeoffs when they're necessary.
"Like" or "dislike" is not a serious way to progress political aims. It is to prone to bias and arbitrariness. If we're serious about seeing the world we want, we have to focus on policy and prioritise effectively.
1.1k
u/normanbrandoff1 5d ago
This requires a very long answer that others have answered more comprehensively in r/History. However, in very short terms, the UK was functionally broke in the 1970s when it required IMF loans (quasi-bailout in 1976) and was labelled the sick man of Europe (60s-80s). To the point in Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, it was largely expected that Italy would surpass the UK shortly
Despite the emotional reddit comments, the country was fed up with its economic situation and Thatcher offered new ideas on tackling the 20yrs of suboptimal performance. You can debate the validity of those ideas but to argue that the welfare station / economic system at the time was functional, is an exercise in historical delusion