Ah, I was wondering when a 'Thatcher' thread would appear. I have to admit, it took longer than I expected. The posts so far show that, even in death, she retains the ability to split opinion. Here's mine:
Falklands
Despite being a Brit, I don't much care whether we keep them or not. We are no longer the colonial power we once were and cannot really afford to defend these rocks in the arse-end-of-nowhere (I'm not just talking about the Falklands here). Yes, there might be oil in the surrounding seas, but we'd probably profit more from selling our North Sea drilling technology to the Argentinians than spending the profits from doing the drilling ourselves on defending the islands.
The complicating factor is the islanders themselves who still want to remain British. Like Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, and a few other loyal, but tiny places, we are committed to defending them and I reckon we're probably stuck with them for the foreseeable future.
The arguments for/against British/Argentine sovereignty are complicated by the fact that the treaties between Britain and Argentina (signed in the 18th and 19th Centuries) fail to mention the Falklands. Unless lawyers and historians weigh in and come up with a definitive decision as to which way those treaties go, I think we must abide by the decisions of the residents themselves. Net result: we're stuck with them.
I'm less ambivalent about the Falklands War itself: aggression from a military dictatorship in Argentina was thrown back by a British leader committed to defending our subject people (although it's notable that British Citizenship was removed from Falkland Islanders in 1981 well before the war, but later restored in 1983).
The sinking of the Belgrano remains controversial, but only because Britain and Argentina were not officially at war (this is now a common feature of 'war', which is required to dodge the need to get approval from the UN). As a result, we declared that we would confine British actions to the Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. The Belgrano was outside this zone and not heading towards it (Argentina claimed it was returning to port). Had we officially been at war, sinking the Belgrano would have caused no controversy. Strategically, we needed to sink it. Legally, we had no grounds. Net result: Controversy.
The Unions/shifting the British economy away from inefficient state corporations
In the 1970s, the Union movement brought Britain to its knees. Unlike in the USA, where Unions are perhaps more necessary to lobby for better working conditions, health benefits, etc., most of these functions were handled by the Welfare State in Britain. The Unions ended up with way too much power and continued to lobby for massive subsidies to extremely inefficient and unprofitable sectors of the economy.
They needed breaking. Thatcher managed it.
However, where Thatcher failed... miserably, was in providing an alternative source of employment. We are still living with the consequences of this. Closing the pits and privatising those bits of state corporations that had the potential to be profitable was the right thing to do. Her attitude that 'the free market will provide' was simply wrong - large areas of the country that had thousands of well-paid, but low-skilled work in the mines, manufacturing, etc. do not adjust overnight when those jobs disappear. The skillset required for the service industry is utterly different, and even those workers who moved into vehicle manufacturing (which was far less labour-intensive, so provided fewer replacement jobs) struggled to adapt their skills. There was NOTHING to replace them, and precious little help from the government for the entire communities which were destroyed by this policy.
It unbalanced Britain's economy causing an even greater divide between the service-industry oriented South-East and the rest of the country. Deregulating the City of London may have helped the government's finances, but only served to widen the gap between North and South (and also represents the start of the changes the led to the late-2000s financial crisis - Thatcher's not to blame for this, but the changes she introduced were certainly the first steps on the path).
Likewise, in the coming decades we might start to view North Sea Oil as a missed opportunity. Thatcher's government used the revenue from this to pay for tax cuts. Personally I think we should have created a Sovereign Wealth Fund along the lines of what Norway did with its North Sea Oil revenue, and use this as an investment vehicle to develop our infrastructure. I think this would have worked out cheaper than the hideous public-private-partnerships favoured by the Labour government and continued by the coalition. Anyway, that's more opinion than any sort of detailed analysis.
International opinions of Thatcher
My impression is that she was highly regarding in the States and Eastern Europe for her strong relationship with Reagan and opposition to the Soviet Union. British people tend to forget this, Americans tend not to realise how polarising her domestic policies were. Consider this paragraph to be a plea for both sides to learn more about the other before condemning people's opinions.
Her death and public reaction
I think too many people have reacted with far too much glee at the news of her death. Dancing on her grave will achieve nothing. Most of them are too young to have any first-hand experience of her premiership (I was only 9 when she left office), but will have inherited their hatred from their parents. Ten years ago I would have counted myself among them. Being more widely read now, I can better make a distinction between the things that she was necessary for (trampling the unions) and the mistakes she made (although many of these are only apparent with hindsight). I haven't bought 'Ding, Dong the Witch is Dead', nor do I intend to. However, I am no fan of Thatcher as Prime Minister, either.
Claims that we shouldn't speak ill of the dead should not mean that we can't discuss her policies and their effects on the country.
James the Fair
Labelling opponents of Thatcher as "socialist left wing prick[s]" devalues your point that cheering Thatcher's death is abhorrent.
Your rant about the destruction of coal mining communities, homophobia, South Africa and the sinking of the Belgrano is ill-thought out and suggests that you have a fairly simplistic black-and-white view of history. I hope, in time, you will come to regret your youthful outbursts (especially your talk about an "interceptor party") and realise that there are far more shades of grey. Our democracy is not founded on 'he who shouts loudest, wins' and you do not contribute anything of value to the debate by hoping for people to "root out those socialist traitors we have in London and elsewhere". These are views that leave you open to a public order offence if shouted across Centenary Square (I know Bradford reasonably well as a frequent visitor).
Labelling Lord Lee and other people who do not share your political views "traitors" is stupid and anti-democratic (not to mention, authoritarian). We will never find agreement if we discuss homosexuality - I take very liberal positions on social issues, you, it seems, do not. All I will say on this issue is that Section 28 had far reaching consequences beyond the immediate ones it was introduced to address. Its worst effect was on bullying - teachers felt unable to challenge homophobic bullying in the classroom even though the victims were usually academic boys who hated sports, or sporty girls. The sexual orientation of the bullying victim was usually irrelevant. The bully would use it solely as a label feeling safe in the knowledge that teachers were unlikely to challenge its use.
I agree that Thatcher was correct in saying that Mandela and the ANC were terrorists, but only insofar as it represents a textbook definition. I agreed with their aims, if not their methods. The crime rate is a result of the massive inequalities that built up over decades of rule by an racist regime. Whilst I provide no excuse for the criminals, do you not think that the white community have reaped what they have sown? Similar situations have arisen in other countries where a powerful minority has fallen from power - the response should be to manage the transition carefully to try to minimise the worst of it, rather than painting one side as lawless criminals who deserved their previous disenfranchised state.
It is to Thatcher's shame that she sided with the supporters of Apartheid rather than working to enfranchise the black community. But then, this matches her stance over Northern Ireland - it wasn't until the terrorists (the IRA) were brought into negotiations for the Good Friday agreement that a reasonably stable and lasting peace could break out. Thatcher's dogmatic refusal to negotiate made things much worse in the short-term whilst only delaying the inevitable need for dialogue.
Alyan Locien
Thatcher wasn't a nationality. Her political legacy and a discussion about it is relevant to many on both sides of the Atlantic. It's a topical discussion that belongs in 'General' rather than buried away in one of the less-used Forums.