"only" is a bit controversial
plenty of other western countries survived without nationalisation on that scale, and with more influential unions.

For me it was more the sanctimonious conservative-with-a-small-c preachy family values smug undemocratic nastiness of her that failed to appeal.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Fri 12 Jun 2009, 12:20, archived)

it must be something about the British corruption and work ethic then
we couldn't possibly have survived with the power that the completely corrupt unions wielded at the end of the seventies

and of course it's a bit controversial - it's b3ta, sweeping generalisations'r'us ;)

I just get fed up of people hating thatcher when they don't even understand why. I'll give you your reasons though, they were unpleasant truths of her regime. except the undemocratic bit. she was no more or less democratic then her predecessors or her successors, only she was undemocratic in different ways ;)
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 12 Jun 2009, 12:25, archived)

Major was good for democracy
Blair was if anything worse, the power-drunk cunt.

But Thatcher centralised a lot of powers that were better served (IMO) by local councils, largely because local councils were a less right-wing than parliament. Plus she presided over a huge number of Quangoes being set up, and set a lot of government decision-making over to private companies.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Fri 12 Jun 2009, 12:28, archived)

but local councils were more corrupt than Mugabe at the time. GLC, anyone?
Swings and roundabouts.

but, yeah, the Quango stuff is dodgy. But New Labour are a thousand times worse for that.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 12 Jun 2009, 12:41, archived)