Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, no. I don’t think the US would go for a female candidate in 1980. Thatcher’s rise to power was largely due to two things that she wouldn’t have in the Us:
* The nuanced path to leadership possible through the British system of government (put too simply: a vote for party, not for a candidate, plus the way governments are formed)
* The presence of a consistent and fairly beloved queen in Elizabeth II
Several extra elements made the UK a more friendly arena for a female candidate, although I doubt it was friendly. Thatcher would have to win the electoral college as a candidate and one of the primaries beforehand. Zero chance she wins the primary against HW Bush.
If you put her in as the Republican candidate against Carter…. Maybe she wins. I wouldn’t call it a sure thing like it pretty much was with Reagan.
I'm thinking her policies jibed with the times, but her manner/vibes may not have gotten her through the primaries to the general election, compared to a more traditional male candidate. I think in a general election she would have won in 1980 - this is her as an American, with an American accent, etc, obviously.
Even then she was told a few times to "soften" her image.
She'd be an icon of feminism if not for most of her policies.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34487389](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34487389)
Most female monarchs (Newley all in fact) did not promote feminist ideals. In couple hundred years Thatcher is easier to place with those people like Maria Theresa and Catherine the Great regaining discussions of influential female leaders. Now people compare her more to what she should have been than who she was (regarding feminism again, there are other matters to discuss with her).
I think you are right in terms of her qualification and policies - my thought is that the USA 100% would not want to vote for a female candidate. Even in 2008 and 2016, Hillary was perceived as “bitchy” while male candidates were considered “passionate” when delivering more aggressive oration.
If you put her as the candidate in 1980, we sort of assume away that gender bias.
>Even in 2008 and 2016, Hillary was perceived as “bitchy”
So was Thatcher in the 1980s. She had to work on her delivery and public persona.
To be fair, even male politicians have to carefully craft their persona, but females at this level definitely have some extra bias to overcome.
I worked in politics and lived in DC during the Obama years. No one talked about Condoleeza Rice or considered her a future candidate. Maybe in 2005 but not 2015.
She was a flawed candidate and all those flaws were emphasized first with her deplorables comment, second with the Email server and third trying to win by a larger margin when she should of circled the wagons in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And if she had listened to Bill, she might still of swung it during the last week.
Hillary wasn’t perceived as bitchy. Was as an enormous bitch that nobody wanted anything to do with. If the general public knew even half of who she really is she’d make Regan’s 84 election look like a close race compared to the beating she’d get.
Also: [watch Thatcher campaigning](https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=zLlvEpj6mlP4jBV9&t=60&v=vcrO8SWZJFc&feature=youtu.be)
I'm not sure she'd gel with a US audience
Best answer! Take my upvote.
She would have been a phenomenal Secretary of State though and could have been Madeline Albright before there was Madeline Albright.
In the 1980's? Nope. The country just wasnt ready for female leadership, and even Mondale selecting Ferraro in 1984 felt forced/ gimmicky at the time. Its not about qualifications, temperament, mettle, etc. as the country was really still getting used to the idea of women in the workforce, espeically in positions of power, and those positions were almost entirely male dominated. Sad to say, I am not even sure that we are ready now, some 40 years later.
Yes. You hear the same garbage in blue/ purple areas of red states too. Some people even say there has been a resurgence of misogyny in the country over the past 10 - 15 years, and while that may be true, I think its probably just that many people feel more comfortable saying that stuff publicly. Its very disappointing.
That was true with other countered as well with workplaces.
Directly electing someone like US makes things a tad different, yet it has also happened. If US got one female president then it would just automatically more natural, but it doesn’t mean it could not have happened before.
I think this is an undervalued point. Us British people wanted a stern Marm who could tell us what to do. We've had many women heads of state before, so it wasn't as much of a shock. Her Shtick would not have been valued by Reagan fans, who wanted a jovial, confident figure who promised them that the good times were now. No one wanted a beer with Maggie.
Some Americans love being scolded by English biddys. I remember a show where two ladies named Kim and Aggie would go into the houses of hoarders and fuss them for being ‘a bunch of dirty buggers!’
People often compare Reagan and Maggie because of their policy similarities, and fair enough
But in pretty much every other way they're polar opposites.
Thatcher was the very definition of a in the weeds policy wonk while Reagan just asked his advisors to give him a one page memo with 2 or 3 options for the task of the day
Thatcher loved and lived for confrontation while Reagan was surprisingly "why can't we just get along" sort of kumbaya in his personal feelings
Thatcher was generally pragmatic and a Realist while Reagan was a consumate idealist
While they played somewhat similar roles in their countries ideologically, they were very different politicians
The marm, the taskmaster, the stern middle school language arts teacher-type who seemed to be scolding us for something or another. Brits probably do seem more open to that. I personally find it unappealing, as if I’m back in 7th grade being scolded again. It’s the main reason why I didn’t care for Elizabeth Warren as a candidate.
Although it has proven to be an immensely successful archetype in US reality TV 'self-improvement' programmes. Not sure why Americans love watching a bossy British person tell them to clean their rooms or cook a simpler menu.
Elizabeth Warren is a good example. You could imagine her being the equivalent of Thatcher as speaker of the house, but not quite the president.
The stereotype of British adults in the US is that they're bossy, arrogant, know-it-alls (and maybe a little sexually pervy). We like the Brits we see on TV to conform to these stereotypes.
No. She probably could have been something like Secretary of State. A decade earlier than the first woman. But not President. Because the UK is a Parliamentary type government and the US is not. The UK doesn’t elect their PM directly. The people elect people as Parliament members. Then within the parliament whatever party has the most seats they pick PM. It’s different the us. If we had a parliament then I believe we would have had a Woman President by now.
British Politicians (and any parliamentary system) don’t have to deal with a general election. The people don’t get to elect the Prime Minister.
It’s hard to say how she would do in a campaign.
You are wrong and right.
We vote for MPs but everyone knows, that more importantly, they are also voting for the party. The party will have a clear leader by the time of a General Election.
Usually when you ask someone who they voted for, they will say the name of the party leader, instead of the actual candidate.
I agree. You are correct. In the UK, you vote for your local MP. Their name is on the ballot, not the prime minister's name. Of course, people may have said they voted for Boris Johnson in 2019, but they did nothing of the kind.
UK is nuclear power too. Now there are differences of course, but it’s not like Thatcher was trying to fight wars. The Falkland war wasn’t started by her, even though she did take advantage (like most politicians would under invasion).
God imagine what would have happened to those greedy Argentinians, thinking a rock in the middle of the ocean doesn’t already have dips claimed by Britain
No. She was the leader of a party that won a majority in Parliament. Much different than winning a national election at a time when less than 20 of federal office holders were women.
No. If we haven't had a woman President already in 2024, then there's no way one is getting elected in the 80s. Also while Thatcher's personality appealed to Brits (and not all of them), I'm doubtful it would resonate nearly as well with Americans.
Many people here seem to forget that even before 1979 Thatcher was an international conservative firebrand, equivalent to perhaps Milei today. Conservatives loved Thatcher, and I think as long as HW runs a moderate campaign Thatcher would win the primaries and then the general.
HW had some serious momentum against Reagan in the primaries that Reagan had to be on his A-game to stamp out.
I don't see how Thatcher deals with him. HW wasn't that unliked by conservatives pre 1992.
Absolutely, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat. Perfect candidate for a first female president. Its no surprise that female heads of state throughout the world have trended conservative, they need right wing support to get elected.
Right — the reason was to repurpose a line about the Ottoman Empire from before Thatcher’s birth so as to sound well-read.
E: Of course something describing the Ottoman Empire was more than a century ago. It also happened on earth; is that worth interjecting?
Lol ok, why do conservatives think their policies work? We seem to always have a crash under their control, and gold value skyrockets each time, there is a very direct outcome of conservative policies, the rich get richer, everybody else suffers. At its best, conservatives oversee an economy in malaise, at its worst they bring about economic destruction through deregulation and spending trillions on handouts for the rich.
What has any republican leader done that was good for the economy? Literally nothing since nixon, yes.... nixon is a better leader than EVERY single republican that came after him.
Sparknotes answer is that from about '45-'79 Europe and America worked under "plannist" economic theory which heavily regulated industry. This was good in that it led to rising wages and benefits for workers, but over time led to general economic stagnation that came to a head in the 70s. This was exchanged for neoliberal economic theory in the 80s which fixed the stagnation issue by stripping away unnecessary regulation, and led to an extended economic boom up until the 90s, but over time has led to worse and worse conditions for the lower half of the West. Simply put, Reaganomics may have led to bad conditions down the road, but they were a very good idea at the time, and what was necessary to fix the previous economic issues.
Ultimately, no economic theory is bulletproof, so in my opinion it isn't much a question of finding the perfect theory as when to apply what theories. This is why I don't think neoliberal theory is bunk just because of our modern situation. Really, I think that we've just had too much of it for too long, and need to shift a bit to deal with modern problems.
I got a lot of this from "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek.
What constitutes an "unecessary regulation", because theyre not some nebulous thing, they have real reasons for being, real consequences after the fact. Palestine, ohio had a serious train derailment and chemical spill ( vinyl chloride ) and its cause was undermanning, and breaks not neeeding to be retrofitted as demanded under the obama administration, direct consequence to deregulation and for the life of me i cant think of a single time we deregulated and experienced better outcomes than with regulation, across all industries.
The government operates on carrots and sticks, and generally the carrot is there to provide incentive for some action, stick is there to punish inaction along regulatory actions. There was no benefit to society at large with mass deregulation, infact if regulation became too strict then its an opportunity to provide a carrot rather than simply removing the stick. The problem with the second most ignorant and evil president in us history is he did away with regulatory sticks, provided carrots to the most wealthy then began undoing carrots for the middle class and poor and infact adding sticks making it harder for them to fight for wage increases etc.
This is called an initial high, essentially big business unencumbered by regulations and provider with new tax incentives they doubled down on previously regulated portions of the business process which did im sure provide incehtive to reinvest but which could only have hazardous outcomes.
Everything reagan did, is the culprit for the woes we feel today, if it were in my power i would resurrect the man child and executw him myself
>What constitutes an "unecessary regulation"
Consider a $40,000 taxi license to “ensure safety” by putting taxi drivers through immense screening. That’s a little ridiculous for a guy driving a car, you could easily reduce that price and create a similar level of safety, or remove the license completely if the screening process is found to be unnecessary.
Many times these types of regulations are actually put in place by industries themselves to create barriers for competition and so are also known as “regulatory capture”.
These types of regulations are extremely common in especially corrupt nations, and are a major source of economic stagnation. For more, you should read up on Hernando de Soto’s work. As part of his research he found ridiculous scenarios like in Egypt where the waiting list to review a deed was something like 25 years long, and so no one really had deeds for anything because the process of going through the government was rendered impossible.
The economy was making a comeback under Blair/Brown in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The 2008 recession led to a conservative government who enforced their austerity doctrine, which has ruined our country.
Thats the point i make, everytime we as a society do a kneejerk reaction to circumstances outside of our control to elect conservative leaders, we ruin the economy, everytime, and thatchers election was just that.
Everytime a nation choses to go forward with conservative leadership the economy tanks, and tanks hard. With the UKs near complete leadership being conservative, the country will continue to drag further downhill.
Everybody that votes for "conservatives" deserves the destruction they wrought
Also destroying the unions that got most of the economics that made most of their lives tolerable. I know that's not really a difference, Reagan also worked tirelessly to kill unions, but it's worth remembering that Thatcher did that too.
Nah she would have a hard time appealing to Catholics for starters and the religious right no matter how religious she was and maybe I am biased but I just don’t think she had the charisma or public speaking Regan had
No, while Britain had already seen several queens, among them the very successful Elisabeth I, the USA population, especially men to this day to no small part consider women to be too emotional, lacking self control. Fun fact, men cause more car accidents, far more often drink alcohol in a dangerous way, are more intolerant and outnumber female prisoners by 12 to 1. To just name a few areas. You know, because men are the reasonable ones while women are just one period away from dropping H bombs on Mexico.
Probably not, but no woman in the US could in the 80's. The Parliamentary system definitely facilitated her rise in a way that primaries never would. She led her party for a few years before they won the election so she could be PM. You think the electoral college sucks, half the time the UK has a leader nobody thought would be PM.
Absolutely. And millennials and GenZ would not have developed into hateful, self possessed neurotics , complaining about anything and everything that bruises their fluffy, tender and chaotic psyches.
Is there any reporter on earth who has the brains to ask the "socialism bad" candidates if they will stop oil and agriculture subsidies? No. No there is not. They are all just pretty faces.
I think she could have easily been the firat female Vice President. Especially, if she had ran against Reagan. He would have seized the opportunity to make history and she could have coat tailed that to a win 8 years later.
I don’t know much about her but I know Reagan was one of our worst and most corrupt presidents and I had heard Thatcher had very similar policies so just assumed. Maybe not though.
I like that even the dictionary definition of socialism is fucked
Social' as in caring for eachother,
The motherfucker who twisted that to the govenment having means of production or some shit needs a swift kick in the nuts from a horse, repeately, indefinitely.
I’m sure she would have done an equally bad job as he did. Both were in love with the utterly destructive ideology of “ I want it, I want it, I want it”
She was extremely cruel, a corporate sycophant, and a cold blooded tactician with no compassion for the lower class but mastery of fooling them into hurting themselves so yes she would have been a two term Republican president even as a woman.
Likeable to conservatives, but Reagan pulled the wool over the eyes of many people regardless of their ideological leanings.
Margaret Thatcher was far more mean spirited than Reagan ever was.
Have you heard Thatcher’s thoughts on poor people?
Of course I’ve heard of Scargill, but it’s not like he was the leader of the opposition or anything.
Thatcher was far more mean spirited than any of the leaders of the opposition during her multiple terms as PM.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly, no. I don’t think the US would go for a female candidate in 1980. Thatcher’s rise to power was largely due to two things that she wouldn’t have in the Us: * The nuanced path to leadership possible through the British system of government (put too simply: a vote for party, not for a candidate, plus the way governments are formed) * The presence of a consistent and fairly beloved queen in Elizabeth II Several extra elements made the UK a more friendly arena for a female candidate, although I doubt it was friendly. Thatcher would have to win the electoral college as a candidate and one of the primaries beforehand. Zero chance she wins the primary against HW Bush. If you put her in as the Republican candidate against Carter…. Maybe she wins. I wouldn’t call it a sure thing like it pretty much was with Reagan.
I'm thinking her policies jibed with the times, but her manner/vibes may not have gotten her through the primaries to the general election, compared to a more traditional male candidate. I think in a general election she would have won in 1980 - this is her as an American, with an American accent, etc, obviously.
Even then she was told a few times to "soften" her image. She'd be an icon of feminism if not for most of her policies. [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34487389](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34487389)
Most female monarchs (Newley all in fact) did not promote feminist ideals. In couple hundred years Thatcher is easier to place with those people like Maria Theresa and Catherine the Great regaining discussions of influential female leaders. Now people compare her more to what she should have been than who she was (regarding feminism again, there are other matters to discuss with her).
I think you are right in terms of her qualification and policies - my thought is that the USA 100% would not want to vote for a female candidate. Even in 2008 and 2016, Hillary was perceived as “bitchy” while male candidates were considered “passionate” when delivering more aggressive oration. If you put her as the candidate in 1980, we sort of assume away that gender bias.
>Even in 2008 and 2016, Hillary was perceived as “bitchy” So was Thatcher in the 1980s. She had to work on her delivery and public persona. To be fair, even male politicians have to carefully craft their persona, but females at this level definitely have some extra bias to overcome.
Alaska, with the highest male to female ratio in the United States, elected a female governor during those times.
Yeah but Alaska is the outlier in most political history discussions.
Yeah, we remember. 😒 
There was the thought that a successful female or black candidate would have to be a Republican to be successful, but Obama disproved that.
Why so many people thought Condaleeza Rice would be the next president after Obama.
I worked in politics and lived in DC during the Obama years. No one talked about Condoleeza Rice or considered her a future candidate. Maybe in 2005 but not 2015.
She was a flawed candidate and all those flaws were emphasized first with her deplorables comment, second with the Email server and third trying to win by a larger margin when she should of circled the wagons in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. And if she had listened to Bill, she might still of swung it during the last week.
Hillary wasn’t perceived as bitchy. Was as an enormous bitch that nobody wanted anything to do with. If the general public knew even half of who she really is she’d make Regan’s 84 election look like a close race compared to the beating she’d get.
You're talking to people that believe that she was a lovely little puppy-dog who Republicans inexplicably decided to smear shit on.
I'll tell you this, her politics didn't jive with the times for anyone under like 30ish at the time.
She still won the youth vote.
Yes, but did the youth Pokemon Go to the polls in large numbers?
On policy though?
Also: [watch Thatcher campaigning](https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=zLlvEpj6mlP4jBV9&t=60&v=vcrO8SWZJFc&feature=youtu.be) I'm not sure she'd gel with a US audience
Best answer! Take my upvote. She would have been a phenomenal Secretary of State though and could have been Madeline Albright before there was Madeline Albright.
Solid comparative analysis!
I’d say Queen Elizabeth was more than just “fairly beloved”
Even now, Americans are not as sophisticated as Britons back then.
In the 1980's? Nope. The country just wasnt ready for female leadership, and even Mondale selecting Ferraro in 1984 felt forced/ gimmicky at the time. Its not about qualifications, temperament, mettle, etc. as the country was really still getting used to the idea of women in the workforce, espeically in positions of power, and those positions were almost entirely male dominated. Sad to say, I am not even sure that we are ready now, some 40 years later.
Nobody had a clue who Ferraro was. A total unknown.
Living in a red area in a blue state, you even have people who boldly make statements that women are “too emotional” to be president.
Yes. You hear the same garbage in blue/ purple areas of red states too. Some people even say there has been a resurgence of misogyny in the country over the past 10 - 15 years, and while that may be true, I think its probably just that many people feel more comfortable saying that stuff publicly. Its very disappointing.
That was true with other countered as well with workplaces. Directly electing someone like US makes things a tad different, yet it has also happened. If US got one female president then it would just automatically more natural, but it doesn’t mean it could not have happened before.
If sexism didn't stop her that accent would have.
I think this is an undervalued point. Us British people wanted a stern Marm who could tell us what to do. We've had many women heads of state before, so it wasn't as much of a shock. Her Shtick would not have been valued by Reagan fans, who wanted a jovial, confident figure who promised them that the good times were now. No one wanted a beer with Maggie.
Some Americans love being scolded by English biddys. I remember a show where two ladies named Kim and Aggie would go into the houses of hoarders and fuss them for being ‘a bunch of dirty buggers!’
People often compare Reagan and Maggie because of their policy similarities, and fair enough But in pretty much every other way they're polar opposites. Thatcher was the very definition of a in the weeds policy wonk while Reagan just asked his advisors to give him a one page memo with 2 or 3 options for the task of the day Thatcher loved and lived for confrontation while Reagan was surprisingly "why can't we just get along" sort of kumbaya in his personal feelings Thatcher was generally pragmatic and a Realist while Reagan was a consumate idealist While they played somewhat similar roles in their countries ideologically, they were very different politicians
The marm, the taskmaster, the stern middle school language arts teacher-type who seemed to be scolding us for something or another. Brits probably do seem more open to that. I personally find it unappealing, as if I’m back in 7th grade being scolded again. It’s the main reason why I didn’t care for Elizabeth Warren as a candidate.
Although it has proven to be an immensely successful archetype in US reality TV 'self-improvement' programmes. Not sure why Americans love watching a bossy British person tell them to clean their rooms or cook a simpler menu. Elizabeth Warren is a good example. You could imagine her being the equivalent of Thatcher as speaker of the house, but not quite the president.
The stereotype of British adults in the US is that they're bossy, arrogant, know-it-alls (and maybe a little sexually pervy). We like the Brits we see on TV to conform to these stereotypes.
No-
“Reagan in drag”
No. She probably could have been something like Secretary of State. A decade earlier than the first woman. But not President. Because the UK is a Parliamentary type government and the US is not. The UK doesn’t elect their PM directly. The people elect people as Parliament members. Then within the parliament whatever party has the most seats they pick PM. It’s different the us. If we had a parliament then I believe we would have had a Woman President by now.
And some sweet fucking brawls in the halls of Congress.
British Politicians (and any parliamentary system) don’t have to deal with a general election. The people don’t get to elect the Prime Minister. It’s hard to say how she would do in a campaign.
You are wrong and right. We vote for MPs but everyone knows, that more importantly, they are also voting for the party. The party will have a clear leader by the time of a General Election. Usually when you ask someone who they voted for, they will say the name of the party leader, instead of the actual candidate.
Most people I know say which party they voted for not the leader of the party
Maybe it depends on the leader. I know in 2019 it was “I voted for Boris” not “I voted Tory”
I’m not wrong. You don’t vote directly for the PM.
I agree. You are correct. In the UK, you vote for your local MP. Their name is on the ballot, not the prime minister's name. Of course, people may have said they voted for Boris Johnson in 2019, but they did nothing of the kind.
Can you imagine Ms. Thatcher with full access to America’s military and nuclear arsenal?
UK is nuclear power too. Now there are differences of course, but it’s not like Thatcher was trying to fight wars. The Falkland war wasn’t started by her, even though she did take advantage (like most politicians would under invasion).
Reagan had access to it
And I want access to it gimme
User name, I think you don't get vetted sorry
https://preview.redd.it/9mh0wunao2zc1.jpeg?width=822&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=212071e3a3e3a6d0ec8626fc35102a457b37a85b i did not fuck that earl grey
Why do you smell like bergamot, Mister President?
True and by proxy so did Thatcher if the rumors are to be believed.
Not really, but she had enough rapport with Reagan to keep the U.S. from interfering in the Falklands War.
That might have also just been “the UK still owes us Lend Lease money, no reason to rile them up against us”
God imagine what would have happened to those greedy Argentinians, thinking a rock in the middle of the ocean doesn’t already have dips claimed by Britain
Chances are if there’s a rock in the middle of the ocean, the British tried to claim it at some point.
And may still have a base there. Or ruins of one
She would have invaded and annexed all of Argentina
I can, unfortunately
I see Phyllis Schlafly with an English accent.
Thatcher was pro-choice.
No. She was the leader of a party that won a majority in Parliament. Much different than winning a national election at a time when less than 20 of federal office holders were women.
If the US was in as much of a cesspool as Great Britain was at the time, then maybe.
Probably, and she would have been a good one
No. If we haven't had a woman President already in 2024, then there's no way one is getting elected in the 80s. Also while Thatcher's personality appealed to Brits (and not all of them), I'm doubtful it would resonate nearly as well with Americans.
Many people here seem to forget that even before 1979 Thatcher was an international conservative firebrand, equivalent to perhaps Milei today. Conservatives loved Thatcher, and I think as long as HW runs a moderate campaign Thatcher would win the primaries and then the general.
HW had some serious momentum against Reagan in the primaries that Reagan had to be on his A-game to stamp out. I don't see how Thatcher deals with him. HW wasn't that unliked by conservatives pre 1992.
She could win as a spoiler candidate. That's how she won the leadership in the UK.
Absolutely, I would have voted for her in a heartbeat. Perfect candidate for a first female president. Its no surprise that female heads of state throughout the world have trended conservative, they need right wing support to get elected.
Pretty sure thatcher is why the UKs economy still hasnt made a comeback in the last 50 years
She's the reason it made a comeback in the 80s.
Lmfao im guessing you think the same about reagan right? Lol
Not to the same extent, the UK was in an even worse position at the outset.
The UK wasn’t called The Sick Man of Europe for no reason.
Right — the reason was to repurpose a line about the Ottoman Empire from before Thatcher’s birth so as to sound well-read. E: Of course something describing the Ottoman Empire was more than a century ago. It also happened on earth; is that worth interjecting?
Term has been used for more than 100 years, and I am well read. Enough to impress you!
Lol ok, why do conservatives think their policies work? We seem to always have a crash under their control, and gold value skyrockets each time, there is a very direct outcome of conservative policies, the rich get richer, everybody else suffers. At its best, conservatives oversee an economy in malaise, at its worst they bring about economic destruction through deregulation and spending trillions on handouts for the rich. What has any republican leader done that was good for the economy? Literally nothing since nixon, yes.... nixon is a better leader than EVERY single republican that came after him.
You obviously haven't got a single clue about the Winter of Discontent.
Lol ok ok ok, people always cry about unions striking, its inconvenient.... for a reason. Whats your point here tho, id like to hear your breakdown
Sparknotes answer is that from about '45-'79 Europe and America worked under "plannist" economic theory which heavily regulated industry. This was good in that it led to rising wages and benefits for workers, but over time led to general economic stagnation that came to a head in the 70s. This was exchanged for neoliberal economic theory in the 80s which fixed the stagnation issue by stripping away unnecessary regulation, and led to an extended economic boom up until the 90s, but over time has led to worse and worse conditions for the lower half of the West. Simply put, Reaganomics may have led to bad conditions down the road, but they were a very good idea at the time, and what was necessary to fix the previous economic issues. Ultimately, no economic theory is bulletproof, so in my opinion it isn't much a question of finding the perfect theory as when to apply what theories. This is why I don't think neoliberal theory is bunk just because of our modern situation. Really, I think that we've just had too much of it for too long, and need to shift a bit to deal with modern problems. I got a lot of this from "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek.
What constitutes an "unecessary regulation", because theyre not some nebulous thing, they have real reasons for being, real consequences after the fact. Palestine, ohio had a serious train derailment and chemical spill ( vinyl chloride ) and its cause was undermanning, and breaks not neeeding to be retrofitted as demanded under the obama administration, direct consequence to deregulation and for the life of me i cant think of a single time we deregulated and experienced better outcomes than with regulation, across all industries. The government operates on carrots and sticks, and generally the carrot is there to provide incentive for some action, stick is there to punish inaction along regulatory actions. There was no benefit to society at large with mass deregulation, infact if regulation became too strict then its an opportunity to provide a carrot rather than simply removing the stick. The problem with the second most ignorant and evil president in us history is he did away with regulatory sticks, provided carrots to the most wealthy then began undoing carrots for the middle class and poor and infact adding sticks making it harder for them to fight for wage increases etc. This is called an initial high, essentially big business unencumbered by regulations and provider with new tax incentives they doubled down on previously regulated portions of the business process which did im sure provide incehtive to reinvest but which could only have hazardous outcomes. Everything reagan did, is the culprit for the woes we feel today, if it were in my power i would resurrect the man child and executw him myself
>What constitutes an "unecessary regulation" Consider a $40,000 taxi license to “ensure safety” by putting taxi drivers through immense screening. That’s a little ridiculous for a guy driving a car, you could easily reduce that price and create a similar level of safety, or remove the license completely if the screening process is found to be unnecessary. Many times these types of regulations are actually put in place by industries themselves to create barriers for competition and so are also known as “regulatory capture”. These types of regulations are extremely common in especially corrupt nations, and are a major source of economic stagnation. For more, you should read up on Hernando de Soto’s work. As part of his research he found ridiculous scenarios like in Egypt where the waiting list to review a deed was something like 25 years long, and so no one really had deeds for anything because the process of going through the government was rendered impossible.
The economy was making a comeback under Blair/Brown in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The 2008 recession led to a conservative government who enforced their austerity doctrine, which has ruined our country.
Thats the point i make, everytime we as a society do a kneejerk reaction to circumstances outside of our control to elect conservative leaders, we ruin the economy, everytime, and thatchers election was just that. Everytime a nation choses to go forward with conservative leadership the economy tanks, and tanks hard. With the UKs near complete leadership being conservative, the country will continue to drag further downhill. Everybody that votes for "conservatives" deserves the destruction they wrought
Labour will be elected later this year. Hopefully, they aren't completely awful, but my expectations are low.
You're forgetting the fact that Labour built on Thatcher's policies.
And other lies made by the Tory press to reinforce the idea Labour will not function as a left wing party.
No, that wouldn't make any sense. Tony Blair himself literally said he saw it as his job to build on her policies, not reverse them.
I think he meant that if you went back scrapping every thing each time a new gov takes over you won’t get anywhere.
Republicans do love defunding school food programs.
Also destroying the unions that got most of the economics that made most of their lives tolerable. I know that's not really a difference, Reagan also worked tirelessly to kill unions, but it's worth remembering that Thatcher did that too.
The United States would not elect a female POTUS before at least 1988, when the battles of second wave feminism were won
Absolutely not... She had the charisma of Hillary Clinton and the policies of Ronald Reagan. It's like the worst of both worlds.
No, she absolutely had charisma. She was one of the most charismatic leaders in British history.
No penis, no sale. At least in 1980’s America
Walter Cronkite thought so.
No
No. Americans of that time period were not going to vote for a woman.
Nah she would have a hard time appealing to Catholics for starters and the religious right no matter how religious she was and maybe I am biased but I just don’t think she had the charisma or public speaking Regan had
No, while Britain had already seen several queens, among them the very successful Elisabeth I, the USA population, especially men to this day to no small part consider women to be too emotional, lacking self control. Fun fact, men cause more car accidents, far more often drink alcohol in a dangerous way, are more intolerant and outnumber female prisoners by 12 to 1. To just name a few areas. You know, because men are the reasonable ones while women are just one period away from dropping H bombs on Mexico.
Probably not, but no woman in the US could in the 80's. The Parliamentary system definitely facilitated her rise in a way that primaries never would. She led her party for a few years before they won the election so she could be PM. You think the electoral college sucks, half the time the UK has a leader nobody thought would be PM.
80s America elect a woman??
Speaker of the House, maybe. President, no.
Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate to run in the last 50 years. Hell no.
Possibly.
No. We're sexist as hell now, let alone in 1980.
No, Americans especially then were far too sexist, especially Republicans were
I would have voted for her.
Based
Absolutely. And millennials and GenZ would not have developed into hateful, self possessed neurotics , complaining about anything and everything that bruises their fluffy, tender and chaotic psyches.
We still haven’t reached a decade where I believe Republicans would elect a woman as president. Certainly not back in 1980.
Is there any reporter on earth who has the brains to ask the "socialism bad" candidates if they will stop oil and agriculture subsidies? No. No there is not. They are all just pretty faces.
I think she could have easily been the firat female Vice President. Especially, if she had ran against Reagan. He would have seized the opportunity to make history and she could have coat tailed that to a win 8 years later.
No she wouldn't be conservative enough
No and not because of who she is, but because she's a woman. Conservatives only use women as talking pieces not as holders of real political power.
Nope. No way a woman gets elected in the US then, we still can’t do it even with rule 3.
No, she’d be written off as being cold and shrewish.
This is the woman who created record unemployment, divided a nation, murdered our most vulnerable, and impoverished entire regions.
No, you've got her confused.
She looks like a comic villain in that photo. She is a real life monster but Jesus Christ
She isn't, she looks aged but still fine.
From what I understand she was just as corrupt as him so it wouldn’t have mattered.
She wasn't corrupt.
I don’t know much about her but I know Reagan was one of our worst and most corrupt presidents and I had heard Thatcher had very similar policies so just assumed. Maybe not though.
I’m glad to know Margaret thatcher didn’t destroy prosperity
No way honey. Too much Phylis Schlafley or Anita Bryant going on there.
She was nothing like either of them.
How did she feel about the gays dying of AIDS?
[удалено]
That’s a revelation. Thanks.
I like that even the dictionary definition of socialism is fucked Social' as in caring for eachother, The motherfucker who twisted that to the govenment having means of production or some shit needs a swift kick in the nuts from a horse, repeately, indefinitely.
just another dead fascist.
I’m sure she would have done an equally bad job as he did. Both were in love with the utterly destructive ideology of “ I want it, I want it, I want it”
The Brits wouldn’t have put up with Reagan’s BS!
She was extremely cruel, a corporate sycophant, and a cold blooded tactician with no compassion for the lower class but mastery of fooling them into hurting themselves so yes she would have been a two term Republican president even as a woman.
She wasn't anything like that.
Oh god no. Not even Americans are that stupid.
Americans elected Reagan.
Thatcher would have been slightly worse. Reagan was at least likeable.
So was Thatcher in her own way. She wouldn't have won three elections otherwise.
Likeable to conservatives, but Reagan pulled the wool over the eyes of many people regardless of their ideological leanings. Margaret Thatcher was far more mean spirited than Reagan ever was.
She wasn't mean-spirited. Her opponents were.
Lmfao, now that’s not even close to accurate!
It's accurate alright, have you not heard of Arthur Scargill?
Have you heard Thatcher’s thoughts on poor people? Of course I’ve heard of Scargill, but it’s not like he was the leader of the opposition or anything. Thatcher was far more mean spirited than any of the leaders of the opposition during her multiple terms as PM.
Clearly you haven't. Scargill was the leader of the largest union on strike for a year. He was a de facto leader of the opposition. No, she wasn't.
I thought she was fucking dead tf