How did she win 3 elections then?

You have been very selective with your quoting. Here is the full quote:

"I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate—“It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it”. That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: “All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!” but when people come and say: “But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!” You say: “Look” It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!”

There is also something else I should say to them: “If that does not give you a basic standard, you know, there are ways in which we top up the standard. You can get your housing benefit.”

But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate."

Wasn't old enough to vote but I highly doubt the Tories won too many seats in Scotland. She must have been quite popular in much of England. I've heard she was sneaky with boundary changes, the Falklands War helped her win won, and Labour were pretty piss poor at the time.

I agree. I believe that where is disagree is how to define responsibility.

Let's say I am an inmate. A previous young offender. I dropped out of school at 13 because they expect you to work too hard. So I rob and I steal and spend 15 years incarcerated with various periods of release. I keep offending and, when I am in gaol, I don't take part in any attempts to receive an education.

I am released and I am 30 years old.

What responsibility does the State have for me? To home, clothe and feed me; in a studio apartment; in a one bedroomed flat; in a semi-detached 3 bedroomed house; in a 4 bedroomed detached house?

How much clothing do I really need?

How much should the State provide me for food? Enough to shop at bargain basement stores; enough to shop at Tescos; enough to shop at M&S?

Should the State provide me with a vehicle? Again, what type?

What about vacations? Should the State pay for those?

What is a sufficient "safety net"?

I don't believe anyone would argue that there should be a safety net for those that find themselves upon hard times. How long should it last and, for example, should the State impose a death tax of 100% upon everyone's estate once husband/wife/partner have passed away? Why should one be permitted to leave it to their children? What have they done to deserve it? Why not redistribute it so that all of society can benefit?

So is this a Scotland v England thing then? The Scottish didn't like her so that's the end of the argument?

Eh? Not at all. She was hated in Wales and the North of England too, as well as much of Ireland.

The only reason I mentioned Scotland is that's the only place I've had experience of living in the UK. I've never heard a positive word spoken about her. I'm sure there must be some supporters of her but they tend to keep quiet about it.

In saying that, political opinion definitely varies dramatically between South/North of the country.

Britain and Argentina were, if not allies, at least friendly nations. Some of the men in the task force sent to the Falklands had been training with the Argentinian military only a few months before.

For the Argentinian government to invade the territory of a friendly, nuclear-armed nation would have been insane.

The only real mistake was not realising that their leaders actually were.

If this thread is to be believed then she did ok in Scotland. It wasn't until the 90's that scotland became a tory free zone.

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=210795

Cheers for finding that, pretty interesting map.

I knew they used to win my consituency regularly before the 90's (they now get hammered by the SNP in every election). Looks like they won their seats in the rural areas of Scotland - damn farmers.

The map posted by Alan2005 seems to contradict most of what you are saying

I never voted for her so I have no axe to grind here at all.

To an extent, yeah. Remember though that not all that many people live in those large blue parts - the vast majority of the population are situated in the central belt.

Also, she's a big part of the reason the Tories only have one seat up here these days.

I always thought that constituancy boundaries are supposed to contain similar numbers of the electorate

Also, the UK in the 70's had rampant inflation, 3 day weeks, power cuts, winter of discontent, begging to the IMF etc etc. Now, I hated thatcher as much as anyone else, but that was still fresh in peoples minds. Add a bit of patriotic ferver from a nice war and an unelectable labour leader and you can see why the tories won easily in 83.

that's the thing, isn't it. In 83 she was competing against Michael Foot. That was even easier than Harper competing against Stephane Dion. In 87 it was Kinnock and everyone thought he'd do much better until the results were in, but again there's a Canadian comparison in the Layton-mania that somehow didn't quite translate into seats won on polling day. Given a well-organized, electable opposition, neither Thatcher nor Harper would have gone on being prime minster for as long as they did/have.

Many would say Margret Thatcher won the first two elections, the first on her own merit, the second on the back of the falklands and that the newspapers helped Kinnock lose the third