Was Margaret Thatcher's legacy positive (yes) or negative (no)?

  • Margaret Thatcher’s Legacy Was Definitely Positive

    Detractors can assert their position from a number of meaningless, and inconsequential, controversial issues about Margaret Thatcher, but her legacy as whole, is most assuredly positive. Taking into account a total compilation of her work, she was an asset to the world like few others before her have been. She helped to create a number of advances humanistic thought, and her general appeal to the everyday citizen will live on way past her memory. Her policies, although not always agreed to by everyone, invariably were done with the benefit of mankind in general at their foundation. Margaret Thatcher’s legacy is certainly a positive one.

  • Yes, she did what needed to be done.

    I believe her legacy was positive. The former Prime Minister was a decisive leader and had to make tough choices in politics at home and abroad. When she made her decisions, she was aware of the consequences but never the less, acted promptly. As a leader, she didn't second guess herself. If she was wrong, she admitted it.

  • Legacy was positive.

    While Margaret Thatcher may have made decisions that some consider negative or to have negative consequences, her legacy is positive because she was a strong, opinionated, capable woman who defied gender roles and embraced her position with grace, dignity, assuredness, and led a country very capably for a lengthy tenure. Whether anyone agrees with her politics, her legacy is one of which to be proud.

  • Totally Negative - She did nothing for the working class, just the wealthy!

    Negative, she he just another wealthy person of the Royal Elite in the UK. The royal family and all the rest that are connected to the royalty need to be kicked out and their wealth redistributed to the workers.

    It is sad that the people in the UK haven't overthrown this government a long time ago. America kicked the royalty out in 1776, the working class in the UK should unite and kick all the royal bums out.

  • "There is no such things as a society"

    My headline should count for itself. She actually said this. She believed that a welfare system wasn't needed and that people should be able to cope by themselves and never look to the state for help. Sure, some people are able to. However, not everyone has the ability to take care of themselves and need help. What do we do with them? Let them starve on the streets? No. We take care of them as they are fellow human beings and we should show solidarity to one another. Instead, she created a society that stigmatized the people who needed help, and weren't able to get it themselves. In my opinion she wasn't a good prime minister.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.