Top Londoner wrote:Sorry to disagree Quartz, but I feel that she helped those to help themselves.
The Harry Enfield 'Loadsamoney' character epitomised her time as PM.
I think the media latched onto it as such at the time, but in retrospect I am not sure that character represented much at all.
Yes, people who had council houses had the right to buy them, and yes, class divides became more based on income and less on cultural/political identity under Thatcher.
But I cannot help feeling that global economic and technological changes far greater than Thatcher played a bigger part.
We are all now on a more level playing field in one massive respect which is down to technology...anyone with an internet connection and a bit of gumption to learn how to build a website and learn a bit of SEO can get ahead if they have the right commercial idea.
Not that the internet was a big feature under Thatcher, but the idea that working class people must vote Labour, and must be socialist, and must be devoid of entrepreneurial ambition, is not an entrenched feature of British life.
It was a strong feature from 1918 - 1980 only.
Top Londoner wrote:
I wish that I could articulate it better, but my strong feelings are that she is responsible for the north/south divide.
The affluent south riding on the back of the demise of the north.
I think the roots of that divide go way back into history with the border of the Danegeld.
The South's proximity to Europe and the usefulness of the River Thames as a commercial highway, it's milder climate, the different genetic make up of the Northerners (more Viking) from the Southerners (far more mixed), the demise of the great industrial processes from the 1960's onwards (industry being more concentrated in the North and the Midlands) to name but a few.
I will agree that Thatcher seemingly did less to help regenerate the North, but more economically aware posters will have to go into more detail
Top Londoner wrote:
London is now a microcosm of the rest of the UK.
I disagree.
I think London has been a bit different since the Romans built it.
These days it is anything but a microcosm, it is very much it's own place with it's own unique characteristsics.
It is probably the most cosmopolitan multi-cultural city in the world, and I intentionally include New York, LA, and Amsterdam in that comparision.
It is majority non-white British, with an astonishing variety of nationalities living here.
It has a massive rail network and 24 hour bus service.
It has far higher property value to income ratios than any other large city (there are towns with extremely high property prices i.e. Oxford).
It has far more sporting, cultural, business, diplomatic and commercial activity than anywhere else.
Whilst Birmingham and Manchester have some similarities, and there are now small pockets of overseas populations to be found in many places, London is massively different from the country outside the M25.