Margaret Thatcher

[Dwyforite]

they say you should not speak ill of the dead,so I have been trying to think of something nice to say about Maggie thatcher.as yet I can not think of anything so I am going out for a walk,i may be gone for some time

[born2run]

.

[Ian]

Trying to blame all the problems of the 80s on one person is pretty ridiculous.

I can't see anyone trying to do that, Dave. And there can be little doubt that MT became PM at a particularly trying time, economically and culturally. Her lasting legacy, however, is - I believe - both culturally destructive and socially divisive.

As with all such individuals, she was a complex amalgam of the the various forces around at that time but she did little to reflect that in her own personality and dealings. Putting aside for a moment that she was smug, self-satisfied, patronising, unable to negotiate, compromise or even accept the possibility of alternative views and perspectives, her single most dangerous trait was extremism.  She moved the Tories to the extreme right, made extreme statements and pursued extreme policies. She was utterly delighted when the Falklands issue arose because that gave her the chance to deflect the growing chorus of criticism from within her own party and distract the electorate with a war, something right-wing leaders are prone to do at times of difficulty. Considering the swingeing cuts she'd made to the armed forces, that they managed even to reach the islands was astonishing. But that aside, her divisive approach to the nation's problems almost brought catastrophe to the country.

One thing we learn from history is that extreme leaders breed extreme responses; in her case, and not without a certain irony, an organisation with her initials arose and succeeded in taking over the city of Liverpool. Militant Tendency, under the leadership of Derek Hatton, infiltrated the Labour party in the city and managed to wrest control from the long-serving Labour stalwarts.  It was surprisingly easy for them but the example of the Nationalsozialismus in Germany in the early '30s had provided them with a template. 

By the time her own party forced her out, she'd succeeded in alienating most of the Tory party,  most of the armed services and just about all the electorate North of Watford. She left the country with a depleted manufacturing base (although that was in progress a long time before she arrived) a get-rich-quick mentality in the country and almost single-handedly eradicated the idea of volunteering. More than anything else, she divided, and I don't believe that's the sign of a good leader.

[DaveR]

Then why was she elected three times?

[Ian]

That question is often asked, and it's really all about timing. The first and third times were simply down to the total lack of any decent opposition; Labour were still being wagged by the Union tail, and it took the unnerving example of Militant to make them realise the dangers inherent in their own constitution. The second time, of course, she was widely expected to lose, but a handy war came to her defence, and - since our forces won - she was re-elected.

One thing I can remember, starkly, was when the news of the Belgrano sinking was announced - with the loss of 368 lives - she was crying 'Rejoice!' on Number 10's steps. Seemed incongruous at the time. 

[Nemesis]

I debated with myself for some time before I posted the original obit,  knowing that it would probably spark debate among our members.
As Dave said-- We got on with it. I was a child of the late 40's early 50's and my parents had to get on with it as the country recovered from war. Later we managed to run a business, which incidentally relied heavily on electricity, through the 3 day week. One had to get on and work-- no work--no money.

[DaveR]

Let's have a look at just a couple of facts:

Manufacturing-
"Perceived wisdom is also that manufacturing disappeared under Thatcher. If so, it was something that had already started. In 1970, manufacturing accounted for 20.57% of UK GDP. By 1979 that was down to 17.62% of GDP. By the time she left office, that decline had continued - albeit at a slightly slower pace, down to 15.18%. Now it is much lower, according to the ONS - down to 9.86% in 2010."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

Coal Mine Closures-
It's a fact that Labour PM Harold Wilson closed far more coal mines that Thatcher did:
"Wilson closed 54.8% of all of the mines open at the start of his first term, an average rate of 6.8% of open mines per year through his 8 years in office.  Thatcher closed 19.8% of all of the open mines through her period of closures (’79-84)"
http://labourlist.org/2012/03/this-poll-lead-is-soft-heres-how-labour-can-harden-it/

[Fester]

At times of social and economic difficulty, there is always need for strong leadership and the ability to make unpopular decisions.  Mrs Thatcher was certainly that type of leader.
There are always winners and losers at such times, as there inevitably must be when there are limited resources to go around and an economic mess to address.   All this means that the leader in question is remembered very differently depending on how you were affected.   
I think I would have despised her if I were part of a South Yorkshire mining family.
Equally I would have adored her if I was able to launch a telecoms business following the privatisation of BT.

I was neither, so I look back on those times from a historical perspective only, although I do remember those years very positively for me personally.

More importantly now, I think the time for strong leadership and unpopular decisions is upon us once again.
There is great need for an uncompromising and autocratic leader to force through some tough legislation.
However, due to the weak coalition, and the insipid characters within it, I fear that is most unlikely to come about.
The alternative however, is unthinkable.

[DaveR]

Good post, Fester.

[Merddin Emrys]

Yes, DaveR and Fester, wise words indeed! I did very well in the Thatcher years, working in the Telecomms industry and lots of buying and selling! Good days!

[Ian]

I was financially unaffected by her premiership and I was freelance, so I should adore her, I suppose. But what I saw during her years in power made me wonder a lot about power and leadership. After all, the 1930s witnessed the rise to power of some of the strongest leaders the world has seen and there were certainly winners and losers. And what worries me about the current economic situation is that I fear F might be right: we've already seen the types of civil unrest that so characterised post-WW1 Germany in the '20s and that provided fertile ground for what followed. What 'strong leadership' might we see now?

It's certainly true that the UK was in a mess, but that mess was really a consequence of WWII and its aftermath. We certainly needed to loosen state control over many industries, but it does make me smile when I hear people saying what a great idea it was to sell off BT and so forth. These businesses were al;ready state owned, and that means owned by the taxpayer. It was a remarkable con-trick to sell something the taxpayers already owned to the taxpayers.  And let's not forget how badly the all-knowing, strong leadership screwed up the sale of BT by grossly undervaluing the share price.  At a single stroke thousands of people made a massive profit. But only those able to afford to buy shares - the well-off - could profit from that. 

Her utter lack of understanding of ordinary people was also at the root of a lot of the hatred some harbour for her;  she couldn't understand why the Poll tax failed so abysmally, and her use of the Royal 'we' to describe herself  never went down too well.

[DaveR]

It was a remarkable con-trick to sell something the taxpayers already owned to the taxpayers.  And let's not forget how badly the all-knowing, strong leadership screwed up the sale of BT by grossly undervaluing the share price.  At a single stroke thousands of people made a massive profit. But only those able to afford to buy shares - the well-off - could profit from that. 

Aren't you contradicting yourself? It's can't be both a con trick AND a lucrative investment.

With all the privatisations, I bought shares - usually only a couple of hundred quid's worth at most, as that was all I could afford back then (I was on the equivalent of minimum wage). There's very few people that couldn't have done the same.

[Ian]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? It's can't be both a con trick AND a lucrative investment.

Not if you read my post.

"At a single stroke thousands of people made a massive profit. But only those able to afford to buy shares - the well-off - could profit from that"

It was a con trick to sell back an industry which every tax payer had owned to those few who could afford to buy the shares.  But I don't agree with your assertion that "very few people (that) couldn't have done the same." Most of those laid off and put out of work couldn't. And that was a fair few.  MT's premiership saw unemployment soar to over 3.5 million.

[Ian]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? It's can't be both a con trick AND a lucrative investment

And many con tricks can be lucrative investments for a time....

[Ian]

MPs can claim up to £3,750 in travel costs to pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher in parliament today - sparking warnings the bill could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Parliament’s expenses watchdog has confirmed that MPs can put their travel costs to attend the special session of parliament on expenses – including their family.

Taxpayers now face a potentially hefty bill for today’s recall of parliament, where MPs will discuss Baroness Thatcher's contributions to British politics and her legacy, following her death on Monday.

The news comes as many have remarked upon Baroness Thatcher's reputation for being frugal with money as prime minister, even to the extent of overruling menus on flights abroad.

A spokesman for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) confirmed what MPs could claim in terms of travelling to attend the session today.

The absolute maximum that MPs could claim was £3,750 in such circumstances, he said.