Questions on the ailing Margaret Thatcher

[Eve]

I have a feeling this might wind up in Great Debates or the Pit . . . Just saw this AP story:

LONDON (AP) - Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has suffered a series of small strokes and is retiring from the public lecture circuit, her office said Friday. Thatcher, 76, canceled a speaking engagement at her doctor's instructions Tuesday night after falling ill that morning . . . Thatcher, a grocer's daughter who became Europe's first female prime minister in 1979, transformed her country during 11 combative years in power. She earned the sobriquet 'Iron Lady, by dismantling the socialist policies of the Labor Party, crushing the once-mighty labor unions, defeating Argentina in war, and serving as the No. 1 ally to President Reagan and the first President Bush."

—Now, I must admit, I didn't really follow British politics in the '80s. But I do know everyone seems to loathe Thatcher—why is this? Was she really that bad for Britain in the short- or long-run? Did she accomplish anything positive?

[grimpixie]

I think you're right that this could degenerate...

Cards on the table - I am not British, but have lived in the country with my family on four different occasions, early 1970's (still a baby), early 80's, late 80's and am here again now...

My impression is that (overall) her policies bought greater prosperity - I read an article in 1989, after 10 years of Thatcherite rule, comparing the amount of work-time needed for a worker to earn a number of basic commodities (bread, milk, shoes, hour of electricity, etc) and showing that this time had decreased in the interim. At the same time there is no doubt that these same policies bought a great deal of suffering, and that the poorer members of society suffered more than the richer....

Gp

[pluto]

Margaret Thatcher's popularity in the U.K. is almost an exact parallel to Ronald Reagan's popularity in the U.S. for very similar reasons. Opinions are strongly divided, but predictable. Conservatives think Reagan and Thatcher saved the free world from Communism and the welfare state, liberals think they furthered the prosperity of their wealthy cronies by beating down the poor. Their policies and opinions were very similar and they were staunch allies.

Your question is likely, therefore, to bring strongly polarized responses. Mrs. Thatcher (I think she's technically Lady Thatcher or Dame Thatcher) has recently published an autobiography that might offer some insight and allow you to draw your own conclusions.

[pluto]

p.s. I didn't get a chance to post in the other threads but it's good to have you back, Eve.

[Pergau]

Wow, so much to say and so few expletives in the english language.

POLL TAX

POLL TAX

POLL TAX

Coal not dole

AAAAHHHH I have to stop or it will give me an ulcer

[Bromley]

It always made me laugh when people complained about her - we voted the Tories in.

Having said that, and whilst I don't wish ill-health on anyone, maybe she'll bow out gracefully now. She just sounds rabid whenever I hear her.

Personally, I liked the general idea of the poll tax (income tax is for wealth redistribution), but I'd agree with Pergau that that was a big reason for the polarised opinion of her.

[ruadh]

Thatcher was deeply loathed by a large percentage of the British population well before the poll tax was introduced (in 1990). The high unemployment rates of the 1980s were a more critical factor; the poll tax was merely the last straw.

[DPWhite]

Do you Brits actually have a poll tax? Yuck.

As an American liberal (but not a leftist) I have some admiration for Thatcher's general idea of privatization. Obviously I think there should be exceptions. But I do admire the idea of getting private companies to compete to do the government's duties, and in some instances get paid by the government for doing them. And I also admire her general firmness in her convictions. But she did have an obnoxiousness about her and her opponents/enemies that I found distasteful, even more so than I found them in Reagan. Reagan was always going around bashing Democrats, which I found very un-Presidential, but at least he had a twinkle in his eye and a light laugh. Thatcher was much too partisan about that for my taste. On the other hand, when I watch questions for the Prime Minister on C-Span, I understand that the system is completely different. These guys really go at each other and get to be quite good at debate. I never considered John Major to be especially bright, but he performed reasonably well during questions. Can you imagine Reagan, Bush I or II having to do this with Tom Daschle dishing the questions?

[bibliophage]

I think this is destined for Great Debates, so I'll just move it now.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by DPWhite
Do you Brits actually have a poll tax?

Well, it's not (or should I say "it wasn't") the kind of poll tax you're probably thinking of. It was just the tax levied by local authorities; I think it's called the Council Tax now. The reason it was so vigorously opposed was that every person within the local authority's jurisdiction had to pay the exact same amount, regardless of income - with the effect that many low-income people saw their local tax skyrocket while their wealthy neighbours on the other side of the jurisdiction suddenly had to pay a lot less than they had before. (There were some other issues behind the tax, for example that it was widely believed - and with good reason IIRC - that the Tory government was subsidising districts that consistently voted for them - but the highly regressive nature of the tax was the big issue.) This led to actual rioting, widespread refusals to pay and, ultimately, Thatcher's forced retirement.

[casdave]

I could go right into a long rant about Ms Thatcher but I will hold back and cool down before giving you a more reasoned analysis of her methods, the sheer unbridled greed and corruption of her acolytes and the destruction of manufacturing industry.

I have accurate knowledge that her deliberate inaction was a strategic ploy to get the UK involved in a war that need not have occurred, and which was used to save her unworthy skin.


As you can see, its not working too well - this holding back so I'll leave it for a bit.

[glee]

She's a a Baroness now.
Here in the UK, we reward long-serving politicians with titles (they don't have to do anything special to earn them).

I lived through the Thatcher years and certainly detested many of her policies.

To be fair to her she was a true democrat, who stepped down without any fuss when her time in office ended. (Bit of a lesson here for Mugabe in Zimbabwe :rolleyes: ).
She also was passionate about her views and represented us strongly in international affairs.
She was the first woman Prime Minister.

However she was notoriously poor at seeing anyone else's point of view (or perhaps repeatedly refused to 'compromise' her views).
You could certainly argue that she needed these qualities to get anywhere in the male-dominated political scene, but I still feel she ignored the wishes of the public.

Due to our crass 'first past the post' system, it is likely that the prime minister will have a comfortable majority in parliament, without ever getting 50% of the votes cast (let alone 50% of the electorate).
This was certainly true of Thatcher, who pursued very right-wing policies without having an 'electoral mandate'.

Her extreme policies did bring massive numbers of people onto the streets in protest (e.g. over the miners strike and the poll tax).

Her policy of privatisation led directly to the current appalling state of our railways. This may not mean much to Americans, but public transport is very important in our small crowded island.

I will be happy to give more detail on the above, if you would like me to.

P.S. When still a Minister, she stopped the daily free milk for school kids. Apparently t cost too much.

[Futile Gesture]

Can't imagine why anyone could hate Thatcher...

"There is no such thing as society"

Poll Tax. Might be a bit tricky to sell the public on this one, so let's introduce it in Scotland where no one voted for me.

Monetarism & Privatisation. An economic policy that the cost of everything and the value of nothing. All in all Thatcher's policies resulted in a massive shift of cash into the back pockets of the rich.

Horrendous Unemployment. The cost of the above but, in the words of her Chancellor of the Exchequor Norman Lamont (a man so pompous that he 'frenchified' the pronunciation of his surname) "a cost well worth paying".

The "Great Car Economy". Thatcher's idea that everyone should have a car and we don't need any other forms of transport. The result is the worse railway infrastructure in Europe and the worse traffic congestion. Both cost the economy millions.

Appeared on the Brit Music Awards to tell the nation's youngsters that her fave song was "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window".

Section 28 of the 1986 Local Government Act. A lovingly created bit of legislation introduced by Thatcher that gave her a club that she could beat horrid and troublesome left-wing local councils with. The fact that it was also stupendously homophobic didn't come into it.

Sleeze. Count the number of Thatcher's cabinent members who helped privatise a public asset (at substantially under market value) and then subsequently got a position on the board of the resulting company. Ker-ching!

Thatcher herself retired to a cushy touring job with Philip Morris, helping to convince Third World countries that they don't want to have anything to do with those nasty tobacco taxes or regulations.

She reappeared in 1998 to demand that former Chilean dictator General Pinochet should be released, patted on the back and sent on his way, rather than be extradited to Spain to face mass murder charges.

[SuaSponte]

Originally posted by pluto
Margaret Thatcher's popularity in the U.K. is almost an exact parallel to Ronald Reagan's popularity in the U.S. for very similar reasons ... Their policies and opinions were very similar and they were staunch allies.

I think the part that will be hard for Americans to understand in this comparison is British system of government - "parliamentary dictatorship". Thatcher actually implemented all the things Reagan wanted to do, but was stymied due to the American system of checks and balances.

As for whether that was a good thing or a bad thing ... YMMV.

Sua

[MeanJoe]

Let's not forget the Hunger Strikes and Bobby Sands, M.P.





*runs like hell*








:p

[Truth Seeker]

Thatcher is certainly a polarizing figure but ultimately, she won't be remembered for any of the things so far discussed. Thatcher broke the power of the British unions. Most everyone, even new Labor, agrees that this was a painful but necessary thing to do. Had she been less hard-nosed than she was, the unions would have won the confrontation and the UK would be a dramatically different place than it is today.

[glee]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
Thatcher is certainly a polarizing figure but ultimately, she won't be remembered for any of the things so far discussed. Thatcher broke the power of the British unions. Most everyone, even new Labor, agrees that this was a painful but necessary thing to do. Had she been less hard-nosed than she was, the unions would have won the confrontation and the UK would be a dramatically different place than it is today.

Actually her legacy of discrimination against the poor and massive corruption, both personal (her son, with no discernable talents, is a multi-millionaire) and party (Aitken, Archer, Hamilton) means the her Conservative party suffered a massive swing in the polls (Portillo) and even now is still practically unelectable.
A much better way to remember her. :cool:

[Hemlock]

Originally posted by casdave
....destruction of manufacturing industry.....

Thatcher's greatest achievement was to privatize or simply eliminate a wide range of inefficient, economically unviable companies that were subsidized by the wealth-creating sections of the economy. This didn't just include state-owned utilities, but car factories, steel mills, coal mines, an airline, and heaven knows what else. They were killing off the rest of the economy.

Like the US, the UK is now over 80% services-based, and imports many basic manufactured goods from low-cost economies.

People who loath her seem to do so because of her style. Only the economically illiterate would deny that she transformed the UK from a declining dump in the 70s into the place with Europe's fastest productivity growth, most flexible labor markets and lowest unemployment in the 90s.

And, for all the venom some people display towards her, don't forget she won 3 elections in a row. Someone voted for her.

[Duke]

Wow, pretty comprehensive list of Thatcher's failings. Well done, as usual, Dopers :)

Hemlock, it is very true that Thatcher did manage three election wins in a row, a feat without precedent in modern British politics (although, with the Tories in complete disarray, Tony Blair and New Labour can probably win elections at will for the forseeable future). However, a lot of that can be put down to luck and Thatcher's successful manipulation of the electoral system. The lucky part was that Labour's leadership (Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock) was weak to say the least during most of Thatcher's tenure. Foot in particular was truly embarrassing--probably one of the least impressive party leaders of the late 20th century.

Thatcher's success with the electoral system takes a little explaining for those unfamiliar with UK politics. General elections in the UK must be called five years after the previous general election, but they can be called by the government before those five years are up. Thatcher's genius was to capitalise on short-term opinion swings towards the Conservatives (usually accomplished through generous tax cuts, or the rise in patriotism after the Falklands War) by calling elections short of the five-year period. Since UK election campaigns only last about a month, there was little chance that the Conservative lead would change drastically between the election announcement and the actual vote. Looking at opinion polls from 1979-90 (I'll find the cite on the 'net if there's a need), it's clear that, during Thatcher's tenure, the Conservative party was behind in the polls more often than they were ahead. They were just ahead at the key times: during the elections.

[glee]

Originally posted by Hemlock
People who loath her seem to do so because of her style. Only the economically illiterate would deny that she transformed the UK from a declining dump in the 70s into the place with Europe's fastest productivity growth, most flexible labor markets and lowest unemployment in the 90s.

And, for all the venom some people display towards her, don't forget she won 3 elections in a row. Someone voted for her.

It is probably true that Britain had some inefficient industries in the 70's. Economics is not an exact science however, and I don't think she knew what she was doing in that sense.
She espoused Monetarism as an economic philosophy - where is it now?
In particular, the coal privatisation was done mainly as revenge for Heath's earlier Conservative government falling over a miner's strike, not as an economic reform.

Some privatisations were done way below market value (but, as has been said above, some of her Conservative Ministers made a healthy profit).
The railways were (and still are) a complete disaster (you could claim loss of life as one direct consequence).

Some of her 'lieutenants' were:
Dame Shirley Porter, leader of Westminster Council, which was a flagship local authority under Thatcher. Porter fled the country rather than pay massive fines after being found guilty of fraud (both financial and electoral).
Michael Heseltine, a Thatcher favourite, who perpetrated the Millenium Dome. Cost: over £1,000,000,000. Benefit: £0.
John Major, her successor, who lost the country in one day £15,000,000,000.
Who's economically illiterate now?

As for 'winning' 3 elections in a row, I have referred to the fact that she never got even 50% of votes cast.
Yes, that is the fault of our electoral system. But shouldn't you refrain from extremist policies when you can't even get a majority of votes cast?

Here is a quote from the Guardian newpaper (TV guide!) today:

'...by 1997, the Conservatives were so irredeemable a shambles that Labour would have won on a platform of reintroducing conscription and banning rock music on Sundays.'
Yes, the song has ended, but the memory lingers on...

[everton]

Originally posted by Hemlock
...This didn't just include state-owned utilities, but car factories, steel mills, coal mines, an airline, and heaven knows what else. They were killing off the rest of the economy...If an international trade war is to be precipitated by the US tariffs on steel imports the consequences would be serious for us all. So would you prefer to see President Bush allow the evidently uncompetitive US steel industry to collapse rather than risk that consequence?

Artificially stimulated dependence on net imports of basic commodities makes no sense, and is unjustifiable on the grounds of a short-term balance sheet analysis. For a country like the UK to be coal importer is farcical, yet that is the result of the Thatcherite policy on coal, to quote just one example, and as has been said this policy was motivated entirely by political vindictiveness not economic wisdom.

It's a common tactic for politicians generally to take credit for any improvement in the economy, but to blame any downturn on circumstances "beyond their control". Thatcher was a master of this form of deceipt and you seem to have falled for it too.

As far as the destruction of the unions being a good thing, I would certainly not accept that. Abuse of union power was not a problem in itself but a symptom of an underlying problem -- poor industrial relations and a persistent antagonism between unions and managers. This problem was certainly not solved by Thatcher, and still exists today to a large extent, so any success Britain achieves has been in spite of this shortcoming rather than due to its abolition.

[december]

Originally posted by Eve
But I do know everyone seems to loathe Thatcher—why is this? In the days when I traveled to London on business, I never heard a negative word about MT, and one of my colleagues highly admired her.

The impression that she's widely loathed comes from media bias, as usual. The leftist media don't care what she accomplished. They will never forgive her for being conservative.

[ruadh]

Er, that's right. Everyone please ignore the 20 previous posts from those of us who live or have lived in Britain, obviously we don't know what we're talking about and december, who made a handful of business trips there does.

:rolleyes:

[ruadh]

For the record, I was speaking strictly about december's contention that popular anti-Thatcherism is nothing but a media myth.

Honestly, december, would it not occur to you that the people you met on your business trips were generally businessmen, who tended to benefit from Thatcher's policies? And that their views may not be representative of the British populace as a whole, and of the working classes (who form a large percentage of that populace) in particular?

Regardless of whether you think Thatcher should be widely loathed, to claim that she isn't is simple ignorance.

[Guinastasia]

For the life of me, I can't remember WHERE I saw it, and I will try to look it up, but didn't Queen Elizabeth have some pretty critical things to say about Thatcher's policies?

[Duke]

Hey december: Here's a little experiment you can try next time you're in UK-land to prove whether or not the loathing of Thatcher is a mirage created by "media bias"--

1. Go into any pub outside of the City of London. (The City suits love Thatcher for the same reason Enron and oil execs love Shrub.)

2. Sit down next to a random group of patrons and start enthusing about Thatcher's economic policies, brilliant speech-making, etc.

3. Check your watch to see how long it is before you're physically assaulted.

[glee]

Originally posted by december
In the days when I traveled to London on business, I never heard a negative word about MT, and one of my colleagues highly admired her.

One colleague, huh? Nothing anecdotal about that then. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you could explain why she never won even 50% of the vote in any election. Who were these voters, who 'never said a negative word' about her?

Originally posted by december
The impression that she's widely loathed comes from media bias, as usual. The leftist media don't care what she accomplished. They will never forgive her for being conservative.

Ah, the leftist media of Britain. Well, unless you define leftist as 'someone who disagrees with December', I think you may need to check your facts.
Most of the media in Britain is owned by right-wing businessmen like Rupert Murdoch.

Perhaps you could actually read this thread to discover why Thatcher is so disliked (or are us British posters all in the leftist media?!).

Here are some reasons why you might feel at home with our Conservative party:

The average age of members of the Conservative party is about 65.
They are the Party with the least proportion of women members of Parliament (MP's). (Undoubtedly you could substitute gay, minority or poor in that sentence).
The Carlton Club, a traditional home for Conservative MP's, couldn't admit Thatcher, since she was female. The club solved the embarrassment by letting the Prime Minister be an honorary 'man'!
They talk opinionated rubbish (OK, I made that one up).

[Rayne Man]

Another consequence of Thatcher's monetorism policies is the short-term thinking that now pervades much of British industry and the City. ( "if it don't produce a profit in six months scrap it" ). As a result much R and D was ditched together with technical and craft training schemes such as apprenticeships. Because of this there is now a skills shortage in what is left of British industry.
I work for a utility company that was privatised twelve years ago. Thirty thousand of my co-workers lost their jobs (including many with years of experiance) and all training schemes were stopped. Now , with people of my age coming up to retirement , the company has realised that the highly skilled work pool is diminishing and a lot of of training of new people has to be done to catch up on the lost years.

[waterj2]

Conservatives think Reagan and Thatcher saved the free world from Communism and the welfare state, liberals think they furthered the prosperity of their wealthy cronies by beating down the poor. Their policies and opinions were very similar and they were staunch allies.
Of course, there's no reason both can't be true. Both were supply-siders, and while their brand of capitalism was probably better than than the previous policies when considered overall for the entire country, the benefits of it were spread extremely inequally. The rich got richer, and the poor didn't screwed badly enough to equal a net loss altogether.

My quick synopsis would be that she brought much needed reform to Britain by screwing over the working class and enriching her cronies and other rich businessmen.
So would you prefer to see President Bush allow the evidently uncompetitive US steel industry to collapse rather than risk that consequence?
If it's not competitive, it's probably better for it to collapse. The problem is again the balancing of a net economic benefit against the localized economic disturbances.

[casdave]

I have only just started to calm down and hope I can be more rational about this person.

Lets get one or two details out of the way first.

MT was not the architect of her policies though she attempts to take the credit.She did modify things as time drew on and ultimately it was her self belief in her own righteousness and infallability that did for her.

The background to her policies actually lie in reports from the right-wing political theorist think tank called the Adam Smith Institute whose whole reason d'etre was the freeing up of markets by minimising the role of the state.
The origins of this philosophy came about during the reign of George III when free trade was almost unheard of, and led to a moribund economy, where to make money one had to belong to a certain self-interested group, which basically bribed legislators, rulers, and the tiny number of voters in order to make conditions more favourable to themselves.

This meant that true entrepreneurs were stifled.

I suppose the diametricly opposite group to the Adam Smith institue would be the Joseph Rowntree foundation which is particularly noted for its philanthropy, so if you wish to research both sides of this debate you will need to inform yourself on both viewpoints(isn't the net just wonderful?)

The Adam Smith Institute came out with a report in the early '70's which baldly stated that the then employment levels in the UK were too high and that this led to a shortage of labour at a reasonable price, which in turn made British industry less competitive.

Building on the whole of that report, economic theorists came up with a checklist of things to do to rectify and reform the British economy.
Chief among these was Sir Keith Joseph and to whom MT has acknowledged many times that she owes a great debt.

Why was the British economy in a stagnant state ?

Our inflation was high at the time, I remember annual rates above 10% and of course this led to increased wage demands, and to control it all interest rates were high which led in turn to higher wage demands.

For those not all that familiar with UK economics one should realise that as a nation we are obsessed with real estate, which means interest rates have an intimate effect on our daily lives, any changes to interest rates means that it affects what we have to spend quite dramatically and any reduction in disposible income means that home improvements, furniture sales etc are reduced, which then leads to unemployment.

Conservatives always blame the Labour party government of the day for this situation but in fact the '70's demonstrated how impotent national governments actually were in the face of changing world market conditions.

It would not have mattered who was in power at the time of that last Labour government, our economy would have been in very poor condition, and the main reason for this were the sudden hikes in oil prices, not once but twice in a matter of a few of years.

These oil price rises hit the UK very hard, as an exporter of manufactured goods, our markets simply dried up and the cost of imports such as raw materials rose, oil production in the North Sea was still merely a dream.

The result was industrial unrest and an increase in our unemployment, our unions with their frankly undemocratic methods made things even worse.

Whenever such a situation arises people will vote for a leader who promises instant solutions, and MT did just that, but instant solutions and short term feel goodism always comes at a cost.


I shall stop here so that you can comment, this is only an introduction about the MT led government and to carry on would lead to a long and extremely dry post.

I will say that I actually truly believe that the miners union did have to be broken, they were without question a threat to our democracy by causing economic damge that led to the ousting of two governments and emergancy elections pluse HM QEII declaring a state of emergency and idssolving parliament before its term was completed.

[Truth Seeker]

Originally posted by glee
As for 'winning' 3 elections in a row, I have referred to the fact that she never got even 50% of votes cast.
Yes, that is the fault of our electoral system. But shouldn't you refrain from extremist policies when you can't even get a majority of votes cast?

This contention is both true and completely silly. First, by way of a reference point, Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote either. Winning with less than 50% of the vote is quite common in systems with more than two parties. In the UK, the Liberal Democrats always poll respectably enough to prevent any party from winning 50% of the votes cast. In fact, no party, including Labour led by Tony Blair, has polled 50% of the votes cast in any election in the last 50 years or more.

Perhaps a brief historical synopsis will put Thatcher and her policies in perspective.

1974 Wilson (Labour) becomes prime minister

1976 Callaghan (Labour) becomes prime minister
In the autumn of this year, Britain's economy come close to total collapse and Britain is forced to seek a loan from the IMF. By the autumn of 1977, unemployment reaches 1,600,000 and public spending has been drastically cut. By the winter of 1978, waives of strikes by unions demanding increased public spending, higher wages and job protection are paralyzing the country.

1979 Thatcher (Conservative) becomes prime minister
In response to growing economic chaos, Thatcher sets out to break the trade unions and put through conservative economic reforms intended to make the the British economy more competitive.

1982 Falklands war

1983 Parlimentary election, Conservatives returned.

1987 Parlimentary election, Conservatives returned.

1990 Thatcher resigns. John Major becomes prime minister

1992 Parlimentary election. Conservatives returned. John Major remains prime minister

1997 Blair (Labour) becomes prime minister

It's apparent from this that 1) Thatcher didn't make the conservatives "unelectable" as they remained in power for seven years after she resigned and 2) her economic policies weren't some mean-spirited, cynical ploy to ensure that the rich got richer, they were a radical response to a radical situation. Moreover they were a necessary response.

Subsequent complaints about her style are not surprising. The kind of leader willing and able to make difficult and often, at least at the time, unpopular decisions in a time of crisis often becomes unpopular when the crisis is past. The very characteristics that make them such effective leaders when the chips are down become political liabilities in peace and prosperity.

[ruadh]

Subsequent complaints? [Bangs head against wall] Were you alive during the 80s, "Truth Seeker"?

[glee]

Originally posted by glee
As for 'winning' 3 elections in a row, I have referred to the fact that she never got even 50% of votes cast.
Yes, that is the fault of our electoral system. But shouldn't you refrain from extremist policies when you can't even get a majority of votes cast?


Originally posted by Truth Seeker
This contention is both true and completely silly. First, by way of a reference point, Bill Clinton never won 50% of the vote either. Winning with less than 50% of the vote is quite common in systems with more than two parties. In the UK, the Liberal Democrats always poll respectably enough to prevent any party from winning 50% of the votes cast. In fact, no party, including Labour led by Tony Blair, has polled 50% of the votes cast in any election in the last 50 years or more.


Your facts are correct, your conclusions not. I did refer to the foolishness of our electoral system. If the UK had proportional representation, extremists like Thatcher would never get elected.

As for your use of the phrase 'subsequent complaints' I am nearly speechless.
Did your research not turn up some of the nationwide protests during the miners strike? Have you not seen film of tens of thousands of protestors facing thousands of police at various locations? Did you not know about the protests over restrictions of civil liberties? (such as not allowing people to travel north from London if the police thought they might join picket lines).
Were you not aware of the strong feelings aroused by the sinking of the Belgrano? (I still remember Thatcher struggling desperately on TV when a housewife successfully challenged Thatcher's version of events.)
How about the Poll Tax protests? Us Brits have tremendous respect for authority (e.g. we have unarmed police, an unelected Monarchy and a State Religion). It took a deep unease about Government policy to bring British city centres to a halt with protest marches.

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
The kind of leader willing and able to make difficult and often, at least at the time, unpopular decisions in a time of crisis often becomes unpopular when the crisis is past. The very characteristics that make them such effective leaders when the chips are down become political liabilities in peace and prosperity.

I fully accept this applies (for example) to Winston Churchill during WW2. He sent men to fight and probably die (unquestionably a necessary evil), but was not considered the right man to lead the country in peace-time. Nevertheless Churchill is highly respected.
The difference with Thatcher's reputation has been discussed already in the thread.
Although an equally strong leader as Churchill, most of her battles were unnecessary. Monetarism and the Poll Tax have been abandoned. The Falklands war was not to save millions of lives - instead it was about oil rights and useful propaganda. (It also led to her describing Pinochet as a wonderful ally to our country - sort of like trading Chilean lives for British votes).
The corruption did eventually make the Conservatives unelectable - because it took years to bring the court cases.

[TwistofFate]

Ok.

I'm not going to go into what she inflicted upon my country.

I have two words

The Belgrano.


What the global economy needs to get out of its current funk is an event to get everyoen happy again.

Thatcher in a box would be the perfect event.

she can explain to the Argentinians that were killed on the Belgrano exactly what the difference between sailing towards and sailing away is, shortly before so goes to spend eternity on the Devils johnson.

From hells heart I stab at that woman.

There you go December, here is one person who HATES that poisonous old bag.

[Truth Seeker]

glee
Your specific question was, "Shouldn't you refrain from extremist policies when you can't even get a majority of votes cast?" The answer is a resounding "No." If you believe that desperate times require desperate measures, you ought to try and implement those measures to the best of your ability. If, ultimately, you can't convince enough people to see it your way, you get voted out. That's the way democracy works. Your suggestion that, since getting 50% of votes cast in the UK is a practical impossibility, British goverments in the 80's should have contented themselves with re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, would have turned the UK into Argentina, or worse.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is with my reference to subsequent complaints is. There were certain segments of society that have always hated Thatcher. She did, after all, set out with the specific intent to crush the trade unions and the "loony left." She suceeded and the losers of the class war were, and are, quite bitter about it. This makes her a polarizing figure. It doesn't make her wildly unpopular. Thatcher led the Conservatives to three election victories over a ten-year period and the Conservatives managed another election victory after dumping her. Someone must have had at least some respect for Thatcher and her reforms.

The ultimate proof of Thatcher's legacy is that Labour was unelectable until they adopted the substance of her reforms. Blair's public persona is much different than Thatcher's. Nonetheless, on matters of policy, Blair could have cheefully functioned as member of Thatcher's cabinet.

By the standards of the UK in 1979, Thatcher was indeed an "extremist." By the standards of 2002, the reforms she introduced in the early 80's are uncontroversial. Doing a bit of browsing, I found this quote which sums up her legacy. Whether you like or dislike Thatcher, it's hard to disagree with.
She took the UK by the scruff of the neck and, for good or ill, gave it a damned good shaking. The bits that fell off were discarded forever while the bits that survived formed the basis of the new Britain.

[The Stafford Cripps]

I get annoyed when journalists and others say that "Whatever you thought about her policies, you have to respect her as a leader..." yadda yadda. That's crap. As is any reference to people being scared of her. No, in Scotland, and I would imagine many other parts of the UK, the old bitch is utterly loathed and despised. Even many of her own supporters in Scotland couldn't stand her as a person. We would not piss on her if... [Odoreida led away for sedation]

[Menocchio]

The woman's a bit of a legend at my school. First of all, there were many many protestors mostly demonstrating against her policies towards Ireland (which I don't feel qualified to speak on myself) and the civil rights violations in resonse to the threat of IRA terrorism.

She referred to former president Reagan as "Ronny", repeatedly. There's something... off about that that, even if you liked the guy.

She also engaged in a bit of racial stereotype and delivered a speech that was, apparently, notably free of content of interest. Thatvher's become a "how not to" example for rhetoric studies at this institution.

[Duke]

G. Odoreida makes one pretty good point about Thatcher and her relationship to Scotland (and Wales for that matter). Prior to 1979, the Conservatives were running Labour fairly close in Scotland and Wales. After 1991, they were behind the LibDems in both places--and now, in Scotland, they're probably the fourth party behind the SNP as well. Thatcher's unpopularity is casting a really long shadow there.

A side note: one of my room-mates at Oxford was a Welsh Conservative ("Our constituency meetings are pretty quiet," he said). Even he didn't like Thatcher. "There's only one really bad obscenity in Welsh," he claimed, "Thatcher."

[ruadh]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
Thatcher led the Conservatives to three election victories over a ten-year period and the Conservatives managed another election victory after dumping her.

And exactly why did they dump her? Because they were convinced (rightfully IMHO) that they wouldn't manage another victory if they didn't. I completely fail to see how this registers as a point in her favour.

Incidentally I saw a couple of my Scottish mates last night and told them about this thread, their reaction to the contention that Thatcher isn't widely loathed was to laugh hysterically. I'm informed in all seriousness that there will be partying on the streets of Scotland on the day she finally kicks it.

Menocchio, I'd say the worst aspect of Thatcher's Irish policy was her absolute refusal to even consider the legitimate grievances of the Catholic community in the North. Thatcher approached the conflict with the view that all of its problems would be solved simply by putting away as many terrorists as possible. The underlying issues that led so many people to become or to support or sympathise with terrorists simply weren't of any concern to her.

[Bromley]

And exactly why did they dump her? Because they were convinced (rightfully IMHO) that they wouldn't manage another victory if they didn't. I completely fail to see how this registers as a point in her favour.

If you take it in context of the whole paragraph, it makes more sense. I think the key word is subsequent.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is with my reference to subsequent complaints is. There were certain segments of society that have always hated Thatcher. She did, after all, set out with the specific intent to crush the trade unions and the "loony left." She suceeded and the losers of the class war were, and are, quite bitter about it. This makes her a polarizing figure. It doesn't make her wildly unpopular. Thatcher led the Conservatives to three election victories over a ten-year period and the Conservatives managed another election victory after dumping her. Someone must have had at least some respect for Thatcher and her reforms.

[ruadh]

And I've already stated my feelings about the use of "subsequent" here. No, sorry, it doesn't make any more sense - especially given that the Tories barely managed to win that last election, and probably wouldn't have done if Labour themselves didn't have a widely disliked leader.

Anyway, nobody here has argued that Thatcher didn't have any admirers.

[The Stafford Cripps]

I forgot to add that I seriously think we can thank her for the Scottish parliament; her style caused many unionists to support devolution, and united people normally at eachothers' throats. How's that for political acumen? Her response to one of the policy ideas she most hated actually helped bring it into reality. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[ruadh]

That's probably true in a number of respects. Sinn Féin certainly benefitted in many ways from some of her Northern Ireland policies, the deaths of the hunger strikers in particular.

[casdave]

I'm so glad the everyone is paying attention :rolleyes:

Did any of you read my previous post about the economic conditions which led to the election of the first Thatcher government ?

It is true that Labour were unelectable, firstly because of the economic chaos caused by the oil price shocks and its subsequent fall out on interest rates and industrial output, but the other main reason was Labours adoption of a pacifist stance, its commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament at a time of international tension.

The policy of disarmament was widely seen as being imposed by a tiny minority of Labour party membership and against the wishes of the vast majority.

The way it was done was seen as completely undemocratic and many Britons felt that their views had not been taken into account.It certainly played a major role in Thatchers third term re-election as it was widely recognised by all, including the conservative party, that Labour had run a far better campaign.

I have to grin at the comment by a previous poster about the left-wing press in the UK.
Fact is that 90% of national newspaper output is owned by just 6 men and headlines such as
"It was the Sun wot done it" following Conservative re-elections shows up this canard for what it really is, the fact is that the British press are extremely partisan and are very much on the Conservative side of the debate.

Right lets get back to what really happened.

Before the Conservatives were elected for that first term in office much publicity was generated by their leaders in going to other countries to look at the way things worked and stating that we should use the same methods.
These visits tended to be to the US which, it must be said, was more succesful than ours, and there were some visits to Japan.

You will note that there were no such high profile trips to Germany
which is not surprising since although it was very succesful, used a far more interventionist and socialist method of industrial management.
For all the bows and handshakes on visits to Japan it completely escaped the Conservatives that Japans success was built upon cheap loans, very heavily controlled import regimes and simple stealing of other nations trademarks.
Japans shipbuilding and steel industries were very heavily state assisted and major industrial groups owned their own banks which were able to raise capital far more cheaply to lend to their industries than UK companies were able.

We did heavily subsidise coal, and steel production in the UK and we did put incredible amounts of money into supporting the car industry, but looking back one should note that all our competitiors did exactly the same.
Renault soaked up immense amounts of French taxpayers money, but it worked because it is now highly profitable.
The mining industry was always competing against world producers who got even more state support.

What I am saying is that Thatchers methods were not employed everywhere and wherever they were employed they resulted in mass unemployment, and yet the exact opposite of her methods did prove very succesful for Japan, France, Italy and Germany.

To say that Thatcher invigorated the UK economy is to fail to look at succesful outcomes using differant methods elswhere.

It was not necessary to destroy the UK as a major manufacturing centre, and it set us back decades in economic terms, it really did not have to be the way Thatcher made it.

[Futile Gesture]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that everything that Thatcher did was evil incarnate or that absolutely none of her policies were successful or justified. Nor can it be ignored that the Labour Government of the late 70s was an ineffectual joke and the economy was a mess.

But Thatcher's main problem was her indefatigable belief in her own infallibility. Those who disagreed must be crushed. It could be argued that this is not a bad attribute for a leader to have, but Thatcher went beyond inspired leadership into crazed despotism. Not for nothing did the satirical TV programme 'Spitting Image' portray her Government's cabinet as a bunch of ineffectual, spineless schoolboys. None of them dared oppose her on anything and so her Government turned into a bunch of sycophantic yes-men along for the gravy-train ride. 'Lord' Jeffery Archer is an extreme example, most didn't end up in prison for their behaviour. But there are many examples of how Conservative government ministers of the period benefitted substantially and personally from their policies.

The fact that she survived so long and won so many elections is more down to the ineffectual state of the opposition than her policies. Labour spent the 80s shooting itself in the foot, and the Conservatives were extremely skilled at exploiting this. Many of the 'loony left' excesses of the 80s were nothing but Conservative spin-doctor inventions or exaggerations. The Liberals, never likely to be the main opposition anyway, spent the decade splitting up, reforming, forming coalitions and renaming themselves.

As to why she was so loathed in Scotland; consider the fact that her party was in the minority in Scotland, yet still appointed Scotland's most senior state minister. Consider the fact that in order to run the Scottish Sub-Committees in Parliament Thatcher had to draft in MPs from England. Consider the fact that she explained to her Scottish Party Chairman; ""Michael, I am an English nationalist and never you forget it." The message from Thatcher to Scotland was clear: She didn't give two hoots what Scotland thought or wanted, she would govern the way that best suited England, and more particularly its South East. She was in command and would do whatever the hell she wanted and they couldn't do a thing about it. Even Scottish Conservatives didn't care for her, but there was nothing that could be done as long as England kept voting her in.

But I don't think it was because she was evil. She didn't (doesn't!) understand why anyone could honestly think differently from her. Scotland completely baffled her. If you didn't agree with her then it must be because you are wrong. Because she was right. She was at times totally and utterly out of touch with a large percentage of her electorate. She didn't understand them, so they must be shown the error of their ways until they could see how she was right.

Like most things in history; the most harm is always done by those who know 100%, without any doubt, that they are in the right.

[Estilicon]

I second the motion about The Belgrano, she is supposed to be a democrat, she is supposed to find the peacefull solution (There was one, she killed the negotitions when those torpedos struck the ship). She supported Pinochet, pragmatism is necessary in politics but she want too far.

[Guinastasia]

In other words, Futile Gesture, you are saying she had no imagination, or empathy?

I think the fact that the Spice Girls adore her is enough reason to hate her. ;)

[jjimm]

Given the chaos in the UK during the 'Winter of Discontent', I think it's unsurprising that Thatcher - or someone like her - was voted in. The union stranglehold on the British people and government was appalling - and as has been said before, someone had to break that grip.

However, pretty much everything else she ever did made me sick to my stomach. I am very proud to have been in the middle of the Poll Tax riot that was a major catalyst of her downfall.

I also firmly believe she is racist. Not slyly racist, but clearly racist (guilt by association? Great friend of the late Alan Clark, who notably referred to African countries as "Bongo Bongo Land", and said re. arms sales to Indonesia for use in East Timor: "why should my constituents care what one bunch of foreigners does to another bunch of foreigners?").

Racist particularly with regard to Ireland. In an anecdote reported by Pete McCarthy in McCarthy's Bar, she met a man from Cork. "Where are you from?" she asked him. "Cork," he replied. "Yuk," said Thatcher, turned her back on him and walked away (Dennis stepped in with "never mind, old chap, have a gin and tonic." :)). IIRC it was she who absurdly banned Sinn Féin voices from the media. I believe her policies in Northern Ireland put the peace process back by about 10 years.

I recall the day she resigned - there was screaming and cheering coming from open windows all over Cardiff. A friend was in a cab at the time, and the controller came over the radio shouting:

"Calling all cars! Calling all cars! Thatcher has resigned! Ding dong the wicked witch is dead!"

[casdave]

There are some posters who comment that MT seemed to make matters worse in Northern Ireland.

Some of the policies that she carried out were so unpopular with her, even more extreme colleagues, especially in regard to signing up to more European legislation, and it meant that she had at times to rely upon the support of the Ulster Unionists.

Of course there is always a trade-off when making arrangements with other parties and it led to a total lack of dialogue with the IRA and increased violence where both sides in Ireland became even more extreme.

[Steve Wright]

Originally posted by Futile Gesture
But Thatcher's main problem was her indefatigable belief in her own infallibility. Those who disagreed must be crushed. It could be argued that this is not a bad attribute for a leader to have...

I'd argue the contrary. A good leader can inspire even people who disagree with him/her; Thatcher's leadership style was based on the total elimination of dissent. (I find it terrifying to contemplate the kind of mentality that would purge the likes of James Prior, Francis Pym and Ian "Cemetary Face" Gilmour for being dangerous left-wing intellectuals...)

Thatcher's elimination of dissenters not only forced the Conservative party to lurch violently to the right, it also did permanent damage, by leaving its upper levels filled with nothing but spineless and talentless yes-men (mentioning no John Majors or William Hagues).

(And, having worked in local government, and academia, in between spells of the dole, I don't recall any benefits of the Thatcherite revolution coming my way... though I have met a total of two people who thought highly of her. What can I say? I move in very low circles...)

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
leaving its upper levels filled with nothing but spineless and talentless yes-men (mentioning no John Majors or William Hagues). You forgot to not mention Iain Duncan Smith.

[Futile Gesture]

Originally posted by jjimm
I am very proud to have been in the middle of the Poll Tax riot that was a major catalyst of her downfall.
Well that's nonsense. The Poll Tax riot was totally counter-productive and full of people who were more out for a bit of a rumble rather than objectors to the poll tax. What did for the Poll Tax was it's electoral unpopularity and the sheer impossibility of collecting it fairly. A riot where a few hundred prats ran around London smashing things up achieved nothing. Do you honestly think that the Government were scared of this? They must have been rubbing their hands with delight.

I also firmly believe she is racist. Not slyly racist, but clearly racist .
She did make a statement in the 70s about the country getting 'swamped' by immigrants. But she learnt quickly from the reaction to this and never ventured into the subject again. Say what you like, but she was a master politician who knew how to play the electorate.

IIRC it was she who absurdly banned Sinn Féin voices from the media.
This was actually her most successful job creation scheme. Unemployment among Northern Irish voice actors eliminated at a stroke.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Futile Gesture
The Poll Tax riot was totally counter-productiveThat's debatable. There's a tension between 1. the media representation of the event as "loonies on the rampage", and 2. "oh shit, the policies of the government are so extreme that they're causing civil unrest".full of people who were more out for a bit of a rumble rather than objectors to the poll taxThat, my friend, is total and utter bollocks. I was right in the middle of it. Shitting myself, clinging to the top of a lamp post watching events unfold. "A few hundred prats" were indeed there, looking for aggro, but the majority (300,000) of us were there for a peaceful march. The fact that it degenerated into a riot was IMO largely due to piss-poor SPG handling of the situation (baton-charging people in Whitehall who were sitting down, driving the resulting riot into Trafalgar Square rather than containing it, and then sealing off all exits to the square so we couldn't get out). My pride is not from it being a riot, but that I perceive it to have had an effect on both the Poll Tax, and Thatcher's tenancy of Number 10.

Anyway, what's wrong with a Futile Gesture? ;)

[Guinastasia]

Around this time last year, I was taking a course called Britain and its Empire, and we were watching documentaries on the Thatcher era. I seem to recall seeing many peaceful protests turn into riots when a bunch of bobbies descended on the scenes, beatings Rodney King-style, etc. (I'll look it up, if I can find my notes). What jjimm described is exactly what I saw in the video. (Oh, crud, I wish I could remember the name of it!)

And it occurred to me-is it against the law to organize peaceful protest or assembly in Britain, unlike here in the states?

[Truth Seeker]

originally posted by casdaveTo say that Thatcher invigorated the UK economy is to fail to look at succesful outcomes using differant methods elswhere.

It was not necessary to destroy the UK as a major manufacturing centre, and it set us back decades in economic terms, it really did not have to be the way Thatcher made it.

This statement is so far at odds with reality that I can only assume your are logging into the SDMB from an alternate universe.

Set us back decades? To what, specifically, are you referring? The UK currently has probably the most dynamic economy in Europe.

Your suggestion that "different methods" might have solved the problem throroughly ignores the context in which those decisions were being made. The British economy was teetering on the edge of total collapse and had had to be bailed out by the IMF. Your suggestion that kinder, gentler methods might have saved the day is roughly analogous to suggesting healthy eating and moderate exercise as a treatment for acute appendicitis. My original comment in this thread was that Thatcher will be mostly remembered for crushing the power of the unions in the early 1980s. The crushees didn't like that much. Nonetheless, it needed to be done.

originally posted by ruadh And exactly why did they dump her? Because they were convinced (rightfully IMHO) that they wouldn't manage another victory if they didn't. I completely fail to see how this registers as a point in her favour.
They did indeed dump her. They did not, however, dump her overall philosophy of government or many of her policies. That's why its a point in her favour.

The bottom line here is that Thatcher was personally unpopular. In a sense, she wasn't really a politician at all. She had clear ideas, told you exactly what they were and then went out and tried to implement them. Her attitude was, if you didn't like it, tough, vote for Labour.

Her policies, however, weren't, in general, unpopular. As I've pointed out, Labour has itself adopted many of them.

[ruadh]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker
They did not, however, dump her overall philosophy of government or many of her policies.

And see where it's got them electorally. One election extremely narrowly won (in large part, as I said earlier, because Labour's then-leader was deeply unpopular as well), followed by a landslide loss and no apparent chance of recapturing Parliament any time in the near future.

The bottom line here is that Thatcher was personally unpopular...Her policies, however, weren't, in general, unpopular. As I've pointed out, Labour has itself adopted many of them.

Yes, Labour has moved to the right. Yet the British electorate still greatly favour the least Thatcherite of the two major parties. If it's really a question of liking the policies but not the politician, why, now that said politician is long gone, is there still so little support for the party that most closely follows those policies?

[Truth Seeker]

And see where it's got them electorally. One election extremely narrowly won (in large part, as I said earlier, because Labour's then-leader was deeply unpopular as well), followed by a landslide loss and no apparent chance of recapturing Parliament any time in the near future.
Political winds shift. Sometimes, it's just time for a change. It's a bit much to blame the "demise" of the Conservative party on Thatcher and her policies, especially since she won every election she contested as leader of her party by comfortable margins. As I've said repeatedly, someone was voting for her. Now those people who voted for Labour in 84 and 87 probably thoroughly loathed her with a passion. Nonetheless, each of those votes still only counted as one no matter how deep the voter's hatred.

In any event, it's a bit early to declare the demise of the Conservatives. Let's give it until, say, 2015.

If it's really a question of liking the policies but not the politician, why, now that said politician is long gone, is there still so little support for the party that most closely follows those policies?
The fact of the matter is that, on most issues, there's hardly enough space between "new" Labour and the Conservatives to insert a butter knife. In the last two parlimentary elections, it has come down to a question of style and who you trust to best implement the policies that both (all three) parties agree are prudent and necessary. If Labour went back to its early 80's manifesto (thereby becoming less Thatcherite) the Conservatives would sweep back to power in a landslide that would make the Liberal Democrats the main opposition party.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Guinastasia
is it against the law to organize peaceful protest or assembly in Britain, unlike here in the states? Absolutely not. It's a fundamental right. Despite the impression things like the Royal Family and the House of Lords may give, we are a very democratic nation.

[Guinastasia]

I know-and that's why I'm asking-why the beatings? Or did a riot break out, by the crowd?

:(

[jjimm]

The system of government and the actions of its law enforcement personnel are not always linked - qv. Bloody Sunday, Kent State, etc. - though one would imagine there is some kind of overall control of methodology.

I'd imagine that at the Poll Tax riot, the cops decided the best way to move the people sitting down was to run at them, clubbing them over the head with batons. :mad:

[Pjen]

Originally posted by jjimm
Absolutely not. It's a fundamental right. Despite the impression things like the Royal Family and the House of Lords may give, we are a very democratic nation.

On the contrary, it is not a fundamental right at all- please provide a cite for assembly or demonstration being protected in the manner in which it is so protected in the US constitution.

The police (together with the courts and the Home Secretary)have an absolute right to re-route or ban marches and to control the number of people at a public gathering.

There is no guaranteed right to demonstrate or assemble. What we have is permission from the state to do so.

Even the rights given under the European Convention on Human rights to such rights are not entrenched. It only took a year or so before the government back-tracked on its accepting the convention into British Law- not a good precedent.

[casdave]

OK Truthseeker

Just why was the UK economy on the brink of collapse ?

Clue - the anwer lies in a post I made earlier.

If MT's methods were so great then why was it that other nations used the same system of government intervention toward their industries which actually worked, resulting in companies that are extremely profitable today ?

If MT's policy of not subsidising 'lame duck' industries(Norman Tebbits description and not mine) was such a good thing by letting only the strong and innovative survive then why was it that the industry that soaked up the vast majority of government subsidy never had those subsidies withdrawn -

I'll give you more than a clue here -

MT's main support comes from rural areas, always has done, and guess what the main industry is ? Farming.
So it was ok to close down a steelworks and shed 20k jobs and kill a town like Corby for lack of subsidy, but it was fine to keep handing out subsidies to her supporters in the farming industry, subsidies that cost hundreds of thousand of millions of £

You see, the one thing that those who lived towns and cities that depended upon manufacturing dislike the most, was that the pain was distributed almost exclusively among those who would never support Thatcher, so by carrying out her policies in this way she did not stand to lose much of her natural electoral support.

Please defend her policy of subsiding her wealthy supporters and not subsidising those who were not her supporters.

It is not hard to work out where those who benefitted most from her policies live, all you need do if look at a poltical map of the UK, and you will see that Scotland, Wales, and virtually the whole of industrial England are Labour dominated.

MT was a great one for nationalism, she was dead set against the idea of regional parliaments and yet it was her policies that did more to threaten break-up of the Union than any Labour politician, and that includes the most hopeless leader Labour ever had - Micheal Foot

MT - a true patriot, yea right, the UK has never been more divided and it is solely down to her.

Lets see what wonders she did for human rights in the UK.

Well if you were gay you didn't do all that well, the repressive section 17 was put into legislation by her, and that forbids any educational establishment 'promoting homosexuality' and because of the vague and extremely subjective meaning of the wording in the law this means that in practice the only way to be sure of not being prosecuted is for schools not to make any mention of it, and in some tragic cases have found they have been unable to assist some teenagers as they come to terms with their sexuality, this has led to one or two suicides and untold misery for those who suffered in silence.


How about the little discussed exclusion powers that our police were given ?
Normally if a person were to be specifically excluded from a location, there would have to be a court issued warrant and the judge would have to be given reasons why the exclusion order should be issued, this would be on the grounds that the presence of an individual, or group of indiuviduals were likely to commit criminal offences and/or endanger public safety.

You may not know this but during the miners strike, the police were given the power to exclude any person from any location without any suspicion or reason, and firthermore they were given the power to stop persons travelling lawfully and exclude them from any place they chose, this power has not been repealed.
It was used to stop suspected groups of miners travelling to areas where they might excercise their democratic right to protest.

It was MT who passed legislation designed to prevent wtriking workers from picketing other workers at places not involved in a dispute, so far so good, but she also made sure that law was used in such a way as to make potential strikers liable for damages due to lost trade if an arcane and exacting method of balloting for strike action, and carried out on a date specified with three months advance notice of the strike event.

In effect she denied millions the right to strike, and to add to that, her polices which were designed to create unemployment meant that workers were tied down into jobs where conditions did not satisfy them because they were too frightened to speak out for fear of losing the meagre income they had(as per the recommendations of the Adam Smith Institute)
She removed the right by a whole swathe of workers to remove their labour, which is a basic human right.
It was not until she had gone that this was compensated for by the right of both strkers and employers to binding independant arbitration.

As for the poll tax riot, I know what happened there.

I work in a prison and from time to time I meet both inmates and staff who were involved in the riot at Strangeways prison in Manchester and the picture they paint is bleak and damning.

You will remember that riot broke out on 1st April, and if that date seems significant it is because it is.

Fo rmonths before this date a large number of violent and disruptive prisoners were moved to Strangeways prison, the normal practice as any person who knows anything at all about prisons is to try and keep such people as far apart as possible.
The staff questioned the wisdom of this, and the inmates all understood that something was brewing.Intelligence reports had confirmed something was afoot, prisons routinely collect such from informants and a good thing it is too for the safety of staff, inmates and the public.

The protest about the poll tax had been planned for months ahead and a route was submitted to the Met, LOndons police force.
The protest started off peacefully enough but the policing was extremely provocative and very heavy-handed, some police had already drawn issue of riot equipment long before any trouble broke out, which for a British protest is very unusual unless there is specific reason such as a racist group march.
When the march arrived at Trafalgar SDquare it all took off, the event exploded in violence, and there is still much contention about how it began, but the imnages broadcast around the world certainly showed what appeared to be a Britain on the verge of serious disorder or even revolution.

Meantime, in Strangeways, the prison riot took off the following day during a church service, officers I speak to say they were fairly sure it was either this or a mealtime that it had been planned, the informant said so.
Given the quality of intelligence it is surprising that there was any large gathering of prisoners permitted within the jail at all and also surprising was the very low staffing level that day.

Meanwhile back at the jail large reserves of priosn riot control officers had been gathered and were ready to retake the affected areas all within 12 hours, the inmates had not had the time to make the barricades as sevure as they later became and there was confidence that the operation would be a success.
At less than 20 minutes notice the Home Secretary - Micheal Howard - himself ordered that this operation be held back until further notice.
It is true to say that senior governemtn ministers employ people who are expert in their fields, people who may have spent thirty or more years dealing in such matters, and yet, aginst their advice the minister concerned, with no experience of prison operations overrruled his experts.

The following day the poll tax riots were forgotten in the publicity about Strangeways.
The accusations, recriminations and examination of the police behaviour in Trafalgar Square and the unfairness and manifest unpopularity of MT's poll-tax dissappeared from the front pages for a month.
The timining and exploitation of both events was incredibly convenient in rescuing a government from a close examination of its policies.

In the end it was one of the things that made the Conservatives unelectable, possibly for another ten year on top of the eight they have been out of office and it cost MT her job, she was removed fairly soon after.


It was MT who decided to ban all visitors from Stonehenge, simply because those who wished to celebrate the Summer Solstice had a differant set of values and lifestyle to hers.
It was her who set the police on assaulting those people who were pushed and evicted and provkoed and bullied. Eventually the police had to pay huge summs out in compensation to several of them for the polices own criminal actions, yet not one copper was prosecuted.

I'll tell you how MT got us into the Falklands war in order to preserve her unworthy hide, and trust me I really do know what happened and there is plenty of incontrovertible proof.

That war cost 2000 lives, but I shall give it a break before I launch into that one, this post is plenty long enough.

[Scylla]

Regardless of what Thatcher's responsibility was in the Falklands, the bottom line is that are esprix as a bird now because of her intervention, and I consider that a good thing.

[Esprix]

That was just mean, but don't think I won't have my revenge.

Esprix

[casdave]

Scylla

Whilst I would agree that the Falkland Islanders wishes in the determination of their future are paramount and that those rights are worth defending, the fact is that the role of MT was such that the war could have been prevented by using an established pattern of deterrance which had been employed by the previous Labour administration, on three previous occasions.

I even have a cite for you,


In November 1977 Dreadnought was deployed to the Falkland Islands as part of a secret taskforce which included the frigates Alacrity and Phoebe and the auxiliaries Resource and Olwen. The mission- codenamed Operation Journeyman - was designed to deter Argentine aggression and prevent a feared invasion of the South Atlantic Islands. To this day there remains some debate and speculation as to wether Dreadnought was given orders to expose herself to the nearest Argentine vessel or whether her presence was leaked in Buenos Aires by British intelligence.


http://www.btinternet.com/~warship/Postwar/Submarines/early.htm

I was on that mission, aboard HMS Pheobe, we were sent there by the Labour Defence Minister Dr David Owen.


Those rights would not have required the intervention of British armed services had she behaved properly in the first place, she and her senior ministers did absolutely nothing when they were faced with intelligence reports that preparations for invasion were being made by Argentina some five years later.

They had plenty of time to act too, those preparations began in Soutern Hemisphere spring and the invasion was timed so that the Argentinians would have the territory secure before the onset of winter, which then made the possibility of a British attack less likely.
The fact that we managed to get our men and materials together and down to the Falklands before the bad weather arrived is a little surprising, its almost as if we had certain plans well in hand. long before the islands were taken from us.

This was not a defence of freedom, it was a defence of MT's electoral hopes for the following year and it worked too.

MT is just a mini Kissinger.

Still think she is so admirable ?

[The Stafford Cripps]

Slight nitpick on Casdave's post; I remember watching the Commons debate on the Monday after those riots. The Home Secretary answering questions about them was David Waddington, not Michael Howard.

[Bromley]

Casdave,

I was looking forward to this post of yours. I'd never heard the "MT manufactured the FW" theory before, but that may be because I've had my head up my arse. However, you'd be doing yourself a great favour (assuming you want people to believe what you're saying) if you made it sound less like a conspiracy theory and just presented the facts.

For example, you cite the 1977 deployment & your involvement. This is an excellent point in your favour, at least as far as setting the scene (i.e. the threat existed and was recognised). You then go on to describe the meat - that there were intel reports which were ignored. You provide no independent link and then concluded that this must have been evil design rather than stupidity/an error.

You then go on to say that the response time was surpisingly fast. This may or may not be true, but I'll not believe you without any support.

Anyway, this isn't meant to be an attack. I was just looking forward to finding out something new.

[Truth Seeker]

Casdave
Bromley is right. The way you're putting it out, it sounds like just another conspiracy theory. (Ditto with the Strangeways theory) There's a similar story that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen on purpose.

As for the rest of your complaints. First, as I've noted, her biggest accomplishment was facing down the Unions. Is it any wonder that she wasn't too popular in Wales after crushing the coal miners?

You claim Thatcher and her policies were completely unpopular. Let's look at the facts.

In the 1987 election, well after the Falklands, the Conservatives took about 42% of the votes cast while labour took about 31%. As per normal, the Conservatives did very badly in Scotland and Wales and very well in England. These results gave the Conservatives a 102 seat majority. Note, however, that they held 147 more seats than did Labour.

So at this point, even you'll have to admit that, despite all the "unpopular" things she had done, she was still, well, very popular.

In the 1992 election, two years after she left, the Conservatives did slightly less well. They still managed to earn 42% of the popular vote to Labour's 34%. The Conservative's share of the vote dropped only a few tenths of a percent. Labour's gains came mostly at the expense of the Liberal Democrats. Nonetheless, this slight swing was enough to reduce the Conservative majority to 21 seats. The Conservatives still held 65 more seats than did Labour.

This election was, more-or-less, a referendum on Thatcher's policies sans Thatcher. Once again, these election results provide no evidence that Thatcher's policies were widely unpopular. Indeed, there is no evidence at all of people abandoning the Conservatives. There is some evidence of people becoming somewhat less afraid of Labour's Loony Left. Hence the movement from Liberal Democrats to Labour.

Now, in 1997 the bottom does drop out of the Conservative majority. Indeed, they are left with only 165 seats and Labour has a 179 seat majority. In terms of the popular vote, the Conservatives take only 31%. This is the worst electoral showing since, well, since Labour got only 31% of the vote in 1987.

Can this result be blamed on universal Thatcher-loathing? Of course not. She hadn't led the party for seven years. The unpopularity of the Conservatives in 1987 has to be laid at the feet of her successors.

The bottom line here is that the British electorate knew quite well that many of Thatcher's policies, especially in the early 80's were strong -- and nasty -- medicine. Nonetheless, they recognized that the medicine was necessary and that the alternative offered by Labour was no alternative at all. Lots of people lost out because of her reforms. Nonetheless, on balance, those reforms were necessary and Britain is a better place for them.

[casdave]

I would never have said anything at all about the deterrance missions to the Falkland islands, not feeling at liberty to do so, until I later watched and interview with Dr David Owen on a Sunday political programme, can't remember the name but I believe it was something like Waldon on Sunday where this matter was put firmly into the public domain.

On that interview(which was more about the Liberal Democrat alliance than anything else) Dr David Owen stated the three occasions that such missions had been deployed and the reasons why.The one I was on was the third of these.

What you may not know is that we, the British, trained Argentinian pilots and Naval officers and we sold them aircraft, ships and subs.

In Argentina there is a very strong Anglophile contingent, indeed at the higher echelons of Argentine society there is a view that being seen to be 'English' is of itself a mark of class and sophistication.

The result is that it is easy to recruit sources of information from within Argentine society and the military, and in any case it is rather difficult to conceal your militaristic intent from the nation who is selling you your ammunition and weapons platforms.

Based upon these reports and independently gathered material ,missions were sent to the Falkland Islands as deterrance three times.

It beggars belief that those sources of intelligence simply dried up and that we knew absolutely nothing about Argentine military preparations in 1982.

This then can only mean that the British government had some awareness of Argentine intentions, and yet chose to do nothing.

If you choose to ignore that last then one can look at the Argentine invasion of the South Georgia which ocurred nearly a month before their taking of the Falklands themselves.
In that time we could have easily flown a strong force of infantry to the Falklands and we did not, we could have made landing on the Falklands very much less likely, and we did not, we could have made the crucial airstrip at Port Stanley secure and prevented Argentine reinforcement by air pracitcally impossible and we did not.
Our hunter killer nuclear subs had made a seaborne invasion too dangerous and air-reinforcements were the only genuine option that the Argentine had, and yet we did not use the time we had available to make this impossible.


So lets sum up, we had the intelligence reports, as we had on three previous occasions, we had time to make invasion at least extremely costly and likely too dangerous and we had a government that was about to be wiped out at the polls and needed something to boost its popularity.

Work it out for yourself.

[APB]

The counterargument being that the British government had been fully aware that an invasion could conceivably take place. Their mistake was that they assumed that, if there was going to be one, the invasion would come later in the year, precisely because they calculated that the Argentinians would do so when it was most inconvenient for the British to mount a military response. Moreover, an invasion later that year may well have been the original Argentinian plan, which was possibily revised only because the British did respond to the occupation of South Georgia, sending the Endurance on just the sort of token show of force which, as you say, had worked before. One man's show of force can be another's act of provocation. Diplomatic bluffing and counterbluffing is never an exact science.

Lord Owen, whose views on the subject have been widely aired, is hardly an independent source, as it is obviously in his interests to stress the success of his previous approach, while ignoring the fact that there was a new government in Argentina which, as it turned out, was not prepared to play the same old game. (The same, of course, can be argued in reverse, with an argument that the Argentinians miscalculated the likely response of the new government in London.) Owen's analysis is simply a variation on an ex-politician saying, 'I told you so'.

[casdave]

APB

I note your counter argument but in none of the previous warnings was there any token resistance, in fact for several years before this event HMS Endurance was due to be retired.

The Falkland Islanders themselves has expressed anxiety about this since no replacement for her was planned.

Their view was that the increasing reliance of the Falkland Islands upon Argentina, coupled with the withdrawal of one of the few remaining symbols of military presence was sending the wrong message to Argentina and might embolden them to action.

The point here of course is that following real shooting and taking of prisoners at South Georgia there was still time to beef up the contingent of marines at Port Stanley and there could hardly have been a more stark warning about what was going to happen.

Just a couple of hundred more around Port Stanley airfield and this facility would have been denied to the Argentines.
Since the Argentine could not invade by sea because of our subs, why was this easily carried out reinforcement not done ?

Look at it like this, the enemy has taken one of your outposts and engaged in you in battle, you have the opportunity to make it very difficult to invade their next target, and you have the time, you also have every reason to believe they will attack this next outpost, and still you do nothing ?

(I will add here that I personally think that the sinking of the Belgrano was necessary and that those who think that this action was a conspiracy to scupper the potential peace talks are not really all that aware of the strategic situation, and it did make a very large contribution to the final result bottling up the Argentine Navy in port)

Of course Owen is not independant, he was an opposition politician andyet made no mention of this for several years after the events, yet if he had wanted to make mischief he would surely have done so during one of MT's election campaigns, he did not call for a public enquiry and his comments were very low key, but then the interview where he made this known was not about the Falklands conflict, nor really about MT at all, it was pretty much a a side issue.

I think that this should have been made known more widely and far sooner, and in that Owen has been overly discreet.

Unpopular govenrments have gone to war to bolster their position within their own country for generations, and fact is that MT was at her least popular at any stage in her Prime Ministerial career.

Going back to MT's unpopularity, one might note that during her term in office, voter turnout fell dramatically, it isalso true that Labour was unelectable.

I like the idea of painful medicine being necessary, but it is always necessary when it hits all those who are not your supporters, the pain was not in any way shared evenly, why should farmers continue to enjoy huge subsidy when the philosophy was supposed to be to cut them out for industry ?

As for the medicine being actually needed, no-one has yet replied to my point that other nations continued with their subsidisation of unprofitable state industries and these are now viable.

MT was using GB as a test bed for the economic theory of moneterism, and all it did was result short term industrial strategy.

We sold off our valuable industries that actually did make very healthy profits, and now some of those are doing very badly indeed, BT has overstretched itself and yet the services they provide have only gone down in cost to the consumer at the insistance of industry regulation(competition was supposed to force prices to the consumer down, didn't happen).
The Railways are a complete shambles, the steel industry is a shadow of what it was, the mining industry is virtually dead, hospitals are a mess largely due to years of deliberate underinvestment in staff and infrastructure which will take years to rectify,shipbuilding is now merely a collection of sepia tinted photgraphs of what use to be, our car industry is either foreign owned or struggling to survive.

When you look at what was sold off, and when you remember that all these were supposed to perform so much better freed from the dead hands of the state and then see how badly they have actually done, it is clear to me that MT's belief that bad management would somehow magically transform itself into good management was laughably fanciful.

There is an old adage, there are no bad employees, just bad managers, and the fact is that people unfairly blame unions for poor industry performance in the UK.
Serious underinvestment and rubbish leadership were at least equally to blame, and since management was supposeed to run things one can make a case that it was up to them to manage, which they signally failed to do.

Sir Micheal Edwardes was appointed head of the state run car industry and was amazed to find the production lines stopped when he arrived on a Friday afternoon, it transpired that weeks targets required by management had been achieved, which demonstrates just how overmanned the company was.

What MT was very good at was opening up the financial markets, no question about that, but the effect was that economic policy was then geared to the needs of the markets and these policies had an adverse effect upon manufacturing industry, and as time wore on it seemed that manufacturing was dispensible, which meant that millions employed therein were dispensible too.

This is why MT is disliked so much around the country.

[casdave]

APB

I note your counter argument but in none of the previous warnings was there any token resistance, in fact for several years before this event HMS Endurance was due to be retired.

The Falkland Islanders themselves has expressed anxiety about this since no replacement for her was planned.

Their view was that the increasing reliance of the Falkland Islands upon Argentina, coupled with the withdrawal of one of the few remaining symbols of military presence was sending the wrong message to Argentina and might embolden them to action.

The point here of course is that following real shooting and taking of prisoners at South Georgia there was still time to beef up the contingent of marines at Port Stanley and there could hardly have been a more stark warning about what was going to happen.

Just a couple of hundred more around Port Stanley airfield and this facility would have been denied to the Argentines.
Since the Argentine could not invade by sea because of our subs, why was this easily carried out reinforcement not done ?

Look at it like this, the enemy has taken one of your outposts and engaged in you in battle, you have the opportunity to make it very difficult to invade their next target, and you have the time, you also have every reason to believe they will attack this next outpost, and still you do nothing ?

(I will add here that I personally think that the sinking of the Belgrano was necessary and that those who think that this action was a conspiracy to scupper the potential peace talks are not really all that aware of the strategic situation, and it did make a very large contribution to the final result bottling up the Argentine Navy in port)

Of course Owen is not independant, he was an opposition politician andyet made no mention of this for several years after the events, yet if he had wanted to make mischief he would surely have done so during one of MT's election campaigns, he did not call for a public enquiry and his comments were very low key, but then the interview where he made this known was not about the Falklands conflict, nor really about MT at all, it was pretty much a a side issue.

I think that this should have been made known more widely and far sooner, and in that Owen has been overly discreet.

Unpopular govenrments have gone to war to bolster their position within their own country for generations, and fact is that MT was at her least popular at any stage in her Prime Ministerial career.

Going back to MT's unpopularity, one might note that during her term in office, voter turnout fell dramatically, it isalso true that Labour was unelectable.

I like the idea of painful medicine being necessary, but it is always necessary when it hits all those who are not your supporters, the pain was not in any way shared evenly, why should farmers continue to enjoy huge subsidy when the philosophy was supposed to be to cut them out for industry ?

As for the medicine being actually needed, no-one has yet replied to my point that other nations continued with their subsidisation of unprofitable state industries and these are now viable.

MT was using GB as a test bed for the economic theory of moneterism, and all it did was result short term industrial strategy.

We sold off our valuable industries that actually did make very healthy profits, and now some of those are doing very badly indeed, BT has overstretched itself and yet the services they provide have only gone down in cost to the consumer at the insistance of industry regulation(competition was supposed to force prices to the consumer down, didn't happen).
The Railways are a complete shambles, the steel industry is a shadow of what it was, the mining industry is virtually dead, hospitals are a mess largely due to years of deliberate underinvestment in staff and infrastructure which will take years to rectify,shipbuilding is now merely a collection of sepia tinted photgraphs of what use to be, our car industry is either foreign owned or struggling to survive.

When you look at what was sold off, and when you remember that all these were supposed to perform so much better freed from the dead hands of the state and then see how badly they have actually done, it is clear to me that MT's belief that bad management would somehow magically transform itself into good management was laughably fanciful.

There is an old adage, there are no bad employees, just bad managers, and the fact is that people unfairly blame unions for poor industry performance in the UK.
Serious underinvestment and rubbish leadership were at least equally to blame, and since management was supposeed to run things one can make a case that it was up to them to manage, which they signally failed to do.

Sir Micheal Edwardes was appointed head of the state run car industry and was amazed to find the production lines stopped when he arrived on a Friday afternoon, it transpired that weeks targets required by management had been achieved, which demonstrates just how overmanned the company was.

What MT was very good at was opening up the financial markets, no question about that, but the effect was that economic policy was then geared to the needs of the markets and these policies had an adverse effect upon manufacturing industry, and as time wore on it seemed that manufacturing was dispensible, which meant that millions employed therein were dispensible too.

This is why MT is disliked so much around the country.

[casdave]

APB

I note your counter argument but in none of the previous warnings was there any token resistance, in fact for several years before this event HMS Endurance was due to be retired.

The Falkland Islanders themselves has expressed anxiety about this since no replacement for her was planned.

Their view was that the increasing reliance of the Falkland Islands upon Argentina, coupled with the withdrawal of one of the few remaining symbols of military presence was sending the wrong message to Argentina and might embolden them to action.

The point here of course is that following real shooting and taking of prisoners at South Georgia there was still time to beef up the contingent of marines at Port Stanley and there could hardly have been a more stark warning about what was going to happen.

Just a couple of hundred more around Port Stanley airfield and this facility would have been denied to the Argentines.
Since the Argentine could not invade by sea because of our subs, why was this easily carried out reinforcement not done ?

Look at it like this, the enemy has taken one of your outposts and engaged in you in battle, you have the opportunity to make it very difficult to invade their next target, and you have the time, you also have every reason to believe they will attack this next outpost, and still you do nothing ?

(I will add here that I personally think that the sinking of the Belgrano was necessary and that those who think that this action was a conspiracy to scupper the potential peace talks are not really all that aware of the strategic situation, and it did make a very large contribution to the final result bottling up the Argentine Navy in port)

Of course Owen is not independant, he was an opposition politician andyet made no mention of this for several years after the events, yet if he had wanted to make mischief he would surely have done so during one of MT's election campaigns, he did not call for a public enquiry and his comments were very low key, but then the interview where he made this known was not about the Falklands conflict, nor really about MT at all, it was pretty much a a side issue.

I think that this should have been made known more widely and far sooner, and in that Owen has been overly discreet.

Unpopular govenrments have gone to war to bolster their position within their own country for generations, and fact is that MT was at her least popular at any stage in her Prime Ministerial career.

Going back to MT's unpopularity, one might note that during her term in office, voter turnout fell dramatically, it isalso true that Labour was unelectable.

I like the idea of painful medicine being necessary, but it is always necessary when it hits all those who are not your supporters, the pain was not in any way shared evenly, why should farmers continue to enjoy huge subsidy when the philosophy was supposed to be to cut them out for industry ?

As for the medicine being actually needed, no-one has yet replied to my point that other nations continued with their subsidisation of unprofitable state industries and these are now viable.

MT was using GB as a test bed for the economic theory of moneterism, and all it did was result short term industrial strategy.

We sold off our valuable industries that actually did make very healthy profits, and now some of those are doing very badly indeed, BT has overstretched itself and yet the services they provide have only gone down in cost to the consumer at the insistance of industry regulation(competition was supposed to force prices to the consumer down, didn't happen).
The Railways are a complete shambles, the steel industry is a shadow of what it was, the mining industry is virtually dead, hospitals are a mess largely due to years of deliberate underinvestment in staff and infrastructure which will take years to rectify,shipbuilding is now merely a collection of sepia tinted photgraphs of what use to be, our car industry is either foreign owned or struggling to survive.

When you look at what was sold off, and when you remember that all these were supposed to perform so much better freed from the dead hands of the state and then see how badly they have actually done, it is clear to me that MT's belief that bad management would somehow magically transform itself into good management was laughably fanciful.

There is an old adage, there are no bad employees, just bad managers, and the fact is that people unfairly blame unions for poor industry performance in the UK.
Serious underinvestment and rubbish leadership were at least equally to blame, and since management was supposeed to run things one can make a case that it was up to them to manage, which they signally failed to do.

Sir Micheal Edwardes was appointed head of the state run car industry and was amazed to find the production lines stopped when he arrived on a Friday afternoon, it transpired that weeks targets required by management had been achieved, which demonstrates just how overmanned the company was.

What MT was very good at was opening up the financial markets, no question about that, but the effect was that economic policy was then geared to the needs of the markets and these policies had an adverse effect upon manufacturing industry, and as time wore on it seemed that manufacturing was dispensible, which meant that millions employed therein were dispensible too.

This is why MT is disliked so much around the country.

[Truth Seeker]

Originally posted by casdave
Going back to MT's unpopularity, one might note that during her term in office, voter turnout fell dramatically . . .
One might say that. One might also be dead wrong. Voter turn-out actually increased in every election between 1983 and 1992.

1983 73% turnout
1987 75% turnout
1992 78% turnout

The big decline occured in 1997 when there was only a 71% turnout.
it isalso true that Labour was unelectable.
which is simply another way of saying that the Conservatives were vastly more popular than Labour.


I like the idea of painful medicine being necessary, but it is always necessary when it hits all those who are not your supporters, the pain was not in any way shared evenly, why should farmers continue to enjoy huge subsidy when the philosophy was supposed to be to cut them out for industry ?

I'm not sure I get your point here, is it that Thatcher wasn't bloody Solomon? Which UK politicians are? Do you believe Labour was? Do you realize that the maximum marginal tax rate in the UK in the late 70's was 98%? Hint -- confiscatory tax rates on interest and investment income didn't greatly inconvenience Labour's core supporters.

In any case, this is, once again, a false premise. Most people in the UK live in urban areas. The Conservatives outpolled Labour by a wide margin, even in 1992. Though it is true that the Conservatives are more popular in rural areas than in urban ones, the Conservatives were still more popular than Labour in urban areas.

As for the medicine being actually needed, no-one has yet replied to my point that other nations continued with their subsidisation of unprofitable state industries and these are now viable.
Like Swiss Air? Alitalia? Given the utter disaster that the UK economy was in 1979, I can't believe you're complaining about how things turned out. As I've said numerous times, her most important contribution was breaking the unions. has she not done so, it is quite possible that the UK today would look like Argentina. Instead, the UK has one of the healthiest economies in the world. In any event, why do you believe state-owned industry is better than private industry? It certainly hasn't got the world's best track record.

The Railways are a complete shambles, the steel industry is a shadow of what it was, the mining industry is virtually dead, hospitals are a mess largely due to years of deliberate underinvestment in staff and infrastructure which will take years to rectify,shipbuilding is now merely a collection of sepia tinted photgraphs of what use to be, our car industry is either foreign owned or struggling to survive.
Indeed. What's your point? Why do you believe that a domestic steel of mining industry is such a great thing? Mining in particular is an excellent industry to be out of, especially if you can import what you need for less than the cost of domestic production. Consider, first, you stop the environmental damage which inevitably accompanies mining. Second, you actually get cheaper coal. Third, you're not exhausting your domestic reserves. Now, it's true that the unemployed miners don't like it (though why someone would want to work in a mine escapes me, it's hard, dirty, dangerous work) but that's the way it goes.

I'll grant you, however, that the railway privatization was a shambles. I thought at the time that it was far to byzantine to work.

There is an old adage, there are no bad employees, just bad managers, and the fact is that people unfairly blame unions for poor industry performance in the UK.
Huh? You manage to disprove your own point, see below.


Serious underinvestment and rubbish leadership were at least equally to blame, and since management was supposeed to run things one can make a case that it was up to them to manage, which they signally failed to do.
One of the key points of privatization is to bring market forces to bear on management.

Sir Micheal Edwardes was appointed head of the state run car industry and was amazed to find the production lines stopped when he arrived on a Friday afternoon, it transpired that weeks targets required by management had been achieved, which demonstrates just how overmanned the company was.
Uhhm, ahh, casdave, why do you think the company was overmanned? What do you think the unions would have done if management had decided to lay off 20% of the workers?

which meant that millions employed therein were dispensible too.
casdave, Time for you to do a bit of research yourself. In your next post please tell us the current unemployment rates in the UK, France, Germany and Italy. This will help us understand the effect Thatcher's economic policies have had on employment levels.

[casdave]

Unemployment figures have been seriously undermined and it is difficult to believe them.

Whilst we can see trends, the absolute numbers themselves are not all that easy to compare from one term of office to another.

Throughout the 1980's there was a series of alterations to the standards used to measure this figure, twenty four of them IIRC, but there may be more.

Here is an article discussing this at a very light level

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1220000/1220221.stm


Examples

Spouses of those claiming unemployment benefit were excluded from the register.

Only those actually claiming unemployment benefit were registered as unemployed, and yet there are those who operate in the black economy or choose not to claim for various reasons.

Those over 55 and had been made redundant and thus had a financial stettlement are not classed as unemployed, but when the job cuts came this age group was the first to be affected and the most heavily.

If you are under 18 you cannot be classed as unemployed, as governments promised that training palces would be available for all who fell in this group and despite the fact that there are not enough such places and that the training draws a benefit of the same amount as unemployment money this has not been modified.These peole when they are without work are unemployed in everything but name and cost the taxpayer the same amount of money to support.

If you have been out of work less than 17 weeks you cannot recieve unemployment money, instead you recieve social security if you are lucky, and you also do not qualify for being counted as unemployed.

If you are classed as being on long term sick you are not unemployed, which might seem reasonable, but in certain areas, South Wales especially, this was abused and many thousands of unemployed were registered as being sick in order to gain the extra £5 differance in money between that and unemployment benefit. It is also noteworhty that the rates of long term sick rose in parallel with unemployment, but as employment has risen those on long term sick are usually the last in line for employment as for as employers are concerned, for obvious reasons.

Here is a better analysis than I can relate to you

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1218000/1218097.stm

Every change in the way the figures are collated has ended up in a revision downwards.

Some of those revisions were necessary it is true but many are just massaging the numbers, and though Conservatives have been responsible for it, I am dissappointed(but not surprised) that the current Labour government has not chosen to reform them and derive a more acurrate figure, which is held by all accounts to be some 50% higher, using the more widely recognised international labour standards.

To show you how much effect these changes made to official unemployment then take a look here

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

Or you can accept my cribbing from that site as it takes time to download, it states

"On the basis of published data the unemployment rate peaked at 22.1% in 1932 however this figure would certainly have been lower on current definitions, perhaps in the range 10% to 16%"

So what is actually being said here is that unemployment in 1986 was as high as during the great depression of 1932.

It is not surprising that MT is widely hated so much in areas that were affected.

Even when all these are taken into account the official figures for unemployment in the UK peaked in 1986 at three millions, and was over two millions in 1982 just prior to the Falklands war.
One can speculate about what the true figure actually was, current accepted figures are some 50% higher than the official ones, so its very likely that in reality there were 4 million and perhaps more who were unemployed in 1986. This figure is well in excess of 10% of the entire workforce and this in a nation that had previously enjoyed unemployments rates of much less than 5% for the previous 40 years.

You will recall the Saatchi and Saatchi poster that the Conservatives used extensively as part of their election campaign in 1978(actually I might well be out on year here as I'm going on memeory).
It was a very effective campaign tool, it showed a queue of people against a white background and was supposed to be an unemployment line.
(it is immaterial that the reality was that those people were not unemployed at all but were Saatchi's own staff, just call it artistic licence)
The slogan which went with that poster, was 'LABOUR ISN'T WORKING' and this slogan stuck in peoples minds.

Fact is that unemployment then had just risen to around 700k and that was considered poor performance, and yet MT took those levels to over four times that according to official figures, and five perhaps six times that if you remove the effects of her massaging of those numbers.

I also note that as I look at differant sites that unemployment, has fallen, and employments has risen markedly in a trend that started with John Majors aministration and apart form the occasional bad quarter has continued right throughout the Labour administration.

One such is here

http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/economics_division/reports/quarterly/jun2000/c1jun00.htm

This is not the whole picture though becuase many of those jobs are either part-time, or low wages service sector jobs.

In terms of the mining industry, in 1970 there were 400k persons employed and by the time this industry was privatised there were only 20k, a loss of 380k jobs for the most part well paid.

Further to this, when those jobs were lost it affected the local area dramatically, it is often said that for every job in the pits there are three others outside the industry required to either support it in engineering terms of just providing services for mine employees. Now I know that is purely ancecdotal but the loss of so many jobs concentrated in certain regions was bound to be disastrous for those populations.

I guess the counter to this is that had it not been for MT things could have been even worse, but yet other nations managed to cope with the harsh realities of the oil price hikes, other nations were plenty strike riven and unions had excessive power(this I do not deny), and yet they found solutions that did not lead to such horrific levels of unemployment.

The examples I have concentrated upon centre mainly around the coal industry, but when you factor in the other industries that were destroyed at the same time, and then look at where they were located, it really is no surprise MT is so despised in Wales, South Yorkshire, Scotland, Midlands.

I will go through point by point your last post Truthseeker where I must concede points where you are right but also to reply to points where I still think you are wrong.

Meantime I've gassed on for long enough.

[Truth Seeker]

casdave

Current unemployment figures (January 2002):

UK - 5.1%

France - 9.0%

Italy - 9.1%

Germany - 9.6%

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the UK's rate is "actually" 50% higher. That makes it aproximately 7.6%, still substantially lower than that of France, Italy or Germany.

In any event, all you have shown is that the measure of the UK unemployment has changed over time and that adjustments may have to be made when comparing the current rate with past rates. Virtually all countries adjust their measure of unemployment from time to time You've said nothing that indicates how it compares with the measure used in France, German or Italy. However you cut it, slice it or dice it, Thatcher's economic policies have hardly resulted in massive unemployment.

What you're refusing to recognize here is that, in 1979, the UK faced the threat of a total implosion of its economy just as Argentina does today. That didn't happen. The main reason it didn't happen is that Thatcher was a dictatorial, take-no-prisoners prime minister on a mission. Not only did she step on some toes, she intentionally set out to kick a few bums. Had she been a warm & cuddly consensus-seeker, she would have failed.

[december]

Here's (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2002/03/30/do3001.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2002/03/30/ixopinion.html) some support for my contention that the UK media bears responsibility for negative feelings toward Margaret Thatcher. WRITING in the Mirror, Tony Parsons... described the former prime minister as a "heartless cow", a "shrill bully" who shed tears for nobody except for her "useless- bastard son" when he went missing in the desert. "This plastic patriot sent men to die and burn and be crippled in the Falklands. 'Rejoice, rejoice,' she shrieked, dry-eyed," he wrote. He concluded with the words: "Rot in hell, Maggie Thatcher."

The article was illustrated by a grotesque drawing, every line of it etched in hatred, showing Lady Thatcher with a large cork in her mouth. The cork was inscribed with the words: "And now stay shut up you mad old bat!"

[snip]

Nor was Mr Parsons alone in believing that gloating and abuse were appropriate reactions to Lady Thatcher's partial withdrawal from public life. The letters page of the Guardian on Monday was full of correspondence from readers who felt that this was an occasion for celebration.

"At last some good news. The champagne is on ice," wrote G Munro of Edinburgh. "Rejoice! Rejoice!" wrote Nicholas Graham of Arkleby, Cumbria. "Now we really do have something to celebrate in 2002," wrote John McConnell, of Wallsend, Tyne and Wear. The editor of the Guardian saw fit to publish these thoughts under the ironic headline: "A nation mourns."

[glee]

Originally posted by december
Here's some support for my contention that the UK media bears responsibility for negative feelings toward Margaret Thatcher.

Letter to 'The Guardian', Mar 19:

'During my lifetime, most of the problems the UK has faced have come, in one form or another, from Baroness Thatcher and the solution from someone else.'

Unfortunately none of this shows the UK media forming public opinion!
It's simple - Thatcher was widely detested at the time she was Prime Minister. These stories simply reflect that.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by december
the UK media bears responsibility for negative feelings toward Margaret Thatcher.This would make sense if the majority of the media had a liberal tilt during the Thatcher era. However, it did not. I don't have distribution figures, but the most popular newspaper in Britain at the time was the very pro-Thatcher Sun. The breakdown (off the top of my head) is thus:

Sun (pro)
Mirror (anti)
Mail (pro)
Express (pro)
Telegraph (pro)
Times (pro)
Guardian (anti)
Morning Star (very anti!)

That someone wrote a hate-filled piece in an anti-Thatcher tabloid is, I think, a reflection of the opinions of the readership, rather than a factor that influenced the electorate in any way.

[casdave]

I have to admit that I was wrong about the turnout of registered voters Truthseeker

One factor that aided MT greatly ws the split in the opposition vote when some of the most respected Labour Party members set up their own breakaway party(the Social Democrats) and Allied themselves to the Liberals.

In 1983 nothing could have stopped the Conservatives, Labour was still unpopular and even if you add some of the votes lost to the SDP it would have changed the outcome only by reducing the majority, but not by all that much.

In 1987 however things would have been far closer, probably too close to call had that SDP split not existed. It is not easy to strip out the vote from the overall Liberal Alliance vote because the Liberals and the SDP had completely merged, but going on previous and later elections it seems likely that around half of the Lib-Dem Alliance vote would have been Labour votes had those defections not ocurred.
It would have made the election too close to call.

By 1992 things were clearer still, Labour had salvaged much of its natural support back from the Lib-Dem Alliance but it is a feature of our electoral system that even if you get just five percent less of the vote, you end up with a much smaller representation in parliament than your results justify.

What can be seen throughout all this time is that the Conservative vote stayed pretty steady, but that the Labour vote was hit much harder by splits.

One can say that the reason that those splits ocurred was that the Labour party itself had been the driving force behind them, the internal wranglings of Labour cost them dearly.

Voters do not like to see such things, they want to see a government that is united and thus knows what it is about, as much as people voted for Conservative candidates its as much true that they were also voting against the mess that was the Labour party, in other words Labour itself helped MT into office as much as anything she ever did.

One thing that aided the Conservatives greatly was the make up of it natural support.
The age range of the Conservatives tends to be 50 and above, less than 5% of their party memebership are 35 or under.

Read it here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tory99/Story/0,2763,202304,00.html

This is not at all surprising since many of MT's policies directly affected younger voters, many of whom did not even register believing falsely that by not doing so they might avoid liability for poll tax.

The notorious Youth Opportunity Schemes(YOPPERS) plus the restrictions upon benefit that they could claim, along with the fact that they along with the over 50's were disproportionally affected by both unemployment and poor employment opportunities(in other words many of the jobs that were available to young people were rubbish).

Demographics have ensured that as this tranche of young people have made their way through life, they remember all too well the MT years and very few of them choose to actively support the Conservatives, either by joining the party itself or even just by voting for them.

This is a problem that worries not only the Conservative central office but also anyone concerned that this might lead to a long term trend of inneffective opposition to the Labour party, not exactly great thing for democracy.

All this flows from the massive unemployment deliberately caused by MT as part of the recommendations by the Adam Smith Institute.

The idea was that if employment levels were too high then this gave the workforce too much power in wage negotiations, and would lead to wage inflation.

Or put another way, if you make your workforce frightened for their jobs then they are more willing to accept lower settlements, and it is true.


I wish you would aknowledge that the prime cause of the UK's economic woes was not the unions at all, it was the sudden price hikes in oil that did the real damage.
The first was in 1973 and oil prices rose by 130%, which led to inflation, higher interest rates, and in turn higher wage claims.

The next was just 6 years later, in 1979 and again we had all the same problems, the increased costs had to be passed on and so British exports reduced as their price went up.

The resultant inflation is what caused unions to become more belligerant.

The UK was especially vulnerable, it had fewer restrictions upon imports than many of its competitors such as Japan and France thus cheap and often subsidised goods flooded the country, our interest rates were higher than all our competitors, our industry was badly under-invested in high technology production methods and we had to import all our oil, or else we had to use coal, and this vulnerablility by being dependant upon home produced coal was crucial.

The miners brought down two democratically elected governments, and they had to be broken, no question and it is the one thing that MT should be credited with, and it is a worthy achievement too.

MT is not hated for that, its her decade of greed, asset stripping by her acolytes and her abandonment of manufacturing industry that causes most dislike of her.

If she had stated in 1979 in her election manifesto that she was going to create unemployment levels as high as those during the great deprssion of the '30's, that manufacturing was going to be left to die, that the railways were going to be shattered and that these would lead to such hatred of her and the English parliament that it could lead to Wales and Scotland demanding their own parliaments(ie the breakup of the Union) do you seriously think she would have even remained leader,let alone be elected as prime minister ?

No, absolutely not but that is what she did.

Yes she is part of our history, but I also think that she could have achieved so much without destroying so many communities.

MT fans always use the argument that things would have been so much worse, but when one looks at our competitors did you see their economies implode ?

Nope, thought not, there is none and there can never be definative proof of what would have occurred without MT.

If we wish to speculate that's fine, lets speculate that we did not get those oil price hikes, lets speculate that as a result inflation did not jump dramatically, lets speculate that the unions did not make large pay demands because there was no longer any need to do so, and lets speculate that the 'winter of discontent' never happened.

It's a fun game this, we might have still have had coal, steel, shipbuilding, car-making, industries, the nation might enjoy the profits of the electricity, telecoms, gas industries which used to make a healthy return to government finance, now it all goes to investors all over the world.

Instead we have terrible public services, we have privatised companies raising their prices beyond the rate of inflation, we have call centres, we have leisure parks on the sites of former industries, we have the highest fuel, gas and electricity prices around, we have higher interest rates than all our major competitors.

[Truth Seeker]

Originally posted by casdave
I wish you would aknowledge that the prime cause of the UK's economic woes was not the unions at all, it was the sudden price hikes in oil that did the real damage.
The first was in 1973 and oil prices rose by 130%, which led to inflation, higher interest rates, and in turn higher wage claims.
I need acknowledge no such thing. Oil price shocks put stress on the UK economy and revealed the rigidity, nay, the rigor mortis of its labour market. This made it difficult or impossible for many segments to adapt to the new economic reality. Take the car industry, for example. Oil prices double so some of the inputs to car making are more expensive, thereby making it more expensive to produce cars. Car price goes up. People aren't buying as many cars because the car price just went up and because petrol prices have doubled. Car manufacturer can't cut costs since it can't lay-off any workers (as per your own example!) Car price goes up again. Translation: rigidity in the labour market was a key component in the 25+% inflation the UK enjoyed during parts of the 70s.

. . .our industry was badly under-invested in high technology production methods . . .
Care to guess why? Could it be, perhaps, that the key advantage of "high technology production methods" is that they allow better products to be produced with less labour input, i.e. fewer workers?


The miners brought down two democratically elected governments, and they had to be broken, no question and it is the one thing that MT should be credited with, and it is a worthy achievement too.
Well, this was my original point. I'm glad you agree. My secondary point was simply that, while controversail and polarizing, she simply wasn't universally loathed. I would have thought that this would have been obvious from the string of election victories the Conservatives put together, despite the fact that a vocal minority firmly believe that she was the demon prime minister from hell, roaming the countryside seeking whom she might devour.

If she had stated in 1979 in her election manifesto that she was going to create unemployment levels as high as those during the great deprssion of the '30's, that manufacturing was going to be left to die, that the railways were going to be shattered and that these would lead to such hatred of her and the English parliament that it could lead to Wales and Scotland demanding their own parliaments(ie the breakup of the Union) do you seriously think she would have even remained leader,let alone be elected as prime minister ?
I guess so, since she was. She was re-elected in 1983 and 1987 and the Conservatives were returned to power whilst advocating her same general policies in 1992.

MT fans always use the argument that things would have been so much worse, but when one looks at our competitors did you see their economies implode ?
First, I'm not an "MT fan," as you put it. Nor am I a rabid, hate-filled MT detractor like Tony Parsons. Are you suggesting that the economic situation in, for example, Germany was equivalent to that in the UK in 1979? Are you suggesting that the German trade unions were anywhere near as militant?

Nope, thought not, there is none and there can never be definative proof of what would have occurred without MT. This is just weird. Yes, you're quite right. Suppose, instead of breaking the unions, the government just caved in and gave them whatever they asked for. Massive pay rises, iron-clad guarantees against lay offs, increased public spending, artificial price caps to control inflation, etc., etc.. How can we possibly say what would have happened under those conditions? It would all be just wild speculation! casdave, there's an old saying, "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong . . . but that's the way to bet." We have a pretty good idea what would have happend if the unions had won.

It's a fun game this, we might have still have had coal, steel, shipbuilding, car-making, industries, the nation might enjoy the profits of the electricity, telecoms, gas industries which used to make a healthy return to government finance, now it all goes to investors all over the world.
Yes! And buggy whip manufacturers and gas-light factories, too! You have yet to expalin why it's such a good thing for an advanced economy to maintain dirty industries that it's not competitive at. As for the idea that all these companies would be gushing money into the public fisk, well, that's some pretty wild speculation, right there. The majority of government-run companies anywhere are inefficient and usually a drain on ratepayers in terms of high prices, bad service and direct transfers of public money to keep them afloat.


Instead we have terrible public services, we have privatised companies raising their prices beyond the rate of inflation, we have call centres, we have leisure parks on the sites of former industries, we have the highest fuel, gas and electricity prices around, we have higher interest rates than all our major competitors.
We have lower unemployment. We have a more flexible, dynamic economy. We have lower inflation. We have a budget surplus. Good heavens, man! Would you really change places with Italy if you could?

[december]

Originally posted by glee
It's simple - Thatcher was widely detested at the time she was Prime Minister. These stories simply reflect that.

Originally posted by jjimm
This would make sense if the majority of the media had a liberal tilt during the Thatcher era...

That someone wrote a hate-filled piece in an anti-Thatcher tabloid is, I think, a reflection of the opinions of the readership, rather than a factor that influenced the electorate in any way.
Regarding jjimm's first comment, what I actually had in mind was that unfair press coverage since Thatcher left office contributed to her current reputation. After all, younger people don't remember her actual performance; all they know is what they read about it.

I think of the British as being well-mannered -- more so than Americans. Certainly I've been treated with great politeness when I've been in the UK.

Here in the US, one doesn't say mean things about those who die. And one hesitates to say mean things about those who retire, especially when retirement is due to ill-health. The cited screeds go far beyond anything I've ever seen in this country. Richard Nixon didn't get articles this mean.

You both consider these quotes to be reflections of public opinion, rather than the media affecting public opinion. I think it would be difficult to top those articles and letters for mean-spiritedness.

A challenge for the two of you:

Please write a letter or a newspaper article that you think would tend to turn public opinion against Mrs. T.

[casdave]

German trade unions were anywhere near as militant?


Actually the German(and the French) trade unions are notoriously militant, and this has raised labour costs in their industry.They have much better pensions that we have, more holidays, a shorter working week(and this is limited by law these days) better provision for work breaks such as child raising, in fact the only competitive edge we had in the UK was that we had worse pay and conditions in these and every other facet of employment contracts.

...and yet, despite all these added costs whose economy has done the best over the last 30 years ?

To get around this the Germans have invested in more automated production plant and this makes them more productive.

The counter to this will be that current German levels of unemployement are higher than ours, but that is to ignore that fact that they are completely rebuilding the entire economy of the former East Germany whose industry was 40 or 50 years behind the rest of the world and most of their unemployment is in that part of the country.

We could quite easily have reduced our manning levels in UK industry, all we had to do was simply not replace retiring workers,

Why should we make things when our competitors can do the same cheaper ?
Well our competitors, despite similar costs do it cheaper than we do because their workers are more productive.

It boils down to balance of payments deficits, if you have to import everything you end up with higher interest rates to finance it, and guess what, our interest rates are higher than everyone elses.

Besides if other nations can make a profit out of such goods then it seems a condemnation of British industry from the highest levels to the lowest that we cannot do the same.

I cannot imagine you are saying that Britons are intrinsically less productive than other workers in other nations, you only need look at the Nissan car plant near Sunderland to realise that is not the case.
They work in a factory specifically designed for modern car production, the British car industry was grossly under-invested, and when you consider that British car prices have been the highest in Europe by as much as 50% you would think that there was enough profit to justify the investment.

Foreign companies of all types have come over to the UK, using their own management and modern plant and made money, I personally have worked in British factories where the majority of machine tools are in excess of 50 years old, and in the case of Woodhead Springs, much of that plant was 150 years old !(yes really, absolutely incredible but true)

The classic example of poor leadership in British industry is that of the motorcycle industry, at one time we made more machines than the rest of the world put together, but we didn't invest in design, we just rehashed existing ones, we didn't find out what the consumer wanted, we didn't improve our quality, reliability or reduce prices, we just kept on using the same old clapped out production machinery.

Investment means looking at the longer term in industry and when that industry was making good money throught the '60's the bosses did not see the need to reinvest some of it, they thought they were in an unassailable position, we all know how it turned out.

You could say the same for much of engineering, our management was simply not up to it, they were not up to dealing with their workforce, who then took and kept on taking.

To just blame the unions is to look at just one aspect of British industry in isolation, oh its neat and easy, but I say that it is simplistic, the unions evolved in a certain way and were part of the problem, but the Germans have had union members who are represented on the highest levels of their companies, German management saw the need to include their staff at all levels in decisionmaking.

Contrast that with the way UK industry still operates, it is still a 'them and us' situation and it need imaginative management to understand that every person working in a company has to feel that their contribution is important and how that can be made.

Now if you were to say that along with busting the unions that MT ennervated UK management then that would have been a great achievment, but that is not what happened, the unions were broken but we had the same idiots running the companies.

What has happened is that foreign owned companies have come into the UK, seen our lower labour costs and moved in, but they use their modern mangement methods, UK bosses still have not learned how to include all their staff, there is still a divide(I don't want to use the term class war but there is some sort of barrier there)

Those foreign owned companies then make their profits and take most of it home with them, but at least it employs UK workers.


Here in the US, one doesn't say mean things about those who die. And one hesitates to say mean things about those who retire, especially when retirement is due to ill-health.


Surely that is the best time.

MT kicked the British workforce when it was down, now its her turn, I hope that she doesn't die quickly, slowly and painfully will do well enough.(to quote one of her senior officials "unemployment is a price well worth paying")

I hope she lives long enough to see her talentless son go bankrupt, since his only ability in life was to make money from having a direct line to MT.

[december]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by casdave Surely that is the best time. [When the person being vilified has been forced to retire from public life due to ill-health.]
/QUOTE]Right. Then the person can't respond or defend herself.:wally

[jjimm]

Originally posted by december
I think of the British as being well-mannered -- more so than Americans <snip> Here in the US, one doesn't say mean things about those who die.We may have the manners, but we're really rude. We can be really mean about dead people (or the undead, in the case of Mrs. T).

[glee]

Originally posted by december
You both consider these quotes to be reflections of public opinion, rather than the media affecting public opinion. I think it would be difficult to top those articles and letters for mean-spiritedness.


And those sentences are connected how?
Yes, there is a lot of bitterness about Thatcher (not media-inspired).
As a separate point, perhaps it is unfair to censure people when they retire (or die).
But you claimed earlier 'The impression that she's widely loathed comes from media bias, as usual.'
Well the truth is that she was (and is) so loathed that people here in the UK will forgo their usual politeness to criticise her - even now, years after she was Prime Minister.

[december]

Originally posted by glee

Well the truth is that she was (and is) so loathed that people here in the UK will forgo their usual politeness to criticise her - even now, years after she was Prime Minister. You have virtually defined media bias out of existence. I found two media sources that printed incredibly mean pieces about MT. No poster has accepted the challenge of writing something even meaner. I think it's safe fo assume that over the years there have been many other equally mean media reports on Mrs. T.

You respond that all these media reports are not bias; they simply reflect the beliefs of the general populace. That's conceivable, but you have merely asserted it.

So, the ball is now in your court, to prove that the average Brit feels as negative toward MT as my two media cites. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that the media played a role in tarring her reputation.

[Truth Seeker]

C'mon casdave, at this point you're just whinging. German trade unions are about as militant as the RAC. In any event, your basic premise just doesn't wash. You know perfectly well that German trade unions -- and German workers, for that matter -- have a completely different approach than do UK unions. You say so yourself.

To just blame the unions is to look at just one aspect of British industry in isolation, oh its neat and easy, but I say that it is simplistic, the unions evolved in a certain way and were part of the problem, but the Germans have had union members who are represented on the highest levels of their companies, German management saw the need to include their staff at all levels in decisionmaking.

Contrast that with the way UK industry still operates, it is still a 'them and us' situation and it need imaginative management to understand that every person working in a company has to feel that their contribution is important and how that can be made.
I suppose you'd like to blame this all on Thatcher and the Conservatives, despite the fact that, in the 15 years prior to 1979, Labour ran the government for 11 years.

In point of fact, Labour and the unions managed to make a complete pig's breakfast of the UK economy in the years leading up to 1979. Your basic complaint seems to boil down to "But Thatcher should have been nicer. She wasn't sensitive and caring!" No, perhaps she wasn't. But this is like complaining about the colour scheme for the life boats on the Titanic. Why don't you direct a little of your anger at the muddle-headed clowns who screwed everything up in the first place?

Many people do hate Thatcher, no question about it. But you really can't go by volume and vociferousness. Yes, people like Tony Parsons hate Thatcher with an abiding, all-consuming passion that usually suggests the need for therapy. This, however, is the bitterness of defeat, not the judgement of history.

[casdave]

No poster has accepted the challenge of writing something even meaner.


This poster has made a point of holding back, this is GD, not the pit.

I was thinking of making a very long post but it would be just a list of dislikes and would soon turn the readers eyes all glassy and staring, no point really.

The media have been very mild, it was her slavish little lapdog for many a year.

[glee]

Originally posted by december
I found two media sources that printed incredibly mean pieces about MT. No poster has accepted the challenge of writing something even meaner. I think it's safe fo assume that over the years there have been many other equally mean media reports on Mrs. T.


Again your lack of logic shows up.
Why is there a connection between your two press clippings and what British posters type on the American SDMB in Great Debates?
Anyway, as casdave wrote, this is not the Pit.

You can assume all you want about media reports. Why not do some research on reports, particularly in the following newspapers: Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Express.
You will find unstinting praise and support for Thatcher.

Originally posted by december
So, the ball is now in your court, to prove that the average Brit feels as negative toward MT as my two media cites. Otherwise, I will continue to believe that the media played a role in tarring her reputation.

One of your cites was a collection of critical letters from readers! Do you think the editor is making them up?! A letter to the editor is public opinion, not media bias.

Decades after Thatcher left power, Brits are writing to newspapers to complain about her. Doesn't that prove how many people feel?

[december]

Originally posted by glee
You can assume all you want about media reports. Why not do some research on reports, particularly in the following newspapers: Telegraph, Sun, Mail, Express.
You will find unstinting praise and support for Thatcher.I will take your word for this. One of your cites was a collection of critical letters from readers! Do you think the editor is making them up?! A letter to the editor is [b]public opinion, not media bias.

Decades after Thatcher left power, Brits are writing to newspapers to complain about her. Doesn't that prove how many people feel?Good point, glee.

The article I quoted pointed out that the bias (if any) was the newspapers decision to publish these letters at this particular time. It would be nice to know whether these were representative of a large number of critical letters or whether these were chosen because they were the most criticial.

BTW it seems that, as Mark Twain once said, rumors of her death have been exaggerated. She was pretty chipper at a book signing, where she said, "I'm fighting fit!" http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1909000/1909151.stm