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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
