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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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!”
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.
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…)
You forgot to not mention Iain Duncan Smith.
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.
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.
This was actually her most successful job creation scheme. Unemployment among Northern Irish voice actors eliminated at a stroke.
That’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”.
That, 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?
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?
**
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.
**
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.
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.
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?
**
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.
**
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.
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.
I know-and that’s why I’m asking-why the beatings? Or did a riot break out, by the crowd?
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: