[Closed] Explain the "Thatcher" thing to me

rkk01 - Member

Depraved reptilian scum - utterly devoid of humanity.

I will happily suspend my devout atheism so I can believe in the fires of hell being well and truly stoked when she goes

Posted 9 hours ago

Thatcher didn't govern through some sort of personal dictatorship she needed and received the support of her party, her ministers, and parliament. And when that support was no longer forthcoming, she was gone.

In fact, although Thatcher tore up the postwar consensus and she caused huge and lasting divisions in the country, she was actually very inclusive when it came to how she governed.

Thatcher was perfectly happy to include individuals from right across the political spectrum of the Tory party, including former colleagues of her sworn enemy Ted Heath. And she was quite prepared to give them very senior cabinet posts too.

Yes, there's little doubt that she bullied them, but it was still a high risk strategy. And this inclusiveness did indeed eventually lead to her downfall. When she was in effect sacked by her cabinet it reminded me of how when Nikita Khrushchev was sacked by the politburo he said afterwards, "at least they were able to sack me because of me - Stalin would have had them all shot".

(Contrast that with the cringe-inducing Stalinist Tony Blair, who after systematically destroying all democracy within the Labour Party and turning it a one man show, then proceeded to surround himself exclusively with sycophantic yes men and women. Anyone who was not a "Blairite" stood zero chance of a government post. Unsurprisingly, he was never challenged, not even when he was bending over for an extreme right-wing war-warmongering half-wit US president)

Thatcher was PM and leader of the Tory Party only for as long as she had the support of her party. And she could have achieved nothing without the support of others.

But the Soft Left in British politics prefers to concentrate on Thatcher the person, to vilify her personally, and to hold her up as a hate figure - putting personalty before policies. Which not only shows a lack of political maturity and awareness, but also goes a long way in explaining why the Left in Britain has been completely ineffective for the last thirty years.

And not only because "hate Thatcher" is an unconvincing argument when fighting right-wing policies, but because the Tories/right-wing use this simplistic vilification of Thatcher to their benefit.

The Tories should never have won the 1992 general election, even the Financial Times was backing Labour, and the perceived wisdom was that they wouldn't. But they did, even though they continued with fundamentally the same policies as Thatcher. Quite simply because they had ditched "evil" Thatcher. With Thatcher still as their leader they would have lost - and they knew it.

Tony Blair and his extreme right-wing cronies were also able to carry on with Thatcher's policies, because Tony Blair wasn't Thatcher.

Even at the last general election, David Cameron made a point of publicly reassuring the electorate that he wasn't Thatcher and putting some distance between him and her, lest people got frighten of voting Tory. And yet he has proved to be much more right-wing than Thatcher was, in fact he's behaving like Thatcher on steroids.

I find the constant, predictable, and tedious, personal vilification of Thatcher by the Soft Left depressing.........go out and learn some real politics FFS. Then perhaps we might have something tangible to offer the British people, instead of the pointless character assassination of a senile old woman. And never has the need to offer the British people real politics been more acute than right now.

craigxxl - Member
I don't remember a great deal about the 70's due to my age but do remember the constant power cuts, my dad coming home from work because he couldn't do any work, sitting by the windows in school to be able to read books and boxes of candles.

But the Soft Left in British politics prefers to concentrate on Thatcher the person, to vilify her personally, and to hold her up as a hate figure - putting personalty before policies. Which not only shows a lack of political maturity and awareness, but also goes a long way in explaining why the Left in Britain has been completely ineffective for the last thirty years.

Reasonable enough comments Ernie, but not ones I follow.

I have always made a clear distinction between Thatcher and her government's policies. The reason I genuinely detest her is not just because of the policies, but because of the enjoyment she seemed to get from talking about the "enemy within" and the "wreckers in our midst".

The policies were bad enough, and stattering in their impact. But to dance on the graves of those companies she closed was a whole new level of unpleasantness.

And yes, we get the politicians we deserve. The Tories caught onto the great idea of selling council houses to the people who effectively already owned them, and with this effective bribe mamnaged to hoodwink many otherwise Labour voters into believing the Tory myth.

Was Blair a Tory? Not quite, and I dispute that he was an extreme right-winger, at least on most social issues. But certainly not a Labour leader, not in my eyes; he's the reason I resigned from the party.

Thatcher was probably the first of the 'personality' leaders, and ever since, the parties have realised that the voters buy the leader first, and the politics come a distant second. Not the way it should be, but how else do you explain Blair, Cameron, Clegg, and most particuarly Boris Johnson? Contrast the failures of Duncan Smith, Hague, Brown....none of whom had noticably worse policies than either their predecessors or indeed successors, but just weren't as media-friendly.

People shouldn't put personality before politics, but they do. Banging on about the fact that policies matter more than the mouth that espouses them is all very well, but first you have to get elected. As we currently stand, I have more chance of becoming Prime Minister than Hopeless Ed Miliband. As I'm neither an MP nor even a member of the Labour Party, that tells its own story.

I remember that too. It was the winter of 78-79 and Jim Callaghan was PM.

Really? Power cuts for most of us were 1973.

I'd say before that as we moved house in Feb 72 and the power cuts affected the first house and not the second.
What I'm struggling with is the reasons for the power cuts.

how mad is this?
a seven page thread on thatcher that is still open!

@ernie and @nickf,

Not going to bother debating the minor points with which I disagree in your posts, I am also of the opinion that "we get the politicians we deserve".

So will this ever change? Given that we have roughly followed the American model of personality politics (and it's still worse there, but we're not so far behind), will it get worse before it gets better?

Indeed, will it ever get better at all?

the American model of personality politics

Have you seen the latest rogues gallery....amazing how they keep dropping like flies

Have you seen the latest rogues gallery....amazing how they keep dropping like flies

I've dropped the ball on the republican race for nomination but heard something about two candidates dropping major bollocks - was I imagining things?

nickf - Member
> I remember that too. It was the winter of 78-79 and Jim Callaghan was PM.
Really? Power cuts for most of us were 1973.

don simon - Member
I'd say before that as we moved house in Feb 72 and the power cuts affected the first house and not the second.
What I'm struggling with is the reasons for the power cuts.

I've dropped the ball on the republican race for nomination but heard something about two candidates dropping major bollocks - was I imagining things?

🙂 Funny as hell tbh - they're calling it 'the stumble' in the US.

There's another candidate called Herman Cain who is basically taking the pish even being there - he was asked a soft question on foreign policy and folded horribly. I doubt he was even that arsed though.

What do you reckon??

TandemJeremy - Member
Big and daft - I'd like to know what you actually know about life in the poorer parts of our cities pre 79

in the cities stuff all, but they don't have a monopoly on deprivation

my pre-79 recollections are the mills starting to close, going to school in home made clothes, the kids who appeared in pyjama's in class all one winter,the monotonous food, eaking out the cheap roast from the weekend and mash and more mash,the vegetable patch to stretch the food budget, the constant delousing, the floor boards, the double glazing in winter (glass on the outside, ice on the inside), being stuck under my dads car freezing my fingers off as he tried to keep his car on the road, watching parents storming through the school yard to have a go at the head, constant violence and bullying in the playground and in the town, the six fingered kid from the council estate, local "family" gang warfare and "no-go" areas

I actually had it reasonably good as "wealth" is relative and I didn't know what I didn't have and lots of people had a lot less and at least I had two parents and my dad didn't piss his money up the wall, others in the deadend valley I lived in were already condemned

I'm sure it was far worse in the big smoke.

the thing about thatcher was stupid and rich people liked her, clever, and poor people disliked her, council house tennants who where allowed to buy ytheir homes liked her, until the day the local council tells every council owned house occupier theyre getting a new kitchen.bathroom, roof, new electrics, garden fence ,etc, while mr bought it doesnt get any of the freebies, and cant sell his ex council house, because who would by an ex council house on an estate, full of council house tennants, with extra settees in the front garden, and overflow fridges, along with the dumped car.

Well all that took some reading, and Ive been on wiki an stuff as well. Lots to take in, but I wanted to know and I think I've got a better understanding now especially some of the stuff from nickf and ernie and tj. In fact you've even managed not to bitch at each other as well. Jota180 who are those men?

It was really sad to read about nickf's dad and the stuff that muddydawarf wrote. Nickf if you don't mind saying is your dad ok now?

I'm not sure the whole celebration about her dying is cool though. Seems a bit weird to me, but I sort of understand the feeling people have about it. I want to see the film more now I think

Having worked in Longbridge imposing democracy on the unions and legislating against restrictive practices seemed a very good idea. Studying economics at uni monetarism to manage inflation and the economy seemed the best option. Renegociating the deal with Europe was an excellent move.

On the other hand even if the miners had a pocket dictator as a leader it wasn't necessary to close the pits once he was beaten. A siege would have got the Falklands back with less bloodshed.

I used her "Victorian Values" speech as teaching material for years. A class act whether you loved or hated her.

emsz,unless you where living through that period, and saw whole comunities split, families split, the non stop media tirade against the unions, whole industries desimated, proud men crying after loosing their jobs,with a lot less of the welfare state than now to support them, jobs and industries their fathers ansd fathers had worked in, trades and skills handed down the generations, all to be demolished, to made in supermarkets or country parks,to worry about your kids haveing no employment and lots more, thats waht thatcher means to a lot of us, and to think stupid muppets voted them back in again.
This time they have little to sell off,like the state industries they had then, thats why theyre trying to provoke strikes among the council workers, to reduce the wage billand sell the profiotable bits to theuiir mates for pennies,just look at Northern Rock.

Project - As I said earlier, Thatcher and the Conservatives had no monopoly on decimating industries and miners.

There was a fantastic programme on radio 4 about the Category D villages, and the closure of the pits that led to those villages being condemned

and to think stupid muppets voted them back in again.

the whole country was still riding on the crest of a patriotic wave after Las Malvinas.

really ? hardly the whole country. most of the people i knew were either completely ambivalent or totally hostile to the falklands war.

Ah, if we're onto muppets then don't forget the muppets in 2005 who voted Blair's government back in even after the debacle of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Of course you're right the whole country didn't support the war that would be ridiculous, but I guess you know that, enough of a feel good factor to swing the votes in her favour, again, you knew that too, (or at least I hope you did).

the falklands was a created war, just to take peeps minds off the state of the country, just like the one that is currently happening in iraq and afganmistan, a huge waste of people and resourses, money that could have been spent better, but the falklands got her back in power.

labour where voted back in , not blair, he just took the flak, as nobody else wanted the job.

A siege would have got the Falklands back with less bloodshed

in what way? we didn't have air superiority, we didn't want a load of blokes in boats in the South Atlantic in winter getting picked off by exocets.

Things such as getting one chinook off the Atlantic Conveyor made the difference the campaign was on such a knife edge. We were one exocet from coming home throughout the conflict.

The Falklands was a conflict that didn't need to happen and cost a lot of lives of argentinian conscripts that didn't want to be there. But we were right to move to resolve the issue as the islanders have the right to self determination and the Junta would not have been something I would want to be ruled by.

emsz,unless you where living through that period, and saw whole comunities split, families split, the non stop media tirade against the unions, whole industries desimated, proud men crying after loosing their jobs,with a lot less of the welfare state than now to support them, jobs and industries their fathers ansd fathers had worked in, trades and skills handed down the generations, all to be demolished, to made in supermarkets or country parks,to worry about your kids haveing no employment and lots more, thats waht thatcher means to a lot of us, and to think stupid muppets voted them back in again.

or did you want a Austin Maxi back then?

Comes back to the lack of opposition I guess. Her first term was pretty ropey by all accounts - think this has already been mentioned. Couldn't get her cabinet in order, not too popular. Isn't there some quote by a tory MP that privatisation of the utilities was a 'distant dream' around that time? Enter Michael Foot, stage right, and suddenly the tories start to look like the natural party of governance.

Famous line (but I cannae recall who said it :)) that she chose her enemies well. Arthur Scargill, Derek Hatton - custom built for Maggie. Literally couldn't have invented a more helpful pair of patsies. Mix in Michael Foot as an ideological enemy and the stars were well and truly aligned for her.

Emsz.. there are lots of films which deal with the social fallout from this time period. There's one about the miners' strike specifically, but there's another one I've seen set in the North where the community is helping out the family whose father is on strike, the shopkeeper lady is sneaking stuff into her basket but she's too proud to take it.. forget the name, but there are lots more.

project - Member
the falklands was a created war, just to take peeps minds off the state of the country, just like the one that is currently happening in iraq and afganmistan, a huge waste of people and resourses, money that could have been spent better, but the falklands got her back in power.

load of rubbish, it was a foriegn policy cock-up that if it had happened twelve months later we wouldn't have been able to fight, where every time the task force got "air raid warning red" they were one exocet away from coming home

I doubt Thatcher had even heard of the Falklands before the "scrap metal dealers" moved on South Georgia

no i actually had to wat till about 1994 for an austin maxi, lovely car it was in brown, missed it when it went, and i got a capri.

Mangement helped by thatcher closed industries by investing abroad, and denying that investment to uk plc.

unions abusing their powers just like now then.

What kept her at the top and even made her haters admire her.
Was that she was so fearsome on the international stage. Like when she stood up to Argentina over the falklands.

Zulu11, it was so called slum clearance that derbyshire wanted and relocation of workers and households, nothing at all to do with mines closing if you listen to the documentry you posted.

Derbyshire?

Sort of shows how well you listened to it Project.

The D category villages had [i]everything[/i] to do with pit closures!

[i]1951 - Durham County Council publishes its Development Plan in which it addresses [b]the problems of 350 scattered villages which have grown up around small mines. The mines were no longer economic[/b] and the villages were haemorrhaging population. The Plan classified a third of the villages as Category D because the council felt there was no way of sustaining them in the future. [b]These villages were to be left to die without economic assistance[/b].[/i]

Sorry i only got to this one late. I think over the years she has given me energy to fight for my fellow man. I hate everything she stood for and even though i would never want anybody ill feeling, she has been the one that has challanged this view. I know she is old and now would be a easy target to get at. But what make sme bigger than she ever was and ever will be is that i don't wish her to rot in hell. not unlike she wanted to do too my fellow man.
Flock

at the end the chap said the houses where ok to live in, and they had thousands of visitors visit from all over the world to see what had happened, the same had happened in there countries, also a few of the houses where then rebuilt at beamish as a museum piece.

Not the way it should be, but how else do you explain Blair, Cameron, Clegg, and most particuarly Boris Johnson? Contrast the failures of Duncan Smith, Hague, Brown....none of whom had noticably worse policies than either their predecessors or indeed successors, but just weren't as media-friendly.

Well a lot of that can be explained in ways other than just simply "media-friendly" personalities.

For a start Blair v Brown. Brown definitely wasn't "media-friendly", and yet he did remarkably well in the 2010 general election. The party had been in power for 13 years so it was highly likely that they would lose the election anyway. The British electorate, like most in the world, gets fed up with the same party in power after a while. Add to that the fact that the economy was in a mess and it was almost a foregone conclusion.

Nevertheless the Tory lead over Labour at the general election was just 7%. Which is about the same as the Tory lead over Labour in the opinion polls during Blair's final year as leader, and [u]before[/u] the economic crises. Why didn't Labour do worse under Brown's leadership in May 2010 ? Blair would have lost the 2010 general election anyway, without a doubt. And had Brown gone for a general election when he first became leader, then he would have very likely won.

Cameron......he failed to win a majority at the general election, a very rare occurrence for HM's Opposition. Which hardly suggests that he is hugely popular with the electorate.

Clegg.....everyone went crazy with "Cleggmania" just before the general election, and yet the LibDems only managed to poll 1% more than they had done in the previous election with Kennedy as leader, ffs. [u]And[/u] by May 2010 both the government [i]and[/i] HM's Opposition, had been discredited in the eyes of the electorate. The LibDems should have been raking in the votes !

Boris Johnson v Livingstone. Livingstone did relatively well in the London mayoral elections. Whilst there was a huge swing throughout the country away from Labour to the Tories on that day, the swing in London was [i]much[/i] smaller. Livingstone vote in central London remained solid, the reason Johnson won was because the "doughnut ring" ......Bromley, Kingston, etc, came out in force as never before. In part due to a concerted and prolonged campaign by the Evening Standard.

Hague......he never stood a chance. Labour had only been in government for 4 years and the economy was booming. Plus people's memory of Tory sleaze was still fresh.

Duncan Smith.....what, the guy who famously said "do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man", when everyone was asking why the wasn't saying anything ? Oh come on, the Tories wouldn't have done any worse if they had dragged some random geezer off the street to become their leader.

Having said all that, of course personality is often put before policies by some of the electorate. But the way to deal with that is not to play along and encourage it - policies are always more important than personality. Hammer the policies, not the person.

Besides, Thatcher was never actually "media-friendly". I have known many people who didn't like her as a person but supported her policies.

Which is hardly surprising, when you consider that many on the soft left were more preoccupied in attacking her personality than her policies. Partly because of laziness, and partly because they lacked the tools, and the confidence, to effectively challenge neoliberalism ...... "nasty woman look how she doesn't care about blah, blah, blah" isn't enough.

The battle to expose Thatcher as not a very nice person was largely won, few people think she was a warm kind considerate person. But the political battle was lost. And she went on to win elections and screw ordinary working people whilst convincing them that there was no other way. What more proof than that do you need ?

I think most of us on the 'soft left' (whatever that is) have the revulsion for Thatcher that we do because she personifies the policies of the faceless corporate types that paid millions to have her front their ideology, and you can't blame people for that.
We as a species have always anthropomorphised what we see as 'bad' or 'evil' by creating a demon for it, no real difference then by using Thatcher as the Head of State for the policies that did so much harm. Thatcher did ride roughshod over her 'wets' and made a big deal of it, we all remember the Spitting Image sketches of Tebbit as a leather-clad thug with a cosh.

We do need to remember that she didn't dream up these policies though, Alan Greenspan (?) and the neo-con dreamers in the US were her idols and we all know that when the US sneezes we catch a cold.

P.S. the 2 terms 'neo-con' and 'neo-liberal' seem on the face of it to be poles apart so why are they essentially the same extremists?

P.S. the 2 terms 'neo-con' and 'neo-liberal' seem on the face of it to be poles apart so why are they essentially the same extremists?

I'm taking that as a serious question, not a rhetorical one, hope it was. 'Neo-con' refers to a new kind of conservative. Richard Nixon famously once said [i]"I am now a Keynesian in economics"[/i] which nicely sums up the "old" conservatives. 'Neo-liberalism' of course refers to a liberal economy which is allowed to freely operate without government intervention. The two go hand in hand.

Ernie - it was a serious question, thanks for the answer. So essentially a Neo-con is an ultra hardline US conservative who espouses a neo-liberal (i.e. free marketeer) fiscal policy?

I'm old school and still use the term 'liberal' to denote a school of thought that places value on personal freedoms.

I'm old school and still use the term 'liberal' to denote a school of thought that places value on personal freedoms.

Ah, but I'm sure the neo-liberals would argue that an economy free of government interference is a prerequisite for "personal freedom".

They probably would, but to my mind personal freedom ends when it impinges on another's existence.

I do agree with you on the idea that Thatcher wasn't the only demon, but she was the face of the enemy so to speak and that will always bring up emotions.

liberalism-authoritarianism and socialism-conservatism are different political axes.

Part of me wants to read this thread and the other 99% of me says 'go do something less boring instead' to coin a phrase.

Can anyone give me edited highlights so that I can jump in with my 10 cents?

Can anyone give me edited highlights?

TJ doesn't like Thatcher.

Zulu-eleven likes Thatcher.

TJ doesn't like Thatcher.

Zulu-eleven likes Thatcher.

This is good.

Does anyone actually have a bottle of champagne on ice for when she dies? Several people on the UKClimbing forums claim to.

I'm hoping she croaks on the 30th January, that way i can celebrate the endings of two traitors to England...

(The other being Charles I who was executed on that day) 🙂