Thatcher Dies

[absolutelegend]

I just watched some thirty something year old blaming Maggie Thatcher on sky news as the reason he couldn't get a job now. I mean, ffs. I don't know where to start!

[Webbo]

I just watched some thirty something year old blaming Maggie Thatcher on sky news as the reason he couldn't get a job now. I mean, ffs. I don't know where to start!

There was a 26 year old graduate on the radio today who blamed her for the Iraq war.

[l444ry]

Tough shit for them, they shouldn't have invaded in the first place.

Gee whizz.....what a fantastic contribution. Which Uni did you study at?

[Alf Bentley]

There was a 26 year old graduate on the radio today who blamed her for the Iraq war.

Clear nonsense. The Thatcher government actually supported Saddam Hussein, and British firms supplied him with a lot of arms during the 1980s! Thatcher saw Iran as a more dangerous enemy, so tactically supported Saddam Hussein as a regional bulwark to keep the Iranians in check...

[broughtonblue]

Gee whizz.....what a fantastic contribution. Which Uni did you study at?

the uni of life, and common sense

[leicsmac]

the uni of life, and common sense

Really? I wasn't aware you could study common sense at uni...nor was I aware it was absolute in the way you portray it to be. Still, points for the snarky reply.

Thatchers military cutbacks led to the war starting in the first place, and she then used the abstract concepts of 'nationalism' and 'patriotism' to guarantee her victory at the next General Election, when her position had been (up to the start of the Falklands War) weak.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have retaken the islands, but at the same time don't expect me to see any altruism in what went on when we did.

[LJS]

Clear nonsense. The Thatcher government actually supported Saddam Hussein, and British firms supplied him with a lot of arms during the 1980s! Thatcher saw Iran as a more dangerous enemy, so tactically supported Saddam Hussein as a regional bulwark to keep the Iranians in check...

She was also fully supportive of the Gulf War and one of her final acts was to deploy British troops to the region in support of the US.

[Webbo]

She was also fully supportive of the Gulf War and one of her final acts was to deploy British troops to the region in support of the UN.

Fixed

[Guest MattP]

There was a 26 year old graduate on the radio today who blamed her for the Iraq war.

A scouser on talksport said she literally killed the 96.

[Webbo]

A scouser on talksport said she literally killed the 96.

Deliberately, for spite I'll bet.

[Deucalion]

Why declare an Exclusion Zone then if you destroy something outside it? And what sort of pincer movement has its prongs 350 miles apart. Utter revisionist poppycock in my opinion.

Didn't see this before.

Well, the Argentine aircraft carrier contained Super Etendard aircraft with a combat radius of 520 miles. The exocet, which were deployed on the Super Etendard and Belgrano, have a range of 70 miles.

That shrinks the 350 miles a bit.

By the way, I respect your objection to the sinking of the Belgrano. I just think it was militarily necessary.

[LJS]

Fixed

That's fair although we shouldn't pretend that the US (well, you could reasonably argue Saudi Arabia) wasn't by the biggest influence there. It was all part of Bush's post-cold war 'new world order foreign policy direction which ended with Black Hawk Down and the whole thing was run by American politicians and generals. George Bush provided the impetus for that was and Thatcher was in close contact with him during the build up, even beyond her resignation.

Besides, the Gulf War was the right thing to do and they should have finished Hussein then. I was only making the point that she wasn't always an ally of Hussein. Like all major leaders they are friends with the likes of Hussein when it suits them but no longer.

[Webbo]

That's fair although we shouldn't pretend that the US (well, you could reasonably argue Saudi Arabia) wasn't by the biggest influence there. It was all part of Bush's post-cold war 'new world order foreign policy direction which ended with Black Hawk Down and the whole thing was run by American politicians and generals. George Bush provided the impetus for that was and Thatcher was in close contact with him during the build up, even beyond her resignation.

Besides, the Gulf War was the right thing to do and they should have finished Hussein then. I was only making the point that she wasn't always an ally of Hussein. Like all major leaders they are friends with the likes of Hussein when it suits them but no longer.

I believe that if she hadn't been chucked out at the start of the gulf war we would have done, assuming that she could have persuaded the yanks and others.

[Deucalion]

I believe that if she hadn't been chucked out at the start of the gulf war we would have done, assuming that she could have persuaded the yanks and others.

I doubt the UK would've had the influence to change policy during the Gulf War, regardless of who was prime minister.

Just randomly found the following. It ties into a few things discussed so far.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/28/thatcher-exocet-missiles-falklands-war

[LJS]

I believe that if she hadn't been chucked out at the start of the gulf war we would have done, assuming that she could have persuaded the yanks and others.

I don't think she could have persuaded them to be honest. The American foreign policy approach at that time was, publicly at least, about humanitarian intervention and they were able to claim 'job done' after the liberation of Kuwait. It was fairly widely accepted by top US politicians that they would have had to remain in Iraq for some years and being occupiers of another sovereign country wasn't compatible with their foreign policy.

Thatcher still had far less influence over Bush than she did over Reagan (although we shouldn't forget in all the post-death hyperbole that Reagan was by far the senior partner there) and Bush was beginning to see a united Germany as the key American ally in Europe.

[Webbo]

I don't think she could have persuaded them to be honest. The American foreign policy approach at that time was, publicly at least, about humanitarian intervention and they were able to claim 'job done' after the liberation of Kuwait. It was fairly widely accepted by top US politicians that they would have had to remain in Iraq for some years and being occupiers of another sovereign country wasn't compatible with their foreign policy.

Thatcher still had far less influence over Bush than she did over Reagan (although we shouldn't forget in all the post-death hyperbole that Reagan was by far the senior partner there) and Bush was beginning to see a united Germany as the key American ally in Europe.

She said at the time that they should have finished the job. We were moving so quickly through Iraq at the time if she could have delayed the ceasefire just by a day or so things could have been so different.

But it's all speculation, we'll never know.

[flowwolf]

I expected this from the likes of Kitchensink, but you? You're old and wise enough to know that her effect on Britain stretches far more than just the coal mines and the period that she was in power.

Yes like the millions who now own their own homes , and the breaking of the stranglehold the unions ( in particular the miners union ) had over an elected government. Remember the three day week in the seventies under Labour ? Unions calling thousands of workers out because a night shift were caught asleep and quite rightly sacked ? Red Robbo, Deggsy ? or how about Scargill ?

If you are going down memory lane I will take a walk along side you and show the other side of the coin.

[wurmer]

Gee whizz.....what a fantastic contribution. Which Uni did you study at?

No mate, just fact. At least I'm not a lilly livered apologist.

[leicsmac]

Yes like the millions who now own their own homes , and the breaking of the stranglehold the unions ( in particular the miners union ) had over an elected government. Remember the three day week in the seventies under Labour ? Unions calling thousands of workers out because a night shift were caught asleep and quite rightly sacked ? Red Robbo, Deggsy ? or how about Scargill ?

If you are going down memory lane I will take a walk along side you and show the other side of the coin.

I think the point is she pushed the scale too far in the other direction.

Not to mention (and this point was discussed earlier) the millions today who now cannot own their own homes because the generation before them bought them all up to use as cash cows. Right to buy was a good idea, but again the scale has been pushed too far the other way.

[Alf Bentley]

Ok so I actually got my dad to properly explain to me why he thinks Maggie was such a great PM. I'm not looking for a fight or anything, just logical reasoned counter-arguments (rich coming from me eh?)

- Ok so in the late 70s, we were 'the sick man of europe'. We were on the verge of an IMF bailout because we were in such a state. By the late 80s, we were once again a strong economic power. So surely this is the sign of strong and effective leadership? Surely the way we were heading at that time shows that change was needed?

- Maggie didn't destroy mining and other industry. Such industries were just not competitive on a global scale. Miners were too greedy and demanding with unsustainably high wages, and went on strikes repeatedly (my dad remembers the power cuts) so they needed to have their power reduced. Just as say hosiery and textiles in Leicester died due to foreign production being cheaper, coal from Russia was so much cheaper and so buying that instead made much more economic sense. So rather that destroying industry, she let the free market work itself out because it was too expensive to subsidise it.

- She helped many people buy their council houses, surely this is a good thing for many reasons? Helping 'poorer' people own property.

He'd probably argue it better than me and would probably love a good debate with some of you (if he could use a computer properly!) but those are some of his points.

Cheers anyway.

Edit: Just like to say that I've got nothing against miners, my grandad on my mothers side was a yorkshireman and was a miner in the 60s before joining the army. I can't ask him his thoughts because he died 10 years ago.

A partial response, being 50 and with a longstanding interest in politics, in good faith like your post, Mr. Cooling....

- 1945-72: Economy of Europe, including Britain, prospered, though Britain a bit less than most for various reasons (old industrial plant; selfish, short-sighted unions; selfish, short-sighted management; modern reconstruction of more war-damaged economies like Germany)

- 1972 (& again later in 70s): 2 massive economic shocks as oil prices went through the roof due to the oil-producing countries, OPEC (Saudi & co.) forming a cartel to hold the world to ransom. Everywhere suffered, but Britain more than most due to long-term structural weaknesses. This was the main cause of UK being "sick man of Europe", though industrial conflict didn't help.

- Late 70s: UK economy a mess due to OPEC, structural decline, strikes & poor management; 70-74 Tory govt fell because they couldn't handle the unions (3-day week due to power cuts etc.); Labour did better for a while but then had to call in IMF loans (not just "the verge"!) & impose a strict pay policy to counter inflation....which led directly to the 78-79 Winter of Discontent & Thatcher's win.

- Early 80s: Economy got shockingly worse as traditional industries, previously supported by blue/red governments, had their support withdrawn with no policy to develop replacements (Yes, those industries were destined to fade away, but Thatcher opted for an ultra-harsh break, not a gradual transition). In 1982, despite Labour being in turmoil, the dreadful economy (4m on dole) seemed like it might make Thatcher a 1-term PM. Falklands helped change that (plus Labour imploding) -> landslide Tory win

- Mid-80s: Economy started to improve with North Sea Oil on-stream, the City of London booming (but old industrial areas still depressed); how much credit the Tories can take for that, I don't know, maybe partly cyclical, party private investment for which they can take some credit.

- Late 80s: There was a major boom but Chancellor Lawson allowed it to overheat through tax cuts, housing bubble etc, leading to the early 90s recession that eventually brought Labour back in 97. Some did very well out of that boom, others lost out badly, often purely out of the luck of when they happened to move house. It was not a sign that the British economy was strong - the boom was a temporary mirage (not a party political point; Britain has been in structural decline under both parties)

- Aside from managing the social transition, there can sometimes be other reasons for supporting loss-making industries like coal: e.g. until our new nuclear power stations & renewables come on stream (5-10 yrs?), we'll be increasingly dependent on "cheap" Russian gas....how much do you like the idea of being dependent on a powerful, hostile, semi-criminal state?!? Putin?!

- Council houses: I opposed this policy at the time but would now admit that I was wrong; where I was not wrong is in opposing Thatcher's policies preventing councils spending the proceeds on building new council houses, as some people will always need them (permanently or temporarily); her policy greatly benefited some "poorer people", but left others on sink estates or in extortionate private-lets (and she also deliberately reduced the security of private tenants).

- Change definitely was needed, but the change introduced were too harsh and too one-sided. Most of the structural problems (e.g. over-dependence on financial services) remain. Some of the need for change was definitely the fault of the unions, who spurned Labour's attempts to cajole them into a more co-operative relationship with management (which has proved very successful in Germany - union reps & bank reps on company boards etc.), rejecting Barbara Castle (Labour employment minister)'s "In place of strife" plans in the late 60s, in favour of pushing for better pay deals via strike threats...though short-termist company management, taking profits and not investing, also bear some blame.

- Worth remembering, though, that the miners' strike wasn't a pay strike; it was because the miners knew that Thatcher planned to close their pits, jobs & communities down, partly in revenge for the miners' strikes that helped bring down the 70-74 Tory government; Scargill (miners' leader) was a nightmare, seeking confrontation - and doing so at a time of weakness (when pithead coal stocks were high), giving a pretext for Thatcher's itchy trigger finger....

Some rambling thoughts...

[flowwolf]

I think the point is she pushed the scale too far in the other direction.

Not to mention (and this point was discussed earlier) the millions today who now cannot own their own homes because the generation before them bought them all up to use as cash cows. Right to buy was a good idea, but again the scale has been pushed too far the other way.

Yes and those cash cows will in turn be passed on to the sons and daughters of those first time buyers. Before Thatcher came along very few working class people could get a mortgage , she made councils give the right to buy houses that had been paid for over and over again by the renters who did not even own the toilet seat they sat on.

Then ask yourself where did all that rent money go when the actual house had been paid for ten times over ? not on maintinace for sure. Once Labour got back in they made sure the working class could not get too big for their boots and dare to be self sufficient and would soon fall back into the arms of the socialist nanny state. Blairs " New Labour " just coasted on what the Tories had done until they had to come up with their own ideas. And we all know what happened then.

[ozleicester]

10,000,000 Pounds ?

TEN MILLION POUNDS!!

No-one, no matter how strong their allegiance to the lady, can possibly justify this spend to put a dead person in the ground!

What a fvcking waste.

EDIT;

I take it back... 10 million was a bargain.. compared to....

[inckley fox]

Yes and those cash cows will in turn be passed on to the sons and daughters of those first time buyers. Before Thatcher came along very few working class people could get a mortgage , she made councils give the right to buy houses that had been paid for over and over again by the renters who did not even own the toilet seat they sat on.

Then ask yourself where did all that rent money go when the actual house had been paid for ten times over ? not on maintinace for sure. Once Labour got back in they made sure the working class could not get too big for their boots and dare to be self sufficient and would soon fall back into the arms of the socialist nanny state. Blairs " New Labour " just coasted on what the Tories had done until they had to come up with their own ideas. And we all know what happened then.

Many socialists have had concerns about welfare dependency. Orwell supported a welfare state, but opposed anything that people simply depended on - preferring the idea of social mobility to simply keeping the poor alive.

However, to say that Blair's Labour simply coasted on what the Tories had done is just wrong. Avoiding all the cliched points that Labour founded the Welfare State / NHS in the first place and therefore it's quite tricky to blame them for 'coasting' on foundations set by the Tories in those areas, there's a more damning indictment of Thatcher's handling of the poor: Namely that monetarism quite unsurprisingly led to four million people being unemployed, that the trade union movement still hadn't been made to co-operate with government as had been seen in other nations - instead it continued to work against it, which meant tens of millions of workers' needs being under-represented in government.

To cap it all her attempts to increase the working class tax burden with a flat-rate community charge led to social unrest and her government falling apart. Add to that her role in the economic collapse of 1988; the negative effect she had on our productivity and the slide in educational standards under her rule and it's hard to defend her rule from the perspective of the 'working man'.

And we can't credit her as creating anything off which Blair could benefit with the welfare state, because she was notorious for refusing to reform the welfare state. The welfare bill continued to go up just as it did under Major and Blair. At least with Blair there were attempts to restructure it, with the failed Welfare to Work policy (which Thatcher might have been proud of) and the setting up of more partnerships with the private sector in the welfare state.

As for 'Right to Buy', yes I agreed with it, though it was an idea dreamt up by Labour in the 1950s, rather than by Thatcher. My problem with it is that we neither spent more of the money on new council housing, nor did anything to improve social mobility and remove more people from welfare state dependency: Low employment rates, high inflation and sinking standards of schooling in poor areas meant that more people needed council housing, with less of it available.

[Zingari]

Yes and those cash cows will in turn be passed on to the sons and daughters of those first time buyers. Before Thatcher came along very few working class people could get a mortgage , she made councils give the right to buy houses that had been paid for over and over again by the renters who did not even own the toilet seat they sat on.

Then ask yourself where did all that rent money go when the actual house had been paid for ten times over ? not on maintinace for sure. Once Labour got back in they made sure the working class could not get too big for their boots and dare to be self sufficient and would soon fall back into the arms of the socialist nanny state. Blairs " New Labour " just coasted on what the Tories had done until they had to come up with their own ideas. And we all know what happened then.

You’re wrong there; it was very easy to get a mortgage provided you’d made some effort to save up a deposit of around 10%, and could prove you had the means to pay it off.

Building societies had some sort of standard formula for working this out based on your wage what mortgage you could get, but I can’t remember what it was .

I bought my first house when I was about 20 and on quite a low wage as a blue collar worker .It was a modest terraced house and it cost me £3,500, which was about the average price in Leicester in the early 70’s.

I got no help to do this from any other source

I got a couple of mates to live in as lodgers and charged them a tenner a week all inc. and I practically lived rent free for years, and had plenty of money for a social life etc

I think it would be much harder for a young person these days to undertake even such a modest enterprise as this.

Who do you think the multitude of building societies was lending money to if it wasn’t ordinary workers wanting to buy houses?

Some sort of historical myth has grown out of the right to buy scheme.

[Finnegan]

Just like to point out that a few of the people lauding Thatcher for RTB are the same people complaining about councils renting out expensive / large houses to small families a few threads back.

Where the **** do you think our one and two bedroom housing stock went?