Thatcher's legacy?

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 18 Apr 2013, 08:43

or maybe she just believed in the free market and hard work, as well as Victorian values, you know, just for the sake of believing it

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Apr 2013, 08:45

extractorfan wrote:or maybe she just believed in the free market and hard work, as well as Victorian values, you know, just for the sake of believing it

In which case there wouldn't be an excuse for her behaviour.

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 18 Apr 2013, 08:54

why do you need an excuse. Maybe someone who wanted to do everything for the collective workers, just nice things, only did it because of some weird nicety that his or her father had!

She did what she did because she believed what she believed. A lot of people believe we should all live by some kind of survival of the fittest, it appeals to our animal instinct. Other people believe we are better (or more mentally evolved) than animals and as such should work against these natural instincts. I think Dostoyevski (sp?) believed the latter.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 18 Apr 2013, 12:14

Crick, emeritus professor of the University of London, said that he learnt of the allegations in the mid-1980s, when the then Prime Minister was promoting the Victorian values of thrift and self-reliance that she had admired in her Rotarian father.

He then mentioned them to his son, whom I knew at the time through a friend. So I've known about them since then. I remember suggesting he send them to Private Eye.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 18 Apr 2013, 14:25

Some people believe in taking what you want by force, in bullying those weaker than yourself; Arthur Scargill and the miners for instance. It worked the first time they tried it but when you lose such a battle you shouldn't complain too loudly.

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 18 Apr 2013, 16:23

Here's another good article: The Myth of Margaret Thatcher

But it was in the first term that the greatest – and most needless – damage was done. The unions had become too powerful and industry had become sclerotic. Clearly something needed to change. But the price paid in unemployment and the severity of manufacturing collapse was completely unnecessary. It was this which created the culture of hopelessness which pervaded so many parts of the country, and in many places still does. The basic claims in defence of this suffering – that it was necessary, and that Thatcher held her nerve – do not stand to scrutiny. Charles Moore, Thatcher’s official biographer, pointed out on Question Time a few nights ago that 29 million working days were lost to strikes in 1979, and that this was reduced to 2 million by the end of her premiership. Fine. But how many working days were lost to unemployment throughout her leadership? How many in 1981, when unemployment peaked? 3 million unemployed multiplied by 335 working days lost works out at over 1 billion working days lost due to unemployment in 1981 alone. The difference is the unemployed do not strike or disrupt production, or in fact do anything at all. They just sit there and rot and lay forgotten, faceless statistics on a government database. But the suffering and lost lives are real enough.

The reason feelings are so strong on Thatcher is because people only look at one side of the balance sheet. Supporters ignore or explain away the suffering; opponents do not account for the problems that preceded her. The truth is Thatcher solved the problems she set out to solve, but she did so by replacing them with a whole new set of problems. High inflation was replaced with high unemployment. Almighty unions were replaced with almighty banks. Productivity improved but the balance of payments actually worsened. Inefficient manufacturing was replaced with unstable financial services. Working days lost because of striking by labour have been replaced by many more lost because of striking by capital. It’s a mixed legacy at best. But in this week of her death, an attempt has been made to turn her into an unambiguously positive figure. This is myth-making. And as Jonathan Freedland rightly points out, this is an argument about Britain’s present and future as much as about its past. If cold but crucial leadership is what Britain required then, maybe it’s what Britain requires now? Maybe Cameron isn’t so bad afterall? This is why the government are so keen to give Thatcher a glorious send off. Such is the use and abuse of history.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 18 Apr 2013, 16:28

RenewableCandy wrote: He then mentioned them to his son, whom I knew at the time through a friend. So I've known about them since then. I remember suggesting he send them to Private Eye.

That's really interesting RC, can you shed any light on Ken's question?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Apr 2013, 17:01

kenneal - lagger wrote:Some people believe in taking what you want by force, in bullying those weaker than yourself; Arthur Scargill and the miners for instance. It worked the first time they tried it but when you lose such a battle you shouldn't complain too loudly.

My father in law lost his battle as a coal miner when a pit-prop collapsed on him. Amongst his family and community there was a clear idea who the bullies were - and it wasn't anyone in the NUM.

As someone said earlier, there was a reason that unions were formed.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 18 Apr 2013, 18:01

nexus wrote:
RenewableCandy wrote: He then mentioned them to his son, whom I knew at the time through a friend. So I've known about them since then. I remember suggesting he send them to Private Eye.
That's really interesting RC, can you shed any light on Ken's question?

No I can't I'm afraid. I can only say that it'd be not at all unusual, in that kind of situation, for the nearest-and-dearest to not have a clue what was going on, or to be in some kind of "denial" if they did have a clue.

I feel sorry for thatcher's mother. D'you know, the thought that she actually had a mother has only just occurred to me...I always assumed she'd died in childbirth or something.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 18 Apr 2013, 18:46

Yes thank goodness for unions and also health and safety legislation, time will tell whether the Texas explosion was anything to do with unenforced/lax H&S.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 18 Apr 2013, 21:59

nexus wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:Perhaps she didn't know of her father's behaviour until later in life. Is there any evidence that she did?
I don't think it's known what she knew/did not know, but it is fairly well documented that she pitied her mother and adored her father, even though he was clearly a workaholic, extremely parsimonious with his family, puritanical and pious. Wanting approval from an (at best) cold, neglectful father could explain her subsequent behaviour. It is also documented that she although she appreciated how hard her mother worked, she saw her as a bit of a victim and made it clear she did not want to end up in the same position herself.

A finer example of selective evidencing I'd scarcely hope to see!

3 complete lives with all their subtleties and loopbacks laid bare after reading one article from a journalist.

Are you a social worker by any chance?

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 18 Apr 2013, 22:39

Another view on Thatcher.

This time from a miner who became the Transport Secretary.

He said: “As a cabinet minister now and a miner in the 1980s, I have been listening to the debate about Baroness Thatcher with particular interest.

“Words like ‘divisive’ have been flung about. The miners’ strike has been laid at her door. Well I was there. I worked through it. And much of what is being said now just isn’t true.”

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 18 Apr 2013, 23:29

I don't think a miner who broke the strike would be in a position to notice how divisive it was.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 19 Apr 2013, 01:34

biffvernon wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:Some people believe in taking what you want by force, in bullying those weaker than yourself; Arthur Scargill and the miners for instance. It worked the first time they tried it but when you lose such a battle you shouldn't complain too loudly.
My father in law lost his battle as a coal miner when a pit-prop collapsed on him. Amongst his family and community there was a clear idea who the bullies were - and it wasn't anyone in the NUM.

I'm sorry about your father in law but what's that got to do with Maggie?

As someone said earlier, there was a reason that unions were formed.

And it wasn't for an individual union to bring down a democratically elected government. And if it was that union should be broken up and/or banned.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 19 Apr 2013, 01:41

RenewableCandy wrote:I don't think a miner who broke the strike would be in a position to notice how divisive it was.

Being on the receiving end of a lot of threats and bullying, I would think he knew just how divisive it was.

“It wasn’t Mrs Thatcher who imposed a strike without a democratic mandate. Nor was it Mrs Thatcher who bit her tongue while that non-balloted strike took place and miners who wanted to continue to work were prevented from doing so.

“Yes, everyone agrees that the miners’ strike was a terrible and divisive period. But let’s be clear where the responsibility lies.”