Maggie Thatcher

[Ed]

I was reading The Russia House and I noticed various digs directed at MT. I have also noted that in political discussions such digs, on the part of the cousins, are almost obligatory.

I would like to understand why. I am not starting an argument, mind, I really would like to understand.

[Matabiri]

Whilst breaking the unions and generally getting Britain moving again, she pissed off an awful lot of people, generally all the members of the unions. She's blamed for destroying British manufacturing, although the unions should take a share of the blame for this as well.

However, this is as nothing compared to the opprobrium she attracted for removing free milk for schoolchildren.

[Jon_in_london]

Maggie Thatcher
Babys milk snatcher!

[a_unique_person]

Maggie was the sort of person who gives the human race a bad name. For all her bombast and rhetoric, she never acknowledged that people have a right in this world.

Witness the sinking of the General Belgrano. That would not have been done without her command.

For each of her achievements, such as shutting down a murderous coal industry, she introduced an equal absurdity, such as the free enterprise rail system or treating Ronald Reagan as someone with an intellect.

You can forgive her policies that ultimately produce a zero sum, but gratuitously sending hundreds of young men to a watery grave is diabolical.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Witness the sinking of the General Belgrano. That would not have been done without her command.
.................................................. ..................................................
but gratuitously sending hundreds of young men to a watery grave is diabolical.

Yeh, its not like there was a war on or anything.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Maggie was the sort of person who gives the human race a bad name. For all her bombast and rhetoric, she never acknowledged that people have a right in this world.

Witness the sinking of the General Belgrano. That would not have been done without her command.

For each of her achievements, such as shutting down a murderous coal industry, she introduced an equal absurdity, such as the free enterprise rail system or treating Ronald Reagan as someone with an intellect.

You can forgive her policies that ultimately produce a zero sum, but gratuitously sending hundreds of young men to a watery grave is diabolical.

You know, I love to see you post because when you do, I really have little to no need to counter. You show yourself and your true colors far better than anyone that would argue with you could. If you feel insulted, blame yourself as it's you that made the dumbassed remarks

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Maggie was the sort of person who gives the human race a bad name. For all her bombast and rhetoric, she never acknowledged that people have a right in this world.

You're just upset because she took your milk away.

[KelvinG]

Let's just cut to the chase and say it already. It's cause she was a chick. (and I believe still is)

[Troll]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Let's just cut to the chase and say it already. It's cause she was a chick. (and I believe still is)

damned straight. anyone not liking Maggie is anti-powerful women, and potentially a woamn beater

[Ed]

Bear with me here.

Sinking a ship when a nation is at war hardly qualifies for opprobrium, particularly since a Brit ship was also sunk sending etc. etc. etc. (No mention of that though).

Breaking Unions is not, ipso facto, bad. It depends on the circumstances.

Pardon me for appearing ignorant but my recollection was that the UK was going down a very socialist kind of path prior to MT and that she attempted to reverse the trend. Is that sort of it?

Is the nubbin of it that she reduced/eliminated entitlements? I mean, is the complaining what one would expect if a nanny government were reined in? Was the UK better off fiscally post MT than prior to her?

What does Regan have to do with it?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ed
Bear with me here.

Sinking a ship when a nation is at war hardly qualifies for opprobrium, particularly since a Brit ship was also sunk sending etc. etc. etc. (No mention of that though).

Breaking Unions is not, ipso facto, bad. It depends on the circumstances.

Pardon me for appearing ignorant but my recollection was that the UK was going down a very socialist kind of path prior to MT and that she attempted to reverse the trend. Is that sort of it?

Is the nubbin of it that she reduced/eliminated entitlements? I mean, is the complaining what one would expect if a nanny government were reined in? Was the UK better off fiscally post MT than prior to her?

What does Regan have to do with it?

Ronnie always comes into play when talking about Maggie. It's some weird way of trying to show the collective evil that destroyed the Soviet Union and made the two countries, The US and England, the most powerful. Now we can be blamed for al the bad things in the world because we don't do something, or because we do something. Maggie was to Ronnie as Tony almost is to Dubya. The australians will whine later about Howard trying to take the same position

[whitefork]

Possibly apocryphal Thatcher quote about Reagan:

"Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."
http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/reaganquotes.htm

I'd remembered it as "amiable dunce", but that was Clark Clifford's line.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Kullervo
Possibly apocryphal Thatcher quote about Reagan:

"Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."
http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/reaganquotes.htm

I'd remembered it as "amiable dunce", but that was Clark Clifford's line.

Awww, good for you, you found an anti-Reagan website on geocities. Now can you do better than the site and give the context of the alleged quote?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Ed
Pardon me for appearing ignorant but my recollection was that the UK was going down a very socialist kind of path prior to MT and that she attempted to reverse the trend. Is that sort of it?

As I understand it (and I was about six at the time), that's pretty much the nub of it. The country was stuck in a rather serious rut, and she forced everything a long way over capitalism's way to get it out.

At one point over 3,000,000 people were unemployed. A lot of strikers in the shipbuilding and mining industries were holding out for better pay and conditions at a time when the industries couldn't afford to provide them. Her government refused to provide money to tide those industries over, and so they went belly up.

As far as I know, the only things really bringing money into the country at the time were the arms industry and North Sea oil. I've also heard accusations that the Falklands War was, jointly, a blatant vote-winning exercise and a successful attempt to secure deep-water oil reserves off the islands.

My opinion is that the economic actions she took were necessary, although there is no doubt that in the course of enacting them an awful lot of people suffered (and the UK got locked into the ERM, leading to Black Wednesday, but that's another story). I don't know what other suggestions there were at the time for dealing with the economic problems Britain had, though... perhaps A_U_P could tell us?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Let's not forget the Poll Tax and her blatant disregard of the law........

[Skeptic]

Awww, good for you, you found an anti-Reagan website on geocities. Now can you do better than the site and give the context of the alleged quote?

He probably can't, but that's why he openly said it's "possibly apocrypical"(sp?).

In my experience, such quotes usually are apocre.. apocryp... apocri... errr, fake.

[Skeptic]

As I understand it (and I was about six at the time), that's pretty much the nub of it. The country was stuck in a rather serious rut, and she forced everything a long way over capitalism's way to get it out.

At the time, there was a saying that, in a country that's a mountain of coal surrounded by a sea of fish, only Labor (The political party) could create a shortage of both coal and fish.

I don't know what other suggestions there were at the time for dealing with the economic problems Britain had, though... perhaps A_U_P could tell us?

I don't see why not, given that he seem to think he knows everything.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Let's not forget the Poll Tax and her blatant disregard of the law........

I apologize, but that does not help me.
What exactly were the issues?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Labor (The political party)

I think you'll find the political party is spelt "Labour"...

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
For each of her achievements, such as shutting down a murderous coal industry,
Thatcher's decision to take on the coal industry was nothing to do with any genuine concern for miners' welfare, but rather was wholly politically motivated to initiate a conflict with, and defeat, the National Union of Miners, who were a pretty powerful union of the day. Regardless how justified she was in doing this, her methods resulted in a politicised police force and the destruction of many communities.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Ed


I apologize, but that does not help me.
What exactly were the issues?

This was the most blatant abuse of Government power in lving memory.

The Poll Tax was a way thatcher devised of paying for local services. the previous system was based on the value of your house, the more it was worth the more you paid. Not a perfect system and unfair in some respects, but workable.

thatcher replaced it with a poll tax, which meant everybody pretty much paid the same. A millionaire in a huge mansion was expected to pay the same as someone earning £100 a week. there was supposed to be a discount for the poor but it never seemed to happen.

This legislation was introduced in Scotland 15 months before the rest of the UK, in direct contravention of the Act of Union between England and Scotland of 1703. The phrase "testing ground" springs to mind.

Needless to say, we don't like her very much..........

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Thatcher's decision to take on the coal industry was nothing to do with any genuine concern for miners' welfare, but rather was wholly politically motivated to initiate a conflict with, and defeat, the National Union of Miners, who were a pretty powerful union of the day. Regardless how justified she was in doing this, her methods resulted in a politicised police force and the destruction of many communities.

But why? I suppose I could see a rational for such actions that are more than pure mean-spritedness. What was the objective? If the UK were in the crapper, fiscally, drastic measures might be called for.

So far on this thread I have only heard "because". Was simply in a bad place at a bad time?

[Darat]

I actively campaigned against Thatcher and the Conservatives throughout her period in office. As a young person in politics at the time I loathed her and I still do.

I thought I'd add some counter-balance to AUP's post from someone who was opposed vehemently to Thatcher.


Originally posted by a_unique_person
Maggie was the sort of person who gives the human race a bad name. For all her bombast and rhetoric, she never acknowledged that people have a right in this world.


Just a load of hogwash, her view of what rights people may or may not have might be very different from you and I but she certainly did believe people had rights.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Witness the sinking of the General Belgrano. That would not have been done without her command.


Of course not, she was the bloody PM - who else was meant to give commands. If you are referring to the fact that the Belgrano was sailing away from the exclusion zone and the fact she changed the rules of engagement - again so what? That is what she was elected to do, make tough decisions.

Was her decision, in hindsight right or wrong? At the time she made a decision based on the knowledge to hand, Argentina had invaded sovereign UK territory the General Belgrano was a military target and therefore a threat to UK lives, she wanted to reduce that threat to UK lives, she took the decision to reduce the risk to UK lives by killing the Argentineans. Thank goodness I didn’t have to make that decision.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


For each of her achievements, such as shutting down a murderous coal industry, she introduced an equal absurdity, such as the free enterprise rail system or treating Ronald Reagan as someone with an intellect.



"Murderous coal industry"? WTF? Check the safety records in the 70s and 80s and see if you can prove that allegation.

Thatcher did not close down the coal industry; the coal industry in the UK was destroyed by the trade unions because for decades they had a stranglehold on the power generation of this country and used it as a tool of extortion, which in the end resulted in it being significantly cheaper to import coal then produce it in the UK. The unions tried to use their hold on the mines to prevent this. (By the way some further personal “credentials” - I am from a mining community, many miners and ex-miners in my family. I remember the night-shift workers taking their sleeping bags with them down into the pit... and I also remember having a very, very angry "discussion" with Arthur Scargill about this very point at the local miners club.)

"such as the free enterprise rail system" - she did, did she? :D

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You can forgive her policies that ultimately produce a zero sum, but gratuitously sending hundreds of young men to a watery grave is diabolical.

If you are going to criticise her can I suggest you at least have some sound reasons to do so.

And by the way I don't forgive her anything; I still think she was an incompetent PM.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland

The Poll Tax was a way thatcher devised of paying for local services. the previous system was based on the value of your house, the more it was worth the more you paid. Not a perfect system and unfair in some respects, but workable.

thatcher replaced it with a poll tax, which meant everybody pretty much paid the same. A millionaire in a huge mansion was expected to pay the same as someone earning £100 a week. there was supposed to be a discount for the poor but it never seemed to happen.


You might be interested in these suggested plans... and the responses from the public:

"New proposals to reform local taxation have been unveiled by the Local Government Association in a bid to create a more accountable and transparent system.

The organisation which represents councils led by all parties, says that the present system of council tax is unfair as it is not related to people's incomes and voters are unable to see a clear connection between local taxes and local spending.

Suggested replacements for council tax include a local income tax as well as taxes covering tourism, congestion and house sales."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3398995.stm

(Incidentally, why taxation covering tourism? Shouldn't tourism bring money into the local economy?)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ed
Pardon me for appearing ignorant but my recollection was that the UK was going down a very socialist kind of path prior to MT and that she attempted to reverse the trend. Is that sort of it?

UK was already gone down a socialist path, starting with the creation of the Welfare State back in 1943, which all parties supported (and still continue to support). The next couple of decades were relatively prosperous for the UK, but the crunch came in the early '70s when the effects of the nascent global economy began to be felt; power cuts, empty shelves and three day weeks in response to the Middle East oil crisis. And this was under Ted Heath's Conservative government. It all came to a head with the Labour government at the end of the '70s with prime minister Callaghan trying to appease the unions and at the same time trying to offset the effects of their numerous strikes and unemployment reaching 1 million, and generally floundering from pillar to post in search of support for increasingly unpopular policies. We then had the Winter of Discontent (ti was cold, there was never any bread and my comic book never arrived on time!) and Thatcher's subsequent rise to power. And what a wake-up call that was.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


This was the most blatant abuse of Government power in lving memory.

The Poll Tax was a way thatcher devised of paying for local services. the previous system was based on the value of your house, the more it was worth the more you paid. Not a perfect system and unfair in some respects, but workable.

That is sorta what we have here. Problems arise, naturally, when poor areas get worse services than affluent ones. A very tough nut.

thatcher replaced it with a poll tax, which meant everybody pretty much paid the same. A millionaire in a huge mansion was expected to pay the same as someone earning £100 a week. there was supposed to be a discount for the poor but it never seemed to happen.

aha!! Got it. Is this still on the books? I can see the attraction of this. I mean, if my home warrents $25k in taxes, I would be pretty annoyed if I did not see the benefit in my local schools, for example. OTOH, if everyone paid the same and it were distributed per capita it would be fairer, I suppose. Not to derail the discussion but when things like local services are centrally controlled you can expect that it will get fuc!ed up.

This legislation was introduced in Scotland 15 months before the rest of the UK, in direct contravention of the Act of Union between England and Scotland of 1703. The phrase "testing ground" springs to mind.

Needless to say, we don't like her very much..........


OK, got it. Thanks.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Ed


But why? I suppose I could see a rational for such actions that are more than pure mean-spritedness. What was the objective? If the UK were in the crapper, fiscally, drastic measures might be called for.

So far on this thread I have only heard "because". Was simply in a bad place at a bad time?
Hopefully I've answered this above :)

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillyTK

UK was already gone down a socialist path, starting with the creation of the Welfare State back in 1943, which all parties supported (and still continue to support). The next couple of decades were relatively prosperous for the UK, but the crunch came in the early '70s when the effects of the nascent global economy began to be felt; power cuts, empty shelves and three day weeks in response to the Middle East oil crisis. And this was under Ted Heath's Conservative government. It all came to a head with the Labour government at the end of the '70s with prime minister Callaghan trying to appease the unions and at the same time trying to offset the effects of their numerous strikes and unemployment reaching 1 million, and generally floundering from pillar to post in search of support for increasingly unpopular policies. We then had the Winter of Discontent (ti was cold, there was never any bread and my comic book never arrived on time!) and Thatcher's subsequent rise to power. And what a wake-up call that was.

And................?

God, you guys like to tease:D

Remember, I am not a Brit so shorthand references to UK events are pretty much lost on me.

Edit to add: and I am really not trying to start an argument, I am really curious.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Troll


damned straight. anyone not liking Maggie is anti-powerful women, and potentially a woamn beater
I doubt if you'd find anyone in the UK (other than Giz) who'd agree with you, and I doubt you'd find any evidence to support this claim either. With her attachment to "traditional values", Thatcher probably did more to set back women's causes than any other leader in the past 60 years.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Darat:
Thatcher did not close down the coal industry; the coal industry in the UK was destroyed by the trade unions because for decades they had a stranglehold on the power generation of this country and used it as a tool of extortion, which in the end resulted in it being significantly cheaper to import coal then produce it in the UK. The unions tried to use their hold on the mines to prevent this. (By the way some further personal “credentials” - I am from a mining community, many miners and ex-miners in my family. I remember the night-shift workers taking their sleeping bags with them down into the pit... and I also remember having a very, very angry "discussion" with Arthur Scargill about this very point at the local miners club.)

I've read about this but my grasp of certain details is hazy. Didn't Scargill call a strike without putting it to a vote of the union first? IIRC another trade union leader said of him "He went into the strike with a big union and a small house, and he came out of it with a small union and a big house".

[Shaun from Scotland]

The Poll tax was a product of Thatcher thinking she was invincible. She had won three general elections on the trot, broken the Unions, won a war etc etc..........

When her own party realised it was a complete disaster of a policy they kicked her out.....

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Maggie was the sort of person who gives the human race a bad name. For all her bombast and rhetoric, she never acknowledged that people have a right in this world.

Witness the sinking of the General Belgrano. That would not have been done without her command.

For each of her achievements, such as shutting down a murderous coal industry, she introduced an equal absurdity, such as the free enterprise rail system or treating Ronald Reagan as someone with an intellect.

You can forgive her policies that ultimately produce a zero sum, but gratuitously sending hundreds of young men to a watery grave is diabolical.

With AUP it's UP=DOWN and WRONG=RIGHT
Therefore he's never really wrong when he says that there were many good reasons for 3,000+ civilians to be justly targeted on 9/11, but the sinking of an armed naval vessel in a war zone is "diabolical".

Since we're insulated by computers and wires we can't see if AUP is actually doing all this with a straight face, but I for one believe he is. He's a true believer.

-z

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Ed

Remember, I am not a Brit so shorthand references to UK events are pretty much lost

"A to Z of Thatcherism" here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/325857.stm

Winter of Discontent:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/timelines/england/pwar_strikes_winter_discontent.shtml

BBC seem to have all the good links...

Edit to add: Actually, that last link has a bunch of "Other entries for this period" at the bottom, which cover a lot of the economics of Thatcher's reign.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ed
Bear with me here.

Sinking a ship when a nation is at war hardly qualifies for opprobrium, particularly since a Brit ship was also sunk sending etc. etc. etc. (No mention of that though).


The big sticking point here is the circumstances and should she have altered the rules of engagement to make it a legitimate target? Unless we can replay the moment and see the outcome it is one of those decisions which we can never know if it was the best/right decision or not.

Originally posted by Ed

Breaking Unions is not, ipso facto, bad. It depends on the circumstances.


She never broke any unions up. She created legislation that meant that unions had to poll their members about closed shops etc. that they couldn’t declare national strikes and so on. If there was anything she did that was at all beneficial for the UK it was some of her trade union reforms (and you don't know how much it sticks in my throat to say that).

Originally posted by Ed

Pardon me for appearing ignorant but my recollection was that the UK was going down a very socialist kind of path prior to MT and that she attempted to reverse the trend. Is that sort of it?



Doubt it. The country was governed by the Conservatives for the vast majority of the 20th century.

Originally posted by Ed


Is the nubbin of it that she reduced/eliminated entitlements? I mean, is the complaining what one would expect if a nanny government were reined in? Was the UK better off fiscally post MT than prior to her?



Strangely enough although she reigned over years of chronic under investment in areas such as education, defence, policing, health and so on, she never got the social security spending under control. And despite having the reputation of being anti-government subsidies she ended up being one of the biggest "hander-outers" to nationalised industries ever from her first bailing out of British Leyland within months of taking office to her handouts to the steel industry.

When examined Thatcher’s reputation and her own rhetoric does not match up with the facts and figures...


Originally posted by Ed

What does Regan have to do with it?

The UK press always painted the impression that they were great mates that she was "under his spell". She did admire his policies and she did like him (according to her autobiography).

[Skeptic]

Just a load of hogwash,

Well, it IS "A Unique Person" we're talking about. Just what did you expect?

"Murderous coal industry"? WTF? Check the safety records in the 70s and 80s and see if you can prove that allegation.

Facts? AUP doesn't need no stinkin' facts. He knows THE TRUTH(tm) about everything, and, well, that's that

(By the way, I note AUP posts a lot less here since Grammaton uses his "insights" as to the "evil zionist conspiracy" that controls the USA as a .sig files...)

"such as the free enterprise rail system" - she did, did she? :D

And suppose she did? OhmyGod!!!! A PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY!!! The horror! The horror!

[Darat]

One other point.

Have I mentioned how much I really, really, really, really dislike Thatcher?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Skeptic
OhmyGod!!!! A PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY!!! The horror! The horror!

Ah, so you've had a trip on our railways, then? Commiserations!

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Darat
One other point.

Have I mentioned how much I really, really, really, really dislike Thatcher?

Actually, having read the links I've just posted I can see your point...

That's what I get for having Conservative parents...

[richardm]

Originally posted by Darat
One other point.

Have I mentioned how much I really, really, really, really dislike Thatcher?

Yes, you mentioned it in passing :D

Serious question though: Why? From the examples and explanations you've given here, you seem to think she did a good job in many areas. Obviously there is something you disapproved of - what was it?

[Matabiri]

I'm starting to think that part of it was that she made decisions and stuck by them - regardless of their effectiveness. She brooked no dissidence.

Rather like Blair, actually.

Interesting to read the Alan Clark Diaries, as well.

[Giz]

Originally posted by BillyTK

I doubt if you'd find anyone in the UK (other than Giz) who'd agree with you, and I doubt you'd find any evidence to support this claim either. With her attachment to "traditional values", Thatcher probably did more to set back women's causes than any other leader in the past 60 years.

But the amount of women moving into professional/managerial roles increased exponentially during Thatchers terms!

I think people are just galled that the Tories (with the only Woman PM and the only non-Christian PM in British history) are the party of equality - if you can do the job you're in! Labourites should remember the old saying "those who live under glass ceilings should not throw stones".

[Tony]

If your country was in the crapper before and Thatcher proved to be incompetent, what ultimately turned the UK economy around?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I've also heard accusations that the Falklands War was, jointly, a blatant vote-winning exercise and a successful attempt to secure deep-water oil reserves off the islands.


Uh... I hope you dont actually swallow that?

Look at the facts, Maggie's government was in the process of flogging off and breaking up our last two carriers, without them we couldnt have even tried to fight back.

[wollery]

And suppose she did? OhmyGod!!!! A PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY!!! The horror! The horror!
Actually it was John Major who oversaw the selling of the railways, which probably wouldn't have been too bad if it weren't for the way it was done.

I don't actually think that very much of what Maggie did was all that bad, she altered trade union legislation to make it far more sensible and remove a lot of the power the union leaders had over their members (a bloody good thing given who some of those leaders were). She was also a very good international representative and could not be bullied into giving up an inch of UK interests to the EU. Some of the privatisations were good, British Telecom for example, but some were ill-advised.

I think that the main problem people had was not what she did, but the way that she did it. She came across as arrogant, elitist and insensitive, and by the time she was kicked out by her own party she seemed to believe that she was some sort of president. The fact that she was surrounded by corrupt greedy sycophants who were constantly being caught in compromising situations didn't help much either.

[Giz]

Originally posted by wollery


I think that the main problem people had was not what she did, but the way that she did it. She came across as arrogant, elitist and insensitive, and by the time she was kicked out by her own party she seemed to believe that she was some sort of president. The fact that she was surrounded by corrupt greedy sycophants who were constantly being caught in compromising situations didn't help much either.

Exactly, her self belief grated badly on the arrogant lefties who believed they knew best.

[Skeptic]

Actually it was John Major who oversaw the selling of the railways, which probably wouldn't have been too bad if it weren't for the way it was done.

I'm not saying it was necessarily a GOOD thing; for all I know it was screwed up and a bad idea.

I'm merely commenting that if THIS is AUP's "evidence" for Tacher being one of the most awful human beings ever, something's a bit wrong with his perspective.

You'd think that, say, mass murder would be higher on the list than privatising the railroads...

[Darat]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[B]...snip...



And suppose she did? OhmyGod!!!! A PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY!!! The horror! The horror!

Just thought it very funny that AUP gave this a reason for criticism of Thatcher - especically since she didn't!

[Ed]

Originally posted by Darat


The big sticking point here is the circumstances and should she have altered the rules of engagement to make it a legitimate target? Unless we can replay the moment and see the outcome it is one of those decisions which we can never know if it was the best/right decision or not.





Not to belabor the point but, during wartime, having a major enemy asset in your sights and not destroying it is malfeasence, I would think.

[Ed]

Originally posted by wollery

The fact that she was surrounded by corrupt greedy sycophants who were constantly being caught in compromising situations didn't help much either.


I have the feeling that this is universal and not characteristic of Maggie or any US President, either. Sad, really.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Giz


Exactly, her self belief grated badly on the arrogant lefties who believed they knew best.

If ever there was anyone who thought they knew best it was Thatcher. A self belief which destroyed the Union and ultimately cost her her job............

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


If ever there was anyone who thought they knew best it was Thatcher. A self belief which destroyed the Union and ultimately cost her her job............

I wonder how much this is a characteristic of powerful people and not specific to Maggie. I really don't think that I would want a leader, of a party or of a company, that was not arrogant.

[Virgil]

she had a degree in chemistry I'm told. So there is still hope I can go out a lead a country.

Virgil

[Darat]

Originally posted by Giz


But the amount of women moving into professional/managerial roles increased exponentially during Thatchers terms!

I think people are just galled that the Tories (with the only Woman PM and the only non-Christian PM in British history) are the party of equality - if you can do the job you're in! Labourites should remember the old saying "those who live under glass ceilings should not throw stones".

And just remind me how many female cabinet Ministers Thatcher had?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Ed


Not to belabor the point but, during wartime, having a major enemy asset in your sights and not destroying it is malfeasence, I would think.

I don't disagree. The claim, for people who supported the attack is that it ensured that the Argentineans kept their ships close to ports in the subsequent conflict. That's what I was referring to about the "replay" of history needed to tell us if sinking was a good decision or not.

One other point about this is the allegation that Thatcher initially lied about the attack e.g. she stated the General Belgrano wasn't leaving the exclusion zone. That stuck to her throughout the subsequent years.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


I've read about this but my grasp of certain details is hazy. Didn't Scargill call a strike without putting it to a vote of the union first? IIRC another trade union leader said of him "He went into the strike with a big union and a small house, and he came out of it with a small union and a big house".

It was not a strike for "pay and conditions" but for political power, don’t forget back in 82 the miners came out on strike as “support” for the health worker’s pay claims!

Scargill, like many socialists, hated the Conservatives and thought he could repeat the actions that had brought down previous governments. Thankfully he didn’t bring down a government but it was his members that paid the cost of his political ambitions.

The amount of poverty caused by the Scargill’s actions was heart wrenching. As I say I lived in a mining & mill town at that time and whilst the town didn’t have much sympathy for the miners claims (general opinion was it was a cushy number – well paid etc.) there was great support on the personal level. So many miners lost everything their homes, their cars and even their families and it was caused by a power hungry, selfish, pathetic man.


(Edited for a superflously, supflouslous, oh damn it - an extra "their".)

[Darat]

Originally posted by richardm


Yes, you mentioned it in passing :D

Serious question though: Why? From the examples and explanations you've given here, you seem to think she did a good job in many areas. Obviously there is something you disapproved of - what was it?

Really needs a long, long answer. But let me try to do a short version.

First of all I admit a total emotionally based bias - she was the hate figure for people of my political persuasion when I was young and very active in politics. We'd have believed she bathed in virgin's blood!

However I think the thing that really grates me is that the picture that is painted of Thatcher and her own rhetoric just don't stand up to scrutiny.

She never controlled social security, despite her proclamations to the contra, she was one of the leaders who completely wasted the only reason we didn't want devolution for Scotland i.e. their oil, she didn't invest in key areas of the country's infrastructure which has left us with facing decades of rebuilding major parts of the country but sank almost unaccountable public money into her pet projects e.g. .the Channel tunnel.

All in all she was incompetent as a PM.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Ed


I wonder how much this is a characteristic of powerful people and not specific to Maggie. I really don't think that I would want a leader, of a party or of a company, that was not arrogant.

There is a difference between arrogance and pig-headed stupidity. In her later years in office, Thatcher was like someone who is trying to push open a door when there is a sign on it saying pull. "I don't care what it says it will bend to my will".

She could not counteanace being wrong. Lots of people in her party told her the Poll tax was a mistake. She wouldn't, and indeed couldn't, listen..

How the Poll tax went was interesting to analyse. Thatcher was initially against it, yet was persuaded of it's benefits, largely by the current Tory leader Michael Howard. Once she had made her mind up, she was a fanatic about it. This is not a good quality for a leader. A leader must be able to admit they are wrong, even if they disguise it with spin. Thatcher's fall was her fault and her fault alone.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland


There is a difference between arrogance and pig-headed stupidity.

Yes. I see your point. That is a very bad combination.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Yeh, its not like there was a war on or anything.

It was an old, WWII class battleship, that was sailing away from the conflict when it was sunk. It never had a chance against a modern submarine.

The war was a stupid storm in a teacup that both sides should be ashamed of themselves for indulging in.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
I actively campaigned against Thatcher and the Conservatives throughout her period in office. As a young person in politics at the time I loathed her and I still do.



Yea, she was an utterly despicable human being.

[Darat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It was an old, WWII class battleship, that was sailing away from the conflict when it was sunk. It never had a chance against a modern submarine.



And what relevance does this point have?

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The war was a stupid storm in a teacup that both sides should be ashamed of themselves for indulging in.

The UK did everything possible to avoid a military conflict despite the unprovoked military attack against the Falklands.

When the Argentineans launched a military attack against the Falklands, the UK should have done exactly what, (that it didn’t do) to avoid the necessity of launching an military force to reclaim the British sovereign territory?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It was an old, WWII class battleship, that was sailing away from the conflict when it was sunk. It never had a chance against a modern submarine.

The war was a stupid storm in a teacup that both sides should be ashamed of themselves for indulging in.

It was actually a cruiser.

It had six inch guns and armour, which meant that it was impervious to the British frigates exocet's and outgunned them by several orders of magnitude. Just because a ship is old, doesnt mean it isnt dangerous- witness USS Wissconsin in the first gulf war. Oh, and it was sunk by WWII torpedoes, so does that make it fair to you AUP?

Belgrano may have been sailing away from the exclusion zone at the time it was sunk, but it certainly wasnt withdrawing from the war altogether.

The war may seem like a 'stupid storm in a teacup' to you AUP, but I guess the fundamental human right to self-determination to be a part of a stable democracy rather than a militray junta doesnt matter to you.

So go on AUP, exactly what should Maggie have done differently in your opinion?

[Cain]

Originally posted by Troll


Awww, good for you, you found an anti-Reagan website on geocities. Now can you do better than the site and give the context of the alleged quote?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007102623/202-9406306-1676645

Jeff Cohen, a top-notch media critic, uses the quote to attack bias:

During Reagan's 1988 Moscow summit with Gorbachev, the New York Times noted that the President had fallen asleep at a meeting with Soviet dignitaries. The Times subtitled the article: "REAGAN IMPRESSES SOVIET ELITE." Two days later, another summit-related article in the New York Times attributed this quote about Reagan to Britain's Margaret Thatcher: "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears." The article's headline: "THATCHER SALUTE TO REAGAN YEARS."

In the thread on the Reagan mini-series, Brown, one of the posters here, kept referring to a book by Paul Slansky called _The Emperor has no Clothes_. Good read; maybe you should check it out.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


It was actually a cruiser.

It had six inch guns and armour, which meant that it was impervious to the British frigates exocet's and outgunned them by several orders of magnitude. Just because a ship is old, doesnt mean it isnt dangerous- witness USS Wissconsin in the first gulf war. Oh, and it was sunk by WWII torpedoes, so does that make it fair to you AUP?

Belgrano may have been sailing away from the exclusion zone at the time it was sunk, but it certainly wasnt withdrawing from the war altogether.

The war may seem like a 'stupid storm in a teacup' to you AUP, but I guess the fundamental human right to self-determination to be a part of a stable democracy rather than a militray junta doesnt matter to you.

So go on AUP, exactly what should Maggie have done differently in your opinion?

People who criticize the sinking of the Belgrano always seem to ignore the fact that it was on a zig-zag course. It was sunk sailing away from the task force, but it was likely to have turned back towards it.

People also forget that the Royal Navy had no idea what arnament it was carrying. Had it been fitted with missiles? British intelligence had no idea. Do you think we should have waited until it had fired a missile at a British ship? Or got close enough to the Task force so it could tell the Argentinain Air force it's position?

Maggie may have been one of the worst PM's in UK history, but she went to war with the right attitude. Protect our forces and bollox to everyone else.

[Roadtoad]

Much of this is still new to me, so if you Brits will forgive me a few silly questions:

(1.) Wasn't the Poll Tax voted on by the House of Commons? And wasn't Labour's vote required to pass the bill bringing the Poll Tax into effect?

(2.) In privatizing rail, how was it done, and why? And further, did it work?

(3.) I didn't know about the coal mines. Wouldn't she have needed active support from the Home Secretary to pull this off? And could the mines have reopened since she left office?

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Much of this is still new to me, so if you Brits will forgive me a few silly questions:

(1.) Wasn't the Poll Tax voted on by the House of Commons? And wasn't Labour's vote required to pass the bill bringing the Poll Tax into effect?

(2.) In privatizing rail, how was it done, and why? And further, did it work?

(3.) I didn't know about the coal mines. Wouldn't she have needed active support from the Home Secretary to pull this off? And could the mines have reopened since she left office?

1/ It was but the Tories had a substantial Majority. There are approx 650 MP's. If your party wins say 326 seats (the constituencies MP's stand for) then you have a majority in the House so when it comes to a vote you will always win. In practical terms you need something like a majority of 30 MP's to have a decent working majority (MP's have to vote in person in the House of Commons. If you only have a majority of say 2 MP's then if some are sick in Hospital your in trouble. Plus some MP's may "rebel" against the party line especially with controversial legislation)

Labour voted against the Poll tax, but it goes on a majority vote. More MP's say yes than no, it becomes law.

2/ Don't know the technicalities of it sorry. If your interested you may find this page (http://www.publictrains.co.uk/renational.htm) interesting. Did it work? I think most people would say no.

3/ The Home secretary was also a Tory. He will usaully follow the Party line so there was no issue here.

The Miners main concern was that the Government was closing UK pits while still importing cheap foreign coal. But ultimately, the market for coal was in terminal decline. My father was a miner for 40 years since the age of 12. His pit was one of those closed.

He was glad to see the back of it

[Jon_in_london]

It wasnt Maggie that did for the railways.

[Ed]

I have awarded this thread 5 stars because we actually had a discussion about a potentially acrimonious topic in a civilized manner.

[Skeptic]

It was an old, WWII class battleship, that was sailing away from the conflict when it was sunk. It never had a chance against a modern submarine.

Tsk tsk. You mean Tacher actually dared to USE the UK's military superiority over Argentina in the war between them??? And then it actually fired on a retreating ship intead of letting it withdraw unharmed, to fight against the UK forces another day???

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


It was actually a cruiser.

It had six inch guns and armour, which meant that it was impervious to the British frigates exocet's and outgunned them by several orders of magnitude. Just because a ship is old, doesnt mean it isnt dangerous- witness USS Wissconsin in the first gulf war. Oh, and it was sunk by WWII torpedoes, so does that make it fair to you AUP?

Belgrano may have been sailing away from the exclusion zone at the time it was sunk, but it certainly wasnt withdrawing from the war altogether.

The war may seem like a 'stupid storm in a teacup' to you AUP, but I guess the fundamental human right to self-determination to be a part of a stable democracy rather than a militray junta doesnt matter to you.

So go on AUP, exactly what should Maggie have done differently in your opinion?

I saw a documentary on this on Discovery just a few weeks ago. The guy who had commanded the british fleet said that the Belgrano had two destroyer escorts, both fitted with Exocet anti ship missiles - which the British fleet was largely unable to counter. He argued that if one or both of those had launched against the fleet, and scored a hit on a carrier, then the war would have been lost right there.

He also argued that it's completely irrelevant what direction the ship was going in because it takes only a minute or two to change direction. What mattered to him was the position, and with the Belgrano to the south west and an Argentine aircraft carrier to the north west, as far as he was concerned his fleet was facing a pincer attack.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


I saw a documentary on this on Discovery just a few weeks ago. The guy who had commanded the british fleet said that the Belgrano had two destroyer escorts, both fitted with Exocet anti ship missiles - which the British fleet was largely unable to counter. He argued that if one or both of those had launched against the fleet, and scored a hit on a carrier, then the war would have been lost right there.

He also argued that it's completely irrelevant what direction the ship was going in because it takes only a minute or two to change direction. What mattered to him was the position, and with the Belgrano to the south west and an Argentine aircraft carrier to the north west, as far as he was concerned his fleet was facing a pincer attack.

Guess who built those destroyers and sold them to the Argies? Isnt the arms trade great!

BTW The Argie naval strategy was to launch a three pronged assualt on the British task force. One 'prong' was the Belgrano and two Type42s, the other three French built corvettes and the other the carrier 25 deMayo. Luckily the Argies were so worried about the loss of prestige that would accompany the loss of any other majot naval unit that they chickened out completely. The Royal Navy has always understoof that winning a war may involved losing ships. It may cost the lives of many British sailors but it wins wars.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Giz


But the amount of women moving into professional/managerial roles increased exponentially during Thatchers terms!
You proved me right! Cool.

I think people are just galled that the Tories (with the only Woman PM and the only non-Christian PM in British history) are the party of equality - if you can do the job you're in!
If this were the case, how do you explain Major, Hague or Duncan-Smith? Anyway, a quote from Thatcher, pre-leadership:
No woman in my time will be prime minister or chancellor or foreign secretary - not the top jobs. Anyway, I wouldn't want to be prime minister; you have to give yourself 100 percent.
She obviously recognised the "jobs for the boys" attitude of her party (and to be fair, the Tories are certainly not unique in this respect), and without the support of her husband's rather large pockets, a particularly scheming section of the Tory party and the recognition that the only way to succeed would be to "out boy the boys", I doubt if Thatch would've been little more than a footnote as the minister who took milk off the children.
Ah, if only that were the case
Labourites should remember the old saying "those who live under glass ceilings should not throw stones".
If you want to get critical about (New) Labour's selection of women candidates, go ahead, I'll join you; it reeks of the same "jobs for the boys" attitude of the Tories. However, this equivocation in no way supports your contentions about Thatch or the Tory leadership selection process.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(3.) I didn't know about the coal mines. Wouldn't she have needed active support from the Home Secretary to pull this off? And could the mines have reopened since she left office?

Well, the Home Sec. pretty much did what he was told.

The problem with closing mines is that once they're closed and the pumps stop, they tend to fill with water. They are then extremely expensive and dangerous to reopen, so they remain closed.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by richardm


Well, the Home Sec. pretty much did what he was told.
This reminds me of another Thatcher quote:
I don't mind how much my ministers talk - as long as they do what I say.