Maggie Thatcher

[Shaun from Scotland]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

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.

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...

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?

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]

OhmyGod!!!! A PRIVATELY-OWNED RAILWAY!!! The horror! The horror!

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

 

[Matabiri]

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]

One other point.

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

Yes, you mentioned it in passing

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.