Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

[Ben]

Labour Leader Ed Miliband whitewashing the legacy of Thatcher:

[robertlouis]

So, the funeral has taken place, with all the rites and obsequies, in London.

Probably the only city in the UK where they could have held it in the UK without risking a riot. Oh, and in St Paul's, a "house of God", that charges £16 - £16 quid!!! - entry fee.

The irony is perfect.

And good fucking riddance.

[hippifried]

Oh... So I guess you're not her #1 fan...

[Stavros]

Curious how I began this thread in General Discussion, but when it was moved here my balanced, introductory post was relegated to second place in favour of an abusive one from Jericho who is now credited with starting the thread. Whatever.

Should you want to find out if you are a Thatcherite, the Daily Telegraph has a 10-question quiz, I scored 20% which means I am not a believer...courage!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...-the-test.html

[flabbybody]

The two threads were merged because the subject was identical but I'm unsure how the software determines posting order when that happens.
Jericho was definitely to the point but yours was thoughtful and provocative, as always Stavros

[jennylicious]

Margaret Thatcher, like Hugo Chavez, was a strong leader. There is quite a big difference between 'strong' leaders and 'great' leaders. Margaret was never a 'great' leader, and subsequently, she will always divide opinion between those who saw themselves gain and those who felt they lost.

I've heard so much rubbish from both sides in the last few weeks about her, if I never hear her name again it will be too soon. We have people telling us that she destroyed our industrial output who have never worked in the production industry in their lives. That she was racist, homophobic, and she was responsible for a decline in society. I've read that she fought the Cold war at every turn.

Ok, I worked in a unionised industry in the 90s. I spoke to senior shop stewards about the bad old days of the 70s. I heard real horror stories of how their union were doing a pretty good job of destroying the industrial output all on their own. I heard enough to ask myself if she did destroy industry, or if it was already D.O.A. Or was it the fact she turned the country around and the subsequent strength of the pound destroyed out exports? Or was it a whole collection of circumstances based on her policies, what she inherited, and the rest of the world? I don't know, but I at least have heard enough witness statements to laugh when I hear Britain depicted as some kind of industrial power house before she took it over.

Racist? Possibly. Homophobic? Almost certainly. Child of her time? Definitely. While it's important to acknowledge if she was these things, and I'm pretty sure she was, it's unfair to judge her differently that you would your own grandfather and grandmother. Her opinions were not in opposition to those of the general public at the time, and if everyone of her generation was without prejudice, then we wouldn't need any activism. History will reflect she was wrong. Even Winston Churchill had declared in a cabinet meeting that the Tory party were not going to accept responsibility for making the law more lenient towards gay men. When we discuss him and his legacy, does anyone find it important to bring this fact up? He presided over the Black and Tans, is this ever mentioned?

Finally, the break down of society is the biggest joke of them all. People have spoken about how Thatcher changed society to that of greed and looking out for themselves. It's the most insular look at politics that I can possibly imagine from a society that has never experienced so much globalisation in its life. Of course, the 80s didn't happen in other countries. It only happened on Thatcher's watch. She and her policies are responsible for all of it, and the rest of the world carried on in the 70s. The film Wall Street was actually set in the LSE, and had nothing to do with America. Honestly, how can respected journalists and politicians convey this utter tripe?

Thatcher sought to empower the people through money and abolish the class system, this is true. Consequently her policies did, indeed, support and even perpetuate a more greedy attitude which reflected a cultural attitude that was being seen around the world. She was absolutely a poster child for what was going on in the world, but to hold her completely responsible for it, or any continued effects in society today is giving her far too much credit. If some people are to be believed, she affected and shaped more attitudes globally in a short period of time than Jesus Christ, and had a more lasting effect. It defies logic... Any change of society reflected the global culture of the 80s and it is unfair to blame her for not saving us from ourselves.

I heard some teenager the other day talk about how my generation were all about greed, and that their generation was different. That somehow they weren't all about material possessions. I can't agree when I remember a time when a label on a shirt meant nothing to me, and everything to them. However, Mike and the Mechanics was right, every generation DOES blame the one before. The fact is, perceived or not, what happened under Margaret's watch epitomises the target of this natural response. This is why the majority of people who vilified her on her death the loudest were not of voting age when she was in power. So some of the comments made on her death were just an example of human nature that will witnessed until the human race becomes a little more self aware (I'm not holding my breath)

Basically, for the people who are speaking for her, and the people who are speaking against her, please appreciate 90% of politics is reactive, and not proactive. Many of things she is credited for, or denounced for, were not necessarily all down to the personality, or policies, of one person.

In terms of fighting the cold war. She helped changed the direction of the Cold War (...according to the CIA files. I reckon it's a pretty big deal when a U.S. security service credit a foreign leader in helping change their countries defence policy). I can honestly say I didn't have any respect for her until I read about her involvement in the Cold War. I always considered her a fringe player in the war, but actually with Gordievsky being one of our agents, an enormous responsibility fell on her shoulders and it was her relationship with Reagan that allowed her to convince him of the strength of our intelligence.

It's also important to remember that Margaret was undoubtedly human (some people argue otherwise) and it this combined with her strength that is also her major weakness. What she wanted done, she got done. Weaker leaders who have a mistaken idea often can't see them through to completion. When Margaret made a mistake, she made sure she made it. She would crush anyone and anything in her way to make it.

Her critics are always going to be able to focus on these mistakes, while remaining oblivious to the many minor and major things that were done for the good of the country that may never have happened under a weaker leader. A look at the state of the country in the 1970s suggests she must have got something right.

So yes, people got fucked over by Thatcher's policies. They have the right to genuinely feel annoyed at the specific reasons. I don't decry their right to do this. I just wish that others who don't share her politics would at least be dispassionate enough to put their political leanings aside and be objective. It's really nice to see some anti-Thatcher people on this forum actually giving her some credit.

For the people who are angry, then I refer them to the Christian concept of forgiveness. This may seem like some stupid self deprecating thing for the non-religious. I'm not a big fan of the idea of forgiveness myself, but it occurred to me that this isn't actually something handed down from a religious entity, but the knowledge of those that have gone before. It's not about helping the person who has wronged you, but going through the psychological process of letting go. In short, if the acts committed by a woman who is currently being eaten by maggots over 20 years ago still evoke so much emotion, then it's no longer her who is hurting you, it's you.

As far as I'm concerned, she was a public servant who was not a career politician. She put out a manifesto. The majority of the country voted for her. She did what she said she would do. Some more people got fucked over, and some did well. She put out another manifesto. The majority of the country voted for her. She did what she said she would. Some more people got fucked over, and some did well. She put out another manifesto, and the majority of the country voted for her again.

This is how democracy works. It's funny when people say how fucking great democracy is, but still get so down on the people who win through the democratic system. Yes, someone could get in once and abuse the political system, but nobody can get in three times in a row.

Just because the majority of the country doesn't support my own politics, doesn't mean I don't judge the government, or any ex-government, entirely objectively. Like all leaders, she was in the business of doing some good and some bad. She will always be controversial, because as a strong leader, she was exceptionally good at that business.

[Jericho]

Curious how I began this thread in General Discussion, but when it was moved here my balanced, introductory post was relegated to second place in favour of an abusive one from Jericho who is now credited with starting the thread. Whatever.

I was not being abusive, you cnut!

[Prospero]

Jennylicious. Thanks for a very powerful and thoughtful post. Really very interesting and balanced.

[Stavros]

Margaret Thatcher, like Hugo Chavez, was a strong leader. There is quite a big difference between 'strong' leaders and 'great' leaders. Margaret was never a 'great' leader, and subsequently, she will always divide opinion between those who saw themselves gain and those who felt they lost.

I've heard so much rubbish from both sides in the last few weeks about her, if I never hear her name again it will be too soon. We have people telling us that she destroyed our industrial output who have never worked in the production industry in their lives. That she was racist, homophobic, and she was responsible for a decline in society. I've read that she fought the Cold war at every turn.

Ok, I worked in a unionised industry in the 90s. I spoke to senior shop stewards about the bad old days of the 70s. I heard real horror stories of how their union were doing a pretty good job of destroying the industrial output all on their own. I heard enough to ask myself if she did destroy industry, or if it was already D.O.A. Or was it the fact she turned the country around and the subsequent strength of the pound destroyed out exports? Or was it a whole collection of circumstances based on her policies, what she inherited, and the rest of the world? I don't know, but I at least have heard enough witness statements to laugh when I hear Britain depicted as some kind of industrial power house before she took it over.

Racist? Possibly. Homophobic? Almost certainly. Child of her time? Definitely. While it's important to acknowledge if she was these things, and I'm pretty sure she was, it's unfair to judge her differently that you would your own grandfather and grandmother. Her opinions were not in opposition to those of the general public at the time, and if everyone of her generation was without prejudice, then we wouldn't need any activism. History will reflect she was wrong. Even Winston Churchill had declared in a cabinet meeting that the Tory party were not going to accept responsibility for making the law more lenient towards gay men. When we discuss him and his legacy, does anyone find it important to bring this fact up? He presided over the Black and Tans, is this ever mentioned?

Finally, the break down of society is the biggest joke of them all. People have spoken about how Thatcher changed society to that of greed and looking out for themselves. It's the most insular look at politics that I can possibly imagine from a society that has never experienced so much globalisation in its life. Of course, the 80s didn't happen in other countries. It only happened on Thatcher's watch. She and her policies are responsible for all of it, and the rest of the world carried on in the 70s. The film Wall Street was actually set in the LSE, and had nothing to do with America. Honestly, how can respected journalists and politicians convey this utter tripe?

Thatcher sought to empower the people through money and abolish the class system, this is true. Consequently her policies did, indeed, support and even perpetuate a more greedy attitude which reflected a cultural attitude that was being seen around the world. She was absolutely a poster child for what was going on in the world, but to hold her completely responsible for it, or any continued effects in society today is giving her far too much credit. If some people are to be believed, she affected and shaped more attitudes globally in a short period of time than Jesus Christ, and had a more lasting effect. It defies logic... Any change of society reflected the global culture of the 80s and it is unfair to blame her for not saving us from ourselves.

I heard some teenager the other day talk about how my generation were all about greed, and that their generation was different. That somehow they weren't all about material possessions. I can't agree when I remember a time when a label on a shirt meant nothing to me, and everything to them. However, Mike and the Mechanics was right, every generation DOES blame the one before. The fact is, perceived or not, what happened under Margaret's watch epitomises the target of this natural response. This is why the majority of people who vilified her on her death the loudest were not of voting age when she was in power. So some of the comments made on her death were just an example of human nature that will witnessed until the human race becomes a little more self aware (I'm not holding my breath)

Basically, for the people who are speaking for her, and the people who are speaking against her, please appreciate 90% of politics is reactive, and not proactive. Many of things she is credited for, or denounced for, were not necessarily all down to the personality, or policies, of one person.

In terms of fighting the cold war. She helped changed the direction of the Cold War (...according to the CIA files. I reckon it's a pretty big deal when a U.S. security service credit a foreign leader in helping change their countries defence policy). I can honestly say I didn't have any respect for her until I read about her involvement in the Cold War. I always considered her a fringe player in the war, but actually with Gordievsky being one of our agents, an enormous responsibility fell on her shoulders and it was her relationship with Reagan that allowed her to convince him of the strength of our intelligence.

It's also important to remember that Margaret was undoubtedly human (some people argue otherwise) and it this combined with her strength that is also her major weakness. What she wanted done, she got done. Weaker leaders who have a mistaken idea often can't see them through to completion. When Margaret made a mistake, she made sure she made it. She would crush anyone and anything in her way to make it.

Her critics are always going to be able to focus on these mistakes, while remaining oblivious to the many minor and major things that were done for the good of the country that may never have happened under a weaker leader. A look at the state of the country in the 1970s suggests she must have got something right.

So yes, people got fucked over by Thatcher's policies. They have the right to genuinely feel annoyed at the specific reasons. I don't decry their right to do this. I just wish that others who don't share her politics would at least be dispassionate enough to put their political leanings aside and be objective. It's really nice to see some anti-Thatcher people on this forum actually giving her some credit.

For the people who are angry, then I refer them to the Christian concept of forgiveness. This may seem like some stupid self deprecating thing for the non-religious. I'm not a big fan of the idea of forgiveness myself, but it occurred to me that this isn't actually something handed down from a religious entity, but the knowledge of those that have gone before. It's not about helping the person who has wronged you, but going through the psychological process of letting go. In short, if the acts committed by a woman who is currently being eaten by maggots over 20 years ago still evoke so much emotion, then it's no longer her who is hurting you, it's you.

As far as I'm concerned, she was a public servant who was not a career politician. She put out a manifesto. The majority of the country voted for her. She did what she said she would do. Some more people got fucked over, and some did well. She put out another manifesto. The majority of the country voted for her. She did what she said she would. Some more people got fucked over, and some did well. She put out another manifesto, and the majority of the country voted for her again.

This is how democracy works. It's funny when people say how fucking great democracy is, but still get so down on the people who win through the democratic system. Yes, someone could get in once and abuse the political system, but nobody can get in three times in a row.

Just because the majority of the country doesn't support my own politics, doesn't mean I don't judge the government, or any ex-government, entirely objectively. Like all leaders, she was in the business of doing some good and some bad. She will always be controversial, because as a strong leader, she was exceptionally good at that business.

Although I think you are right to try and find a balance in your assessment of Mrs Thatcher, I don't agree with all your arguments.

On the Unions -there is no doubt that the Unions alienated the country both before 1979 and after it, but it came out of an adversarial relationship that had developed between management and the workforce over the best part of a century. This created an 'us and them' attitude that is absent for example in Germany where workers sit on the boards of companies and solve problems together with management -it doesn't meant there aren't strikes in Germany, but it does mean the relationship is based on mutual respect, where in the UK it was mutual loathing -the nadir was reached in the Miner's strike with the absurd antics that took place between Arthur Scargill and Ian MacGregor. Ultimately, what has destroyed union power is a collapse in membership, the evaporation of jobs in heavy industry, and different ways of working in which management and workers feel they are trying to do the same thing, and that came more from Japanese industrialists in the motor industry which was once at the epicentre of conflict.

I also disagree with the influence you think she had on the Cold War. If you recall the 1980s you will recall how the first part was shot through with aggressive rhetoric on both sides, how the deployment of cruise missiles in the UK was believed to have raised tensions to unacceptable levels not felt by some people since the Cuban crisis -some of the CND demonstrations in the 1980s were colossal events and had to be moved to Hyde Park because Trafalgar Square wasn't big enough. In other words, Cold War tensions in this period were intensified, so where was the momentum that led, by 1989, to the end of the Cold War altogether? The answer lies in Moscow, not London or Washington. And it began when Gorbachev emerged as General Secretary in 1985 -yes, Thatcher was impressed with him when they met, and it was her influence on Ronald Reagan that softened up the US when most of Reagan's close advisers were sceptical and later watched on in horror as Reagan decided to negotiate away American missiles to a Communist - but if you look at the broader view, without Gorbachev the end of the Cold War would have been delayed -there were hardliners on the Politburo who were opposed to Gorbachev and had they blocked his promotion after 1985 it might have been different -as it was they delayed their fightback to 1991 by which time the game was over for Russian communism. It was doomed anyway, as the most astute observers knew for years.

[jennylicious]

Although I think you are right to try and find a balance in your assessment of Mrs Thatcher, I don't agree with all your arguments.

On the Unions -there is no doubt that the Unions alienated the country both before 1979 and after it, but it came out of an adversarial relationship that had developed between management and the workforce over the best part of a century. This created an 'us and them' attitude that is absent for example in Germany where workers sit on the boards of companies and solve problems together with management -it doesn't meant there aren't strikes in Germany, but it does mean the relationship is based on mutual respect, where in the UK it was mutual loathing -the nadir was reached in the Miner's strike with the absurd antics that took place between Arthur Scargill and Ian MacGregor. Ultimately, what has destroyed union power is a collapse in membership, the evaporation of jobs in heavy industry, and different ways of working in which management and workers feel they are trying to do the same thing, and that came more from Japanese industrialists in the motor industry which was once at the epicentre of conflict.

I also disagree with the influence you think she had on the Cold War. If you recall the 1980s you will recall how the first part was shot through with aggressive rhetoric on both sides, how the deployment of cruise missiles in the UK was believed to have raised tensions to unacceptable levels not felt by some people since the Cuban crisis -some of the CND demonstrations in the 1980s were colossal events and had to be moved to Hyde Park because Trafalgar Square wasn't big enough. In other words, Cold War tensions in this period were intensified, so where was the momentum that led, by 1989, to the end of the Cold War altogether? The answer lies in Moscow, not London or Washington. And it began when Gorbachev emerged as General Secretary in 1985 -yes, Thatcher was impressed with him when they met, and it was her influence on Ronald Reagan that softened up the US when most of Reagan's close advisers were sceptical and later watched on in horror as Reagan decided to negotiate away American missiles to a Communist - but if you look at the broader view, without Gorbachev the end of the Cold War would have been delayed -there were hardliners on the Politburo who were opposed to Gorbachev and had they blocked his promotion after 1985 it might have been different -as it was they delayed their fightback to 1991 by which time the game was over for Russian communism. It was doomed anyway, as the most astute observers knew for years.

I can't really comment on what changed the unions, but I was simply expressing that the belief that Thatcher crushed our unions, or that the belief that we were an industrial powerhouse before she took over is ridiculous. There a joke where I used to live about the local car plant that if there was a home game on a Wednesday afternoon, the factory would all be out by lunchtime. I don't know what happened, but sometime between the 70s and 90s, many unions grew up a bit. Those that chose to take on Thatcher by striking didn't appreciate that people refusing to work would have as much effect on changing her mind than putting a bomb in her bathroom. The fact is, the only language Thatcher spoke was diplomacy, and even then so rarely it's difficult for anyone to easily suggest an instance.

On the subject of the Cold War, her influence can be seen by a simple review of historical facts, starting with 1981 during the deployment of the Cruise missiles. It's important to note, that had the deployment to Britain happened or not, tensions would be no different, since missiles were also cited in the more provocative positions of West Germany and Italy.

1981 - PSYOP is launched. The U.S begins to flex it's muscles on Soviet borders in an attempt to bring further subterfuge.

1981 - Operation RYAN seeks to build up the key indicators of an attack of the West.

(Here we have two operations of the Cold war. One to build paranoia, and one to act on it. The U.S. still do this today, hence the plane coming down in Chinese airspace at the start of GWB Jnrs tenure).

1982 - The Walk in the Woods sees an arms agreement made by Nitze and Kvitsinsky, which is both declined by the Soviets, and Reagan declines at the advice of his Department of Defence.

1982 - Andropov takes over and starts suggesting initiatives to reduce arms. America reject it outright.

1983 - January, The U.S make the Walk in the Woods known and suggest that while it had been rejected, their door was not closed.

1983 - February, Operation RYAN Second phase. Ryan becomes priority and it is stated that there is a "sense of urgency". This being the operation to detect a U.S strike....

1983 - March, The US reiterate essentially the Nato dual track decision, which receives a similar rebuttal to the one it got in 1979.

1983 May, The US hold their biggest every military exercise in the Northwest pacific. 40 ships, including 3 battle air craft carriers pass from viewable distance of a key Soviet base: Petropavlovsk. They simulate submarine destruction in an exact area inhabited by Soviet submarines. Planes simulate a bombing run over a Soviet military base on the island of Zelenny. - Soviet air defence are put on alert until the end of the Summer.

1983 May, Andropov restates his desire to negotiate the missile positions.

1983 August, The U.S. and Nato reiterate that continued deployment would be the only way to achieve their goals. The Soviets indicate they would react with countermeasures if deployment continued.

1983 August, Andropov restates his desire to negotiate.

1983 September, KAL 007 is shot. The PSYOP operation had resulted in the Soviets shooting a passenger jet out of the sky. Questions over what airspace were never answered. The U.S. looked for the black box. The Soviets declared they were also looking, although it is now know that they had it.

1983 September, Thatcher enters the fray for the first time. She visits Washington and is met by Reagan who has notes which clearly state they were unprepared to discuss Cold War policy. She promotes a shift in policy at the annual dinner for the Churchill Foundation Award in Washington...Reagan and Thatcher discuss Cold War policy...

1983 November, Operation Able Archer. This fulfils the key indicators suggested by RYAN are identified by the Soviets. A double agent working for British intelligence informs the West that the Soviets believed an attack was imminent.

1983 November, Thatcher informs Reagan the arms talks, their strategic operations, their provocative actions across borders could have destroyed the world. The American intelligence and his senior political aides dismiss this information and do not believe that the Soviets actually believe the good old U.S. of A. would ever be seen as an aggressor.

(There are no further PSYOP operations after this date...)

End of 1983, Reagan recounts in his memoirs how he finally heard and understood that the Soviets see the U.S.A as a serious threat. An opinion not held by his advisors, or his intelligence, but one communicated to him through Margaret Thatcher based on the British Intelligence of Oleg Gordievsky.


1984 February - Andropov becomes ill and indicates Gorbachev as his successor. This is explicitly ignored and when Arkady Volsky questions this and suggests that he will phone Andropov if it is not mentioned, he is told it would be the last call he ever made.

Oleg Gordievsky informs the UK that the man the West can trust is either Gorbachev or Grigory Romanov.

1984 February - Thatcher attends Andropov's funeral, shuns Chernenko, meets Gorbachev and invites him to London.

1984 November - Cherenko invites Neil Kinnock to Moscow. (...and now we're playing political pass the parcel) Chernenko announces that the Labour parties unilateral policy will result in them reducing an equal amount of arms.

1984 December - Thatcher meets Gorbachev and despite arguing over everything, the conversation turns to the Cold war and she spends time convincing him that Reagan is man he can trust.

1984 December - Thatcher phones Reagan, and spends time convincing him that Gorbachev is a man he can trust.

1984 December - Thatcher informs the world media that she likes Mr Gorbachev and feels he is a man she can do business with, in what is a really strong message to the Soviet Union.

1984 December - Thatcher travels to Washington to spend more time convincing Reagan that Gorbachev is the man they can trust.

Let us review that. The start of 1980s saw many people wanting to come to a compromise, but with Reagan listening to his Department of Defence and ultimately creating a numbers war, he positioned the U.S in such a way to make the Soviet Union completely paranoid.

Despite Andropov wanting to come to a solution because he was already aware that the Soviet Union were in financial problems, there was trust and diplomacy issues. A combination of Soviet operations and U.S. PSYOPS operations, accidents and failing to agree politically led to British Intelligence reporting that the situation could lead to the mistake by on side that would be everyone's last one. Thatcher was responsible for listening to the intelligence, getting external opinion, and ignoring her own Foreign Office. She then convinced Reagan that yes, the Soviet Union did believe America wanted a war and they needed to change their body language. She helped change the atmosphere which made way for the future.

She then used her intelligence to actively sought someone in the Soviet Union to begin the talks, and publicly endorsed him as the man to do it while convincing the President that he was someone that they could trust.

People talk about how exceptional she was in seeing Gorbachev's potential despite arguing so much with him at their initial meeting, but taking into account she had already been debriefed by her double agent, it really was just an interview situation for her. She needed to meet him and sound him out before she went (straight) to Reagan to discuss what to do next.

It was almost luck the Gorbachev got in shortly afterwards. He had a really mediocre CV, but it did have one more endorsement from a foreign female Prime Minister on it than he had the last time his name was put forward.

She was very pro-Nuclear weapons, and believed them to be the ultimate deterrent, but she was very anti-"blowing people up over misunderstandings" Her movements in 1983 and 1984 essentially stopped the Cold War in its tracks and helped forged a climate where it could be ended. This is why Gorbachev, Reagan, The US Government, The CIA, The British government, and talks about her being significant in this.

If the you want to think otherwise, that's up to you.