Indeed privatizing it may have saved it or at least saved the British taxpayers from supporting increasingly uncompetative organizations. I do think there are some enterprises that should be governement run but industry isn't one of them.
Well our highly efficient utility companies are mainly German and French owned and rip us off whilst making enormous profits for their shareholders, are trains are shocking, expensive, privately owned and still enormously funded by my taxes. I agree there were massive inefficiences in our industry but the wicked witch's way of "improving" it was to destroy it. Nothing anyone can say will change my view of her but in the spirit of the forum you're welcome to try.
My friend I'm from Oxford, my Brother worked and many friends worked at Cowley, my Dad in the car industry supply chain. None do now (to be fair my Dad's retired and even I can't blame Thatcher for that). Once 15,000 worked there, now it's about 3,000 and they work for BMW. The shattering effect on the local economy of the closure of most of the Leyland plant can still be felt and seen in the towns of the County I still consider home
Revealing discussion. I'm in the US and I'd say the "Iron Lady" has a good reputation here, and it seems anywhere outside the UK as far as I know. Apparently internally she was a much more divisive person than I was aware. Brings to mind that idiot/patriot Bush Jr and that idiot/patriot Obama here, depending on who you ask. Externaly leaders make universally good impression don't they? Internally is always different story. Will dig into Thatcher's record a bit deeper now, time to make myself a bit more worldly.
This sounds to me like the problem wasn't the privatization it is the lack of regulatory control. When a corporation gets big enough or effectivly has a monopoly then the government has to exert some reasonable amount of control to protect individuals and small businesses. It can be a real balancing act, certainly it's not a trivial problem.
I consider Clinton a douche, and Obama as well but there are so many who will defend and worship them both to the end regardless of what they did. I guess that depends on whether the considerer is a liberal or a conservative. When either one kicks the bucket, I probably won't shed a tear but I won't throw a party or be charged with excessive celebration either.
Margaret Thatcher: the great disrupter was bound to bequeath a divided nation Britain's first female prime minister polarised opinion in her life. Little has changed with her death Share1 inShare0 Email Editorial The Observer, Sunday 14 April 2013 Over the past six days, Britain has been forced to take the temperature of its body politic, aroused from a deep democratic slumber by the emotions that the death of Baroness Thatcher unleashed. We are, as a nation, profoundly divided. While many are protesting strongly against her "heinous legacy", many others are proud to don black. For her supporters, she was the woman who saved Britain and restored the country's pride and economic fortunes. To them, she was one of our greatest political leaders of modern history, who regained a global role for the country and forged a new dynamic economic contract, bringing "power to the people", eliminating industrial strife, shaking the UK free from its sclerosis – and she was, in turn, rewarded with three electoral victories and an 11-year-rule. To her detractors, she wielded an almost medieval power, damaging communities still not recovered or reconciled 30 years on. She is the woman who wounded the unions, opened the doors wide to a neoliberal, materialistic individualism, ushered in a new era of toxic Toryism, laid waste to the country's manufacturing base, introduced privatisation and deregulated the City, leading to the economic and banking catastrophes of recent times. The sound and fury, the acrimony and opprobrium that has signalled this exercise in revisionism by all sides is an ironic endorsement of the very divisiveness that was an essential part of the Thatcher brand. It has also culminated in, at times, a surreal and inquisitorial media hunt for individuals seen to be showing a lack of respect, including those who gathered at yesterday's Trafalgar Square demonstration: anarchists, socialists, former miners, retired Class War warriors and anti-Thatcher party goers, citizens all. Inevitably, also in the sights of the critics is that recurring target, the BBC. This has culminated in the surreal decision that today's Radio 1Chart Show will play only five seconds of the song from The Wizard of Oz that may reach the top of the charts, Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead. Those who fought most vociferously to have it banned are among those who fought so passionately to resist any Leveson-led censorship in the recent debate over press regulation. Banning things is easy. Tolerating views that challenge our own is more difficult. But a mark of a healthy, pluralistic democracy is surely one that can tolerate a juvenile if distasteful prank. Thatcher would have championed the democratic right of individuals to express their views however they so choose, within the law. How Thatcher will be commemorated in the longer run remains to be seen. Last Wednesday, Labour leader Ed Miliband, in a well calibrated tribute in the House of Commons, provided a reminder of how many barriers a grocer's daughter from Grantham had to overcome. The member for Finchley for 33 years was a candidate for Parliament in 1950 in Dartford, at the age of only 24. The only woman in the cabinet when she was appointed in 1970. And Britain's first and so far only female prime minister. "Having broken so many conventions as a woman," Miliband said, "it can't be a coincidence that she was someone who in so many other areas of life was willing to take on the established orthodoxies … she believed that ideology mattered. She said, 'Consensus doesn't give you any direction. It is like mixing all the constituent ingredients together and not coming out with a cake. Democracy is about the people being given a choice.'" Already, in formulating the first drafts of history, her followers are anxious to iron out the contradictions and inconsistencies. But they are as much part of her legacy as her convictions and obsessions – she left intact, for instance, the NHS when rolling back the state. They reveal the pragmatism that she displayed often, waiting her time, for instance, before, in 1984, taking on the miners. Likewise, her critics often ignore her achievements – and the challenges she faced. She choose, for instance, to disregard how the 70s had become a moribund decade of "dysfunction, decay, demoralisation and drabness". "There is no future in England's dreaming," roared the punk band the Sex Pistols in God Save the Queen. Then, as now, the postwar consensus was already fraying because capitalism, for the first time since the 50s, could no longer deliver on the promise of continual improvement to living standards, as inflation soared. Workers constantly went on strike to defend their livelihoods, scalping two prime ministers in the process. Industrial relations were sclerotic, union barons stopping and starting the economy and holding power with extensive restrictive practices that stifled growth. At the same time, the state's ownership stretched quaintly from Gleneagles hotel to include all the utilities, airports, canals and the post office. The consumer was the pauper in the system, poorly treated by trains that ran late, phones that failed to work and waits for hospital appointments that could last hours. Steve Hilton, Cameron's former head of strategy, says in his innovative argot that Thatcher was a "disrupter". She shook up rather than conserved. But in doing so, she also imprisoned herself and her successors in a tight corset of ideology. The often painful consequences of her policies have also meant that toxicity is hard to expunge from the Tory image. The north of England, Wales and Scotland have – since her time in office – become barren areas for Conservatives seeking election. Ironically, some of her staunchest supporters seem not to have noticed that her legacy has cost them dearly in electoral terms and almost certainly deprived them of more parliamentary majorities. Hilton last week hailed her transformative power when he said: "Being reasonable doesn't get you very far. In government, it is unreasonableness that improves people's lives." But when Hilton was sending Cameron off to hug a husky or a hoodie, he must have been aware that he was trying to detoxify a brand that had become "unreasonable". And being "unreasonable" is how so many commentators ended up last week, with two tribes fighting old battles, kicking up much dirt, raising their voices but adding little of nuance, or even reason, to the debate over her legacy. In 1945, Thatcher read Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. He was in favour of a small state, no centralised control, low taxes, privatisation. In his view, collectivism led to socialism and totalitarianism. Unemployment would be the price of keeping down inflation. Thatcher married those neoliberal beliefs to her Christian conviction and her espousal of the Victorian virtues of thrift, self-help and responsibility. She told one interviewer that poverty was essentially self-inflicted, a matter of lack of "character". Her views cast a long shadow over today's welfare reforms. However, it would be myth-making to believe that it was the force of her ideas alone that burnished her reputation. She was also fortuitous in the timing of her arrival in power. North Sea oil poured billions into the Treasury coffers. Unlike Norway, that money was not put into a trust to finance pensions and social welfare; instead, in part, it subsidised the rising benefits bills of what would become 3 million unemployed. Thatcher was fortunate in both the calibre (or lack of it) of her opponents and her fans, Arthur Scargill, General Galtieri in the Falklands, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. In addition, she faced a riven opposition. And Labour's timidity goes some way to explaining the rise of Thatcher. Labour had considered including the sale of council houses in its 1959 manifesto but, showing a lack of spine not for the first time, it decided not to upset its activists. In 1969, it failed to introduce reform of the unions when it refused to implement Barbara Castle's In Place of Strife white paper. These issues only came back, in more vigorous form, under a Thatcher government. So how would an initial audit of Thatcher's 11 years in office weigh up? In spite of the rhetoric, public spending during her rule never fell below 39% of GDP, so the frontiers of the state were only very partially rolled back. She abolished state controls, deregulated the City with the "Big Bang" of 1986, sold more than a million council houses, reduced inflation from over 10% when she came to power in 1979 to 2.4% in 1986. The top rate of tax fell from 83% to 40% and the days lost to strikes dropped from an incredible 29 million in 1979 to a mere 2 million seven years later. These were undoubtedly measures of success – but at a personal cost for millions that continues to be felt today. And her advocacy of freedom had its limits. She constantly reined in local government, abolishing the Greater London Council in the process. She refused to allow local authorities to replace or repair social housing. Privatisation also had its successes but its disasters too. As James Meek – formerly of this parish – has pointed out previously, her privatisation programme was supposed to be about giving "power back to the people". But as he noted recently: "It's clear that the result of privatisation was to take power away from the people. Small British shareholders have no influence over the overwhelmingly non-British owners of the firms that generate and distribute power in Britain." The same is true of many of Britain's privatised companies now owned and run by foreign investors and management. And in a timely reminder of just how we Britons benefited from privatisation, yesterday six big energy suppliers were accused by the industry regulator Ofgem of "cold-blooded profiteering", averaging £95 profit per household. Steel, coal, shipbuilding and manufacturing were all brutally pruned or axed altogether. In 1979, more than 7 million had been employed in manufacturing; 14 years later, that figure had dropped to 4.4 million and the mushrooming service sector couldn't absorb them all. In the eight years to 1987, employment fell by 1.3 million in the north and increased by 3,500 in the south, a regional disparity that Labour failed to properly address during its 13 years in charge. Equally, to blame Thatcher's right-to-buy policy for the housing crisis that currently afflicts Britain is to ignore the fact that, among others, the Labour party spent many years in government not addressing this issue. But there was nothing inevitable about Thatcher's "unreasonableness", even allowing for Britain's particular problems at that time. Other countries, without her moral crusade, made more compassionate transitions. Germany, for instance, has retained a strong manufacturing base, has low youth unemployment, works co-operatively with unions and has a more diversified economy. Mitterrand supported France's manufacturing base with subsidies, though Britain and France's industrial decline over the next 20 years was almost identical, which suggests that a different, less disruptive approach might have delivered the same dividend. Without the rancour. Thatcher has rightly been lauded for her intolerance of eastern Europe's repressive regimes and she was instinctively right to rail against regimes that brutalised opponents, refused democratic reforms and withheld basic personal freedoms from many. But the moral compass she deployed surveying the USSR and its client states served her less well on other international journeys. Among those she admired and supported were a number of men distinguished only by the craven brutality they showed in domestic affairs. Dictators such as General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, Pol Pot of Cambodia and Chile's Augusto Pinochet. So will Thatcherism become a small foot-note in history or will it have a long lasting effect, pulling the centre ground to the right on a permanent basis, as Stuart Hall, the man who coined the phrase "Thatcherism", originally warned in 1979? On Wednesday, Thatcher will be accorded due ceremony for her unique contribution to British history. For now, a degree of harmony has been established amid the ongoing discord, focused on her qualities of courage, determination, stoicism and authenticity. Last week's rancour and division was dispiriting. There was much that was discordant about Britain in the years immediately before and during her years in government. But last week was a salutary lesson in how discord in politics also infects society. Different communities across Britain were affected in very different ways by Thatcher's time in office. Last week was a reminder that if you set out to be a "disrupter" then disruption may well follow. The animosity that broke out last week is a long way from the vision of a Big Society that many community-minded Conservatives strive for. Some of what Thatcher set out to do needed to be done. More of what she did had unforeseen and unfortunate consequences. The free market was unleashed, with no thought to the regulatory checks needed to weigh against excess. But very little of what she did had to be executed in the tone and register in which she operated. The problem with being "unreasonable" is that it lacks reason. THE END...until Wednesday of course....
I'm not going to get into British politics or anyone else's. We have enough silliness to deal with here. I don't know enough about it and it won't effect me over here one iota if I did or not. Seems like a lot of Great Britain's current prosperity could be based on the changes she put into place during her term in office eh?
I'm a liberal, so that explains my politics, however, I cheer no ones death. Both Clinton and Obama are to my liking. I agree.
I agree full-heatedly, Lou. I am conservative on most issues, but I wouldn't celebrate any politician's death. I think most people would agree that most politicians -- regardless of beliefs/party -- are trying to do what they believe if best for their country or their people. Before anyone jumps on this, think about it. I'm not talking about people who rise to become dictators, I'm talking about democracies. I said this same thing a few years back when one of the Canadian members (who is no longer active) started ranting about how PM Stephan Harper is purposely trying to destroy Canada. I disagree with many politicians/politicos (some vehemently), but to celebrate a death is a outrageous. There's a line between debate and verbal war. This seems to be crossed all too often nowadays, and Thatcher is the perfect example of this. I'm all for an intelligent debate, but I can't stand it when thing degree into a vebral war, with both sides exchanging jabs and soundbite-sized attacks. Its cowardly that many of the Thatcher-bashers only start to make a stink after she died. She was PM thirty years ago -- you're telling me it is worthwhile to take hours out of your day to celebrate her passing? This is more important than the issues out there today? To speak about it on a online forum is one thing, but to literally party in the streets is shameful.
I respect your opinion, Alan. I think most democratic politicians, regardless of their position, feel that their ideas are best. I might disagree with them, but I am old enough to have lived through many, and I and my country are still here. Most times, the leader has little impact on my life, so I tend to ignore them. I feel bad that so many feel they have to vent their spleen as bashers, no matter what politics they profess.
Its cowardly that many of the Thatcher-bashers only start to make a stink after she died. She was PM thirty years ago -- you're telling me it is worthwhile to take hours out of your day to celebrate her passing? This is more important than the issues out there today? To speak about it on a online forum is one thing, but to literally party in the streets is shameful. Where have you been for the last 30 years...She has had outspoken opinion about her since she resigned...or rather her own cowards ejected her. A58. There is enough opinion on the liberalising of the City of London and today's woes to argue the financial point. What most forget is that luck played a massive part in her success...North Sea oil was just arriving ashore in barrels and barrels. Any govt would have made good use of the revenues and future revenues this was about to make to the exchequer. If folk want no argument, if folk want to dismiss the thoughts and views of others, and if folk wish to skew the history of this nation and if folk wish to ignore and debase the views of half the nation then they should not throw stones in glass houses...As I've said elsewhere..I wish this thread like others had not been started...Respect in death and its announcing is one thing...which is why I posted the original message of her death without comment. But for others to then think they have the right to put forward a skewed personal view and a political one then accept that others have a response to that. This again...is not Stalinist Russia. Enough of us pulled on uniforms to make sure that was never the case. Margaret Thatcher rest in peace..
I haven't heard of yearly 'parties' celebrating her resignation. In fact, I haven't even heard of anyone complaining about her with this vigor before (well, besides the Argentinian President). Then again, I'm not in the UK, so this might not be accurate. The way I see it is that as soon as she died, everyone came out of the woodwork to "celebrate". I don't mean to start an argument, but taking advantage of one's death to further a political agenda is just wrong (I don't care what side of the issue they are on -- and some of the comments in the Ted Kennedy thread were sad).
The course that the government took under Thatcher's leadership had to be by Parliament, just like the silly sh1t that comes out of Congress here. They are just as much to blame as she is over what should and should've been done back then.
