This is the really sad thing for me. Regardless of what you make of her politics, she was a woman of conviction. Politicians in the 21st century don't seem to have a clear vision for what this country should be. They just say whatever the f*** they think will win votes, as Nick Clegg demonstrated with the tuition fees. Somebody like that can never make a great leader. I think that's why Thatcher's fans seem to hold her in absolute reverence and even some of her detractors have a degree of begrudging respect for her. Who will be getting so passionate about David Cameron when he carks it decades from now? Or Gordon Brown. Very few people I'd imagine.

 

 

Strong assertive leadership is pointless when the people hold that attitude are blinkered by ideology. HBOS and all of the other defunkt banks were run by strong assertive people who suffered fools gladly and ignored sound advice from people who's job it was to warn of risks. Believe me, local government is similarly "thatcherite" decide politically and jump in based on ideology, sack staff who talk sense and warn of problems as is in their jon spec. Those sort of people don't want to hear negativity, and they are the ones that cause the truly massive catastrophes. Like banking.

 

I'd much prefer a competent sane leader who has the best interests of all it's people at heart, not a rich minority. Just my preference obviously, maybe one day we'll get one.

I think that Thatcher and Blair killed off the "clear vision of a country" image for politicians. They were both so controversial and divisive in their decisions that politicians guessed that not going down that route would get them a better chance of being respected.

I think it's the other side of Blair's persona that's been more influential - all three party leaders are effectively stale version of early Blair in their delivery and PR.

Quite. Blair and Alastair Campbell are effectively responsible for politics becoming as much about spin and celebrity as actual policy. If not more so.

 

It's cyclical though, the electorate is visibly becoming tired of the same band of seemingly identikit politicians. It just needs something new to finish it off.

Quite. Blair and Alastair Campbell are effectively responsible for politics becoming as much about spin and celebrity as actual policy. If not more so.

 

Bernard Ingham got there first.

Strong assertive leadership is pointless when the people hold that attitude are blinkered by ideology. HBOS and all of the other defunkt banks were run by strong assertive people who suffered fools gladly and ignored sound advice from people who's job it was to warn of risks. Believe me, local government is similarly "thatcherite" decide politically and jump in based on ideology, sack staff who talk sense and warn of problems as is in their jon spec. Those sort of people don't want to hear negativity, and they are the ones that cause the truly massive catastrophes. Like banking.

 

I'd much prefer a competent sane leader who has the best interests of all it's people at heart, not a rich minority. Just my preference obviously, maybe one day we'll get one.

If nothing else, Thatcher revelled in discussion and combatitive dialogue, there are more than enough demonstrations of this. If you had a good enough argument she could be won over.

Please elaborate on your views of why the trade unions were too strong in 1979? I think they needed reorganised but now works have much less rights and are poorer as a result which is a bad thing - having 30 year mortages doesnt help them though!!

They were far too powerful and had huge control over labour. Sorry bit Striking all the time is just selfish. Labour had no backbone, they were pouring money in to a flailing industry

They were far too powerful and had huge control over labour. Sorry bit Striking all the time is just selfish. Labour had no backbone, they were pouring money in to a flailing industry

And now our workers have the worst rights in the developed world. Makes you think she went a bit far, doesn't it?

And now our workers have the worst rights in the developed world. Makes you think she went a bit far, doesn't it?

Certainly makes you think the trade unions went too far in the first place.

Certainly makes you think the trade unions went too far in the first place.

That's no excuse for going too far in the other direction

Not an excuse, a reason.

It's not a good reason either.

 

There is no doubt that union power needed to be curbed. However, the emasculation of unions has had far reaching consequences. Even with a minimum wage there are millions of people in work who rely on benefits to maintain a reasonable standard of living. That has been a major factor in the increase in the cost of benefits. It seems to me to be undeniable that anyone in full time employment has a right to expect to be able to have a decent standard of living without having to rely on benefits. We are a long way from that state at the moment.

Certainly makes you think the trade unions went too far in the first place.

I'm going to assume that you're not saying what that's insinuating to my eyes.

If nothing else, Thatcher revelled in discussion and combatitive dialogue, there are more than enough demonstrations of this. If you had a good enough argument she could be won over.

 

Hmmm, not sure about that. In the end her own party booted her out for not listening, not the electorate....?

Hmmm, not sure about that. In the end her own party booted her out for not listening, not the electorate....?

She became over confident in the end. As many have pointed out in their tributes, it happens all too often with leaders who spend too long in office. They become cocky and lose sight of the bigger picture.

 

Why is George Bush not going even though he was invited, is he ill?

Why is George Bush not going even though he was invited, is he ill?

Which one? Bush Snr is 89 so may well not be fit enough to travel across the Atlantic twice withiin a few days. Bush Jnr (Shrub) will barely have known her.

Brian Blessed and Ken on HIGNFY. Deep joy.

What really galled is that Thatcher promised to only close a few very unprofitable mines, then when she'd destroyed the unions she closed the lot just to rub it in.

 

On a side note, she was the most unpopular PM of all-time and doomed to lose the next election - until the Falklands. Guess who decided to withdraw our naval ship (protecting the Falklands from Argentina rhetoric for years) just as the junta there got particularly snarky and belligerent? Yes, Thatcher. Previous governments had managed to avoid war. Funny that leaders who go to wars (as long as they are short) are seen as somehow "great". Almost as if she knew....

They were pretty much ALL very unprofitable. Don't get me wrong - she should have done far more to help the communities cope with the havoc she wrought (at least investing in the long-term in them rather than leaving them to only be supported by employment from the service sector), but there was very little sustainable about the coal industry. Not that it was the greatest of industries to be supporting anyway, given how environmentally damaging coal is.

 

Additionally, she wasn't quite doomed. The economy was very much on the up in 1983 for the median voter (obviously not for those who were unemployed at the time, but they weren't likely to be voting for her anyway), and Michael Foot was hardly the most appealing alternative.

 

Saved the country? Nope, she screwed up the housing market which is why many young people will never be able to afford to buy a house. The trains in this country are a complete mess because they are now supposed to make a profit rather than providing a service and gas prices have never been any higher. Prices keep going up, but the rich are ok, so frankly nothing will be done about it.

Most of this I'd agree with, but just to be pedantic the railways weren't actually privatised under Thatcher - that was one that came under Major :P

 

AH.

 

The viewing figures for the tributes to Thatcher were less than 3 million last night. That's not very high for a former Prime Minister, which shows that the media are not in touch with what the public really want.

Really? I doubt any other Prime Minister (other than one currently serving) would get that much. Tributes to a public figure aren't exactly normally ratings hits.

 

I find any comparison with Stalin et al quite ludicrous and find it difficult to take seriously anybody making that argument. Let's compare like for like, rather than a divisive leader without an evil dictator. I think she is best compared to Reagan. Similar policies, ideologies and leadership ability.

 

What makes me really angry is that people have so much loathing for Thatcher, but no doubt when Blair dies he will be remembered as a hero rather than the outrageous bullshitter of a war criminal he is. Whatever you thought about Thatcher, at least she was open and honest about her intentions. That Blair deliberately deceived us into going to war and is still profiting from that deceit, making millions from giving talks around the world, makes me quite ill. But the sheep-like public can only make simple associations like "right wing = evil" and "left = jolly lovely". I probably sound very right wing myself now. I'm not. I just loathe Blair and think for people to condemn Thatcher as the worst PM ever, when her (perceived) crimes have nothing on Tony's, is infuriating.

 

Blair's hardly getting millions for talks and advisory roles because of the Iraq War. I imagine being a former Prime Minister probably has far more to do with that. And AS BLOODY IF he'll be remembered as a HERO when he dies! He wasn't exactly perceived as all that left wing either.

 

And for the record, my opinion on Blair is pretty much identical to my opinion on Thatcher. I abhor both of them.

You abhor someone who's responsible for ensuring you get a minimum wage in any work you choose to do, put a fuck-tonne of investment into both education and the NHS, and who changed it so you were FINALLY taught that it didn't matter if you loved HIM or CAPITAL H-I-M?

 

Put your FUCKING PAWS UP!

 

Her reputation as an election winner is slightly warped, '79 is one thing but '83 and '87 were entirely reliant upon a split opposition - and obviously the Falklands with the former. It's hard to argue that she was crushingly popular, despite the parliamentary majorities.

 

Regardless, I think it's dismissive to regard the 1983 Labour manifesto as a joke. It was undoubtedly brave, perhaps a little naive but it could have easily seen them elected in differing circumstances and set a new political agenda as Thatcherism did.

I wouldn't even really say that her victories in '83 and '87 were entirely reliant upon a split opposition - SDP/Alliance voters when polled consistently split about 50/50 between Labour and the Tories in terms of who they'd have voted for if the Alliance weren't in existence (let's not forget that the SDP was formed as a response to how left-wing the Labour Party had gotten - people voting for them wouldn't exactly have been rushing to vote for Labour were the option not there), so Thatcher would almost certainly have won regardless.

 

Michael Foot was pretty much totally unelectable in 1983. The only manifesto close to being comparable to '83 was the October '74 one, which we narrowly won with against the joke of an opposition that was the Heath Tories (hardly a leader up there in the commanding stakes with Thatcher) and which didn't exactly deliver a positive outcome for the British people. The '83 manifesto was a total joke in its irrelevance to where the country was at the time - there was definitely room for a party which opposed high unemployment, privatisation, and cuts to health and education, but we basically told the country that they could only have this if they were also willing to support a withdrawal from the European Economic Community, unilateral nuclear disarmament at one of the tensest points of the Cold War, and the adoption of what was for all intents and purposes a siege economy, all whacked in to satisfy the Militant tendency who were busy trying to argue that we'd lost the 1979 election to the most right-wing government seen until then because we hadn't been left wing enough!

 

Plus, Gerald Kaufman's hardly a RENOWNED Blairite! :D And that Michael Foot had huge poll leads up until the formation of the Alliance is more testament to how easily you can rack up a poll lead against an unpopular government by virtue of being the opposition than the popularity of his message. The Alliance overtaking him in the polls should have been a pretty big sign of this - but then, it would be unfair to blame Foot entirely, given the manifesto used to be entirely decided by conference at the time. Fair enough - the Lib Dems still do the same so far as I know - but it didn't produce the manifesto we needed given we were dominated by a group from outside the Labour Party which had decided to join specifically to influence it towards their views.

 

Please elaborate on your views of why the trade unions were too strong in 1979? I think they needed reorganised but now works have much less rights and are poorer as a result which is a bad thing - having 30 year mortages doesnt help them though!!

Being able to hold strikes without balloting members, and the closed shop which meant you had to be a member of a given union before you were employed by certain companies, were both entirely wrong and where they were too strong in 1979. Not that that justifies a lot of what else Thatcher did to the union movement, but the trade unions were far too strong at the time.