The main thing I don't understand is how Thatcher's supporters insist that her impact is so great and that everyone agreed that her policies were right and so they've been continued since she left office, AND YET, at the same time, she doesn't deserve any blame for the financial crash and the economy being f***ed today. It can't be both ways :lol: If her policies were continued then obviously she is to blame, or if her policies WEREN'T continued (and I think pretty much everyone agrees New Labour did largely continue her policies, even Thatcher herself when she said her greatest legacy was Tony Blair), then obviously her long-term impact wasn't as profound as her supporters claim. But it's one or the other.

 

Leading off from that, I also don't get why everyone assumes her policies (only relying on markets and the financial sector, low taxes for the rich, not letting the public sector provide jobs, etc.) are going to be permanent. I mean, they've "only" been in place for 35 years, which in a historical context actually isn't that long at all. In fact, if you look at Britain's pattern since World War 2, we had 35 years of socialism between 1945 and 1979 (adopted by Labour and Conservative governments through that whole period), now 35 years of Thatcherite/"neo-liberal" economics, so on that pattern we're due the next era to start anytime now.

Perhaps Ed Miliband's attempts to move the Labour party more to the left will work then?

The main thing I don't understand is how Thatcher's supporters insist that her impact is so great and that everyone agreed that her policies were right and so they've been continued since she left office, AND YET, at the same time, she doesn't deserve any blame for the financial crash and the economy being f***ed today. It can't be both ways :lol: If her policies were continued then obviously she is to blame, or if her policies WEREN'T continued (and I think pretty much everyone agrees New Labour did largely continue her policies, even Thatcher herself when she said her greatest legacy was Tony Blair), then obviously her long-term impact wasn't as profound as her supporters claim. But it's one or the other.

 

Leading off from that, I also don't get why everyone assumes her policies (only relying on markets and the financial sector, low taxes for the rich, not letting the public sector provide jobs, etc.) are going to be permanent. I mean, they've "only" been in place for 35 years, which in a historical context actually isn't that long at all. In fact, if you look at Britain's pattern since World War 2, we had 35 years of socialism between 1945 and 1979 (adopted by Labour and Conservative governments through that whole period), now 35 years of Thatcherite/"neo-liberal" economics, so on that pattern we're due the next era to start anytime now.

In relation to your first point concepts and ideologies have been developed and expanded into other areas which she didn't think about, i.e privitisation of the railways, post office etc which might not have worked so well. In relation to the banks the deregulation she introduced in the mid 80s was not comparable in scope to the changes that Gordon Brown subsequentlybrought in (the useless FSA for example), you can accept an idea then go too far with it. Incidentally Thatcher was joking (yes it's possible) according to sources who were there when she made the quip about Tony Blair being her greatest legacy. I don't assert that all her policies were right (it's pretty hard to defend the poll tax as anything but political suicide for example) but many of them were necessary at the time.

 

As for your second point only the future will be able to tell us that, if someone comes up with a better philosophy then I'm sure that we'll have another "big idea".

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.

 

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.

Regardless of Michael Foot's lack of electability, there will forever be question marks over what would have happened in '83 had it not been for the Falklands and the sudden flip in support between the two main parties. Had we hit the run-up to the election with a healthy lead, I could have seen the manifesto (perhaps counterintuitively) being slightly watered down in order to secure victory. It was fairly obvious within weeks of the conflict that we were fucked, and the party pre-Blair did have a bit of a self-destructive / self-pitying nature. Foot is still Foot, but it would have made it far more interesting.

 

Leading off from that, I also don't get why everyone assumes her policies (only relying on markets and the financial sector, low taxes for the rich, not letting the public sector provide jobs, etc.) are going to be permanent. I mean, they've "only" been in place for 35 years, which in a historical context actually isn't that long at all. In fact, if you look at Britain's pattern since World War 2, we had 35 years of socialism between 1945 and 1979 (adopted by Labour and Conservative governments through that whole period), now 35 years of Thatcherite/"neo-liberal" economics, so on that pattern we're due the next era to start anytime now.

If I were being pedantic I'd say post-1945 was social democratic rather than "proper" socialism.

Regardless of Michael Foot's lack of electability, there will forever be question marks over what would have happened in '83 had it not been for the Falklands and the sudden flip in support between the two main parties. Had we hit the run-up to the election with a healthy lead, I could have seen the manifesto (perhaps counterintuitively) being slightly watered down in order to secure victory. It was fairly obvious within weeks of the conflict that we were fucked, and the party pre-Blair did have a bit of a self-destructive / self-pitying nature. Foot is still Foot, but it would have made it far more interesting.

Well, in part the manifesto was so mad because a lot of the more moderate people in the Labour Party let it - by the point of the manifesto being decided it was ridiculously obvious we wouldn't win, so they decided to once and for all try and shut up Militant by letting them have the manifesto they'd called for all along. It's just a shame it took another ten years for the message to sink in that the party had to change.

Well, in part the manifesto was so mad because a lot of the more moderate people in the Labour Party let it - by the point of the manifesto being decided it was ridiculously obvious we wouldn't win, so they decided to once and for all try and shut up Militant by letting them have the manifesto they'd called for all along. It's just a shame it took another ten years for the message to sink in that the party had to change.

That was kind of my point, I don't think it would have happened had we had a shot of winning.

 

While (as you in particular won't be surprised to hear) I think a lot of it wasn't bad policy, too much was just wildly self-indulgent and either irrelevant to voters or inappropriate given the circumstances.

Perhaps Ed Miliband's attempts to move the Labour party more to the left will work then?

 

Absolutely no chance.

Clement Attlee

Margaret Thatcher

Ed Miliband

 

Yeah, it doesn't quite work.

 

I'm still reasonably confident of a Labour majority in 2015 (albeit a slim one) and in many ways it'd see a break from Coalition policies but nowhere near enough to usher in a new era. It'll still be effectively tempering the ill effects of neoliberalism rather than finding something to overcome it.

I'm hoping to see a Labour majority as well. Everywhere you go, you always see different types of people who have been betrayed by the Tories and Lib Dems. I hope that Labour get voted in so that those people don't get let down any further.

Edited April 13, 201312 yr by Griefeon

Awh.

 

It's been years since I've seen anyone so enthusiastic, I think being active has done terrible things to me.

:D

 

I used to really get into the whole politics thing a year ago but I just don't care that much any more. I really want to see the Tories kicked out though!

I'm hoping to see a Labour majority as well. Everywhere you go, you always see different types of people who have been betrayed by the Tories and Lib Dems.

That's JUST POLITICS. It's not specific to any party. Politicians make promises they can't keep because they need to say something to convince voters to get them into power. It's shit but it's the way it is.

 

As for the next election, I don't know what will happen or even what I want to happen. I still don't think Ed is leadership material and I find Labour's policies, particularly on the economy, to be vague to say the least, but he no longer seems like quite the lame duck he did a few months ago.

 

My parents have always voted Tory and at the last election I had no doubt about going that way, but I find George Osborne horrifically misguided, self-serving and downright incapable in his role as Chancellor and I couldn't vote Cameron again if Osborne was still there. My ideal scenario is Boris throws his hat in the ring, but I guess since he's Mayor of London until 2016 - and it's not by any means guaranteed that the Tories are out in 2015 - I've got a while to wait for that. Maybe I'll vote Green.

 

I'll probably still vote Liberal Democrats. My MP still has his integrity but so many people are angry here that the LibDems let the Tory's into power that they'll probably come 4th ahead of Labour. That'd be a shame as we have a really good MP but he may not even run for re-election.

 

If he doesn't the SNP get my vote. Don't trust any of the other LibDems, I rightly predicted (as did everyone with a brain) that the combination of Camoron and Oscunt would kill this country, Labour is no better and I'll sit out an election before I consider voting for the Greens (Let's kill the car and f*** everything else for as long as the CO2 emissions are down and we're saving the whales who cares about the economy?) or any xenophobic waste of oxygen that seriously thinks we stand a cat in hells chance of remaining relevant or one of the worlds largest economies without the EU.

I'm going to vote for the Lib Dems, but that's only because there's quite literally a two horse race in my area and I really don't want the Tories to get any more years of power in my area.

I'm going to vote for the Lib Dems, but that's only because there's quite literally a two horse race in my area and I really don't want the Tories to get any more years of power in my area.

Quite literally?

 

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/11/04/1225948/038727-two-horse-race.jpg

I'm going to vote for the Lib Dems, but that's only because there's quite literally a two horse race in my area and I really don't want the Tories to get any more years of power in my area.

When it comes down to it I think a lot of people will do the same. That's why I still think the Lib Dems will do a lot better (or less badly) than many people think.

That was kind of my point, I don't think it would have happened had we had a shot of winning.

 

While (as you in particular won't be surprised to hear) I think a lot of it wasn't bad policy, too much was just wildly self-indulgent and either irrelevant to voters or inappropriate given the circumstances.

There were too many people within the Labour Party at the time who seemd to prefer to lose on an ideologically pure manifesto and implement none of their pet policiers rather than winning on a watered down manifesto and implement some of their pet policies.

Perhaps Ed Miliband's attempts to move the Labour party more to the left will work then?

 

I don't necessarily mean it will definitely be a leftwards shift that will happen next (I hope it is and I think there's reasons to think it's possible), but whatever happens it's definitely a matter of time before the next new "big idea" is implemented and the Thatcherite/neo-liberal consensus is ditched. If the neo-liberal model was ever going to start working and producing economic growth again then it probably would've happened by now since world leaders have been trying to do it for nearly 5 years now.

 

 

Absolutely no chance.

 

 

Clement Attlee

Margaret Thatcher

Ed Miliband

 

Yeah, it doesn't quite work.

 

:lol: But in all seriousness, many of the same criticisms that are made of Miliband now were also made of Thatcher before she became prime minister. She was seen as lightweight, uncharismatic, very uncomfortable with the media, and going into that 1979 election she was 20% behind James Callaghan in polls for "who would you prefer to be prime minister?". I can't say for sure obviously, but from what I gather, if you told many people back in 1979 that she was going to be one of the most "impactful" PMs of the 20th century most people would've laughed in your face.

Edited April 13, 201312 yr by Danny

I'll sit out an election before I consider voting for the Greens (Let's kill the car and f*** everything else for as long as the CO2 emissions are down and we're saving the whales who cares about the economy?)

What's the point in trying to save the economy if the environment is being f***ed over at such a pace that two or three generations from now we'll all have to start thinking seriously about life on other planets? There's still a chance to reverse the manmade damage. If I was a politician the environment would be my number one priority. The economy can be shit for decades and people on the whole will survive. The environment needs change now. If that means changing the way we think about travel, by car or otherwise, so be it.

 

It's also one of the few issues which can't be politicised. Everybody who's not in denial knows the environment is a massive problem. All the parties, and the governments of every country on this planet, should be working together to bring about change, and I hope that when the economy does begin to recover, serious money will be poured into such matters. It saddens me that the environment barely ever seems to register on the political agenda in this country nowadays, and presumably in most other countries too. Yet another example of people in power being hideously short sighted and failing to learn from history.

 

Edited April 13, 201312 yr by Jark

It is very difficult to appear statesmanlike when in opposition. The closest to it in my lifetime was probably Tony Blair.

 

From what I've read Cldement Attlee probably never really came across as statesmanlike. He was generally regarded as being very boring with little or no charisma. However, in my opinion, he was the greatest peacetime PM of the 20th century.