WANTED: 1 article or paragraph to destroy thatcherites faith

[Taxamo Welf]

However the wage cost per $ of product was dramatically different and in the end while Thatcherite polices killed the coal mines she only aided mine owners in a economic decision that was impending in any event.

i don't think this is reflected by the facts tbh. Especially as coal continues to be mined abroad as others have pointed out; years after the strike was beaten, england was SHIPPING coal from the other side of the world (australia i think). Arthur scargill pointed out some breathtaking sums in the early 90's about how much cheaper it would have been to keep mining coal in SO many ways. I have written about the strike and researched it a little, so i can dig out my facts but i'm sure their are people who know enough about it to quote them off the top of their heads.

(OK, I have to admit that I have done no person research and took the word of my very beautiful, lesbian GCSE Politics lectures* at face value, she was from a mining town, father a miner but a manual labourer who got out and made good, bought his council house and as a single man living alone after his wife died would have been one of those who would have benefited significantly from the poll tax. I think a lot of people on the left think that Thatchers supporters are some other middle - upper class, arms dealing, mine owning elite and they weren't - I had friends who went to Ibiza in the six week campaign in April 1997, they wandered down the beach talking to Brits and met in their words "fat, bigoted working class Brits declaring undying love to Maggie". I remember them coming back for the election stunned only to become jubilant when Labour won by a landslide before seeing their dreams ripped to shreds).

I think if anyone needed telling that thatchers main support came from aspirational working class people rather than the owner class (who benifited the most) they really are naive. However this is not a dig at you Kameron, its a point that can't be made enough times. BTW good to see you on pnp, shagging and diseases empty today

*What was lesbian about the lectures?

 

[Kameron]

*What was lesbian about the lectures?

They were both female, both teachers at my school, shared a house, slept together and sneaked out the back of school together at break time, down the path where we used to smoke dope, to have a quick snog and feel up, in short they were lesbians and they taught me politics which made them lectures. The lesbianism is no more or less relevant than the beauty; I was just setting the scene.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

They were both female, both teachers at my school, shared a house, slept together and sneaked out the back of school together at break time, down the path where we used to smoke dope, to have a quick snog and feel up, in short they were lesbians and they taught me politics which made them lectures. The lesbianism is no more or less relevant than the beauty; I was just setting the scene.

Lecturers not lectures.

Louis Mac

 

[nino_savatte]

Thatcher was more than happy to do business with white South Africa.

The Falklands War was another one of her ideas...two bald men fighting over a comb.

 

[polo]

How did Thatcher have the idea of Argentina launching a surprise attack. Did she ring up Galtieri and say 'Oi generalissimo, I'm having a spot of electoral bother here, I don't suppose your chaps could make a nuisance of themselves in the Falklands do you?''

Of course she didn't, she just got lucky and was decisive enough to capitalise it politically.

Though the whole war seemed a ludicrous squabble over some barren rocks. It was a serious gamble, a very close run thing. We could easily have lost. But fortune favours the brave and its effect on British politics was profound.

The fact is that before the war the level of interest in the Falklands was such that the Argentines could have had the Falklands if they'd have asked nicely.

Sad thing is that she had to be nice to Pinochet who ran the country next door. Still Argentina was nudged towards democracy. Swings and roundabouts.

In the UK there was wide support for military action, Labour remained against it on principle and this further marginalised them from public sentiment.

Not sure if the Falklands is the best place to look if you want to condemn Thatcher.

Politicians are condemned when they are clearly seen to be corrupt. Thatcher did some very dodgy deals supplying arms. I seem to remember something about a dam in Indonesia and a lot of war planes.

 

[nino_savatte]

The Falklands was her thing and she won a General Election on the back of that 'victory'. It literally fell into her lap; a golden opportunity to shore up her flagging position in the polls and to grab a bit of glory and a place in history.

I know many who were against the Falklands conflict, our views were ignored as they were during the invasion of Iraq. I wouldn't describe the adventure as universally popular either.

 

[likesfish]

been to the falklands weird place
uk gov policy in the 1970's was to get the islanders to work closer with the argies unfortunatly policy had one major problem the more the isanders saw of argentenia the less they liked.
Agentina's facist junta fell because it lost the war thats a good thing any other outcome the Facists would still be in power.
There are no opressed spanish speakers on the islands.
the argie claim to the islands was dubious at best

 

[Wilf]

quickly, im too young to win this argument on my own!!!

Something, just soething to prove how rotten, evil and currupt she was.

cheres

Section 28 wasn't all that grand

 

[Streathamite]

from 1979 to 1990 we lost 30%+ of our total manufacturing capacity, and since thatcher got elected first (1979) just about every great britsh industrial, manufacturing and engineering brand or 'name' we owned is either not owned by British companies or not made here anymore.

 

[Streathamite]

Though the whole war seemed a ludicrous squabble over some barren rocks. It was a serious gamble, a very close run thing. We could easily have lost. But fortune favours the brave and its effect on British politics was profound.

.

EHH???? No we couldn't have!!! On the field of battle were the elite frontline regiments of a highly-trained, well-led, quite well equipped professional army that had benefitted from, umm 'on-the-job' training in norrn ireland etc, on the other the helpless teenage conscript end of a ragbag army put out by a fascist junta whose only recent 'experience' was in torturing and killing leftie dissidents.
close run thing NOT. and there is not a single well-informed argentinian who'd say it was. lambs to the f-ing slaughter....

 

[polo]

They had Exocet missiles which took out several Destroyers. If a troop ship or aircraft carrier had been hit, the task force would have been sunk. They had plenty of bombers operating from the mainland and plenty of artillery. We had a limited number of aircraft and lost a lot of helicopters when the Altlantic Conveyor was hit. The task force was operating thousands of miles from a friendly port in the wild South Atlantic.

It was a close call.

 

[slaar]

EHH???? No we couldn't have!!! On the field of battle were the elite frontline regiments of a highly-trained, well-led, quite well equipped professional army that had benefitted from, umm 'on-the-job' training in norrn ireland etc, on the other the helpless teenage conscript end of a ragbag army put out by a fascist junta whose only recent 'experience' was in torturing and killing leftie dissidents.
close run thing NOT. and there is not a single well-informed argentinian who'd say it was. lambs to the f-ing slaughter....

If a couple more exocets had landed we'd have been in serious danger of having to withdraw. The Argentine airforce certainly wasn't conscript.

Edit: polo got there first.

 

[polo]

....

 

[gilhyle]

The Wicker Woman

1. The Nottinghamshire Miners were a lesson in how easily workers can be split. The unity of the working class is a fragile flower, little seen, easily destroyed.

2. Lots of miners were not well off. But more than that they were culturally impoverished. The graft of a miners life left little scope for a broader view, as striking miners themselves celebrated in their strike show 'Sun on Our Backs'

3. Britain could not send a fleet like that to the Falklands today.

4. Britain only won with the aid of American satellite intelligence.

5. Galtieri sent his worst troops to Falklands - some to be executed in cold blood after surrender by the Gurkhas (and others)

6. Thatcher only succeeded because of people like Willie Whitelaw who - unlike her - understood divide and conquer. When she was really in charge (Poll Tax), she messed it up completely.

7. The weirdest thing about Thatcher is the number of people (not only Tories) who found her sexually attractive when they met her - collective shiver !

As a sign of Thatcher's 'evil', whatever that is, nothing beats the order to the SAS to execute all the Iranian embassy hostage takers - only one survived, and he only survived because the hostages hid him !

 

[polo]

Aha! The Pergau dam affair.

She turned foreign aid into a bribe as favour for major contributor to the Conservative party.

http://www.againstcorruption.org/BriefingsItem.asp?id=8511

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmintdev/39/39ap06.htm

 

[polo]

'4. Britain only won with the aid of American satellite intelligence.

5. Galtieri sent his worst troops to Falklands - some to be executed in cold blood after surrender by the Gurkhas (and others)'

I'm sure the satellite intelligence was useful on the many fine days that the Falklands enjoy.

Executed by the Gurkas? Never heard about that, the Gurkas were there to scare the bejasus out of the Argentines with their big knives. Which they did very effectively.

How about the sinking of the General Belgrano? There are reams of material about that thanks to the redoutable Tam Dayell.

 

[goneforlunch]

"There is no such thing as society" is as good as it gets, from the horses mouth.

A remark taken out of context, mischievously or maliciously, so often in the press.

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

(Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987)


What is so wrong about that?

 

[UnderOpenSky]

How about the fact it makes it very easy to ignore those who need help the most, who are often unable to help themselfs.

Of course the rich are able to help themselfs so they get a tax cut

 

[Fruitloop]

It's just a fundamentally wrong and self-serving way of looking at the situation. There most certainly is such as thing as society, and its manifestations as social norms, social problems, social institutions, etc etc. To take the view that there are only men, women and families is to deny the existence of class structures and class difference, which are fundamental to any correct understanding of why capitalism functions the way that it does. Whilst you might think that a classless society is a desirable thing, to bring one about requires more than merely wishing it into existence and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

 

[polo]

It is heresy to Socialists, Communists and anyone who believes in a social model of government.

It is the sort of political culture prevalent in the US which believes in small goverment and self reliance and fine granularity to social organisation as an ideal. Very conservative and we are not talking 'One Nation' here, we are right back to fundamentals.

I've never been able to understand how they reconcile that with big business organisations that provide healthcare, dental care and so on as part of the job contract.

It sacrifices the interests of the people who need support by dint of their circumstances in order to empower those that have the capacity to create wealth through enterprise. Not a recipe for social justice and the casualties of that policy are plain to see in US cities with pockets of outrageous poverty, crime and deprivation.

Thatcher was appealing, as ever, to her core supporters : people who are keen to advance themselves through personal enterprise. It also served to underline the new order that was in place. It kind or reminds me of what Denis Healey said a few years earlier when he said he intended to tax the middle classes 'until the pips squeak'. Both were typical assertions of a political intention intended to raise a boorish cheer from loyal supporters.

Is there anything wrong with it? Aside from being a rather silly jibe intended to annoy Socialists. It is plainly a crass simplfication to make a point. We live in a civic society that is highly connected at a great many levels and government is only one part of the picture. She steered the ship in a different direction, she didn't break it up and build a new one.

Thatchers style did have a lot of this type of posturing and she seemed to revel in it. Never one to court popularity. That statement obviously still rankles to this day.

 

[gilhyle]

Surprised AND Confused

'
I'm sure the satellite intelligence was useful on the many fine days that the Falklands enjoy.

Executed by the Gurkas? Never heard about that, the Gurkas were there to scare the bejasus out of the Argentines with their big knives. Which they did very effectively.

Clouds

You mean all that money on satellites was wasted......they used the satellite intelligence to trace the Argentinian fleet. The U.S. also gave them telecoms eavesdropping - for all of which they were publically thanked by the ever-truthful Thatcher some years later.

BTW, the Argentinians withdrew their airforce from the fighting after the exocet incident. The Argentinians fought without air cover.

I agree, it is strange how no-one boasts about executing prisoners.

 

[treelover]

do you have sources, links, were they isolated instances? etc,

Galtieri sent his worst troops to Falklands - some to be executed in cold blood after surrender by the Gurkhas (and others)

 

[polo]

Clouds

You mean all that money on satellites was wasted......they used the satellite intelligence to trace the Argentinian fleet. The U.S. also gave them telecoms eavesdropping - for all of which they were publically thanked by the ever-truthful Thatcher some years later.

BTW, the Argentinians withdrew their airforce from the fighting after the exocet incident. The Argentinians fought without air cover.

I agree, it is strange how no-one boasts about executing prisoners.

How plausable is that? The Argentines only had a limited number of Exocets and they successfully destroyed several British warships. Bombers destroyed more. The British had a limited number of Sea Harriers and one aircraft carrier that had to be stationed way off the Falklands, out of range of the Argentine Aircraft. So the Harriers were operating at the limit of their short range and did not have air superiority.

The Argentine fleet did not set foot out of port following the sinking of the Belgrano.

I think this is an accurate summary.

http://www.answers.com/topic/falklands-war

The Falklands Conflict is well documented. We won without the aid of the US, but if we had lost the carrier, they would have lent us one. This was happening at the height of the Cold War and perception is everything.

It is a nasty world out there and much as Thatcher was despised for her domestic economic and social policies she was widely admired for the leadership she showed. A lot of people on the Left supported her, unimpressed by Michael Foots insistence that we should leave everything to be negotiated through the UN. No way to deal with a fascist dicatorships.

This little war should never have happened, that it landed in Thatchers lap at a crucial time when she was consolidating power was unforseen and led to the resignation of the Foreign secretary.

It did have the affect of the unifying the country behind the government. Thatcher can be critisised for many things on a political level, but there are better places the look than the Falklands Conflict.

 

[nino_savatte]

A remark taken out of context, mischievously or maliciously, so often in the press.

I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

(Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, talking to Women's Own magazine, October 31 1987)


What is so wrong about that?

That statement was never taken out of context and if you examine the surrounding text, you will see that, however it was quoted, it remains contextual.

 

[Streathamite]

This little war should never have happened, that it landed in Thatchers lap at a crucial time when she was consolidating power was unforseen and led to the resignation of the Foreign secretary.

consolidating power? when the war happened she was about 10% behind in the polls, and heading for GE defeat - i'd say the war rescued her, completely.

 

[nino_savatte]

consolidating power? when the war happened she was about 10% behind in the polls, and heading for GE defeat - i'd say the war rescued her, completely.

Exactly, how could Thach pass up a golden opportunity that could improve her poll ratings? I can still recall all the victory images on telly and the speeches; it was an occasion to tap into the so-called "wartime spirit". As for her friendship with Pinochet, I believe this actually began before the Falklands.

 

[polo]

Well she certainly consolidated power afterwards because she went on to win more elections with a considerable majority.

If she had any connection with Pinochet it was probably related to arms sales. Thatcher was a great supporter of the Defense industries and did a some very dodgy deals. She didn't have what you might call an ethical foriegn aid policy and directed Aid budgets to grease arms deals - bad bad bad.

 

[nino_savatte]

Well she certainly consolidated power afterwards because she went on to win more elections with a considerable majority.

If she had any connection with Pinochet it was probably related to arms sales. Thatcher was a great supporter of the Defense industries and did a some very dodgy deals. She didn't have what you might call an ethical foriegn aid policy and directed Aid budgets to grease arms deals - bad bad bad.

Her later monetary policy advisor, Alan Walters, was employed by Pinochet.

Walters was the man who ousted Lawson...or rather, Lawson resigned because Thatch preferred Walters...who wasn't even Chancellor.

 

[gilhyle]

Reasons to play dead

We won without the aid of the US,

"We" ? "We" ? "We" ?

[No sources, threw it all away long ago; so don't believe me - Surrender to a Gurkha or an SAS man, see what happens.

The loss rate on the Argentine aircraft was much higher than the Harriers, the performance of which surprised everyone not least the U.K. Command who thought they'd be slaughtered. It illustrated, if illustration was needed, that training is the key to the modern military. Despite NATO assistance, Argentine training was inferior.]

 

[goneforlunch]

That statement was never taken out of context and if you examine the surrounding text, you will see that, however it was quoted, it remains contextual.

Never taken out of context? Contextual? It just shows how differently we think . Compare Thatcher's quote with the quote (last part in particular) from Neil Kinnock on this link http://www.srcf.ucam.org/forwardleft/quotes.htm. Kinnock is a smart man, and I'm sure he knew that she didn't mean any of that "no such thing as society, just 'me' and 'now'" stuff he attributed to her.

I should also have said she was grossly misrepresented with regard to her statement!

How about the fact it makes it very easy to ignore those who need help the most, who are often unable to help themselfs.

Of course the rich are able to help themselfs so they get a tax cut

She didn't intend that those who need help the most should be ignored. She wanted people who had little inclination to work to take responsibility for themselves instead of relying on the state (or Society as the Left likes to call it). Sadly she failed to achieve even that, and overall taxation rates actually went up. High earners got tax cuts, and rightly so; no one should have to spend more of their time working for the state than they do working for themselves.

It's just a fundamentally wrong and self-serving way of looking at the situation. There most certainly is such as thing as society, and its manifestations as social norms, social problems, social institutions, etc etc. To take the view that there are only men, women and families is to deny the existence of class structures and class difference, which are fundamental to any correct understanding of why capitalism functions the way that it does. Whilst you might think that a classless society is a desirable thing, to bring one about requires more than merely wishing it into existence and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

But there is no such thing as society in the sense that there are only tax payers to subsidise non-working people. Society only has the money it takes from tax payers. Some are unable to help themselves and the state has a duty to take care of such people, but many on benefits were not in that position. So rather than it being a fundamentally wrong and self-serving attitude, Thatcher was asking that people stopped being just that.


I can't see what class has to do with whether it's right to let others subsidise a person who is perfectly able to support him or herself. And a classless society is never going to happen.

But in answer to Punkrockfaggot's original request for an article or paragraph to destroy the faith of Thatcherites. How about this ...

She signed the Single European Act in which she gave up the UK's power to control important stuff like UK trade policy and accepted that this and some other policies should be decided by Qualified Majority Voting, ie the UK could be outvoted by her EU partners. Many might say 'So what?' but not many "thatcherites" would see what she did as "battling for Britain".