Zombies Margaret Thatcher

[snowychap]

You suggested that those who were her fans had entrenched views, in response to a post of mine.

Actually, my post said:

The views of those who are fans of Thatch would appear to be just as entrenched.

I.e. that each viewpoint is just as entrenched as the other.

I was, in response...

Just reiterating your position on whose views are entrenched or not.

[chrisp65]

As I said it seems to me that thos who are not fans just seem to want death to come to the woman, in addition that they are not prepared to see any positives in her premiership at all.

I've already quoted a positive. I personally gained financially.

That it was at the expense of others less fortunate is a negative.

Whether you see my positive as enough to justify the negative is, I suppose, politics.

[snowychap]

It's easier to tell with some premiers than others. Take Dubya for example...

He he.

[Richard]

Oddly I've never heard a pro Thatcher person offer anything other than praise or defence, I can't recall a single time I've ever heard them say they can see any alternative view other than that she did a great job for this country. That includes both your posts and Tonyh's.

potentially because every time there is a thread or post on the topic of maggie on here the weight of those not in favour of her demands that the only comments you will see from tony and I (and others) have to be in defence.

I have no problems with people being pro or against. What I have problems with are the ,frankly, disgusting comments wishing death on her.

I also hold the opinion that the "populist" view on VT is agains maggie and that those agains maggie are not inclined to hear or accept any positives from her time as pm, non at all. Personally I am prepared to accept that there may be some negatives and positives, even though in the main I am in the pro maggie camp.

Just because I have not , in posts you may have seen, posted any negative opinion does not mean I am not prepared to accept them.

[snowychap]

I don't think a general answer is possible - each case depends on circumstances. In her case, the Tory party was swinging to the right, people like Keith Joseph had spent time in opposition trying to develop strategies for moving away from the old "one nation" tory approach and towards something more socially divisive. There was a move away from Keynesian demand management in western economies generally, culminating in the dominance of neoclassical ideas and financial deregulation for which we will be suffering for decades to come.

She embraced these regressive social currents enthusiastically, and was delighted to be involved in making generations of people suffer, but as someone said of (was it) Bernard Ingham, she was the sewer, not the sewage.

I wouldn't disagree with a lot of that.

I do get the feeling that you wouldn't accept a suggestion that it's a necessity to have the figurehead/symbol in order for the ideas to really take hold and (using the word advisedly) flourish?

[snowychap]

Just because I have not , in posts you may have seen, posted any negative opinion does not mean I am not prepared to accept them.

Would you care to take this opportunity to toss us a few of these negatives in a post in this thread?

[TrentVilla]

potentially because every time there is a thread or post on the topic of maggie on here the weight of those not in favour of her demands that the only comments you will see from tony and I (and others) have to be in defence.

With respect, I think that is bollocks. There is no such demand that you or anyone else only post positive comments, you could try and provide a balance, to provide a fully rounded view in order to provide what you believe to be a more accurate picture considering you think the other side of the divide only give one side of the argument.

Yet you (not just you) opt not to do so, there is never any criticism of Thatcher of any aspect of her time in office from those who would claim to be her supporters. You can't accuse people of a lack of objectivity when by your own admission only offering a defence of the women and then blame those on the other side of the argument for you doing so.

You have your own free will, there is no onus on you to step to her defence at the cost of your own objectivity and nobody is placing that on you other than yourself.

Perhaps if you did offer a more rounded opinion yourself others may alter their views? Probably not but at least then when you accuse people of being one eyed in regards to her it would be a little easier to accept.

I have no problems with people being pro or against. What I have problems with are the ,frankly, disgusting comments wishing death on her.

I find wishing death on anyone distasteful if meant seriously. That though is a entirely different point to the one I was raising with you.

I also hold the opinion that the "populist" view on VT is agains maggie and that those agains maggie are not inclined to hear or accept any positives from her time as pm, non at all. Personally I am prepared to accept that there may be some negatives and positives, even though in the main I am in the pro maggie camp.

You are prepared to accept that there may be some negatives? So you don't actually think there are any yourself, you just accept that there may be some in the eyes of others?

Just because I have not , in posts you may have seen, posted any negative opinion does not mean I am not prepared to accept them.

No but it clearly means you don't hold them.

[Awol]

Would you care to take this opportunity to toss us a few of these negatives in a post in this thread?

As someone who thinks that on balance she did more good than harm, I will: Selling off critical national infrastructure built with tax payers money to private interests was a huge mistake - and morally wrong too. As bad was then continuing to subsidise the private companies with more tax payers money while the revenues went to private shareholders. Further to that transport networks, energy, water and others constitute strategic assets that should never be in the hands of private companies, imo. They are there to underpin the basic operation of the country and as such should not be privatised. That is not to say they could have been run far better and more effectively than they were before privatisation, but there the union problem rears it's head again.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Awol

[peterms]

I do get the feeling that you wouldn't accept a suggestion that it's a necessity to have the figurehead/symbol in order for the ideas to really take hold and (using the word advisedly) flourish?

I don't think it's necessary, though I agree it can help.

Taking as an example the current (barking) notion that government deficits are bad and that governments should balance the books, it seems to me that it's been more a case of ceaseless repetition, failure of the opposition to articulate another view, and consistent failure of the media to bring any critical insight to the discussion. I don't think any figurehead or symbol has contributed much to that, and certainly not Lord Snooty or his dough-faced mate.

In the case of Hitler, there was a degree to which an element of charismatic leadership helped fascist ideas take root, though again without the impoverishment caused by the absurdly punitive Versailles settlement, it's hard to see such ideas getting that level of widespread support; a lesson that was heeded after the second war.

[snowychap]

As someone who thinks that on balance she did more good than harm, I will: Selling off critical national infrastructure built with tax payers money to private interests was a huge mistake - and morally wrong too. As bad was then continuing to subsidise the private companies with more tax payers money while the revenues went to private shareholders. Further to that transport networks, energy, water and others constitute strategic assets that should never be in the hands of private companies, imo. They are there to underpin the basic operation of the country and as such should not be privatised. That is not to say they could have been run far better and more effectively than they were before privatisation, but there the union problem rears it's head again.

Cheers for that, Jon.

[snowychap]

Taking as an example the current (barking) notion that government deficits are bad and that governments should balance the books...

The notion is not just a current one, is it, though?

That it may appear to have taken hold currently is I think, as you suggest, due to ceaseless repetition.

Its longevity (as an accepted or unquestioned wisdom) may be down to the contribution of any symbol (or lack thereof).

Edit: Not sure I've made that very clear. Sorry.

Edited January 1, 2013 by snowychap

[Richard]

Would you care to take this opportunity to toss us a few of these negatives in a post in this thread?

how about those in the negative camp posting some positives, to disprove my theory?

In terms of my negatives I think the way in which the whole European question was handled was wrong. She could have handled that better and dealt with that vexing question in a more inclusive way.

I also think the "poll tax" was a particularly badly managed policy.

I think some of her man management of her cabinet colleagues was poor, could be understandable in the circumstances but poor nevertheless.

I do not have the issue with privatisation mentioned by others, and AWOL , above but can see how it could be an area people find negative in. Now how about some positives from the negative camp?

[peterms]

The notion is not just a current one, is it, though?

That it may appear to have taken hold currently is I think, as you suggest, due to ceaseless repetition.

Its longevity (as an accepted or unquestioned wisdom) may be down to the contribution of any symbol (or lack thereof).

Yes, I think I should have said the idea that we should destroy economic capacity and willingly create recession in order to reduce the deficit. As you say, the superstition about balanced budgets on which that is based has been around longer.

There is a symbol behind it, though it's not a person, but the misleading analogy of a household budget and a national economy. That's been quite a powerful, if false, mental picture.

[Richard]

With respect, I think that is bollocks. There is no such demand that you or anyone else only post positive comments, you could try and provide a balance, to provide a fully rounded view in order to provide what you believe to be a more accurate picture considering you think the other side of the divide only give one side of the argument.

Yet you (not just you) opt not to do so, there is never any criticism of Thatcher of any aspect of her time in office from those who would claim to be her supporters. You can't accuse people of a lack of objectivity when by your own admission only offering a defence of the women and then blame those on the other side of the argument for you doing so.

You have your own free will, there is no onus on you to step to her defence at the cost of your own objectivity and nobody is placing that on you other than yourself.

Perhaps if you did offer a more rounded opinion yourself others may alter their views? Probably not but at least then when you accuse people of being one eyed in regards to her it would be a little easier to accept.

I find wishing death on anyone distasteful if meant seriously. That though is a entirely different point to the one I was raising with you.

You are prepared to accept that there may be some negatives? So you don't actually think there are any yourself, you just accept that there may be some in the eyes of others?

No but it clearly means you don't hold them.

i obviously was not clear in my response. Apologies for that.

The "demand" I referred to was the need to provide the balance. That there was a necessity for the positives to be posted to be the balance to the incessant negatives posted by others, those posting negative not prepared to post the positive you see.

I seriously doubt that me , or others, posting a "more rounded view" will change the opinion of others, hence my reference to entrenched views.

I have posted some negatives above, lets see how those negative respond, I doubt they will post positives at all.

I appreciate that my comment on those wishing death was not totally what we were talking about, but I was trying to show how , for me, the negative side of the debate is entrenched and so give an example of why I was holding the opinion I did.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Richard

[welnik]

"Yes, I think I should have said the idea that we should destroy economic capacity and willingly create recession in order to reduce the deficit. As you say, the superstition about balanced budgets on which that is based has been around longer."

I'm genuinely interested to hear your explanation about this.

Cheers Nick

Edited January 1, 2013 by welnik

[Demitri_C]

She **** this country up good and proper

Just out of corosity but worse than now? I wasnt around back then but from a number of people I have spoken to they say Blair's party left this country in a worser state than back then.As I stated earlier as I wasnt around then I cant comment on how accurate that is

[tonyh29]

It was about more than the mining industry. It was about trying to weaken the unions, picking the strongest to start with and deliberately engineering a strike.

That led the way to the increasing casualisation of the workforce, insecurity, increasing levels of "discipline" among the workforce, and a corresponding transfer of wealth away from ordinary people and towards the already wealthy.

I may be wrong but I got the impression the labour government previous were the ones who went to war on the unions ... In place of strife or something the white paper was called ??

[Dr_Pangloss]

I don't think a general answer is possible - each case depends on circumstances. In her case, the Tory party was swinging to the right, people like Keith Joseph had spent time in opposition trying to develop strategies for moving away from the old "one nation" tory approach and towards something more socially divisive. There was a move away from Keynesian demand management in western economies generally, culminating in the dominance of neoclassical ideas and financial deregulation for which we will be suffering for decades to come.

She embraced these regressive social currents enthusiastically, and was delighted to be involved in making generations of people suffer, but as someone said of (was it) Bernard Ingham, she was the sewer, not the sewage.

She was actually a Hayekian rather than a neo-classical, she was deeply influenced by Hayek's Road to Serfdom as a student. Apart from that I completely agree with you.

[TrentVilla]

i obviously was not clear in my response. Apologies for that.

The "demand" I referred to was the need to provide the balance. That there was a necessity for the positives to be posted to be the balance to the incessant negatives posted by others, those posting negative not prepared to post the positive you see.

I seriously doubt that me , or others, posting a "more rounded view" will change the opinion of others, hence my reference to entrenched views.

I have posted some negatives above, lets see how those negative respond, I doubt they will post positives at all.

I appreciate that my comment on those wishing death was not totally what we were talking about, but I was trying to show how , for me, the negative side of the debate is entrenched and so give an example of why I was holding the opinion I did.

First, thanks for taking that on the chin and in the manner it was intended rather than as taking it personally as so often people do on here. Also AWOL, thanks for you post which I thought was great.

I agree few are likely to alter their view, although I would note that none will if everyone continues to post from their 'entrenched' positions.

My personal view on Thatcher is far from positive due to the personal circumstances of those around me at the time and those now related to me, to see what they went through can't fail to seriously impact upon the view I hold of her.

I consider her to be a vindictive, nasty and quite callus individual who cared not for the common man, only for those who formed the basis of her support. All politicians on both sides of the divide look after their own first, of course they do, I have though personally never seen that so evident as it was under Thatcher.

I'm just fundamentally opposed to so many of things that she did and that she seemingly stood for that I can never ever hold her in high regard.

That said there are things I can see were positives about her, firstly the way she handled The Falklands War. Now I'd argue she relished it because it was of huge personal benefit, but I admire the strength of character and purpose she showed at that time. The way she took such a strong stance even if it was at a huge cost both financially and in terms of British personnel. I like strong leaders and nobody can say she wasn't strong.

Despite being more to the left of the political divide I totally agree that things had gone too far under Labour before Thatcher, the loony left and the Unions had this country on its knees. Something had to be done and I admire that she took it on and changed the balance of power in the economy, it was a job that needed doing although I really don't like the way she did some of it or the vindictive way she destroyed entire communities something we are still paying the price for today.

I also admire her for becoming the first female PM and holding office with an iron fist for as long as she did, whatever she did in power I think that has to be respected.

So personally I can't stand Thatcher but can recognise both some of her successes and some of her personal achievements or strengths even if overall my opinion is overwhelmingly negative.

I don't wish her dead but I won't be anywhere close to mourning her and I won't be observing any tributes to her. The witch

[peterms]

She was actually a Hayekian rather than a neo-classical, she was deeply influenced by Hayek's Road to Serfdom as a student. Apart from that I completely agree with you.

Yes, she was definitely heavily influenced by the Road to Serfdom. I see that as more a political than an economic position, though. I'm not aware that she took a view on Hayek's economic views in detail, and she was surely more of a devotee of Friedman's economic views. While Hayek and Friedman are often bracketed together as free-market economists who subscribe to many of the same policy proposals, I think Hayek saw himself as quite different to Friedman, and disagreed with him on several things. Thatcher (and Joseph) appeared to support the Friedman line, though as I say, I'm not sure she made her views clear on the differences between them.