Ding Dong! The Witch is DEAD!

[EgoTrip]

Maggie Thatcher finally croaked it. HOORAY!!!


However she died peacefully. There is no god.

[MaV]

Best quote so far:
Твиттер / BenjiWilliamson: #nowthatchersdead We can have ...

"We can have her funeral handled by the lowest bidder. It's what she would have wanted."

[beaker]

I know she was a divisive figure but I admire and respect her calculated and single minded approach both on a national and world stage. RIP Thatcher. (Obviously if I was in one of the communities negatively affected by her policies my opinion would probably be different).

[Gryzor]

Not sure if someone deserves respect for being 'single minded' and having a calculated way. Serial killers are like that. My dad used to tell me, when I was little, "better stupid than good, rather than clever and bad".


Having a leader who doesn't believe in society lead an, erm, society, can never be good.

[beaker]

I would have said being single minded is a good leadership trait, obviously not the only one  .

I was 1 years old when she came to power and something like 12 years old when she left office so am a Thatcher kid growing up in the home counties so can only speak from that perspective (and indoctrination). Obviously Gryzor, you know the economics side a lot more than I ever will but to me she was right for Britain at the time (much as Churchill was for WW2 but was less successful later in peace time) and succeeded in repositioning Britain, at the time the sick man of Europe, into a position where it was able compete again albeit at the expense of manufacturing, trade unions, many communities and high unemployment at that time of transition. People bemoan how her policies negatively affected their lives but it would be interesting to see where the UK would be without Thatcher; would Britain be part of Europe and in the same position as Spain, Greece and Ireland? The current Governments since Blair appear weak and floundering, especially under Cameron with all their U-turns where he's trying to appease everyone.

[Gryzor]

Speaking of leadership, being single minded can only be a good thing for short periods of time. Since you mentioned Churchill, this was one of the differences he had with Hitler (who was truly single-minded).


It's wrong, I think, to judge a politician by the measure of those who came after him/her. Just because Blair, Major et co. were opportunistic, self-serving, and incompetent doesn't make Thatcher good by itself.


Also, I've been reading analyses to the effect that Thatcher's policies, although maybe beneficial (to some) in the short term, are the sources of many problems of today's UK economy. And Thatcher has not been the only isolationist anyway. Nor are Spain, Greece, Ireland, Cyprus, Holland, Italy in the place they are in because they followed policies other than the UK's...


But, I say, fuck it. I don't think it needs lots of econ-speak to discuss this one. As Matthew said, "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?". What good is it to have an economic 'progress' if the people are not benefitting from it (like it's been happening in Germany for a few years now)? And this is the single-mindess that's so condemnable: she cared only for the economy and forgot about the people, really.

[beaker]

It's wrong, I think, to judge a politician by the measure of those who came after him/her. Just because Blair, Major et co. were opportunistic, self-serving, and incompetent doesn't make Thatcher good by itself.

No, I think they are worse as they did nothing to build on any short term benefits to improve society or reverse any policies that were no longer fit for purpose. If it becomes economical to equip the mines and start mining coal, why not invest in that sector?
At least Thatcher took on the economy and attempted to find a solution.

"Do or do not, there is no try."  - Yoda

...she cared only for the economy and forgot about the people, really.

I disagree, she wanted for people to make it on their own merits rather then rely on the state; thanks to her indoctrination success to me is measured on personal wealth.

[Gryzor]

They might have been worse; still not proof that the previous 'owner' was right. Good/=better.

Making a sector 'profitable' is a gospel for neoliberitarianism; ignoring all the other aspects, mainly people. Noone says no to making something more productive. But you can do it in a variety of ways, some of which do not involve people losing their jobs. From a purely economic point of view, anyhow, doing that does not mean the economy as a whole will fare any better as the cruelty of fiscal multipliers shows.

"Making it on one's own merit" is, again, one of the neo-liberals' credos. Two problems with this line of reasoning:
-first, not everyone can make it on their own merit. You also have to consider needs, but of course when you say 'there's no society' you're a long way past that.
-second, what about building everyone's merit? All sorts of broken (even rotten) wrongs here.
-can we talk about the merit of bankers, for instance?

Those are very big issues and cannot be looked at at a microeconomic level. And these are just off the top of my head. I could go into economics, too (financial institutions leverage; capitalisation; moral hazard; funds funelling; high street vs main street; lorenz curves. Those are all very simple stuff, actually, anyone can look them up), but it's not worth it because at this point we're not talking economics but about the principles of democracy.

And what about milk, for instance? Is this merit? Or is the UK better off now 40 years down the line instead? Did Pinochet, her hero and colleague, work for "one's merit"? (this may seem unfair as an argument but it's valid, since they both used to drink to Chicago's health). But this is a silly argument. It's very wrong to judge Thatcher as a standalone moment in history; one needs to study the emergence of the social state and WWII to understand what she brought down and where it leads.

[beaker]

...lorenz curves.

mmm... Loren curves.... that's what you meant wasn't it? 

[attachimg=1]

Sorry, what were we talking about again?  Oh yeah, Thatcher. Well you could be right, hypothetically things could have been done differently,  possibly over a longer period, with less casualties if that was an option with trade unions and miners, but she got things done, rightly or wrongly in the way she thought best at the time. It sounds from the news that she was prepared to have her views challenged and if someone made a valid argument she could have her views changed. At the end of the day people have a polarised view of her and I don't think everyone will come to an agreement any time soon...

However, I do completely agree with your last comment regarding not judging Thatcher as a standalone moment in history. 

[buzby]

this is what thatcher did for me and my mates


we didnt take any career options at school and went onto her new courses that she brought in and went to college 2 days a week whilst still at school in our final two years as we wanted to be mechanics and this ended up been a waste of time as there wasnt any proper training


we left school and we had to go onto a yts (youth training scheme) which payed £27.50 per week wages as she started doing away with the apprentices and you had to do this for 2 years and then you were employed by the company you were sent to at the end of the 2 years........................ guess what after 2 years the company never took you on as they  said there was no more funding so it was all a waist of time


she then decided to bring in the council tax and you had to pay it or you got fined and people even went to prison, my bill was £300 for the year so i earned £110 a month, mum had £40 board for the month, i spent £40 on my bus fare for the month, had to pay £25 to the council tax so this left me with £5 out of my wages to do what ever with.................. cheers margaret


i could go on but i wont


anyhow moan over

[buzby]

just to add so in the end it was like 4 years wasted when you could of learned a trade in that time.


just fount this and well its true even they say it was a waste of time in not so many words


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_Training_Scheme

[beaker]

I was a bit young for that but its completely different to what I experienced. For me the 80's was both parents in employment. I wouldn't say we were rich but I never went without. I kicked around with my mates on my BMX. We had holidays abroad to places like Majorca and Spain. My nan got to buy her council house. Life was good and I have fond memories of the era which obviously clouds my opinion completely. I guess I've led a sheltered life where I've not had to work hard for anything... 

[Gryzor]

 Ooh, the young Loren was a beaut, really! A bit hard to focus now...


"prepared to having her mind changed" does not chime well with "single-minded". And I would bet that "having her mind changed" would involve choices like "should we just kick them to the curb or just chop their heads off and be done with it? Discuss".


"In the way she thought best at the time": sure, that's what everyone does. The problem is what you're trying to achieve. Hitler went about it in "the way he thought best at the time". Attila, too. Yes, she did what she thought best - to destroy unions, to serve the ruling class, help industrialists and London bankers -and, oh, suppress other nations too. Let's take a look at this, for instance:


Income Groups     0-20%     21-80%     81-99%     Top 1%

Income increase   18%        37%         65%      275%

This is how income strata evolved from 1979 to 2007. Even the middle class ("21-80", didn't look up more detailed data - still haven't had coffee...) didn't fare well. 37% up in 30 years' time is not a success. So, you see, once you start drilling down in the data a whole different story appears. It's interesting to note that if you check the historical data for the Gini coefficient (in economics it shows the (in)equality of income dispersion), it spiked dramatically in the 80s - and stayed roughly stable after that. Add to this that poverty is not measured in terms of GDP but in terms of inequality and you get what she did.
...and of course the fact that your personal story was a happy one does not change an iota Myself I've been lucky enough to have grown up in a home where I didn't miss much (though, no holidays abroad ), but this doesn't mean a thing for the rest of the society...

[beaker]

Ooh, the young Loren was a beaut, really! A bit hard to focus now...

Sorry about that

"prepared to having her mind changed" does not chime well with "single-minded". And I would bet that "having her mind changed" would involve choices like "should we just kick them to the curb or just chop their heads off and be done with it? Discuss".

Both appear mutually exclusive, you have a consultation phase where you are prepared to have you views challenged, and once set you follow it through.

This interview seems good to me. It puts the "no society" comment into context and people making it on their own merits. I especially like the comments about the Youth Training Scheme that Buzby will probably tear apart

Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") | Margaret Thatcher
Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") | Margaret Thatcher

"In the way she thought best at the time": sure, that's what everyone does. The problem is what you're trying to achieve. Hitler went about it in "the way he thought best at the time". Attila, too. Yes, she did what she thought best - to destroy unions, to serve the ruling class, help industrialists and London bankers -and, oh, suppress other nations too. Let's take a look at this, for instance:


Income Groups     0-20%     21-80%     81-99%     Top 1%

Income increase   18%        37%         65%      275%

This is how income strata evolved from 1979 to 2007. Even the middle class ("21-80", didn't look up more detailed data - still haven't had coffee...) didn't fare well. 37% up in 30 years' time is not a success. So, you see, once you start drilling down in the data a whole different story appears. It's interesting to note that if you check the historical data for the Gini coefficient (in economics it shows the (in)equality of income dispersion), it spiked dramatically in the 80s - and stayed roughly stable after that. Add to this that poverty is not measured in terms of GDP but in terms of inequality and you get what she did.

True, I don't deny that a lot of people suffered especially the communities that relied on steel and coal. Given that this is a snapshot of the UK, how does this compare to other developed countries at the time to put it in some sort of context?

...and of course the fact that your personal story was a happy one does not change an iota Myself I've been lucky enough to have grown up in a home where I didn't miss much (though, no holidays abroad ), but this doesn't mean a thing for the rest of the society...

True, the point I was trying to make is this is what has shaped my own personal views, as a child, of the Iron Lady.

[Gryzor]

Sorry about that
Both appear mutually exclusive, you have a consultation phase where you are prepared to have you views challenged, and once set you follow it through.

I totally disagree with this action method. As a professional (and, I'd like to think rational person) I've always acted on what my dad tought me (and then found in all the handbooks about decision making): analysis->action->feedback->analysis->correction->take it from the top. What's more, as is done with almost all of the western governments, the 'consultation' phase involves cigars and brandy and sitting around a heavy desk, counting one's beans. I won't bite for that.


 

This interview seems good to me. It puts the "no society" comment into context and people making it on their own merits. I especially like the comments about the Youth Training Scheme that Buzby will probably tear apart

Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") | Margaret Thatcher
Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society") | Margaret Thatcher

I was aware of the interview, actually, and I have watched the entire discussion where she quipped that infamous saying. It doesn't change a thing. As I said above:

-first, not everyone can make it on their own merit. You also have to consider needs, but of course when you say 'there's no society' you're a long way past that.
-second, what about building everyone's merit? All sorts of broken (even rotten) wrongs here.
-can we talk about the merit of bankers, for instance?

There's a reason people came together in societies. If there was no need to we'd still be living in groups of maybe a housing unit (as far as "neighbor" goes). The economic/sociological reasoning is, I think, that in a society output is very much maximised, and problems get smoothed out much more easily. Start breaking this down to "individuals" and "families" and "neighbours" and output (not measured in shillings and pence) drops, while problems get much more difficult to contain - from invasions to a house fire (a well-known example, immortalised I think in the Gangs of New York, was the fire department that was run by a company or individual, on his own merit, and those who couldn't pay the extortionate subscription were left to burn).


 

True, I don't deny that a lot of people suffered especially the communities that relied on steel and coal. Given that this is a snapshot of the UK, how does this compare to other developed countries at the time to put it in some sort of context?

A lot of people suffered, and only a few benefited (see, for instance, privatised railways). I think it's very wrong to compare the UK at the time with other countries - every country is another tale. In Greece, for instance, in the 80s income inequality went down because of the socialist (or rather 'socialist') government and the belated emergence of the social state (not socialist, let's not confuse the terms here), but I can't compare the two[nb]A nice parallel to the milk story: I remember when I was 7 or 8 they would give big cans of surpluss peach juice to us in schools. Later they stopped the practice, preferring to dump the peaches in order to keep the prices up. Makes sense for a few (producers), none at all for society.[/nb]


But keep it coming, I like a civilised discussion

[Optimus]

[Gryzor]

Oh yeah, saw it last night and couldn't stop laughing


Poor woman, she didn't know what was coming to her...

[AMSDOS]

So I get the sense people in the UK don't give a stuff what the rest of the world thinks of them?? I never knew Margaret Thatcher except for what you hear here about her (which isn't much), and now she's dead people have a party. Maybe she was bad, I don't know, though I know she wasn't PM up to her death, why do people drag up the past and still have a party?

[Gryzor]

Easy: because her policies deeply affected the state of affairs people now live in, in the UK.

[AMSDOS]

Easy: because her policies deeply affected the state of affairs people now live in, in the UK.

Or is that just the government of today?


Australia's political system is based on U.K's horrible 2 party preferred Westminster system (not Margaret Thatchers idea), which doesn't work when both parties are as bad as each other.


I think the only good thing I heard come from the UK was somehow limit the amount of foreign trade. Australia is buggered because of it and businesses are moving overseas because it's cheaper to ship it in or whatever.

[beaker]

So I get the sense people in the UK don't give a stuff what the rest of the world thinks of them??

Hey, as an Englishman that assumption hurts  :'(

I never knew Margaret Thatcher except for what you hear here about her (which isn't much), and now she's dead people have a party. Maybe she was bad, I don't know, though I know she wasn't PM up to her death, why do people drag up the past and still have a party?

As Gryzor said:

It's because her radical policies affected so many people who are still alive. In the 1970's the UK was the sick man of Europe with traditional industries the UK relied on such as Manufacturing and Coal on the wane due to cheaper imports; there was already policies in place to shut down mines in prior the Maggie taking power. The power of the Trade Unions made the country ungovernable resulting in the winter of discontent. Maggie declared war of the Trade Unions, passing laws to diminish their powers, turning public opinion (across the rest of the country) against them, breaking up strikes and destroying their power base by wiping out the traditional industries that supported them, and as a result destroying their communities that resulted in high unemployment during the transition (although certain parts of the country have never recovered). In the process, she changed the UK to a market based economy by privatisation which people suggest have caused a boom and bust cycle because without much manufacturing, there is nothing for the UK to fall back on during the bust years.

Those who lived in areas that relied on the traditional industries and saw their livelihoods destroyed hate Thatcher which is why most of the parties happened in the old coal mining towns. I am guessing as Gryzor studied in Wales (a traditional mining community) he will have experienced a lot of disdain for Thatcher if the subject had come up?

The ceremony in London was to mark her importance in British history (good for some, bad for others) and the fact she was the first female Prime Minister in the UK made remarkable that only 4% of politicians in the House of Commons were female at the time.

Australia's political system is based on U.K's horrible 2 party preferred Westminster system (not Margaret Thatchers idea), which doesn't work when both parties are as bad as each other.

Well you have the Conservatives and Labour but what about the other parties in the UK? Lib Dems who the Tories are in coalition with, Green Party, BNP, UKIP, Raving Looney Party?
The problem is UK politics have become an old boys club again and the politicians from the main parties all come from similar privaliged backgrounds so the two main parties are as bad as one another, and there is little difference between them, but at least we don't have Julia Gillard 

I think the only good thing I heard come from the UK was somehow limit the amount of foreign trade. Australia is buggered because of it and businesses are moving overseas because it's cheaper to ship it in or whatever.

That's just the Governments attempt to win back votes from the UK Independence Party (UKIP). The UK relies on imports.

I take it the mining boom is over in Australia then?
 

[AMSDOS]

Hey, as an Englishman that assumption hurts  :'(  

Sadly yes, there's Australian's who probably do that too.

As Gryzor said:

It's because her radical policies affected so many people who are still alive. In the 1970's the UK was the sick man of Europe with traditional industries the UK relied on such as Manufacturing and Coal on the wane due to cheaper imports; there was already policies in place to shut down mines in prior the Maggie taking power. The power of the Trade Unions made the country ungovernable resulting in the winter of discontent. Maggie declared war of the Trade Unions, passing laws to diminish their powers, turning public opinion (across the rest of the country) against them, breaking up strikes and destroying their power base by wiping out the traditional industries that supported them, and as a result destroying their communities that resulted in high unemployment during the transition (although certain parts of the country have never recovered). In the process, she changed the UK to a market based economy by privatisation which people suggest have caused a boom and bust cycle because without much manufacturing, there is nothing for the UK to fall back on during the bust years.

What beats me is she was in Government for over 10 years! People here in Australia are comparing her to Kevin Rudd (PM Late 2007-2010), being booted out by the person still in office (till September this year I guess).

Those who lived in areas that relied on the traditional industries and saw their livelihoods destroyed hate Thatcher which is why most of the parties happened in the old coal mining towns. I am guessing as Gryzor studied in Wales (a traditional mining community) he will have experienced a lot of disdain for Thatcher if the subject had come up?

Mining is a bit of a joke in Australia, yes it's well paid and easy to get work in, though it's setup so you kind of loose your money on lousy accommodation and other living expenses along with a bit of that going into Tax.

Well you have the Conservatives and Labour but what about the other parties in the UK? Lib Dems who the Tories are in coalition with, Green Party, BNP, UKIP, Raving Looney Party?
The problem is UK politics have becomes an old boys club again and the politicians all come from similar privaliged backgrounds so the two main parties are as bad as one another, and there is little difference between them, but at least we don't have Julia Gillard 

Tony Abbott (opposition leader) appears to be worse than Gillard, anyone who listens to promises these days is a fool, and Abbott (maybe he'll be known as a-boot one day), cannot even keep a straight story and moves the goal posts.

[beaker]

I saw some of the miners accommodation last year while on holiday, tin mobile homes with cardboard on the windows to keep out of the light - is that what they're all like? The tour guide also suggested the Aborigines were still getting stiffed by the Government. If they wanted to open a mine on Aboriginal land, the Aborigines were being told they owned anything on the land but anything below the land was Government property (they'll just put the land back as it was once the mines are closed)?

So, do you think Rudd has bowed out of the leadership challenges altogether now or is he biding his time on the assumption his party can't win the next election anyway?

[AMSDOS]

I saw some of the miners accommodation last year while on holiday, tin mobile homes with cardboard on the windows to keep out of the light - is that what they're all like? The tour guide also suggested the Aborigines were still getting stiffed by the Government. If they wanted to open a mine on Aboriginal land, the Aborigines were being told they owned anything on the land but anything below the land was Government property (they'll just put the land back as it was once the mines are closed)?

I don't know if all the accommodation is like that, though the other problem is a shortage of Houses in those Mining areas, that people are choosing to live out of Tin Containers for a ridiculous price, which is simply a landlord owner taking the advantage of a situation. However there maybe another side to the story which explains why they have to charge so much.

Tony Abbott (the opposition leader) has some grand plan on moving people into Central & Northern Australia (Darwin) and it looks like they want to create a series of Dams (as Food Bowls) which looks as if will have an impact into Arnhem Land (which looks like is asking for more trouble).

So, do you think Rudd has bowed out of the leadership challenges altogether now or is he biding his time on the assumption his party can't win the next election anyway?

Yeah it looks like Rudd is out of the Picture when it comes to mounting a challenge because his supporters got booted out, though I've got some doubt about if he was ever going to mount a challenge, cause it looks like some media scam to get things shifted around like they have been doing these last few years. This September election could be an interesting one, fingers crossed people will decide to vote out main players out of their key seats, so there's no Gillard & no Abbott.

[Gryzor]

Thanks, Beaker, for a nice and objective summation.


And, what do you know (real coincidence), today I was talking to my girl about how Cardiff was still showing signs of suffering and disintegration when I was there...


I remember professors at the university there (hardly leftists, unionists or radicals - this *was* a Business School after all) saying how bust Wales got with Thatcher and how they were trying to get it back on track through university efforts.