Margaret Thatcher: Thirty years on

[Pannonian]

One legacy not yet touched on in this thread is the culture of individualism, or the consumer culture. Whether this was made by the prosperity that Britain enjoyed, or whether it was made by the religion of individual responsibilities that Thatcher believed in, there was a shift from the old conservative ideas of social responsibility (conservative includes both Tories and socialists), towards an emphasis on individual rights (consumer rights), which society (the seller) had to fulfill. That IMHO was the greatest legacy of Thatcherism, which is why her politics cannot adequately be described as Tory or conservative, for it was neither, but liberal.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that by 1979 a lot of this had already happened. The 50's, 60's and 70's were all years where the old order fell away, so I think that these changes were already advanced when she came to office.

[Furunculus]

good point, but i have always believed in traditional liberal politics, which is one reason why i don't vote liberal-democrat or labour.

[CountArach]

Here's to 30 years of greed!

[Idaho]

Thatcher was a product of the times. Her 'ideology' was non-existant. She largely just continued the monetarist policies imposed on Britain by the IMF in 1976. The ephemera of her ideology masked choices based on what she liked and who her friends were. What she said and what she did were usually completely divorced - "roll back the frontiers of the state", "reduce public spending" actually translated into the biggest increases of public spending and massive increases in state power and scope.

Privatisation of national industry was chanced upon. Her government needed to raise money quickly so decided to sell off govt assets. They were as suprised as anyone as to the popularity of the move - and retrospectively turned it into ideology.

The poll tax was chanced upon at random too. The civil service presented a range of options to replace rates. Almost as a joke the poll tax was tacked onto the presentation.

Her husband and her husband's circle all become multi-millionaires under her govt.

Like all British rightwingers - she held at her heart a contradiction. That people should be at liberty only to do the sorts of things she herself would do.

[Furunculus]

"roll back the frontiers of the state", "reduce public spending" actually translated into the biggest increases of public spending and massive increases in state power and scope.

Like all British rightwingers - she held at her heart a contradiction. That people should be at liberty only to do the sorts of things she herself would do.

got some figures to back that up boyo?

how very divorced from reality.

[Idaho]

got some figures to back that up boyo?

how very divorced from reality.

Mind your manners small fry. It's common knowledge to anyone with a basic grounding in economics and history.

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/tax-an...2012861/print/

[Furunculus]

it doesn't matter how much you spend per-se, what matter is what proportion of GDP the Gov't elects to fritter away on public spending.

in 1997 public spending represented about 37% of GDP
in 2008 public spending represented about 43% of GDP
in 1979 i am willing to bet that it was closer to 43% than 37%

from your link:
http://ukpublicspending.co.uk/downch...ent%20of%20GDP

[Furunculus]

Here's to 30 years of greed!

after thirty years of slovenly and unnecessary decline it was a breath of fresh air!

[CountArach]

after thirty years of slovenly and unnecessary decline it was a breath of fresh air!

Greed > Imperial Decline

Right...

Not sure I follow?

[Furunculus]

Greed > Imperial Decline

Right...

Not sure I follow?

I don't think you really appreciate the scale of the damage that was done by britain's retarded little flirtation with a centralised command economy.

the difference is obvious enough if you compare Britain in the mid seventies to britain in the mid nineties.

[Che Roriniho]

Here's to 30 years of greed!

Hear Hear! The thing is with Thatcher, is she and Reagan decided that Trickle-down economics actually worked, somehow. They are, what we call in conversation, idiots.

[Vladimir]

Hear Hear! The thing is with Thatcher, is she and Reagan decided that Trickle-down economics actually worked, somehow. They are, what we call in conversation, idiots.

No doubt that is considered spirited debate in those circles.

[Strike For The South]

This is the one that beat the hell out of Argentina for those islands with all the seals on them right?

[InsaneApache]

Yes. Penguins though, not seals.

[Furunculus]

Hear Hear! The thing is with Thatcher, is she and Reagan decided that Trickle-down economics actually worked, somehow. They are, what we call in conversation, idiots.

And yet Britain became so much wealthier, including a vast number of the working-class who became middle-class as a result of her policies............

[Che Roriniho]

And yet Britain became so much wealthier, including a vast number of the working-class who became middle-class as a result of her policies............

Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?

[InsaneApache]

Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?

Tish.

[rory_20_uk]

Yeh, and so many Ghettoised poor people. It's because of her stupid, stupid idea of selling council houses that we have such a problem with crime culture. The better off poor buyedd up houses on the better estates, forcing all the really poor together, which as history tells us time and time again, IS NOT A GOOD IDEA. Mmmkay?

So, are you saying that the larger estates somehow worked?
The policy that council houses could be continued down the generations was a good idea?
Placing all poor together might not be a great idea. So, what is a good idea? Placed in an area, prices drop as it is less desirable.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Countries change over time. After the war, for decades, the UK was the most socialized country west of the Iron Curtain.

Yes, contemporary talk of ultra-liberalism as an 'Anglo'-tradition is historically off the mark. The UK and New Zealand - always the most 'British' of the dominions - had a social system that makes anything that ever happened in Scandinavia appear heartlessly ultraright. Neo-liberalism has spread from America into the British world. This neo-liberalism could make common cause with, trace some of its origin in, some British traditions. But on the whole, in the modern version it is an alien import into the (former) British world. Compare, for example, the vast difference in social systems that still divides Canada from the US. Britain, as is so often shamelessly forgotten both within and without the UK, is not a country with an inherent 'Anglo-style capitalist' tradition, but is instead the very inventor of the welfare state.

By 1979, Britain was bankrupt. A poor country, the second poorest in the EU. A new course was needed.

This, however, is not really what Thatcher did. She did not set out a new course* for Britian so much as destroy the obsolete. What she did, with sardonic pleasure one might add, was destroy the old in Britain. Arguably rightfully so. But with near psychopathic ruthlessness. Did she psychologically try to wash off the traces of her own modest origins by lashing out onto the poor?

*This honour, for better or for worse, I think belongs to Blair and New Labour.