Margaret Thatcher

[moses]

Northern Ireland and Argentina's conflicts were used by Thatcher to get people to rally together at a common foe, despite her social and economic policies dividing Britain. That adds sinister to a list that includes for me many many other ills. To even consider her within the parameters of a peacetime leader is quite sickening.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Thatcher was very poor for the PR of the nation, because in all fairness she was a bit of a cnut. As a leader and representative of the nation this was a major flaw. Above someone mentioned Northern Ireland as Blairs chance through historical revision, conversely it ranks Maggie as despicable.

That is subjective along partisan lines - she is well remembered and admired stateside and in Europe for her role in international affairs, in being instrumental in creating the political climate that led to the fall of the USSR. For all of the talk about Reagan forcing them into a corner, it was the Russians who gave Thatcher the nickname the Iron Lady - which coming from them is saying something.

 

[moses]

That is subjective along partisan lines - she is well remembered and admired stateside and in Europe for her role in international affairs, in being instrumental in creating the political climate that led to the fall of the USSR. For all of the talk about Reagan forcing them into a corner, it was the Russians who gave Thatcher the nickname the Iron Lady - which coming from them is saying something.

Well remembered by nobody I know outside of very few English people, you saying it's so doesn't make it true. That said I know very few right wing people.

And there's nothing all that subjective about this

Thatcher suggested 'Cromwell solution' for Northern Ireland | UK news | The Guardian

 

[Team Brian GB]

Well give us a list of peacetime PMs and we'll pick and chose. All the ones above are by definition not peacetime are they?

You can see through my previous post in this thread what my yardstick for peacetime is, basically anything short of leading a country in total war, where there are other matters of concern apart from surviving.

 

[mjs020294]

Thatcher was the right (and best) PM for the time. Wouldn't want her or anyone like her in power again but unfortunately her polices and strength were needed at the time.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Well remembered by nobody I know outside of very few English people, you saying it's so doesn't make it true. That said I know very few right wing people.

You do realise it was Thatcher who re-introduced laissez-faire thinking into British Government, the very same theory base that energises American conservatism today after Reagan picked it up.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

You can see through my previous post in this thread what my yardstick for peacetime is, basically anything short of leading a country in total war, where there are other matters of concern apart from surviving.

That definition says more about you than anything else.

 

[moses]

You can see through my previous post in this thread what my yardstick for peacetime is, basically anything short of leading a country in total war, where there are other matters of concern apart from surviving.

Total War? The only Total wars Britain were involved in were entered into under much less aggressive types than Thatcher.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Thatcher was the right (and best) PM for the time. Wouldn't want her or anyone like her in power again but unfortunately her polices and strength were needed at the time.

I would agree with that, she was extremely brutal but considering the very sorry state and decline that Britain was in, what she did was very much required. It made her extremely unpopular, she knew it was extremely unpopular yet she wasn't phased from doing what she knew to be right for our long term interest.

 

[moses]

Well remembered by nobody I know outside of very few English people, you saying it's so doesn't make it true. That said I know very few right wing people.

And there's nothing all that subjective about this

Thatcher suggested 'Cromwell solution' for Northern Ireland | UK news | The Guardian

You do realise it was Thatcher who re-introduced laissez-faire thinking into British Government, the very same theory base that energises American conservatism today after Reagan picked it up.

Why quote me when your answer doesn't even relate to my post?

Anyway.

Laissez Faire? You think putting a french name on privatisation makes it better?

And American conservatism is good now?

Have I dreamt the last 20 years?

 

[peterstorey]

Usual bollocks - she was elected Tory leader by default and was just the product of her time. Made two major errors:

1) Miners' strike which was unnecessary and which she nearly lost.
2) Falklands war - entirely avoidable.

 

[Frosty]

Peacetime PM's since 1900:

Marquess of Salisbury - Boer War
Arthur Balfour - Boer War
Henry Campbell-Bannerman
Herbert Asquith - WWI
David Lloyd George - WWI
Andrew Bonar Law
Stanley Baldwin
Ramsay McDonald
Neville Chamberlain - WWII
Winston Churchill - WWII, Korea
Clement Attlee - Korea
Anthony Eden - Suez, Kenya
Harold Macmillan
Alec Douglas-Home
Harold Wilson - NI
Ed Heath - NI
Jim Callaghan - NI
Margaret Thatcher - Falklands, NI
John Major - Gulf I, Bosnia, NI
Tony Blair - Gulf II, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, NI
Gordon Brown - Afghanistan
David Cameron - Afghanistan

Doesn't leave many really.

 

[Team Brian GB]

That definition says more about you than anything else.

So are you saying that Thatcher was never a peacetime PM, are you saying that the Falklands War began in 1979 and ended in 1990? Are you saying that war was her only concern in office as it was for Asquith from 1914 to 1916, Lloyd-George from 1916 to 1918, Chamberlain from 1939 to 1940 and Churchill from 1940 to 1945? Peacetime to me denotes when a government has peaceful concerns to attend to - peacetime and wartime can coincide - unless of course you are saying that Blair had no domestic accomplishments between 2003 and resigning in 2007?

As I said before, the real reason I said peacetime PMs because I wanted it to be based on policy, not on people saying Churchill for being a war leader.

 

[moses]

Peacetime PM's since 1900:



Doesn't leave many really.

Very few can be 'blamed' on the wars. Which as a Paddy is quite a concession.

 

[Frosty]

So are you saying that Thatcher was never a peacetime PM, are you saying that the Falklands War began in 1979 and ended in 1990? Are you saying that war was her only concern in office as it was for Asquith from 1914 to 1916, Lloyd-George from 1916 to 1918, Chamberlain from 1939 to 1940 and Churchill from 1940 to 1945? Peacetime to me denotes when a government has peaceful concerns to attend to - peacetime and wartime can coincide - unless of course you are saying that Blair had no domestic accomplishments between 2003 and resigning in 2007?

As I said before, the real reason I said peacetime PMs because I wanted it to be based on policy, not on people saying Churchill for being a war leader.

Alright then, Lloyd George beats them all:

Votes for women, setting up the Ministry of Health, compulsory education until 14, social housing, doubling of pensions, National Insurance started, unemployment benefits begun.

All after 1918.

 

[moses]

So are you saying that Thatcher was never a peacetime PM, are you saying that the Falklands War began in 1979 and ended in 1990? Are you saying that war was her only concern in office as it was for Asquith from 1914 to 1916, Lloyd-George from 1916 to 1918, Chamberlain from 1939 to 1940 and Churchill from 1940 to 1945? Peacetime to me denotes when a government has peaceful concerns to attend to - peacetime and wartime can coincide - unless of course you are saying that Blair had no domestic accomplishments between 2003 and resigning in 2007?

As I said before, the real reason I said peacetime PMs because I wanted it to be based on policy, not on people saying Churchill for being a war leader.

With Thatcher, the balance of wartime unity did allow the disharmony that the social policies caused a certain leeway. Disingenuous to seperate them.

 

[Flying Fox]

The greatest peace time Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for over a century?

Discuss.

You're a brave man.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

As I said before, the real reason I said peacetime PMs because I wanted it to be based on policy, not on people saying Churchill for being a war leader.

Then why did you say this about Atlee if you didn't want it to be about armed forces and war leadership?

It was the likes of Atlee as Leader of the Opposition that most verociously opposed re-arming in the thirties, and Labour did what they could to block it at every opportunity - Baldwin on numerous occasions had to downscale his plans for RAF expansion because of Labour opposition forced him into it. If we had fallen in 1940, Atlee would have been the reason why we were unable to defend ourselves.

I don't know how you passed a degree in politics or whatever it was, you can't even begin to form cohesive arguments.

 

[moses]

I'd go with Llyod George, and he did oversee some pretty tumultuous times here too, but he handled it evenhandedly and with grace.

 

[Team Brian GB]

And American conservatism is good now?

Good doesn't come into it, you said Thatcher isn't remembered yet she kicked off the drive for a more liberal economy and society in the English speaking world - the Americans adored Reagan and they adore him now, crediting him with a similar achievement as Thatcher is here, taking the US out of a lull, reinstituting American power on the world stage and setting the stage for the prosperity and relative global peace of the last twenty years in comparison to the cold war.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Alright then, Lloyd George beats them all:

Votes for women, setting up the Ministry of Health, compulsory education until 14, social housing, doubling of pensions, National Insurance started, unemployment benefits begun.

All after 1918.

On the downside, Welsh.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Alright then, Lloyd George beats them all:

Votes for women, setting up the Ministry of Health, compulsory education until 14, social housing, doubling of pensions, National Insurance started, unemployment benefits begun.

All after 1918.

That is a very fair argument, however the economic circumstances in Britain following the war were dire - we had the first example of a Conservative/Liberal coalition that saw the Liberals decimated and set the stage for an unsettling decade.

However saying that, you will struggle to find a period in twentieth century Britain where economic and social development were improving swimmingly.

 

[moses]

Good doesn't come into it, you said Thatcher isn't remembered yet she kicked off the drive for a more liberal economy and society in the English speaking world - the Americans adored Reagan and they adore him now, crediting him with a similar achievement as Thatcher is here, taking the US out of a lull, reinstituting American power on the world stage and setting the stage for the prosperity and relative global peace of the last twenty years in comparison to the cold war.

Good doesn't come into it , I thought we were discussing merits of whether she was a good PM or not?

I said she wasn't remembed as a good PM, or in a positive light, she is remembered alright.

Even though I don't agree with you your argument of her putting the US front and centre has ultimately led to the world viewing your country as it's lapdog, and that makes her your best PM.

I don't get that.

Also the merits of relative peace v the Cold War is worth a thread all of it's own.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Then why did you say this about Atlee if you didn't want it to be about armed forces and war leadership?

Why do you always misquote me, I said I didn't want it to about Churchill leading Britain in WWII - that doesn't mean Atlee's political movement and judgement in the thirties.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Why do you always misquote me, I said I didn't want it to about Churchill leading Britain in WWII - that doesn't mean Atlee's political movement and judgement in the thirties.

His judgement about... WWII. Carry on.

 

[Frosty]

On the downside, Welsh.

He did champion the speaking of the Welsh language and encouraged Welsh identity too. Hmm, on second thoughts...

 

[Team Brian GB]

Good doesn't come into it , I thought we were discussing merits of whether she was a good PM or not?

I said she wasn't remembed as a good PM, or in a positive light, she is remembered alright.

Even though I don't agree with you your argument of her putting the US front and centre has ultimately led to the world viewing your country as it's lapdog, and that makes her your best PM.

I don't get that.

Also the merits of relative peace v the Cold War is worth a thread all of it's own.

We are discussing merits of a good PM, however in this instance you said she isn't remembered, and by generous extension on my part, influential - good doesn't come into whether she is remembered and influential, she either is or she isn't.

 

[moses]

This is what a succession of poor Labour governments does? I blame Blair, I really thought she be dead before this revisionism would start. I know where my roll of 'Good Riddance' stickers are for when it happens.

 

[moses]

We are discussing merits of a good PM, however in this instance you said she isn't remembered, and by generous extension on my part, influential - good doesn't come into whether she is remembered and influential, she either is or she isn't.

Yes she is, very. She is a huge influence in my personal politics. Huge.

 

[Team Brian GB]

His judgement about... WWII. Carry on.

Read my words - Churchill as a war leader and not an orthodox PM during the war, is off the table - WWII is not off the table, consequences and causes are not off the table. That is what disqualifying Churchill's war record means, weirdly enough.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Read my words - Churchill as a war leader and not an orthodox PM during the war, is off the table - WWII is not off the table, consequences and causes are not off the table. That is what disqualifying Churchill's war record means, weirdly enough.

So, let me get this straight, WWII is not off the table in the peacetime PM thread, except in the case of people who were actually PM in the war. If someone was only hypothetically PM in the war, then they should be judged on their hypothetical war record because it therefore wasn't a real war and counts as peacetime? Got it.

 

[Team Brian GB]

This is what a succession of poor Labour governments does? I blame Blair, I really thought she be dead before this revisionism would start. I know where my roll of 'Good Riddance' stickers are for when it happens.

This isn't revisionism, there is a reason why she was idolised by the middle classes and the productive parts of the economy at the time and since - there is a reason why she was the longest serving PM for the best part of 200 years and the most impregnable of any PM during her ministry. She rebuilt the economy from the ground up, she ridded the country of union influence and disruption. You can blame Thatcher for destroying industry as much as you want but it was destroyed before she became PM, it wasn't her fault that the left and the unions were in denial about that.

Take cars for instance - British made cars in the seventies had an absolutely awful reputation, they sold badly at home and even worse abroad - partly because the unions were so strike happy, someone had to have the political stength and will to stop protecting and subsidising shoddy manufacturing that an open market wouldn't tolerate for being too shoddy. It was practices like that which put the British economy in a hole in the first place.

 

[Team Brian GB]

So, let me get this straight, WWII is not off the table in the peacetime PM thread, except in the case of people who were actually PM in the war. If someone was only hypothetically PM in the war, then they should be judged on their hypothetical war record because it therefore wasn't a real war and counts as peacetime? Got it.

This may be news to you, but Britain wasn't at war in the early and mid thirties with Germany - though Atlee's actions certainly didn't help leading up to, and during it.

This is my thread, I called it peacetime PMs to disqualify Churchill as I wanted it to not be about leading a war effort, get over it.

 

[Team Brian GB]

Read my words - Churchill as a war leader and not an orthodox PM during the war, is off the table - WWII is not off the table, consequences and causes are not off the table. That is what disqualifying Churchill's war record means, weirdly enough.

So, let me get this straight, WWII is not off the table in the peacetime PM thread, except in the case of people who were actually PM in the war. If someone was only hypothetically PM in the war, then they should be judged on their hypothetical war record because it therefore wasn't a real war and counts as peacetime? Got it.

I think you are confused somewhat.

 

[moses]

This isn't revisionism, there is a reason why she was idolised by the middle classes and the productive parts of the economy at the time and since - there is a reason why she was the longest serving PM for the best part of 200 years and the most impregnable of any PM during her ministry. She rebuilt the economy from the ground up, she ridded the country of union influence and disruption. You can blame Thatcher for destroying industry as much as you want but it was destroyed before she became PM, it wasn't her fault that the left and the unions were in denial about that.

Take cars for instance - British made cars in the seventies had an absolutely awful reputation, they sold badly at home and even worse abroad - partly because the unions were so strike happy, someone had to have the political stength and will to stop protecting and subsidising shoddy manufacturing that an open market wouldn't tolerate for being too shoddy. It was practices like that which put the British economy in a hole in the first place.

Aye so she killed the motor industry and replaced it with what exactly? Not what I'd call genius. Nonsesnse thread, the OP uses the word 'greatest', you have changed your argument now. Influence which igores the merit of the influence is nonsense. Hitler's madness and the consequences shaped the second half of the last century, hugely influential, not at all great.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I think you are confused somewhat.

No, I think you just can't form any kind of coherent reasoning.

 

[moses]

I think you are confused somewhat.

Yes, hard to not be when you define what 'Greatest' is as you go along.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Aye so she killed the motor industry and replaced it with what exactly? Not what I'd call genius. Nonsesnse thread, the OP uses the word 'greatest', you have changed your argument now. Influence, regadless of merit is nonsense. Hitler's madness and the consequences shaped the second half of the last century, hugely influential, not at all great.

Hey, come on now, I think it's pretty offensive to equate Thatcher to Hitler. I don't remember Hitler trying to take away anyone's milk.

 

[moses]

Hey, come on now, I think it's pretty offensive to equate Thatcher to Hitler. I don't remember Hitler trying to take away anyone's milk.

Just saying that the thread has become a farce. You can't equate the scale effect of someones reign solely as greatness. She is hugely influential, and vividly remembered, but great?

 

[Team Brian GB]

Yes, hard to not be when you define what 'Greatest' is as you go along.

No, I am not, I have never once changed the definition of greatest, the discussion about Thatcher being influential was a sideshow - I specifically said whether she was influential had no bearing on whether she was good or not. Why are people so eager to infer different meaning, when I specfically state to the contrary I do not know.