The Iron Lady

[Sionnach Glic]

From a recent thread we now know Ian's views on Britain's past Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, so I'm interested in seeing what other people think of her. I've noticed that, interestingly, she's either deified or demonised. So, how well do you think her years in power went? Was she the strong leader that saw Britain through a war and gave the nation a good shaking-up, or a ruthless leader who needlessly clamped down on the freedom of the people?

[Aaron]

*shrug* We don't learn much about her. I'm a fan of her Falklands actions but that's about all I know. Though I hear on the interwebs that her economic policies were about on par with Reagan's.

[Lazar]

My impression of her is basically that she was the British version of Reagan, presiding over deregulation, de-industrialization and union busting. So I'm really not too fond of her.

[Captain Seafort]

1) The Falklands. Yes, it was Leach and Lewin who convinced her that the islands could and must be retaken, but Maggie didn't take much convincing, and was an excellent wartime leader at the national level.

2) Scargill. Breaking the power of the unions was vital after the power they'd exercised in the 70s. It also allowed the restructuring of an economy that was in the process of falling apart, and laid the foundations for the country's current economic strength. And yes, I do mean current. While the current crisis is bad, it is not the three-day-week of the seventies, despite the fuckups of the last decade.

3) The Soviet Union. Providing a firm front with Reagan was important, but even moreso was her attitude to Gorbachev - "this is a man we can do business with". The carrot to go with the US stick.

4) Ireland. It was under Maggie that British counterinsurgency finally got to grips with the IRA in a way that the political differing of the 70s hadn't, and it was that that forced the IRA cease-fires of the 90s, and ultimately the end of the Troubles (albeit an achievement that was somewhat marred by the details of the Good Friday Agreement)

5) Gulf War round 1. "This is no time to go wobbly." 'Nuff said. 8)

Sure, she was also responsible for some spectacular fuckups, the Poll Tax being the worst of them, but on the whole Britain came out of the eighties in a damn sight better shape than it went into them.

[Mikey]

I'm obviously not as connected as some folks here, and certainly my views are based almost strictly around her foreign policy and not her national policy, but I loved her. A bit less after finding out recently about her dissembling on certain Germanic issues, but a bit more after finding that she walked "The House" during an SAS live drill.

[Sionnach Glic]

, but a bit more after finding that she walked "The House" during an SAS live drill.

The best part of that is how she reacted to the SAS storming the room she was in, firing live rounds. She and her secretary were in the room together. She remained perfectly calm through the entire thing, but her secretary dropped to the floor as soon as the shooting started. Thatcher turned to him and said "Get up, you're embarressing me", or something along those lines.

[stitch626]

From what I've heard (like, form someone who heard it, so third-hand), I can't say I like or dislike her policies. Some I agree with, others I don't...

[Graham Kennedy]

Positives :

She set us on the road to defeating the IRA.

The Falklands War. Had a lesser PM negotiated the islands away, Britain would have become a very different country, and one whose voice would have counted for far less in the world than it did and does.

In the Middle :

She broke the political power of the unions, which I think needed doing, but doing so involved inflincting untold misery on British people by the million and the destruction of entire communities across the country. The poverty thus created lasts even to today in some places.

Early 80s recession. Largely a result of restructuring the economy and getting rid of a lot of dead wood from the 70s, this. But still, it was a hard, hard time, especially where I grew up. Millions of people were driven into poverty, to and in many cases past the point where families were disintergrating. The above union thing was part of it really. It's this period above all else that makes millions regard Thatcher as a hate figure today.

Europe. I think she was in the right on this, but she fought a good fight badly and broke her government in the process.

The Bad :

The late 80s recession. Entirely a result of Thatcher/Lamont overheating the economy. Not nearly as bad as the early 80s recession, it still caused national misery. I spent three years jobless myself because of this.

The poll tax. Nice in theory, HORRIBLY implemented. Bringing it in in Scotland first made it look like she thought of Scotland as some sort of government lab experiment with a "if it fails who cares, they're only Scottish" attitude. That may be accurate or not, but it utterly destroyed the Tories in Scotland, reshaping the political map for decades to come, possibly forever.

She came across as openly contemptuous of anybody who didn't vote for her.

[sunnyside]

I only knew of her in regards to her foriegn policy, and for that I'd give her a general thumbs up.

I'm a bit more informed now (as a result of reading this thread ), sounds like locally her performance was mixed, but that's usually the case.

[Mikey]

Had a lesser PM negotiated the islands away, Britain would have become a very different country, and one whose voice would have counted for far less in the world than it did and does.

Indeed. Excellent point, Graham.

[IanKennedy]

From a recent thread we now know Ian's views on Britain's past Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, so I'm interested in seeing what other people think of her. I've noticed that, interestingly, she's either deified or demonised. So, how well do you think her years in power went? Was she the strong leader that saw Britain through a war and gave the nation a good shaking-up, or a ruthless leader who needlessly clamped down on the freedom of the people?

Led Britain through a war that she caused, or at least failed to prevent in order to get herself re-elected.

[Captain Seafort]

Led Britain through a war that she caused, or at least failed to prevent in order to get herself re-elected.

Nonetheless, she did so very effectively, although on Graham's scale I'd count the Falklands as medium and breaking both the IRA and Scargill and rebuilding the economy after the 70s as the big pluses.

[IanKennedy]

Led Britain through a war that she caused, or at least failed to prevent in order to get herself re-elected.

Nonetheless, she did so very effectively, although on Graham's scale I'd count the Falklands as medium and breaking both the IRA and Scargill and rebuilding the economy after the 70s as the big pluses.

Falkland islands: She could have prevented it weeks before it even happened. The Argentinians where probing to find out what would happen if they did invade. The government knew this and did nothing. Had they simply told them to bog off and sent a small force into the area to make their presence felt they wouldn't have invaded. The Argentinian leader has said as much since. They started by putting a small group of people on a one of the smaller islands in the group (a tiny place), nothing was done about it. Not even a comment from the British ambassador to Argentina. The 30 year rule has proved they knew about it at the time and did nothing. She wanted the war. Without it she was down in the polls. After it she won the election with a landslide. May the lives of the soldiers and sailors on both sides haunt her every moment. The fact that we beat what is effectively a second world country was a forgone conclusion, I don't put it down to her leadership in any way.

She shut down perfectly good coal pits because she wanted a fight with the unions. To this day we are paying through the nose for fuel that we have to buy from Russia which is a big part of our Inflation figures.

The attitude of a whole generation stinks because of her nature and policies. What kind of a message does it send out to the population when the leader says crap like "There's no such thing as society". Well it says you just look out for your self and screw anyone else. That seems to sum up the 80s. She did more to widen the gap between the haves and have nots than anyone before or after.

[sunnyside]

Falkland islands: She could have prevented it weeks before it even happened. The Argentinians where probing to find out what would happen if they did invade. The government knew this and did nothing. Had they simply told them to bog off and sent a small force into the area to make their presence felt they wouldn't have invaded. The Argentinian leader has said as much since. They started by putting a small group of people on a one of the smaller islands in the group (a tiny place), nothing was done about it. Not even a comment from the British ambassador to Argentina. The 30 year rule has proved they knew about it at the time and did nothing. She wanted the war. Without it she was down in the polls. After it she won the election with a landslide. May the lives of the soldiers and sailors on both sides haunt her every moment. The fact that we beat what is effectively a second world country was a forgone conclusion, I don't put it down to her leadership in any way.

Now I haven't seen those documents, but is that fair?

Quite a few wars could have been prevented with the benifit of 20/20 hindsight and a comparitivly small application of force.

WWII could have been prevented if we stomped on a treaty gimped Germany when they first started exceding what they were supposed to do.

A larger strike to take out Osama could have prevented 9/11 and therefore probalby both the Afgan and Iraq wars.

And so on.

However usually countries are villified for pre-emptive strikes, and the 20/20 thing applies in that often the outcome of letting something slide is not imagined.

I mean it does seem a little crazy that a second rate force like Argentina would attempt to conquer British territory. If the Falklands war hadn't happened, and the situation were brewing now, I don't really see you believe than they'd launch a full invasion.

[Captain Seafort]

Falkland islands: She could have prevented it weeks before it even happened.

It could have been prevented years earlier - scrapping the old Ark and listing Invincible, Fearless and Intrepid for sale sent entirely the wrong message.

The Argentinians where probing to find out what would happen if they did invade. The government knew this and did nothing. Had they simply told them to bog off and sent a small force into the area to make their presence felt they wouldn't have invaded. The Argentinian leader has said as much since.

Which can be ascribed to collective incompetence and complacency as much as malice.

They started by putting a small group of people on a one of the smaller islands in the group (a tiny place), nothing was done about it. Not even a comment from the British ambassador to Argentina. The 30 year rule has proved they knew about it at the time and did nothing.

We did not "do nothing" - Endurance had been sent with a RM detachment to evict the scrap merchants. They gave the Argies a serious bloody nose at 1st South Georgia, and could probably have beaten them off if Endurance's chopper had been allowed to join in.

She wanted the war. Without it she was down in the polls. After it she won the election with a landslide.

She certainly benefited from the war, but You've provided no evidence it support of the theory that she went looking for one that can't easily be put down to a collective bog-up.

The fact that we beat what is effectively a second world country was a forgone conclusion

Far from it - we nearly had to call the whole campaign off after Atlantic Conveyor was hit. If that missile had hit Invincible instead (it originally locked onto her, but was decoyed off target by a combination of Sea Kings and chaff) we would have had to withdraw.

She shut down perfectly good coal pits because she wanted a fight with the unions.

A fight that was needed to break the unions. Or would you prefer the unions to run the country instead of the elected government, as was frequently the case in the 70s.

I also notice that you make no mention of her success dealing with the IRA.