Complexities Margaret Thatcher

[Micilin]

For someone who polarised opinion possibly more than any modern politician, she in reality was more complex than the myth of the unwavering Iron Lady.

Those that love her and those hate her buy into the myth that they choose, but I would be interested in how many of us realise the extent that realpolitik shaped her actions and altered her prinicples.

All politicians have to do this, and a career like MT's by it's longevity at the highest levels of power means that there were by necessity compromises.

Defining episodes like the Poll tax, Hunger Strikes, Miners strikes, Falklands etc seem to be headline indications of her character and resolute principles yet within them there are also grey areas.

Regardless of policies and whether you support them or not , it would be great to get a few reasoned comments on the below before it descends into the predictable

What do you think of the contradictions in her actions? Does it make her more interesting than the lazy caricature?

The contradictions in her decisions seem to me to undermine the conception that she was resolutely principled. Some were unashamedly politically expedient (such as the Westminster gerrymandering) Some counter productive (hunger strikes swelling support for PIRA)
Some were necessary for her to reach her goals.


- A ‘free marketer’ selling off council housing below market rates
- Ditto selling off state assets (and Norman Tebbit picking up directorship of BT etc)
- A ‘defender against Europe eroding UK sovereignty’ signing the SEA
- Ditto leading ‘Yes’ campaign to stay in EEC
- Ditto wanting to widen the EEC to include more countries
- ‘Freedom for individuals’ yet centralising power
Ditto on councils
- ‘Small state’ but increased spending (modern lowest as % of GDP was Lab c.2001)
- Ditto expanded welfare state massively
- ‘Champion of democracy’ opposed to German reunification
- Ditto supporting Pakistan Regime
- Ditto arming Mujahidin
- Ditto defending SA
- Ditto telling Catholics if they didn’t like it there, to move out of NI
- Ditto supporting Pinochet
- Ditto abolishing GLC
- ‘Staunch anti terrorist’ engaging in secret talks with PIRA
- ‘Defender of Falklands’ in talks with Argentina about handover pre conflict
- Quoting Assisi but relishing discord
- ‘Champion of British interests’ that gave away Westland
- ‘Housewife’s balanced budget’ that relaxed credit regulations
- ‘Lady not for turning’ U turning on early monetarist stance
- Ditto on Poll tax
- ‘Upholder of traditional British Values’ deriding the concept of society
- ‘Tax Cutter’ opposing Chancellor’s income tax cuts

 

[Micilin]

Not back and white enough for either the 'LoveMaggie' or 'HateThatcher' viewers

The real history is more nuanced than either camp like. Far easier to go into reflex mode rather than reflective mode.

She did some stuff that was from conviction but some of it was just politics dressed up as conviction. Some of it dishonest,some of it honest. That's what politicians do. She was the same but supporters and opponents find it easier to buy into the caricature to avoid the facts that dont fit their assessment

The love/hate stance stops any meaningful asessment.

Interesting to observe.....

 

[chapeau]

The most interesting and revealing interviews over the past day have come from those who worked for her.

Though I did love the spitting image characterisation of her. Fluck and Law were really anti Thatcher so probably not balanced but brilliant all the same.

 

[Graeme1983]

One thing being dressed up as a good thing that she did by selling off council houses to the occupants as empowering the poor to become homeowners.

But when you think about it, it was great politics and spin. The houses might have been sold off for a fraction of the price but over the medium and long term those houses are off the govt slate, a short term cash boost for the govt and no more long term expenditure on maintenance. No more new windows, boilers and kitchens to fit at the treasuries expense.

The same thing is happening now in my mrs hometown, 20 yrs after communism has finished and austerity is in full swing. Its not being dressed up as empowering the poor to own homes, its known that the council is skint and cant afford to modernise the houses or keep them in decent condition. Places are going for about 25% of market value.

 

[Micilin]

My objections to that scheme were -

- Selling below market rates
-Not allowing councils to use the money to build more stock

The latter also meant that we ended up paying other providers more money to house people, rather than getting rent or deducting benefit while in a council dwelling. And shrinking supply led to the inevitable in the market

I have no problem with anyone that bouoght their house /flat cheap, I would probably have done it myself if I was living in one. But I think the scheme made no sense economically and why encourage people to want council housing?

Edit - Nice to get some interesting comments byond the blind Love /Hate stuff