Margaret Thatcher: the Iron Lady
91THE IRON LADY
Lady Margaret Thatcher became the first woman to lead a political party of Britain in 1975. Four years later, she would become the only female Prime Minister in the history of her country.
Margaret Thatcher was re-elected by a huge majority in 1983, and again by a landslide in 1987. This made her the first Prime Minister of Britain to win three straight elections in over 150 years. Thatcher was elected by the British People to serve as the head of their country for a longer period of continuous time than any of her predecessors since 1812.
Lady Margaret Thatcher was eventually forced out of office by her own party in 1990. To Americans, this would mean she lost the primary.
Margaret Thatcher was nicknamed 'the Iron Lady' by the Soviets, a title she relished. Despite a concerted smear campaign by hateful Leftists that has been a non-stop barrage lasting thirty years, Thatcher was voted by the British people in 2008 to have been the best Prime Minister since the Second World War by a three to one margin.
MARGARET THATCHER
Margaret Thatcher was born in 1925. Her father was a grocer and a Methodist preacher. Margaret Thatcher graduated from Oxford in 1947 and became a chemist. Four years later, she married a successful businessman named Denis Thatcher, a marriage that would last until his death in 2003.
Margaret Thatcher passed the bar exam to become a tax lawyer in 1953, the same year she gave birth to twins. In 1959, she was elected to Parliament. From 1970 to 1974, Thatcher served as Britain's Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Though from humble origins in a nation that was very class conscious, Lady Margaret Thatcher would become a heroine for the ages. She was voted the 5th most admired woman in the world of the 20th Century, behind only Mother Theresa, Helen Keller, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.
THE CONDITION OF BRITAIN BEFORE THATCHER
In order to appreciate the heroic accomplishments of Margaret Thatcher, first one must comprehend the condition that Britain was in before she came to power in 1979: it was an international laughingstock. By the time Thatcher left office in 1990, Britain was admired around the world.
In 1977, a humiliated Britain was bankrupt and forced to beg the International Monetary Fund for an enormous loan. British business was woefully uncompetitive in the global marketplace. The Civil Service had resigned itself to managing the decline of their nation—once the most powerful on earth. Everyone thought an economic and social collapse was inevitable. There seemed to be no hope.
The winter of 1978-1979 is known as Britain's "Winter of Discontent." Labor unions had a stranglehold on the economy and society. Unions blocked any new technologies. Unions blocked any downsizing of the labor force of old industries in terminal decline. Many labor union leaders were in fact quietly communists, loyal to the Soviet Union, determined to destroy Britain.
1979 was the year in which labor unions tried to overthrow democracy in Britain. Widespread labor strikes capped thirty years of disrupting the British economy. In 1979 alone, labor strikes resulted in thirty million lost work days. Imagine how much wealth would be permanently lost and how much damage it would do to the commonweal of any country to lose 30,000,000 days of work in one year. The demands of labor unions were for an immediate and incredible increase in wages of 15 to 25 percent.
Train drivers and nurses went on strike. Ambulance drivers refused to answer calls to help the ill and injured. Ancillary hospital workers blocked the entrances to hospitals. Refuse collectors let garbage pile up for weeks. Gravediggers refused to bury the dead.
Truck drivers disrupted oil supplies and closed refineries. 1,000,000 non-union workers lost jobs that were connected to these industries. Countless petrol stations went bankrupt. Violent union picket lines made it impossible for anyone to do the work that union members refused to do.
Britain was on the verge of complete collapse when it turned to Margaret Thatcher to save it from disintegration.
INFLATION
Before we turn to the rescue of Britain by Margaret Thatcher, we must look briefly at inflation. The power of labor unions to extort higher and higher wages every year—combined with meddling by the British Government in wages and prices—had created a 22 percent rate of inflation rate in the late 1970s. This means if you have a dollar on New Years Day, by the following New Years Eve it has diminished in value (purchasing power) to 78 cents.
It may be difficult for anyone who has never experienced such inflation to appreciate its significance. Massive inflation is often a prelude to political revolution, such as in NAZI Germany. It was inflation that brought Hitler to power, and it was inflation that was the catalyst to the French Revolution.
With huge rates of inflation, to let money sit in a savings account is a losing proposition. Decades of hard-earned savings become nearly worthless. To save money means to pay for tomorrow's higher-priced goods with yesterday's diminished dollars. Instead, people learn the bad habit (in the long-run) of buying today on credit what they can pay for later with inflated dollars before the price of the goods goes up again.
The economist Alfred Khan said, "Inflation was not just an economic problem but a profoundly social problem—a sign of a society is some degree of dissolution, in which individuals and groups seek their self-interest and demand more money and government programs that simply add up to more than the economy is capable of supplying."
MARGARET THATCHER ELECTED PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of Britain in 1979. In her campaign for the office she promised to reverse the long national decline by curbing the outrageous power of labor unions to cripple the country; deregulating business; privatizing nationalized industries; ending the taxpayer provided subsidy of failing industries; lowering taxes; and giving the citizens more freedom.
Margaret Thatcher delivered on that promise. But it was not to be an easy road. Besides the labor unions, Thatcher faced fierce opposition to nearly everything she tried to do from the entrenched British Establishment—the Press; the Universities; the Bureaucracy.
Her support came from the Middle Class—the ordinary, decent, hard-working British men and women. They sensed that Margaret Thatcher was a courageous, no-nonsense, dedicated, hard worker who had high expectations of the British People.
EVERY STORY NEEDS A VILLAIN
Arthur Scargill is a communist who was elected president of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1981. Today he heads the Socialist Labour Party. Scargill has been quite public about his admiration of Joseph Stalin, that mass murderer of tens of millions of helpless human souls. Arthur Scargill says, "the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin" explain the 'real world'."
In 1984, the National Coal Board of Britain announced the closure of twenty coal pits that were losing money heavily. The coal industry was in fact losing more than one hundred million pounds each year. Scargill called for a union strike in protest but failed to get the required majority vote of coal miners.
This did not deter Arthur Scargill. He and his more militant henchmen set about closing coal mines undemocratically through pressure, force, and intimidation. Scargill succeeded in closing down 131 out of the 174 pits. He then planned to bus goon squads to the open pits to stop non-striking miners from working. The police halted the union goon buses for the first time in decades.
The Scargill Strike was horrifically expensive for the British Public. The total cost? Over 7.5 billion pounds. More than 7,000 miners were arrested for violent acts and five men were killed. Scargill paid striking miners with funds provided by the terrorist Muammar Gaddafi of Libya.
The strike failed, and because of the financial damage to Britain's coal industry this meant that instead of 10,000 miners let go, as was planned before the strike; 30,700 lost their jobs permanently.
MARGARET THATCHER AS PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
The decline of labor union power revitalized many industries because no longer did people merely pretend to work. Real productivity per worker rose during the Thatcher years at a higher rate than in any other European country. The British economy as a whole grew by 4 percent per year during the 1980s—a post-WWII record.
In Britain, unlike in America, whole industries were owned and operated by the government. Even in a relatively small country, this proved, of course, to be an utter disaster. Margaret Thatcher privatized most of these, which was an absolute success. No longer did three workers stand around and watch one work; no longer did unions stymie technological innovation; no longer would a horse and buggy factory be kept open at taxpayer expense long after the invention of the automobile.
The year before it was privatized by Margaret Thatcher, British Steel set an all-time record for the one year loss of money by any entity in world history outside the Soviet Union: Five Hundred Million Pounds. Within seven years, British Steel had the highest productivity rates in Europe and had become the most profitable steel company on Planet Earth. British Airways experienced a similar turnaround.
Because Margaret Thatcher cut tax rates nearly in half, Britain ran big budget surpluses in the 1980s and retired 20 percent of its national debt as tax revenues actually went up! She had restored self-confidence and pride to her nation. It is hard to imagine that Britain would ever have stopped its decline into the ash heap of history without the miracle that was Margaret Thatcher.
 | Amazon Price: $9.75 List Price: $29.98 |
THE LEGACY OF LADY MARGARET THATCHER
In 2007, Margaret Thatcher became the first living former Prime Minister to be honored with a statue in Parliament. And with good reason.
The total personal wealth of British subjects increased 80 percent during her leadership. She slashed inflation from 22 percent to 4 percent. The British People all benefitted from lower prices and increased efficiency from privatized industries. Home ownership increased 65 percent. Unemployment fell drastically. The economy grew strong and stable.
And she was no miser. Government spending on health care, social security, and job training increased 33 percent in the Thatcher years. Public safety spending went up 53 percent and lawlessness went down. And despite breaking the labor union stranglehold on Britain that threatened to choke it to death, only 39 percent of labor union members voted against her in the 1983 election.
The increases in labor productivity and the change from night to day in the British economy were literally amazing. And to top it all off, Lady Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady, was instrumental in bringing down the Iron Curtain—freeing hundreds of millions of human beings from literal slavery under socialism.
OTHER HUBS OF INTEREST
Understanding Economic Growth and Job Creation
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (8)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (7)
- Beautiful (4)
- Interesting (18)
CommentsLoading...
In other words "I realise that my ideas about socialism are unfounded, I'll get out now and try to make John look like the loser"
Apparently, you have trouble keeping up. You can have the last word.
No, it was you who brought FM&FM into the argument. Your sudden divergence into Greece, Italy et al was the non sequitur.
Another non sequitur/non-argument?
You have no shame at all, John.
Oh I see, thus proving that Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac was a socialist scam!
The Greek, Italian, Spaniard, and Portuguese socialist leeches are starting to understand it, and they are not happy at all, now that the government trough is empty, and the hosts are dying!
^_*
No Will, I'm not the only person who understands socialism, you are one of the few who doesn't.
Right.
If we oppose socialism, it's only because we are too stupid to understand it. Only John Holden understands socialism.
Got it.
No Will, not scorn, straight forward observation.
"Like I said Will, you do not understand socialism at all."
Scorn is your last refuge?
Like I said Will, you do not understand socialism at all. For you it's just a place to park all life's ill's, especially those faults of capitalism, which for you is perfect and without any fault whatsoever.
"I'm afraid there is nothing socialist about paying people to be unemployed, that is a capitalist scam designed to keep wages down."
Oh, I can assure you that capitalist businesses would be only be too happy not to have to contribute vast sums to unemployment 'insurance'. No, that too is the brainchild of socialists.
I also had someone like just you try to tell us that there's nothing socialist about Social Security or socialized medicine. What an idiot he was, but we all had a good laugh.
I'm afraid there is nothing socialist about paying people to be unemployed, that is a capitalist scam designed to keep wages down. And I'm splitting my sides laughing at the thought of a socialist George Bush.
I am neither evil nor stupid. You are just misinformed.
"When did the US ever have a socialist government?"
We've had one ever since FDR socialized America. Right now, 60 cents of every government dollar spent is on social programs, and 40 cents of each of those dollars is borrowed. If we dumped all social welfare programs, our massive debt would disappear almost overnight.
BTW, if you still believe in the fraud of socialism despite its repeated failures and misery, you're either evil or stupid.
When did the US ever have a socialist government?
Not just one that you disagreed with but a true socialist one.
I'm sorry,but if there are any empty heads around here, mine isn't one of them.
I asked you several easy questions, why do you evade them? It couldn't be because you can't answer them, after all you know all about socialism don't you!
Sorry, but you don't get to frame my arguments to suit your own purposes.
When private citizens make deals with financial institutions, it's capitalism. But when socialist government representatives put pressure on financial institutions to make bad loans to people who can never pay it back by promising to buy up that toxic debt, that my empty-headed friend, is socialism.
Will, if I'm wrong, prove me wrong, don't just reiterate your misconceptions.
How is encouraging debt socialist?
How is encouraging home ownership socialist?
Come to think of it, how is your Democratic party socialist?
What have Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal got to do with the capitalist housing bubble?
Come on Will, stop just telling me I'm wrong, tell me how I'm wrong, as they say on the back streets, put up or shut up!
It isn't enough to just tell me that I'm a bad loser, tell me where socialism encourages debt and home ownership.
It isn't enough to say that you have decided that your Democrat party are socialists, prove it.
You are a poor loser, John, and you deny the obvious. Socialism always fails, and Fannie/Freddie/CRA are socialist inventions created by socialists for the purpose of promoting socialism. They failed, and so too is socialist Europe failing.
Get your head out of your nether region for a moment and look around at Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.
Oh I get it now Will, it's nothing to do with socialist principles or capitalist principles, it's because you say so! Right, got that.
So we've decided then that Thatcher was a socialist and as Tony Blair, as leader of the once socialist labour party, kept a good few of Thatchers policies going, they became socialist policies, making Thatcher even more of a socialist! Those policies included things like privatising publicly owned businesses thus making private ownership of business a basic socialist principle!
Will, like I said, you do not understand the first thing abut socialism, it isn't just things that capitalists do that don't work.
"I don't care who they are the brain child of, they aren't socialist ideals, they're capitalist."
Translation:
"I will stubbornly deny the obvious truth because it does not fit my narrative!"
Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA are all the work of leftist Democrats and socialists. Period.
Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA caused the recession when they failed. Period
Sorry John.
I don't care who they are the brain child of, they aren't socialist ideals, they're capitalist.
Again, you think Thatcher was a socialist for doing exactly the same then?
Ah, John! You are the unabashed king of non-sequiturs...whenever you are trapped, you simply go somewhere totally unrelated!
Fannie, Freddie, and the CRA are the brainchildren of US Democrats/socialists, and like all other such schemes, they lead to economic disasters.
Every time.
Do you like Greek food?
So now you're inferring that Thatcher was a socialist!
You must be because she did exactly the same thing, encouraging people to buy homes that they could not afford to turn them into compliant capitalists!
Still no sign of any socialist manifesto that calls for universal home owner ship and big debt though, funny that!
"It doesn't matter who they were set up by!"
Oh, on the contrary, it matters a great deal, as does the reason behind it. All of it was done as a means of getting people who can't afford a home loan into a house, by assuring lenders that government (read taxpayers) would take all the toxic loans off the lenders' hands. By doing so, Democrats gleaned a lot of votes ftom new 'homeowners'.
This led to high, but false, demand, soaring prices, speculators (also covered by Fannie and Freddie!), a huge housing bubble, and finally, a massive collapse that Fannie and Freddie simply could not cover.
Now we are in a worldwide recession, due to Democrats/socialists and their schemes.
BTW, that's why a guilty socialist government bailed out the banks that Occupy Wall Street socialists are whIning about now! What audacity!
Nice one John. I often smile( a sad smile though) when looking up at the 'corpy houses' as one can always suss the ones that were bought in the 'moo.moo' days the roofs are the give away,as you well know the council have renewed all the roofs etc.etc.in council control.
jandee
It doesn't matter who they were set up by! Home ownership and debt are capitalist,no if's or but's about it.
The confusion is entirely your's, unless of course you can show me any socialist manifesto that preaches home owner ship and debt, I won't hold my breath waiting.
Like I said, you seem to think that anything bad about capitalism must be socialism but it doesn't work like that I'm afraid.
No, Freddie, Fannie and the CRA were all created by the Democrat/socialists, all the way back to FDR. They are most definitely socialist. Your confusion is showing.
"Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA are socialist attempts to put people into homes they could not afford, and then have taxpayers pick up the tab to pay for it when they fail."
No, they were capitalist attempts to increase borrowing and debt, to strengthen the banks and money lenders.
The whole concept of home ownership is a capitalist one, note your favourite Margaret Thatcher selling off publicly owned homes to increase the number of home owning and therefore hopefully Tory voters. She actually did more or less the same as Fanny and Freddie by encouraging people to buy homes that they could not afford, and somehow I can't see you suddenly deciding that Thatcher was a socialist!
Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA are socialist attempts to put people into homes they could not afford, and then have taxpayers pick up the tab to pay for it when they fail.
Will and James,
you both seem to fall rather easily into the common trap of labelling any of capitalism's faults as socialist!
"All's well in the US then I take it!"
Not at all. Socialism, in the form of Freddie, Fannie, and the CRA, caused our economy to nearly collapse in 2008. We are still digging out.
WillStarr— I sincerely appreciate all of your outstanding contributions to this scintillating discussion. Good man! :)
John Holden— Both of your additional comments posted yesterday are appreciated. Thank you for providing your perspective.
jandee— I do appreciate both of your comments from a couple days back. The only societies in world history that ever became rich were capitalist, based on free enterprise. The key word there is free. Before the 1960s, America was the richest nation in the world by double—because of Free Enterprise. To see your system in action check the USSR. That's your kind of people. Sure they killed 50 million people. Hey, you will say, to make a socialist omelette you have to break a few eggs. Sorry, the Soviet omelette was inedible and people are not eggs.
John Holden— Thank you for all 8 sets of comments you posted here two days back.
You wrote, "capitalism depends on theft from the have-nots by the have-plenty's."
John, as far as America goes that is horseshit. The have nots do not have anything the haves want!
And anybody can be a have. All you have to do is do something—anything—that other people value and want.
Who do you refer to as "privileged spongers?" Let me guess: If I work for 30 years and live frugally while working hard doing something for which I am well paid because it is something not everyone can do and certainly not everyone can do as well as me, and I save my money enough to buy an apartment building from which I can live off my rents without working anymore—is that a privileged sponger?
I am shocked you would claim that "If you don't work you don't eat" is a socialist slogan. That comes from the Holy Bible. Your slogan is different. It is "From each according to his ability and to each according to his need."
WillStarr— Thank you for the eight sets of comments you made here 2 days back. You are spot on, my friend.
Under Free Enterprise no one knows before the game starts who will win and who will lose. There have been more rags-to-riches-stories in America than we could count. In a socialist country there is only rags and more rags. Because the State can take your property at any time no one tries to accumulate or improve their property—why would they? The entire nation then suffers as people only pretend to work because they have no hope for a better future. I mean seriously, what kind of lunatic doesn't know that if you tell 100 men, "I am going to pay you all $30,000 this year no matter if you bust your ass, work steadily but not fast, or loaf around all year," thinks anybody is going to work hard? And what socialists do not get is that wealth is made—it does not appear by magic. Otherwise, why not have a country where no one works at all?
If I lived in a remote area where you had to hunt and gather your own food, and I came in with a deer from the forest, a socialist who sat around picking his butt the whole week would think it only fair that I give him half of it. So he won't have to get out of his hammock and hunt for himself. Lazy bastards. Leeches. Bums. Tramps. Hobos. Worthless.
Caleb DRC— I appreciate you coming back by with your additional comments. You are a wise and discerning person. As Lady Thatcher once said, "The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
And yes, you are right that redistributing wealth is nothing more than legalized theft. If your neighbor has two cars and you have none, you might just walk over and help yourself to one of his but you would end up in jail for grand theft auto. A socialist would simply ask his government to take one of his neighbor's cars and give it to him. It is still theft.
John Holden— Thank you for both of your comments from 4 days back. I understand that Lady Thatcher was not holder of the "Lady" title while in office. I knew that. But that is her title today and today is when I am writing about her.
All's well in the US then I take it!
I have to admire those giddy socialists who can happily pretend that all is well as socialist Europe collapses around their ears!
James ! How long has it taken you to come up with a really weak reply ??! Balderdash is your second name !! You firstly say there are no poor in U.S then you tell me how many are Fatherless,suicidal...blah,blah what a contradiction !! Do you really want me to go all around the Socialist World in order to explain the realities of that excellent system to you !! I am afraid you will have to be patient James it will arrive there before you know it. Now I have to get back to reality on the chess-board with my comrades and a nice bottle of French Red as we are still on a high from the French results last week,
au revoir,
jandee
James, "Thatcher cut the top tax rate from an outrageous 94% to 40% and the standard rate from 40% to 25%. I can find no evidence for your assertion that she raised the tax rate for anybody."
I really don't know where you get your "facts" from.
Thatcher cut the top rate of tax from 66% to 60% and the lowest rate of tax from 33% to 30% but almost doubled VAT from 8% to 15%, and whilst she was at it put a rocket under inflation which soared to more than 21%. Meanwhile interest rates were up to 17%!
That was her first budget and she cut taxes further at later budgets but if she cut tax from 94% she must have put it there as the highest rate of tax that she inherited from Labour was 66%.
Caleb DRC— Thank you very much for the gracious compliments. I am well pleased to see that we are kindred spirits. I believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way. And that is the opposite of Atheism and Marxism.
James, "Margaret Thatcher was re-elected by a huge majority in 1983, and again by a landslide in 1987"
Strange definition of huge majority and landslide.
In 1983 57.6% of the electorate DIDN'T vote for her and in 1987 (the year of her landslide!) even more people didn't vote for her - 57.8%!
And as I said, not all of them were socialists or even left wingers!
jandee— If you want to see the difference between socialism and capitalism just look at North Korea and South Korea—same people, different political/economic systems.
There are no starving people in America and none who cannot get health care either. America spends $1.5 trillion on year on social programs—redistribution of wealth.
According to your philolsophy East Germany was better than West Germany. Oh yea? Which side had to build a wall to keep everybody from leaving? The socialist side, of course.
Do people flee socialist Cuba by the millions on rafts across shark-infested waters to come to capitalist America or do they flee America to go live in the Cuban Utopia?
The reason we have any poor people in America is because of "progressive" policies favored by people like you that promote government dependence and eliminate the role of the father of a family.
In America today, the 30% of children who live apart from their fathers will account for 63% of teen suicides, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71% of high-school dropouts, 75% of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80% of rapists, 85% of youths in prison, 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders, and 90% of homeless and runaway children. This is what progressives call "progress."
80 percent of people living in poverty are from broken homes, and this has not changed in forty years.
People who do work receive income for what they produce that other people want. The point that might escape you is that wealth does not just exist somehow—it is produced. Those who do work are paid according to how much what they produce is valued by millions of other individuals—who pay for goods and services according to the value that recipient puts on what is received. One person's output might be worth a thousand times as much as the output by someone else. Would not 1000 times more people pay to hear Beyonce sing as they would you?
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
• Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
WillStarr— Thank you for the comments you made 5 days ago and 3 days ago. I always enjoy your wise remarks and appreciate your contributions to our conversations.
John Holden— I surely appreciate the four sets of comments you posted here 4 and 5 days ago.
You write: "It is capitalism that makes many dependent on the state."
Under true capitalism there would be no government social programs as favored by socialists so there would be no people dependent of government. Therefore what you say is nonsense.
You write: "No James, socialists do not want huge government by nature or by anything else."
Only government has the apparatus and power to pilfer the wealth of those who earn it and give it those who don't —the main pillar of Socialism. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as Socialist governments in China, East Germany, and North Korea sure believed in big government. Can you give me ONE example of a socialist nation with a small government?
You write: "Thatcher cut rates for the highest earners but increased them for the lowest."
Thatcher cut the top tax rate from an outrageous 94% to 40% and the standard rate from 40% to 25%. I can find no evidence for your assertion that she raised the tax rate for anybody.
It is obvious that you hate the woman but most Brits loved her. How do I know? Margaret Thatcher was re-elected by a huge majority in 1983, and again by a landslide in 1987. Thatcher was voted by the British people in 2008 to have been the best Prime Minister since the Second World War by a three to one margin.
The fact is that Britain was an international laughingstock before Thatcher was voted Prime Minister the first of three times but by the time she served longer than anybody else in 150 years Britain was admired the world over as a Phoenix that had risen from the ash heap of history.
In 1977, a humiliated Britain was bankrupt and forced to beg the International Monetary Fund for an enormous loan. British business was woefully uncompetitive in the global marketplace. Britain was on the verge of complete collapse when it turned to Margaret Thatcher to save it from disintegration.
Britain had long been in decline before Thatcher was elected. Then the British economy as a whole grew by 4 percent per year during the 1980s—a post-WWII record! What did you want her to do, walk on water? You are simply part of a Leftist smear campaign that has been going on for 30 years because Thatcher proved your ideas to be backwards and that burns you up inside. Deal with it.
Now who's putting words into the mouths of others, white flag indeed :)
My point is that there were always more people that didn't vote for Thatcher than did, not all of those would be socialists, or even left wingers.
"Anyway, hardly relevant to the topic of the hub."
It was until now.
OK, I accept your white flag.
Anyway, hardly relevant to the topic of the hub.
Dislike of Thatcher and her policies was/is not confined to socialists or even the left wing. There were plenty in her own party who did not like what she did.
'But you said "Europe" not "some European countries"'
No, I said 'socialist Europe', and 'socialist Europe' is on the verge of collapse, so, no thank you to more socialism.
But you said "Europe" not "some European countries"
By the way, Ireland isn't socialist.
So Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and Portugal are no longer in Europe?
Socialist Europe!!!!
You must know a different Europe to me!
Let's see, Germany, hm, socialist? No. Imploding? No.
UK socialist? No, imploding most definitely. And, might I add, going down the tube fast with the help of none socialist bankers who can earn big bonuses for losing their employers big money, or is that too painful for you to contemplate Will?
And back to the standard sophistry and hyperbole from our far-left friends.
In the meantime, socialist Europe is about to implode, while the creeping socialism we have allowed in America is now crippling our economy.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Absolutely right Will, any one of us could earn a £2.3 million bonus for losing our employer £2 billion!
Well you would say that wouldn't you. Does the same apply for all the U.S citizens living in tent-towns ? When every one is a millionaire who is going to do the work and where is the cannon fodder going to come from ???
jandeee
"Sadly only are the very few allowed to beat the system in order to show as an example that that is what all can do.."
Utter hogwash. Anyone with the ability and the ambition can compete, and if they develop a superior product, they will succeed. There is no phantom 'big brother' who picks and chooses who wins and who loses.
James it makes me smile that your 'followers' who are very probably as poor as church mice !!!??? Staunchly uphold the very system that is ripping them off in the very mistaken belief that one day soon they are going to 'crack'it ..
Sadly only are the very few allowed to beat the system in order to show as an example that that is what all can do..
of course I am referring to your beloved capitalist system which will be replaced thank goodness for the superior model of Socialism, hopefully before then the people of the U.S.A will have stopped shooting at each other.
best from jandee
Unfortunately Will, you don't understand socialism!
Socialism does not depend on the notion "that someone who did nothing to earn it has more right to your income than you do."
That is a strictly capitalist ethos. Socialism says that if you don't work, you don't eat.
These are facts:
"Socialism depends on the notion that someone who did nothing to earn it has more right to your income than you do. That is theft by government at the point of a gun.
There is no theft in capitalism except in the minds of those who think they are entitled to part of what someone else earns."
Yes, there are always a few individuals who are thieves, but that does not condemn the entire capitalistic economic system, unlike socialism, which depends on hosts and leeches.
Will, I did read what you said and commented on it, I didn't attack it, I just pointed out that there is no difference between those who don't work and expect others to keep them and those who don't work and expect others to keep them!
But I really think this is going off topic, ie, was Margaret Thatcher the best thing since sliced bread or a plague upon her nation.
John,
Again, I don't own the words you attempt to put in my mouth. Read what I actually said and attack that...if you can.
So you don't think privileged spongers as equally as bad as impoverished spongers!
Strange that because they both expect to live off the work of others whilst doing as little as possible themselves.
John,
I don't own the words you attempt to put in my mouth. Read what I actually said and attack that...if you can.
Will, you said, "There is no theft in capitalism except in the minds of those who think they are entitled to part of what someone else earns."
I take it you are thinking there of shareholders and bankers and the like?
You are spot on Caleb...socialism depends on the notion that someone who did nothing to earn it has more right to your income than you do. That is theft by government at the point of a gun.
There is no theft in capitalism except in the minds of those who think they are entitled to part of what someone else earns.
Caleb, your analysis of socialism is so far adrift as to be barely worth comment. I could counter it by pointing out that capitalism depends on theft from the have-nots by the have-plenty's.
But the argument here isn't socialism v capitalism, it is about Margaret Thatcher and whether she was good for the UK or not.
John, You and James have much more historical knowledge than I do; however, my animosity against socialism is at a fundamental level. Frankly, I would not care if it even worked, which it does not; even I have enough historical knowledge to know that. Scripture is very clear on God's commandments concerning stealing from others. This is one of the foundational pillars of socialism: steal from those who earn the wealth, and give it to those who do not earn it. To base a system of government upon the contradiction of God's Word will only lead to the demise of that nation.
But Will, it's not bull!
"This democracy you gloat of where the sick have no medical care and their very soul becomes obliterated in the knowledge of their helplessness"
Yup. No eloquent bull here, right John?
But the trouble is Caleb, that James is not exercising perspicacity, in fact there is far more sophistry in this hub.
With very limited experience he presumes to tell those with a great deal more experience what actually happened in their own country from reading a few books.
For a start he insists on telling us what Lady Thatcher did in power without seeming to grasp that Lady Thatcher can not hold public office, the law of the land prohibits it! With such a basic mistake how much can you depend on other aspects of the hub being truthful?
James, your responses to some of the comments at your hubs have as much perspicacity as your hubs themselves. You have a remarkable ability to cut through the sophistry( eloquent bull) that liberals and socialists spew, and expose their philosophy and agenda for what it is: Satanic.
James! As usual you're using the Socialist Model as capitalist democracy. Stop it James ! You just cannot hi- jack things..
This wonderful capitalism which you have and adore where people starve or otherwise exist in homeless-shelters.
This democracy you gloat of where the sick have no medical care and their very soul becomes obliterated in the knowledge of their helplessness.
The despair of the people compelled to escape from a violent homelife to Womens Aid Sanctuarys,battered by life then by partners,both Men and Woman are persecuted.
James please know that in a Socialist Society People,who are able, have to contribute to that Society for the good of all.
In Britain we have free Education, free Health care and a host of other things.
Please don't misquote me.
Remember this: Everybody who is out of employment still has their stamp money for insurance deducted from their benefit exactly the same as Elizabeth Windsor does, or should have
James, you miss my point which was purely that Lady Thatcher was not kicked out of power, Mrs Thatcher was.
No James, socialists do not want huge government by nature or by anything else.
We (the UK and US) already have big government that robs people of motivation, and full of bureaucrats with too much power, usually weided in favour of big capital!
It is capitalism that makes many dependent on the state, especially in times of recession.
John Holden— I appreciate you coming back by to post an additional comment a few days ago. Yes, Ms. Thatcher was turned out of power. After she became the first Prime Minister of Britain to win three straight elections in over 150 years. Thatcher was elected by the British People to serve as the head of their country for a longer period of continuous time than any of her predecessors since 1812.
Thank you for your contributions to this conversation.
jandee—Thank you for revisiting my Hub. I appreciate your comments.
I do understand that people are apt to vote for money from the public treasury for themselves and this has always been the danger of democracy. Democracy is fabulous unless people do exactly this: use their votes to vote themselves the earnings of others.
When Socialism "arrives" in America that wil spell the end of America. Because what America is is an idea—an idea of people governing themselves; independent, self-reliant individuals. In a word: FREE.
The more government there is the less freedom there is.
All freedoms stem from one freedom: economic freedom. That is the basic freedom that socialism aims to kill.
There is a reason Socialism is always atheistic: it is Satanic.
You mention "the poison of capitalism." Even your idol Karl Marx credited Capitalism with doing more for humankind than anything in history.
You mention an awful lot of free stuff you think people are entitled to. Why not give people free everything? Why should anyone have to work or produce anything? Can't we all just quit working and let Big Daddy Government take care of us?
John Holden— Thank you for the pair of comments made here about six days back.
Socialists by nature want a huge government to "take care" of people from the cradle to the grave. The way in which this robs people of motivation to make something out of themselves is easy enough to grasp for anyone with an inkling about human nature. The way in which this gives dangerous power to bureaucrats has been seen time and time again in the 20th century. The way this makes people dependents of the State to the point where they lose their dignity is readily apparent. The way that it has never anywhere produced any improvement in the lives of people is evident. The fact that it is an inherently atheistic system is obvious—and that has much to do with its failure.
As far as Conservatives go, I am not an expert on British Conservatives but I know American Conservatives well and in a very short little Hub I lined out what they believe—what they want:
Will, if you can't see the difference . . .
"The socialism that I subscribe to does not vest the means of production in the state, but in the people."
A distinction without a difference.
But British Steel was already showing profit whilst still a national owned company! You must bear in mind that there was a global recession at the time and many businesses were not as profitable as they were in good times.
But even if I grant you British Steel, what about British Telecom, British Gas, Electricity, all noatural monololies and all extremly profitable whilst still in the public sector. But if they aren't enough for you, what about ICL, Inmos, Jaguar, Leyland Trucks, ship building, BP, Ferranti, Fairy, British Aerospace, Cable and Wireless, National Frieght, Britoil, and many, many more.
Thatcher cut rates for the highest earners but increased them for the lowest. I never siad that tax revenues went up apart from to note that the proceeds of sales of public companies and North Sea Oil revenue was used to cut taxes. And the economy didn't do anything under Lady Thatcher, she wasn't honoured until after she had retired, she was just plain Mrs Thatcher when she played havoc with the country.
And did the personal wealth of the millions that she made unemployed increase? As she was working flat out to reduce the small amount that they recieved it seems unlikely.
As she cut spending on fire services and failed to increase spending on the Police to keep up with inflation, I don't think that was what was meant by "public safety spending"
Websters Dictionary and I do not agree on the definition of socialism! I wonder why, could it be that one of us doesn't understand it properley or doesn't want anybody to understand it properly? In one form of socialism the means of production are owned and controlled by the state, but then in some forms of capitalism the same applies. The socialism that I subscribe to does not vest the means of production in the state, but in the people. Note the "any of various" and "collective".
John Holden— Thank you for both of your comments from 9 days back.
You write: "The industries that she privatized were not failing, those she didn't attempt to privatize. She privatized the more profitable and thus more attractive to private investors."
The year before it was privatized by Margaret Thatcher, British Steel set an all-time record for the one year loss of money by any entity in world history outside the Soviet Union: Five Hundred Million Pounds. Within seven years, British Steel had the highest productivity rates in Europe and had become the most profitable steel company on Planet Earth.
You write: "She did not lower taxes. In 1979 when she took power taxes were 38% of GDP within four years this had raised to 44% of GDP."
Margaret Thatcher cut tax rates nearly in half, but remarkably also retired 20 percent of the national debt. I am aware that, as you note (and seem to imply it is a bad thing), tax revenues actually went up! Tax revenues always go up when the economy booms as it most certainly did under Lady Thatcher.
You write: "You say that the total personal wealth of British subjects increased 80%, where did this figure come from?"
From the book "A History of Modern Britain" by Andrew Marr (2007). I have seen this number quoted in three different books or websites actually.
You write: "I'm not sure what you mean by public safety spending, would that be mending broken kerbs or teaching people how to cross the road safely?"
I got that from the book "Modern Times" by Paul Johnson. I take it to mean government spending on police and fire.
You write: "Socialism does not mean no personal property and no economic freedom and unlike capitalism, it makes no man a slave."
Excuse me? My Webster's dictionary defines socialism as: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
NOTE THE WORDS: COLLECTIVE OR GOVERNMENTAL OWNERSHIP; NO PRIVATE PROPERTY; THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE STATE.
By the way James, you state that Lady Margaret Thatcher was forced out of office. . . Not so, plain old Margaret Hilda was forced out of office. She was not created a Baroness until 1992, probably to make sure that she never returned to the House of Commons,you see Lords and Ladies and other titled peers are not allowed to sit in the Commons, the clue is in the name.
James, You seem more confused than ever these days.
Re. your take on Britain did you not hear about our council results in last weeks elections which replaced Britain's Tories with many Labour,Greens,and respect party members.
We will see more of this in the next elections I am confident.
Meanwhile I wish to give you a take on what will happen in the future in the United States.
Socialism in the U.S will,when it arrives,be built on the revolutionary tradition of the people of the U.S.
Right from the American Revolution until this day the ordinary working people have struggled to create democracy.
It will be a Bill of Rights of Socialism. It will guarantee all the freedoms won over centuries and extend them.
The anarchistic poison of capitalism will have gone. The working class will be the vanguard of people. The ordinary people will own their own belongings such as property along with private ownership of small businesses. There will be co-operatives,free health care,free education and jobs for all...........
best regards from jandee
"I totally agree with you that by nature Conservatives trust people to govern themselves—they want to conserve the self-governing principles of the Founding Fathers of America. Socialists are by nature people who live to boss other people around."
And you say this as a comment in a hub praising the bossiest, most authoritarian PM we have ever suffered in the UK!
By the way James, I don't live to boss other people around, I leave that to the conservatives.
wba108@yahoo.com— Yes, you are right that a nation has to want to live to live and it does seem that Britain has lost that will.
America has far less will to survive than it had ten or twenty years ago and far, far less than it had in the 1950s, which will probably go down in history as the high point of American Civilization.
Yes James, I do deny that economic equality is part of socialist ideology. There is a world of difference between that and equal opportunity which is a part of socialist ideology.
With regards to the minimum wage. The minumum wage in the UK is higher than it is in the US but still not enough to live on - many people on the minimum wage get help from the government so are still a drag on taxpayers.
If you were to pay people less than the minimum wage and remove support to them, many would resort to crime to maintain a basic standard of living with all the extra costs to society that incurs.
Many of the rest would live sub human lives.
How unfair to make the most vulnerable, the crippled, the retarded, the dim witted, the slow and unskilled compete with the fit and healthy! You wouldn't do that in any other walk of life!
And coming up to pitch now is Joe Blow, Joe as you all know is blind,deaf and a paraplegic!
It wouldn't happen would it? And why should it happen in day to day life either?
John Holden— In regard to your comments made here 5 days back, do you deny that "economic equality" is part of Socialist ideology?
Yes, I am against minimum wage laws. All they do is make people who are not worth minimum wage be unable to get work and so become a drag on working taxpayers as wards of the State. 95% of workers make more than current minimum wage and always have. The most vulnerable—the crippled, the retarded, the dim-witted, the slow, the unskilled, the unlearned—lose the chance to have the dignity of work because no one will hire them if their work is worth less than the minimum wage.
wba108@yahoo.com— I apologize that I am running so far behind in responding to comments that you made here a week ago.
I totally agree with you that by nature Conservatives trust people to govern themselves—they want to conserve the self-governing principles of the Founding Fathers of America. Socialists are by nature people who live to boss other people around. They want all power normally invested in the private sector confiscated by the State so they can tell everybody what to do.
Thank you for your outstandingly discerning remarks.
pandula77— You are quite welcome! Thank you for visiting and joining in the conversation—all the way from Norway. :)
I am glad you enjoyed the article and I appreciate the voted up.
jandee— Hey! It is nice to see you back with us. Thank you very much for your comments.
James, I don't claim that she made the government more powerful, I state a fact. Let's look at those facts. Firstly she removed powers that were traditionally vested in local government and vested them into central government making local areas less responsible for their fortunes and central government more.
The industries that she privatised were not failing, those she didn't attempt to privitise. She privitised the more profitable and thus more attractive to private investors. In doing so she continued the government subsidies (changing the name to grants, but still subsidies) Did you know that in the first year of privitisation of British Rail the subsididy given by the government equalled the didvidend payment to shareholders?
She did notlower taxes. In 1979 when she took power taxes were 38% of GDP within four years this had raised to 44% of GDP. Any eventual decrease was due to the huge boost of revenues from sales of national industries and the discovery and exploitation of North Sea oil.
Where is this extra freedom that you talk about? Unless it was freedom from work, I know of no other freedom she gave us!
You say that the total personal wealth of British subjects increased 80%, where did this figure come from?
The average real income of British families rose 37% from 1979 to 1992. The income of the richest tenth rose by 61%, but the income of the poorest tenth decreased by 18%. In 1979, the richest tenth's share of the national income was 20.6%, and that of the poorest tenth was 4.3%. In 1991, the richest tenth's share was 26.1% and that of the poorest tenth was 2.9%.
Home ownership may have increased by 65% (it didn't actually, it increased from 55% to 65%) but homelessness increased from around 57000 households in 1979 to around 127000 in 1989.
Socialism does not mean no personal property and no economic freedom and unlike capitalism, it makes no man a slave.
Government spending on health care increased but not by as much as inflation or to meet increased demands on health care. Social security payments had to increase, remember she had increased unemployment from under one million to over three million, she wouldn't have got away with leaving them to starve!
Thatcher actually did away with much training and indeed the need for much training.
I'm not sure what you mean by public safety spending, would that be mending broken kerbs or teaching people how to cross the road safely?
Crime continued to rise steadily under Thatcher with some unprecedented crimes coming to the fore front. It started to fall in 1992 after Thatcher had gone.
I did actually respond to this one Will, but it seems to have got lost in the ether!
David Cameron is neither an acting PM nor a moderate, many would say that he's more radical than Thatcher!
Fortunately the people of the UK are beginning to see the error of their ways and if this week's local elections are a guide then the next general election will see the Conservatives out in the wilderness with their perfidious bed mates, the Liberal Democrats.
Cameron is not so much managing decline as engineering it, the rich continue to get richer while everybody else loses their jobs!
James-I see the British do have a young moderate conservative who is presently the acting PM but they seem as if even the conservatives aren't doing much more than managing the decline of Britain. They could use another Thatcher now but even as now is the case in America, no leader themselves can save a nation, the poeple themselves have to change!
John Holden— I appreciate you coming back by with both of your additional comments. I have never heard anyone say that Lady Thatcher "laughed at other people's misfortunes."
You claim that she made the government more powerful. Apparently you are unaware that massive deregulation makes the government LESS powerful since it is the power behind regulation.
Thatcher privatized what were nationalized industries. This makes the central government LESS powerful not more, quite obviously. Ending the taxpayer provided subsidy of failing industries; and lowering taxes—makes the government LESS powerful not more.
And giving the citizens more freedom—which Thatcher did—makes the government LESS powerful since more government always means less liberty.
As far as Socialists go, in earlier comments you vehemently defended Arthur Scargill, who once said these Satanic words: "the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin" explain the 'real world'."
During Thatcher's tenure the total personal wealth of British subjects increased 80 percent. Home ownership increased 65 percent.
Socialism means no personal property and no economic freedom. It makes men slaves. It's only redeeming quality is that everybody is equally miserable.
If Lady Thatcher was so mean, as you insist, why then under her watch did government spending on health care, social security, and job training increase 33 percent; and public safety spending went up 53 percent; and crime went down?
WillStarr— Thank you for both of your comments. I always enjoy it when you visit. Good man!
James, you said "The socialists don't mind if everybody is poor as long as everybody is equally poor."
That is a gross misrepresentation, one only ever spouted by capitalists who really wish to keep the majority poor.
Note that it is capitalists who oppose the minimum wage, and who obstruct full employment to keep wages down.
John Holden— Thank you for the four comments you posted here a few days back. As always, I appreciate your input.
marwan asmar Level 4 Commenter 33 hours ago
I am not sure about this straight black-and-white analysis. I lived through the years of Margaret Thatcher. It was a cold Britain, not at all associated with the kind of consensus politics that existed in the previous decades. There came to exist a harsh element--maybe a return to "pure capitalism" which I am not sure its a good thing in a liberal democratic society.