Drowned in Sound

Search



Thatchers Statue

Thatchers Statue

no votes
?
by Mark Reed
Lets just say that in Germany right now, the German Government were planning to put up a 10 foot statue of Adolf Hitler in a public place. Imagine the public uproar that would cause.

Yet, when the House of Commons decides to erect a statue of Mrs. Thatcher, we, the repressed British, are meant to just accept it as a sign of what put the Grate into Britain.

Mrs. Thatcher : The woman who stole milk from children. Who sold off everything the Nation ever had to be proud of. Who sent us to war so she could win an election. Who supported world-infamous torturer and dictator General Pinochet as a great man. Who gave business carte-blanche to use and abuse the public as slaves : as people who could not withdraw their labour in protest. What she could sell, she sold. What she couldn’t sell, she destroyed.

A woman who, let us not forget, came to represent everything that is evil, abusive, and vile about the human spirit and the Eighties. A woman who, more than ever, is Selfishness personified. A woman who, many of us know, was a power-addicted, semi-psychopathic bitter Iron Maiden who turned Britain into America's Largest Aircraft Carrier.

So, in many ways, Paul Kelleher, who recently decapitated the statue of the most hateful, vile politician this country has ever seen, is to be applauded. The jury in the recent court case that tried him were unable to reach a verdict if what he had done was criminal damage : a rarity in modern times. And deeply indicative of the fact that even now, a sample of twelve men fair and true, are unable to condone a man who stood up for common sense and empathy by destroying a totem of the worst ruler this nation ever had.

But what is the point of prosecuting him? He destroyed the statue of a hated, evil woman. To not want to do that is, to me at last, far more troubling and offensive. I only wish that people were more vocal and less repressed on the British Isles sometimes.

If people were prosecuted on the scale of the damage they had caused, Paul Kelleher wouldn’t even warrant a caution. And Mrs. Thatcher would be hung for Treason. Her policies resulted in more suicides, more broken homes, more poverty, and deprived childhoods, than any amount of Hitlers bombings achieved. “Hospital closures kill more than car bombs ever will.”

p> In her time in power, Thatcher was the most careless of leaders; she wasn’t representing the will of the people or showing care over the nation. A land where human compassion and decency had become burdens instead of virtues.

To put a statue celebrating her life and achievements is a slap in the face to every British citizen who suffered hardship under her misrule. An insult to everyone who ever went on a strike, to every docker and pit worker, every frozen pensioner, and poll tax victim.

Alderman Oliver, whoever he is, said at the time of the decapitation of the Thatecher Staue that "This act of wanton vandalism is utterly deplorable and I find such behaviour deeply saddening."

Sadly, he was talking about the British Public voicing it’s opinion on the Thatcher Statue. But ask the British Public what they think, and most of them would find Thatcher's vandalism of Britain far more deplorable. Viva Vandalism!



Thatchers Statue

He should be commended because he created such a mighty explosion of laughter in SO many people. (I bet the Queen would secretly like to Knight him)

Thatchers Statue

but thatcher was the best leader the country ever had. she had a tough job to do after fucking old labour. and to be fair she was successful. also, i see that the conservatives got re-elected 3 times. therefore the country as a whole must've been pretty happy with her.

Re: Thatchers Statue

I sort of agree with you, but I think the tories got re-elected so many times because Labour looked like such an appalling other option.

Much like now, where we're going to have Labour indefinitely because they stole all the desirable Conservative policies and left IDS et al to campaign on what remained - all the nasty bits that made people turn against them in '97.

Could vote Lib Dem I guess. But would anyone make a statue of Charles Kennedy...?

Re: Thatchers Statue

Tell that to the Miners, the Print Workers and The Dock Workers.

Thatcher was actually only re-elected twice, once on the back of the Gulf War and once on the back of a global economic boom, and just because a party wins an election, it doesn't mean that the majority of the country has voted for it.

Re: Thatchers Statue

It wasn't the whole country that voted for her; it was the Home Counties and London; people whose careers weren't dissolved by Thatcher. No-one in Liverpool, Wales or Lanacashire voted for her. It was the biggest geo-political divide the country had seen for 150 years.

And I thought that A Level political history would never come in useful...

Re: Thatchers Statue

That's what I meant Gareth, constituences in the north are usually larger, but fewer. Therefore, although not as many people voted for the tories, they returned more MPs.

Re: Thatchers Statue

what was she supposed to do about miners and dockworkers etc... why should an unprofitable industry waste millions of pounds of our taxes? and aren't constituences arranged by population, not physical size?

Re: Thatchers Statue

Thatcher had lined the Miners up since the Strike in the early seventies. She was after them, after they brought down the Heath government.

Coal wasn't unprofitable at all, and was certainly more environmentally friendly than gas or nuclear power is today. As for it wasting 'our taxes', would you say our taxes are being put to good use now, now that everything is privatised? It's estimated that the war with Iraq is going to cost the UK £35bn. personally, I'd rather my taxes went to keep people in work than to kill people in Iraq, wouldn't you?

WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

Is that everyone gets a vote and no-one is ever taught about politics.

You can't drive a car if you don't know how, so why the fuck should anyone be allowed to vote when they don't have a clue what they're voting for and the implications of just ticking a box??

Sometimes dictatorships make sense.

Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

No-one forgets this Sean, but who is gonna teach you about 'politics'? teachers teach about politics every day of their lives when they tell you that 'self' is all important and your grades at school will determine how good a life you'll lead. That's a political act in itself. You can't teach 'politics' as though it's some kind of abstract, because at the end of the day whoever is in power will teach their politics. That's what happens now.

People can quite easily find out what and who they're voting for, if they think it'll make a difference to their lives and their families lives and their friends lives. I don't think mainstream politicians give ordinary people enough credit when they don't vote, because they're just being told to choose between different shades of blue.

Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

Maybe you have to learn the hard way about the implications of your vote. I know a girl who's parents were arch tories, so she obviously followed tradition and did the same. The Tories brought in the poll tax, and she was bitching and screaming about it, at which point we all said... well you fucking VOTED for her... and she replied 'well I didn't think they'd actally DO anything'... When most people vote it's not on principle, but on how the policies of the incumbent government have affected their lives... it is often said that nobody 'wins' elections... governments LOSE them.

Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

I think the majority of the people in this country *are* learning the hard way about the implications of their vote right now!

Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

coal more environmentally friendly than gas or nuclear power? what?

And if coal was so profitable then why didn't some big company buy all the mines and start raking in the cash?

Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

I'm going to regret getting drawn into this but...*sigh* Thatcher was an evil, fascist bitch who a) stole my free school milk, causing millions of kids to suffer from bad teeth and brittle bones b) decimated the country's mining industry and destroyed people's basic democratic right to strike for a fair wage c) brought in crippling tax 'reforms' that kept my Dad out of work with 3 kids for a major part of the 1980s d) went to war with Argentina in 1982, conveniently at a time when her popularity was slipping (=winning next election)... fuck me, Paul Kelleher is a hero of mine, could only have been better if he'd decapitated the original. I spent a lot of my formative years making plans to kick her fuckin teeth in with hobnail boots.
I know it's not easy to grasp how bad the 80s were unless you lived through it, but I'm sick to the fuckin gut when people blather on about her being a 'good leader for this country. Good for making the rich richer and keeping us poor scummers in the gutter where we belong maybe, yeah.
*sighs* why did I get into this?

Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

I think you'll find RJB Mining bought most of the pits left open. Yes, coal is more environmentally friendly than gas or nuclear power. *Burning* coal may not have been, but the actual mining of coal was/is.

The fact that coal wasn't profitable in the mid-eighties is because there was no need to mine it after the tories had begun stock-piling it in the late seventies in readiness for a strike...

Re: WHAT EVERYONE FORGETS...

yeah, let's sneer smuggly at the masses ..... the general public don't know as much as Sean know.

People know what benefits them in their lives and that's what the vote for, Sean

Thatcher rules

The article on which this thread of discussion is based is one of the stupidest / ignorant offers I've had the displeasure of reading on the subject of British politics in some months. My father was also 'out of work' for four years during the 1980s (he used to work for the Royal Mail loading sacks of letters onto trains), but this has not stopped either him or I from realising that the policy trajectory of the Tories in that decade was entirely necessary. Structurally speaking, the country was fucked. If Thatcher had not pursued the combined policies of monetarism, deregulation, privatisation, and tackling the Unions the country would be in a shit site worse situation than it is now. Ask anyone who remembers the winter of discontent. Even the Labour party had to accept intellectual humiliation to claw its way back into power.

Of course there are legitimate reasons to gripe about Thatcher - there are about most leaders / governments. However, on balance her reforms were entirely necessary. People who claim otherwise are frankly idiots. To illustrate my point, I recently had a long conversation with one of Gordon Brown's aides who spent 20 minutes telling me how evil she thought Thatcher was. When I asked for specific reasons why she replied that she didn't really know, she had just grown up 'knowing it'. When, however, I commented that her attitude was rather odd given that she now served a chancellor who was more Thatcherite in his economics than Thatcher she had no answer. This sort of unthinking condemnation is all too often trotted out in place of really clear sighted analysis.

And one final point. People may indeed know what their interests are. But this is in no way the same thing as saying they know the best way to achieve them.

Re: Thatcher rules

The legislation wasn't the reason that the Unions became passive...it was mass unemployment...over 3,000,000... and for all the bollocks rhetoric that was spouted... it was THAT which stopped people striking... you couldn't afford at ALL to prejudice your job. I think you have to try and look at it wih some cold objectivity. It is certainly true that, if exposed to a truly globalised economy, it is probably more expensive to manufacture stuff here than in, say, Taiwan or Korea... and Thatch's doctrine very much led to a decline in the manufacturing sector and increase in the service sector...BUT... the problem with the doctrine of free-market capitalism, and it is a doctrine, is that it only works if everyone similarly exposes themselves to international competition... however, the other so-called free marketeer nations in the world, like the US and Japan, retained their protectionism and consequently it was only Britain's manufacturing that got fuckin HAMMERED in the way it did. Gordon Browne is much like an old-school Tory chancellor, in that he is an effective cold-blooded manager of the economy. (probably the most successful chancellor this century). It's not right to compare his arms-length Keynesian economic policy to Thatcher's Chancellors who veered away from traditional (arms-length Keynesian) Tory economic management and were actively trying to change the economic structure of the UK.
Monetarism was a fad that began in th UK with Callaghan (Denis Healy was a much stricter Monetarist than his successors) and ended with Thatcher.. and I don't think History will juge it particularly kindly.

Re: Thatcher rules

1) I think it is simply wrong to describe Gordon Brown's economic approach as arms length keynsianism - his first major act as chancellor was to give control over setting interest rates to the Bank of England!

2)Its undeniable that Britian's manufacturing industry got hammered and alot of people suffered as a result. But what was the alternative? The country had an economy that was massively uncompetitive and that was falling steady behind those of its peers. Demand management was a nonesense: theorists such as Karl Polanyi had been articulating convincing arguments against it since the early 1940s! The bottom line is (to use some distasteful rhetoric)Thatcherite reforms transformed Britain from the Sick Man of Europe into a strong member of the G7. And, despite the Marxist claptrap that regularly gets wheeled out in Will Hutton books and the like, this did have a very real effect on peoples' prosperity and on their standard of living.

Re: Thatcher rules

No, it's protectionist, paranoid, scared little Englanders like yourself that transformed this country from a Sick Old Man into a Selfish Loadsamoney bastard.

This country was clinging to the memory of an Empire, pretending it was important, when it's just another country.

You want to know about prosperity? I was cutting mould off bread and walking an hour-and-a-half to work in Thatchers Britain. Yippee, Capitalism works!

But only if you're rich. How sadly, misguidedly selfish.

Re: Thatcher rules

Your political perspective is anaemic. You call me a paranoid, protectionist, scared little Englander, when it is precisely the Thatcher administrations’ rejection of such a position that I have applauded: their free market economic policies could not be understood as otherwise?? Well done anyway for regurgitating an unthinking, Blairite caricature of the Conservative position.

You display no knowledge of Thatcherite thought; you’re probably not in the slightest bit interested. However, if you did perhaps you could engage in a more convincing analysis of exactly where you think it went wrong, rather than resorting to unsupported accusations intended paint your opponents in the worst light possible.

The truth is that a core concept in classical liberal thought (and by extension in neo-liberal thought also) has always been social harmony. The liberal solution differs to others because its ontology differs, but it is still one geared to the good of all. This was a central feature in the thought of thinkers like Hayek and Joseph who formed the backbone of the ‘Thatcherite revolution’. Thus while you might argue that Thatcherism had some very regrettable consequences (and on this I would agree) it is simply wrong to equate effect with intent. Moreover, the fundamental question has to be: in the absence of Thatcherism what policies would you have had a government pursue? How would you have arrested Britain’s well documented economic decline, an achievement which is now widely accepted?

My apologies, by the way, for my earlier miss-spelt slur. It was a heated reaction to a common caricature that I personally believe is plainly wrong.

Re: Thatcher rules

You quote plenty of names, but not one idea. Instead of rearranging your prejudices, try seeing why it is immoral not to care about the welfare of others. And why it is insulting to erect an idol to a person who cared about nothing and no-one except themselves.

There for the grace of the economy go I, etc. etc.

Re: Thatcher rules

Its funny you should mention prejudice, because it seems that your rather familiar with it yourself. Look at the figures for government spending on welfare from 1945 to the present (with particular reference to the 1979 - 1997 period, of course) and you might just give youself a shock.

Re: Thatcher rules

Chaz... get sharper with your debaing points... welfare spending was high because unemployment was through the ROOF. As the first person to use unemployment as an economic policy, Thatcher was the first person to take it over 1 million, and then up to three and a half million...and that was just people receiving Unemployment Benefit... if you included the people who'd been on the dole for over a year, who were in receipt of 'Income Support' , or the preceding 'Supplementary Benefit' there were Seven million people out of work... and all being paid by the state to be there.


Better to choose a debating point that can't be so easily shot down in flames! Breaking down closed shops and making large nationalised companies competitive (and SOME, but not all privatisation of them) was definitely a good thing, and couldn't have been done by a labour government, because of their union ties... (though privatisation of rail was done in a stupid way, and privatisation of water was dull, because it's not like you can get 'Cable Water' springing up to compete, like with telecoms.


Re: Thatcher rules

Creating an independant bank of England was instantly MORE arms-length than any Tory chancellor. Keynesian economics (think Roosevelts 'putting America back to work') involves stimulating the economy in times of slump with increased public spending...precisely what Brown has been doing for the past few years, keeping the UK in a relatively OK state while many major world economies (US, Germany...) really are up shit creek. Monetarism involves cutting back on public spending during times of slump..and you must admit that it was really fucking severe on a lot of people. Sound money is a great principle, but most individuals are too easily persuaded into debt, and the tories doctrinal adherence to control of money supply (via indirect tax and interest rates) as their sole economic tool for reducing inflation shafted TOO many people.
The moment any political leader becomes more governed by doctrine and ideal than by the managerial responsibility of governing the people of this country, the country suffers... with Thatcher this was symbolised by the Poll Tax and the way her chancellors were unable to temper an unsustainable boom without generating a painful bust, and I think Blair's very much in the same territory with his Iraq war. She didn't listen to the country she was governing, ad got chucked out, and Blair's displaying much of the same mental isolation now. It is hard. Both figures idealism made them charismatic leaders, but losing touch with the electorate in the pursuit of her own ideas and ambitions was her Nemesis, and may yet be Blairs.

Re: Thatcher rules

hold on a second? how did thatcher get chucked out? i seem to remember her winning every election she entered?

monetary policy is basically the control of interest rates as well. there was vast inflation in the late 70s, to control this interest rates were put up, thus making saving more attractive and borrowing less attractive. this made the country as a whole stop spending money it didn't have.

The fact that Thatcher's majority went from 43 to 144 between 79 and 83 says alot about the countries feelings towards her too.

Re: Thatcher rules

Anyone who wins a war gets an increased majority.

Soldieers died so she could rule.

George and Tonyt are doing it as well.

Die for Oil Sucker!


Re: Thatcher rules

and in the next election (wsa it 87?? ) her majority went right down again , and she had to rely on the Ulster Unionists a lot. She got chucked out because they knew they'd lose the next election if she stayed, because she'd upset plenty of people. (remember in the British system, you could win power with only 40% of the vote, i.e. a minority of the electorate). At the time, the tories electoral survival instincts were much better hn they are now, and by ousting Thatcher in her third term and installing John Major, they managed to stay in power at the next election, too.

Monetary policy: When Nigel Lawson was chancellor, interest rates were above 15% for a while. Indeed it probably deterred people from borrowing money, and overspending, and did serve to reduce inflation... however, the people who had been encouraged to spend and get into debt during the earlier boom times ended up getting shafted, houses repossessed all over the place. It was really severe.

Re: Thatchers Statue

Can't believe the amount of shite I've read on this thread. Are you lot all middle class students living off pater's donations or what? You haven't a clue, you pampered pricks.

Re: Thatchers Statue

Karl Marx's grave should be expunged from Highgate Cemetary, and the British National Library shut down for aiding the formulation of his intellectual poison.

Re: Thatchers Statue

bla bla bla bla

Thatchers Statue

comparing Thatcher and Hitler is as irresponsible as it was the last time some dickhead did it on this site, you utterly misinformed cretin ?

making kids pay for school milk comparable with the holocaust, is it ?

Mark Reed you need a labotomy

Seriously, I know a good debate is healthy but my answer to your article is no, no, no.

Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy

And the questions are -

Can you spell?
Does your opinion matter?
Do you know who Mrs Thatcher is?

Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy

Answers
1) no, I'm dyslexic. (true actually).
2) yes. Weren't you just extolling the virtues of asking the British Public what they think in your article? I am a member of that noble mass and I'm letting you know what I think...
3)Yes. I met her just over a month ago (for tea and cakes!) and she didn't seem anything like any of those nasty, horrid things you said about her.
Do I get a gold star?

Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy

Chaz,

I don't know what your point is. I know what mine is. Thatcher was a woman who - despite being polite, which apparently counts for a lot in your book - had a terrible effect upon the country and the people within it. Her policies caused an enormous amount of damage financially, psychologically, and emotionally upon the country.

If you didn't notice that you obviously weren't in Britain between 1979 and 1990.

As for the British Public, yes, their opinions are important, but if you support selfishness, corporate bullying of the public, hypocrisy and a state where we are left to fend for ourselves in a dog-eat-dog,survival-of-the-fattest,let-the-poor-starve world, you're really not much better than an unfeeling animal. Because that's how animals behave. Without concern for anything but their own survival.

M

Re: Mark Reed you need a labotomy

ladies and gentlemen...I give you the new william hague!

You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

Mark, your communist views are starting to make me feel sick. Thatcher was the greatest thing since sliced bread. She reformed this country, brought greater prosperity to the masses. That's why you can afford all the crack that your clearly smoking. Right is right!

Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

The Government loves you.

You're so easy to rule.

Don't bother thinking. Let the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard do it for you.

Now go back to watching television and thinking that its OK to bomb brown people for their oil.

Mark

Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

why do fucking communist wankers always presume they are the only people who think for themselves? it's quite disgusting and obnoxious.

Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

I'm a communist wanker now am I because I think that selfishness and a lack of consdieration for others are bad things?

I think you just answered your own question there!

Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

i clearly didn't answer my own question...

Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

"why do fcking communist wankers always presume they are the only people who think for themselves? "

That question. If you suggest that a lack of consideration for others and a general attitude of selfishness is indicative of thought then you are clearly mistaken. You obviously won't need anyone else's help when you're made redundant will you? If you're sleeping on the streets because you haven't got a job you won't need handouts will you?

Empathy and consideration is a sign of intelligence and a civilised attitude. Without it, I regard you as unthinking.

Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

That's a bit black and white isn't it old chap? Where are the differing shades of grey? Even the nazis had some sort of community ethic. But then I guess they were a socialist workers' party weren't they.

have a brain!

Nazis... But then I guess they were a socialist workers' party weren't they.

Guess again. They were a National Socialist party. Not the same thing at all.

Re: You only need a lobotomy if you have a brain!

i am both empathic and considerate. as was thatcher. she did what was best for the country, everyone is now better off because of her.

what would've happened if labour had stayed in power? unions would still be holding the country to ransom. our whole water/sewage system would be gravely damaged due to strikes. the whole country being without water is a damn sight worse than a few miners losing their jobs.

Thatchers Statue

Right. Hey everyone, I'm from the states. I stumbled onto this article and subsequent posts by mistake. I was looking for that famous quote about silken slippers coming down steps and hobnail boots going up, but my search dropped me here. So I still haven't found the author of that quote, but I found something better in the meantime - a REAL politcal discussion!

Mind you, I'm not talking about which of you are right or wrong about Thatcher - I don't know the details of British politics in the '80s - but I'm just enjoying the incredible dialogue. You should see how we Americans post and blog to each other - we sound like ten year olds compared to you guys. Even the least educated among you (or those who pretend to be) employ more articulate phrases, compelling arguments, and colorful epithets than we can. Somewhere along the way we forgot how to speak our own language...

Anyway, my ignorant, foreign, unexperienced opinion about your general subject of discussion is - maybe Thatcher was a monster, heartless, cruel, etc. I don't really know. But the fact that Labour had to move quite far to the right intellectually to be elected (and to stay in power) shows, I think, that the British want something about the Thatcher legacy/revolution/travesty, I'm not sure exactly what, to be perpetuated.