Requiem for Thatcher
Born 13.10.29. Died asap.
It seems we are about to enter a period of political reflection with the current writing of history meeting the past blue blood sepia fond memories of days past. The reason for this potential reminiscing may be revealed in the unveiling of two films. One the ‘Kings Speech’ and the other ‘the iron lady’ thatcher. The Kings speech was focused on George V1 and his overcoming a speech impediment, the other film (to be release) on thatcher and her role as the iron lady in politics. This film (the iron lady) portraying her facade, dose not have the luxury of being overly dimmed with time to benefit from a weak prejudicial view that softens the harder edges of the actuality against the possible rosy cinematic presentation. For those that might choose to view it, it will be all too real and visceral to be able to form an unambiguous view.
As Alison Jackson’s Guardian article goes “Meryl Streep’s Margret Thatcher reveals a modern icon” would have it about the film “Lloyd's film comes more than 30 years after Thatcher first came to power. All of our lives have been affected by the social changes brought about by her government, and our own careers shaped by her political beliefs. If nothing else, this picture might be a reminder of how it is harder these days to be critical of Thatcher without seeming hypocritical”.
One could take issue with this view, so were on earth did she get this idea that it is seemingly hypocritical to be critical about thatcher and her ‘legacy’ today. Perhaps only someone of a certain younger age would fall for or hold such woolly view, caused even more so with a lack of depth that distance from the effects generates. For those not having been there when she ruled, or maybe those that directly or indirectly whom may have benefitted from the narrow wealth bestowed on a fortunate few, her leadership legacy came at a high cost to many.
If one were the rich middle class beneficiaries of her ideological fever then yes one may have been in the fortunate position of taking a rosy view of her administration and might not lean towards being critical to avoid the label hypocritical. Yet many, from working class industries, will have strong critical views of her period and certainly will not themselves be considered of holding a hypocritical view of her and none affected badly by her action will have missed her departure. As for her legacy, look no further than the Con/Dems and what they are to do to the country now. As much as they continue to emphasize blame onto the previous administrations laxity, for what they are rushing “progressively” to correct and do now; it is Too much, Too Fast, Too Soon and driven through with her similar ideological dogma. Once more, who will be the recipients of her mantle of continued conservative philosophy? Mostly the working class, the public realm and the depleted manufacturing sector are the expendable lambs.
To parallel a view of thatcher against some others, consider M. Foot who died in 2010 and the eulogies laid on him that indicate he was erudite etc and a friend of another literary person E. Powel. Both of whom were Politian’s whose personas were miss-placed in time and situation. Both were given accolades on their demise, justly deserved some say as Politian’s of note and standing, albeit that they may have failed to gain overall popular recognition. They were it seems respected for their intellect and foresight and appreciated the pressures of social dynamics. This view is to contrast with say blair and thatcher, two of the most recent notable in power person of the last 30 years. Of neither could it be said they are socially erudite, comprehending the complexity of societal integration, nor, more importantly, with their parliamentary majority did they improved the UK’s standing on any level to eventually deserve to earn any great eulogy when their time comes. Both had a war each to their name, both were political chimeras proffering one of many images but falling short of meeting any and both were skilful in deceptions. One clearly fed mammon the other fell for it and in doing so both created a path of economic ruination. However, only one donated a policy noun to the economic language. Thatcherism.
Yet what would their obituary say about these two, would any critique of them be equally seen as hypocritical?
As thatcher is closer to the reaper than blair, one might assume that there will be soon great poring out of platitudes from odds and sods of those that basked in her glory or fried in her scorn. Many of those that were the recipients of her political scorn might probably have relevant caustic observation of her. Some of those affected would have been ex miners, Dockers, steel workers, public sector workers or the many affected by the great destruction of the manufacturing sectors precipitated during her rein. Others like the police, business tygoons, city slickers, grey haired conservatives and her party sycophants will no doubt laud her contribution in life and lament her passing.
The curse of Maggie began when she became prime minister in 1979 until she was unceremoniously kicked out by her own gang, in 1990. For some this was the only good day in her whole reign. That period still suffered from the diminishing affects of the cost of war and considerable under investment within industry that struggled with the effects of European integration, world economic changes and pressures on the economy via globalisation. She was a self centered opportunist and rode to power on women’s vote at a time of created division within the labour party that offered no challenged to her media popularisation.
Her period was also at a time when the IRA was active in the pursuit of independence and it was instrument in the killing of Mountbatten in 79. In addition, the behaviour of ‘red’ Ken Livingstone of GLC, with the official invitation extending a London visit to members of the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein - Gerry Adams & Danny Morrison in 1982, gave her great displeasure. Although they eventually declined / refused the offer, it only served to drive her apoplectic in the pursuit of her single-minded approach to control and change the state of the nation to follow her distorted mind set. This together with the Brighton bombing of Oct 84 and the miner strike 84/85; stiffen her attitudes on many issues from the very start of her reign. All this was predicated through the ‘winter of discontent’ and her resounding victory over Labour. From this flowed a whole range of dogmatic policies that did nothing to enhance the standing of society - which she claimed did not exist but instead lauded independence, self-dependency, help yourselves city greed and contaminate the conservative party with corruption and sleaze.
She is credited with remodelling the manufacturing and labour relations of the UK for a ‘post-industrial’ age that promoted financial and commercial activities over the needs of production and in doing so shaped the economic weakness of the UK into the future. In 1979 the national debt was 43.5% of GDP falling to 40%. at 1998. In 2008 it stood at 35% and as a result og the CC rising to 60% over 2010. The Interest rate in 1979 was 5.5% raising to 15.5% in the1980s through the Lawson spending boom and ‘Black Wednesday’ dropping to 5.5% in 1998 and then varied a while to 2008 when due to the foreseeable corrupt credit / bank crisis it fell from 5.5% each subsequent year to 0.05%; now the unsustainable lowest. Unemployment in 1979 stood at 1.4m-5.5% and rose to 3m-11.4% in 3 years. In 2008 unemployment was 6.5% and by 2010 the beginning of the Con/Dem years it was at 7.9%-2.49m and rising. (Office of National Statistics) As a picture of the trend of the economy, there is little here to be pleased about!
There will be those that will say she reinvigorated the UK economy. This might be the only aspect that might carry some weight, but only by rewriting employment law, giving selective tax bounty and regressively attacking the public realm but it was done on the back of massive oil revenues that was used to finance the negative effects of her policies. In a fit of peek in 1986 she put into play the abolition of Metropolitan County Councils and created statues to overthrowing the power of unions. In addition, the same policies moved to insure the deliberate dismantling of the manufacturing sector in seeing, as she believed, the future economy built on the finance sector and services. This deliberate neglect ruined the manufacturing base of the UK, wasted the oil revenue to hide and finance the economic mess she and her monetarism policies created.
She gave full rein to the monetarist experiment that contributed significantly to the process of eroding the UK economy and promoted the self-interest of the ‘city’ etc. Releasing financial controls (Big Bang), began the slide to economic lasisez faire and enthusiastically sought the privatisation of many public / government-owned industries at a knock down price that later even the Audit committee referred to being sold undervalued.
She was wholly selfish in the pursuit of her own agenda, ridiculed the idea of society, socialism, state support and the role of the public sector embodied in the Local authorities. Such was her growing unpopularity that up to the Falkland’s war in 1982 she was on her way out of power, yet this war interlude gave her party and ego another stay on in her role as the ‘Iron Lady’ not for turning. This image of the iron lady no doubt gave some ideologues an impetus and became a badge carried on to infect her attitude possibly culminating in her debacle over the 1989/90 poll tax revolts and her eventual scurrying from Downing Street, patently publically bowed and shamed.
As time goes by, history may well observe as a few do now, that it is disingenuous to subscribe to the idea of her reinvigorating the UK economy. She had great opportunity and a large parliamentary majority to drive through her agenda however she fell for the traditional conservative hype and backbone power base that gave her inconsiderate radicalism a more destructive twist than was necessary.
With this requiem, one may gain the impression that one is not a sympathetic to the idea held by some acolytes of thatcher, of her being the greatest prime ministers since say the liberal David Lloyd George, Clement Atlee or Churchill. Perhaps not, nor did she compare with the likes of political types of William Beveridge, Tony Benn, or John Smith, as the greatest prime ministers there has never been but disregarding any comparisons, so far as a number of observers are concerned, all that she deserves is a little insignificant foot note to the history of GB. She could have been great but she fluffed it.
That she will be remembered, there is no doubt. A film of her may deserve no good pundit comment, compared to ‘”The Kings Speech”. For much of what she stood for is still coursing the blue blood of the conservatives and indeed as the new Con/Dems. Unfortunately, the immorality that she released also fed into the dogma of new labour and therefore blair must also carry the burden of the lost opportunity, opportunity offered with the large parliamentary majority they both had to improve the state of the nation. If anything, there is still a mantle of thatcherism that many of the Conservatives still relish with perhaps some wiser heads connecting the three + decades of so much unnecessary waste, to realise the price of thatcherism was not worth paying. So bury her really deep, let the worms have they way...
Yet, the country still struggles with consequences. Can the country stand another 30 wasted years derived from the illusions and dogma she foisted onto the electorate now regurgitated with different repugnant vocalisations as demonstrated by the Con/Dems? Surly 3 years is too long to wait for a change but what can change?.
© Renot 2011
142111553
She has gone! 8.4.13 ding dong....
It seems we are about to enter a period of political reflection with the current writing of history meeting the past blue blood sepia fond memories of days past. The reason for this potential reminiscing may be revealed in the unveiling of two films. One the ‘Kings Speech’ and the other ‘the iron lady’ thatcher. The Kings speech was focused on George V1 and his overcoming a speech impediment, the other film (to be release) on thatcher and her role as the iron lady in politics. This film (the iron lady) portraying her facade, dose not have the luxury of being overly dimmed with time to benefit from a weak prejudicial view that softens the harder edges of the actuality against the possible rosy cinematic presentation. For those that might choose to view it, it will be all too real and visceral to be able to form an unambiguous view.
As Alison Jackson’s Guardian article goes “Meryl Streep’s Margret Thatcher reveals a modern icon” would have it about the film “Lloyd's film comes more than 30 years after Thatcher first came to power. All of our lives have been affected by the social changes brought about by her government, and our own careers shaped by her political beliefs. If nothing else, this picture might be a reminder of how it is harder these days to be critical of Thatcher without seeming hypocritical”.
One could take issue with this view, so were on earth did she get this idea that it is seemingly hypocritical to be critical about thatcher and her ‘legacy’ today. Perhaps only someone of a certain younger age would fall for or hold such woolly view, caused even more so with a lack of depth that distance from the effects generates. For those not having been there when she ruled, or maybe those that directly or indirectly whom may have benefitted from the narrow wealth bestowed on a fortunate few, her leadership legacy came at a high cost to many.
If one were the rich middle class beneficiaries of her ideological fever then yes one may have been in the fortunate position of taking a rosy view of her administration and might not lean towards being critical to avoid the label hypocritical. Yet many, from working class industries, will have strong critical views of her period and certainly will not themselves be considered of holding a hypocritical view of her and none affected badly by her action will have missed her departure. As for her legacy, look no further than the Con/Dems and what they are to do to the country now. As much as they continue to emphasize blame onto the previous administrations laxity, for what they are rushing “progressively” to correct and do now; it is Too much, Too Fast, Too Soon and driven through with her similar ideological dogma. Once more, who will be the recipients of her mantle of continued conservative philosophy? Mostly the working class, the public realm and the depleted manufacturing sector are the expendable lambs.
To parallel a view of thatcher against some others, consider M. Foot who died in 2010 and the eulogies laid on him that indicate he was erudite etc and a friend of another literary person E. Powel. Both of whom were Politian’s whose personas were miss-placed in time and situation. Both were given accolades on their demise, justly deserved some say as Politian’s of note and standing, albeit that they may have failed to gain overall popular recognition. They were it seems respected for their intellect and foresight and appreciated the pressures of social dynamics. This view is to contrast with say blair and thatcher, two of the most recent notable in power person of the last 30 years. Of neither could it be said they are socially erudite, comprehending the complexity of societal integration, nor, more importantly, with their parliamentary majority did they improved the UK’s standing on any level to eventually deserve to earn any great eulogy when their time comes. Both had a war each to their name, both were political chimeras proffering one of many images but falling short of meeting any and both were skilful in deceptions. One clearly fed mammon the other fell for it and in doing so both created a path of economic ruination. However, only one donated a policy noun to the economic language. Thatcherism.
Yet what would their obituary say about these two, would any critique of them be equally seen as hypocritical?
As thatcher is closer to the reaper than blair, one might assume that there will be soon great poring out of platitudes from odds and sods of those that basked in her glory or fried in her scorn. Many of those that were the recipients of her political scorn might probably have relevant caustic observation of her. Some of those affected would have been ex miners, Dockers, steel workers, public sector workers or the many affected by the great destruction of the manufacturing sectors precipitated during her rein. Others like the police, business tygoons, city slickers, grey haired conservatives and her party sycophants will no doubt laud her contribution in life and lament her passing.
The curse of Maggie began when she became prime minister in 1979 until she was unceremoniously kicked out by her own gang, in 1990. For some this was the only good day in her whole reign. That period still suffered from the diminishing affects of the cost of war and considerable under investment within industry that struggled with the effects of European integration, world economic changes and pressures on the economy via globalisation. She was a self centered opportunist and rode to power on women’s vote at a time of created division within the labour party that offered no challenged to her media popularisation.
Her period was also at a time when the IRA was active in the pursuit of independence and it was instrument in the killing of Mountbatten in 79. In addition, the behaviour of ‘red’ Ken Livingstone of GLC, with the official invitation extending a London visit to members of the Irish nationalist party Sinn Fein - Gerry Adams & Danny Morrison in 1982, gave her great displeasure. Although they eventually declined / refused the offer, it only served to drive her apoplectic in the pursuit of her single-minded approach to control and change the state of the nation to follow her distorted mind set. This together with the Brighton bombing of Oct 84 and the miner strike 84/85; stiffen her attitudes on many issues from the very start of her reign. All this was predicated through the ‘winter of discontent’ and her resounding victory over Labour. From this flowed a whole range of dogmatic policies that did nothing to enhance the standing of society - which she claimed did not exist but instead lauded independence, self-dependency, help yourselves city greed and contaminate the conservative party with corruption and sleaze.
She is credited with remodelling the manufacturing and labour relations of the UK for a ‘post-industrial’ age that promoted financial and commercial activities over the needs of production and in doing so shaped the economic weakness of the UK into the future. In 1979 the national debt was 43.5% of GDP falling to 40%. at 1998. In 2008 it stood at 35% and as a result og the CC rising to 60% over 2010. The Interest rate in 1979 was 5.5% raising to 15.5% in the1980s through the Lawson spending boom and ‘Black Wednesday’ dropping to 5.5% in 1998 and then varied a while to 2008 when due to the foreseeable corrupt credit / bank crisis it fell from 5.5% each subsequent year to 0.05%; now the unsustainable lowest. Unemployment in 1979 stood at 1.4m-5.5% and rose to 3m-11.4% in 3 years. In 2008 unemployment was 6.5% and by 2010 the beginning of the Con/Dem years it was at 7.9%-2.49m and rising. (Office of National Statistics) As a picture of the trend of the economy, there is little here to be pleased about!
There will be those that will say she reinvigorated the UK economy. This might be the only aspect that might carry some weight, but only by rewriting employment law, giving selective tax bounty and regressively attacking the public realm but it was done on the back of massive oil revenues that was used to finance the negative effects of her policies. In a fit of peek in 1986 she put into play the abolition of Metropolitan County Councils and created statues to overthrowing the power of unions. In addition, the same policies moved to insure the deliberate dismantling of the manufacturing sector in seeing, as she believed, the future economy built on the finance sector and services. This deliberate neglect ruined the manufacturing base of the UK, wasted the oil revenue to hide and finance the economic mess she and her monetarism policies created.
She gave full rein to the monetarist experiment that contributed significantly to the process of eroding the UK economy and promoted the self-interest of the ‘city’ etc. Releasing financial controls (Big Bang), began the slide to economic lasisez faire and enthusiastically sought the privatisation of many public / government-owned industries at a knock down price that later even the Audit committee referred to being sold undervalued.
She was wholly selfish in the pursuit of her own agenda, ridiculed the idea of society, socialism, state support and the role of the public sector embodied in the Local authorities. Such was her growing unpopularity that up to the Falkland’s war in 1982 she was on her way out of power, yet this war interlude gave her party and ego another stay on in her role as the ‘Iron Lady’ not for turning. This image of the iron lady no doubt gave some ideologues an impetus and became a badge carried on to infect her attitude possibly culminating in her debacle over the 1989/90 poll tax revolts and her eventual scurrying from Downing Street, patently publically bowed and shamed.
As time goes by, history may well observe as a few do now, that it is disingenuous to subscribe to the idea of her reinvigorating the UK economy. She had great opportunity and a large parliamentary majority to drive through her agenda however she fell for the traditional conservative hype and backbone power base that gave her inconsiderate radicalism a more destructive twist than was necessary.
With this requiem, one may gain the impression that one is not a sympathetic to the idea held by some acolytes of thatcher, of her being the greatest prime ministers since say the liberal David Lloyd George, Clement Atlee or Churchill. Perhaps not, nor did she compare with the likes of political types of William Beveridge, Tony Benn, or John Smith, as the greatest prime ministers there has never been but disregarding any comparisons, so far as a number of observers are concerned, all that she deserves is a little insignificant foot note to the history of GB. She could have been great but she fluffed it.
That she will be remembered, there is no doubt. A film of her may deserve no good pundit comment, compared to ‘”The Kings Speech”. For much of what she stood for is still coursing the blue blood of the conservatives and indeed as the new Con/Dems. Unfortunately, the immorality that she released also fed into the dogma of new labour and therefore blair must also carry the burden of the lost opportunity, opportunity offered with the large parliamentary majority they both had to improve the state of the nation. If anything, there is still a mantle of thatcherism that many of the Conservatives still relish with perhaps some wiser heads connecting the three + decades of so much unnecessary waste, to realise the price of thatcherism was not worth paying. So bury her really deep, let the worms have they way...
Yet, the country still struggles with consequences. Can the country stand another 30 wasted years derived from the illusions and dogma she foisted onto the electorate now regurgitated with different repugnant vocalisations as demonstrated by the Con/Dems? Surly 3 years is too long to wait for a change but what can change?.
© Renot 2011
142111553
She has gone! 8.4.13 ding dong....
Labels: Thatcher
posted by Renot at 4:33 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home