Thatcher had two things going for her really, first the Labour Party was in an utter mess at the time, ruderless, leaderless and being pulled apart by militant dingbats, it was in the process of spawning the LibDems.
Then the Argies handed her the second election on a plate by invading the Falklands, although one has to give her credit for insisting on taking them back, which I doubt any other PM would have bothered with.
That said Thatcher was never popular, even in the Tories, she was grudgingly respected by her supporters and outright hated by the rest, her election was more an expression of the UK's despair after the winter of discontent than any real love or wish for her to be in power, she was seen as the only strong leader available at a time when the UK felt it needed a strong leader.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 04-08-2013 at 03:08 PM.
And the fact that no politician has been since 1931 largely invalidates the initial argument, rendering the point moot.
I hardly think that the opinions of a champagne socialist, quasi-elitist, Respect "party" supporter such as Ken Loach are indicative of the entire country.
Last edited by NBC; 04-08-2013 at 03:33 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to NBC For This Useful Post:
And the fact that no politician has been since 1931 largely invalidates the initial argument, rendering the point moot.
I hardly think that the opinions of a champagne socialist, quasi-elitist, Respect "party" supporter such as Ken Loach are indicative of the entire country.
I would ask you to compare the feelings towards Thatcher as opposed to Churchill, both were seen as strong war time leaders, both had policies that were largely despised by the left but Churchill was and is universily respected, even beloved by his opponants, I think largely because he held to old school tory ideals of noblesse oblige and had a sense of humour, with Churchill you got the sense he might screw you, but he didn't want to screw you.
Where as even Thatchers supporters will admit she wanted to screw you over but it was 'neccersary'
Neither did I. My sole point is that to determine a leader's "popularity" based on their ability/inability to win a plurality of the popular vote (50.1%) is hardly a robust analysis and overly simplifies something that is much more complex - ie. parliamentary politics. Winston Churchill never won more that 48% of any popular vote yet he was incredibly popular. So is it accurate to say that he was not popular with most of the public? Are there any other factors that might be influencing the final numbers? My understanding of such things tell me that there are.
I know you didn't, I was responding to another poster (edit: earlier on in the thread).
The Conservatives really only ever get in because the Centre/Left vote is split (sound familiar?). Thatcher was loved by a minority. A minority that have since pretty much lost every social argument.
I think it's really hard to judge old leaders legacies with the lenses of today. Right now we're probably on the other side of the economic pendulum where maybe things got too unregulated and taxes got too low for a period of time. So when Thatcher's terms in office are viewed from today, some might be tempted to make the leap towards suggesting that the changes she initiated are what started today's ills as opposed to what ailed yesterday's ills.
For example, I believe that Ronald Reagan gave the US the economic kick in the a$$ it needed, and also made many necessary regulatory and tax changes. Where the US lost their way was in the late 90s and early 2000s where deregulation and lower taxes were treated as the defacto public policy gospel for growing the economy responsibly. I think both the repealing of the 'Glass-Stegal' act in the US under the Clinton administration, and the Bush Jr. tax cuts in the middle of fighting two wars are actually the points where things went too far.
If Thatcher's time get's viewed from that perspective than maybe history will recall her more fondly than the sentiment reflected here by some of the posters.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
I think it's really hard to judge old leaders legacies with the lenses of today. Right now we're probably on the other side of the economic pendulum where maybe things got too unregulated and taxes got too low for a period of time. So when Thatcher's terms in office are viewed from today, some might be tempted to make the leap towards suggesting that the changes she initiated are what started today's ills as opposed to what ailed yesterday's ills.
For example, I believe that Ronald Reagan gave the US the economic kick in the a$$ it needed, and also made many necessary regulatory and tax changes. Where the US lost their way was in the late 90s and early 2000s where deregulation and lower taxes were treated as the defacto public policy gospel for growing the economy responsibly. I think both the repealing of the 'Glass-Stegal' act in the US under the Clinton administration, and the Bush Jr. tax cuts in the middle of fighting two wars are actually the points where things went too far.
If Thatcher's time get's viewed from that perspective than maybe history will recall her more fondly than the sentiment reflected here by some of the posters.
I actually think history will look back at both Regan and Thatcher and see them as the point where conservatism somewhat lost its way, both essentially allowed their countries to borrow their way to prosperiety, both private and public debt became irrelevant under them, now you expect 'the left' to spend like sailors, the right is supposed to be the common sense solution.
