Margaret Thatcher Dies

[Cowboy89]

Serious question for all the Thatcher detractors on here about the miners strike in Britain:

Why did the government own the coal mining industry? By today's North American terms, national ownership of natural resources like that seems rather antiquated (Maybe precisely because of people like Thatcher).

When a mine or any other business, plant, etc. for that matter turns unprofitable, is it really prudent for the public to subsidize it's continued existance beyond it's commercial life for the sake of union jobs?

Gold rushes and busts, oil booms and busts, fishing booms and busts, all create and destroy communities all the world over. No one is going to shed a tear for the oil sands of Fort McMurray when it's viability and profitability inevitably ebbs. What's so special about UK coal miners and the UK situation at that time that makes Thatcher so evil for bringing about an end to it?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Serious question for all the Thatcher detractors on here about the miners strike in Britain:

Why did the government own the coal mining industry? By today's North American terms, national ownership of natural resources like that seems rather antiquated (Maybe precisely because of people like Thatcher).

When a mine or any other business, plant, etc. for that matter turns unprofitable, is it really prudent for the public to subsidize it's continued existance beyond it's commercial life for the sake of union jobs?

Gold rushes and busts, oil booms and busts, fishing booms and busts, all create and destroy communities all the world over. No one is going to shed a tear for the oil sands of Fort McMurray when it's viability and profitability inevitably ebbs. What's so special about UK coal miners and the UK situation at that time that makes Thatcher so evil for bringing about an end to it?

It took me a long time to really come up with an answer for this as it is a perfectly reasonable position, I think why Thatcher brings such viscoral hatred in many in the UK is how she and her party dealt with not just the miners but their communities.

Like many small mill towns in BC mining towns in Northern UK were generally company towns and when the mines closed the whole community was screwed, not only did Thatcher enthusiastically persue closing the mines but there was no support for the communities or even really a sense of sorrow, she and her party really did appear to everyone to not give a **** about vast swathes of the country, they were solely concerned with the South East of the country and couldn't care less what the people did after, Norman Tebbit, famously told the unemployed to 'just get on your bike' if you needed a job, it wasn't so much that he was wrong it was the callousness of the attitude that it revealed.

On top of that alot of what they did was damage almost for no reason, mines that were actually profitable were closed along with ones that needed to be shut just because they were more pro union, in the same way she sold off the railways, which overnight became more expensive and less reliable.

In the end even if you supported Thatcher there was a real sense she and her party were punishing the lower classes, which tended to bring to mind a very common foible of the lower middle class in the UK, where Thatcher came from, they dislike the working class more than the upper classes really, in many ways the lower middle class in the UK don't really fit in, they are a generation or so out of the working poor so social position becomes hopelessly important to them for fear they will fall back into working class, and yet they are looked down on by the upper middle class.
Every Brit understood Thatcher, she was looked down on by most in the Tories and was always an outsider in her party, but it was also clear that she had been brought up to pretty well dispise those below her.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Serious question for all the Thatcher detractors on here about the miners strike in Britain:

Why did the government own the coal mining industry? By today's North American terms, national ownership of natural resources like that seems rather antiquated (Maybe precisely because of people like Thatcher).

When a mine or any other business, plant, etc. for that matter turns unprofitable, is it really prudent for the public to subsidize it's continued existance beyond it's commercial life for the sake of union jobs?

Gold rushes and busts, oil booms and busts, fishing booms and busts, all create and destroy communities all the world over. No one is going to shed a tear for the oil sands of Fort McMurray when it's viability and profitability inevitably ebbs. What's so special about UK coal miners and the UK situation at that time that makes Thatcher so evil for bringing about an end to it?

Cowboy,

The National Coal Board (NCB) was created by Clement Attlee's Labour government via the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act of 1946, which came into force on 1 January 1947. British collieries were taken under government control during both World Wars as a way to exert tighter control over the production and distribution of coal. Coal reserves were nationalized in 1942 though the actual mines were not. Nationalization of industry was a core belief amongst Britain's Labour Party and the coal industry was no different. Many of Labour's old guard came from these area - Yorkshire, Lancashire, North Wales, Scotland and many were from coal mining communities. This was close to the hearts of many, many Labour politicians.


Also, during this time, the Labour government oversaw the creation of Britain's "cradle-to-grave, state-run, social welfare state" which was outlined in Lord William Beveridge's 1942 report bearing his name. In this report he advocated the banishment of poverty and want from British society. He identified five key areas of illness, ignorance, disease, squalor and want that needed to be systematically removed from society. Creating the National Health Service was one of many reforms to be introduced at the time and nationalization was seen as a necessary component of this as it led to massive "public sector" job creation, which again is a core component of socialist political doctrine. Attlee, Bevin and Bevan were simply doing what they believed to be right and the best for postwar Britain, which was struggling, socially and economically. Britain finally made it's last payment to the US for the debt incurred during the Second World War on 31 December 2006. Yes it was struggling.

The Attlee Government began a process of social welfare creation that was intended to provide British citizens with everything they could need, though not "want" as this was anathema to the conditions laid out in the Beveridge Report. Britain's newly-formed welfare state and re-formed economy (heavily based on public sector work) had entered into a new era. It is not that the creation of the UK welfare state was a bad thing, quite the opposite, it was necessary. Due it's "size" and comprehensiveness, and they way in which it was pitched to people, it has helped to further some social problems that continue to persist, such as instilling a sense of entitlement across regions. The belief that it is the "government's job" or "not my responsibility" has become an all-too common refrain emanating from modern Britain. The roots are deep, very deep and it is with this lens that one needs to view the events of the 1980s in Britain, including the 1984-85 miners strike.

Coal politics had been an emotive issue for many years in the UK. In fact, coal had been referred to as the "lifeblood of the UK" by some commentators. Prior to the 1984-85 strike, work stoppages had occurred most significantly in 1924 and 1974. The 1984-85 strike was significant for many reasons. First the strike was not deemed official or "legal" as the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) led by Arthur Scargill failed to hold a ballot prior to the strike due to the uncertainty of the vote's outcome. Instead local strikes were encouraged with the first beginning in South Yorkshire. Scargill's belief was that if you could mobilize the workforce to strike locally, it would marginalize the need for a national ballot as the movement would be a grassroots, populist one. This sort of backfired on the NUM as certain areas were not keen on the idea of a strike as their mines were profitable and productive and were in no danger of being one of the 20 pits slated for closure. Resistance to striking was greatest in Nottinghamshire. The NUMs reaction to this was to send picketers from Yorkshire into Nottinghamshire to intimidate and influence these miners into supporting a work stoppage.

Also, as a result of the lack of a nationwide vote, wives and dependents of the striking miners were not able to claim any sort of income support. Striking workers cannot claim, regardless of a ballot, but their dependents could claim. Because the strike wasn't "legal" the government had no obligation to provide any sort of relief or support for the striking families. This was a massive failing of NUM leadership, though they were able to convince their supporters and some members of the public that it was the government's fault, not theirs. Interestingly public opinion at the time was mixed, though certain polls show that support for the miners was less than that of the employers. (July 1984 Gallup poll shows - 40% said employers; 33% were for the miners; 19% were for neither and 8% did not know. December 1984 poll shows - 51% had most sympathy for the employers; 26% for the miners; 18% for neither and 5% did not know.)

The British Coal industry had been in decline since its peak in 1913 when it produced 284 million tonnes. Before 1914 demand for coal was rising at an annual rate of 4%; after the war British exports of coal plummeted and domestic demand remained stagnant. Throughout the 1950s and 60s it was more cost effective to import coal from places such as West Germany where they had massive open-pit coal mines as opposed to the deep shaft mines in the UK, which was more expensive to produce. By the 1970s, the British Coal industry was vastly unprofitable and needed to be restructured. By the time Scargill took the helm, miners were among the highest-paid industrial workers in the country and they were often asked to support other groups fighting for higher wages. This did not resonate very strongly with a significant portion of the population, many of whom were struggling to make ends meet. But I digress.

The way in which the NUM was taken on by the Thatcher Government is what a lot of people have an issue with. Miners were essentially pawns in the fight between Thatcher and Scargill, which had become personal. People lost not only their jobs but their livelihoods and communities suffered. While some attempt was made to reinvest in some of the hardest hit communities, this ultimately did not go far enough and left thousands of unemployed miners unemployable as they had little education and no other marketable skills. This still angers people in these areas to this day. From the other side, it was common knowledge that the union was complicit in bringing down both the Heath and Callaghan Governments and this was not acceptable for adherents to the Westminster Parliamentary process of which Mrs Thatcher was one. For her reducing the power and political influence of the trades unions was of the utmost importance to her mandate. The NUM was seen to wield disproportionate political power and as a result it was going to be confronted head on by a Prime Minister willing to take up the fight where her predecessors, Wilson, Heath and Callaghan (Labour, Tory, Labour) were not.

Rightly or wrongly, many saw this as an attack on a particular class, socio-economic background, nation (Scotland, Wales) and region (north v south). Thatcher has come to embody all that was wrong at the time and is perceived to have "killed off industry" which isn't all that helpful or accurate.

For an overview of the economics of the situation see this:

Reasons for the Decline in the UK Coal industry

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/64...coal-industry/

Like most emotive debates there is a lot of misinformation and incorrect data used and quoted by both sides. For example, it is a common misconception that the Thatcher Government privatized the railways. This in fact occurred over 2 years after she left 10 Downing Street and was enacted under the Major Government in January 1993. While no fan of nationalization, she was opposed to privatizing British Rail for many reasons and simply presuming that it was under her leadership that something happened is unhelpful and counterproductive. This helps to further an already polarized set of issues and prevents any reasonable dialogue from occurring. See:

FactCheck: the Thatcher myths

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...er-myths/13236

I didn't want to comment any further on this topic as I feel it has become laborious and tiresome. But I felt that it is my responsibility as an academic to possibly redress some inaccuracies and fallacies in this debate. Like most other UK-based historians, economists and political scientists, and expert commentators, I believe that Mrs Thatcher got more right than wrong - though she did have a few howlers - and that history will remember her more positively than either her opponents or successors and that Britain was left in better condition in 1990 than it was in 1979, regardless of what the Billy Braggs and Morrisseys of the world have to say. For them it is emotive, for me it is pragmatic. And that is how I think it should be, pragmatic.

[JohnnyB]

That is one of the most enlightening writeups I've read about this history. No tldr for that.

[Cowperson]

"Although vindicated by history, here is why Thatcherism wouldn't work today" - an opinion piece by Fareed Zakaria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

Cowperson

[afc wimbledon]

Thanks NBC for a good overveiw, I left the UK in 85 so missed the end of her rule (and rule it was!), unlike alot on my side I recognised that the changes that came under her were inevitable, that said I think they would have come with or without her and in many ways her divisiveness was unneccersary,
Even at the time it was clear Scargill was a grade a moron and was going to lose, in fact I view Scargill as ultimatly the one responsible for the end of union power in the UK.

[Cowboy89]

I can appreciate the responses from afc and NBC. It comfirms my thoughts that deep down the hate towards Thatcher has more to do with the percieved attitude of how she went about dismatling the coal industry rather than the fact that she actually dismatled the coal industry. As I was born in 1984 and never lived in the UK to pick up on the nuances of life there I can only look back ex post to her time in office.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

"Although vindicated by history, here is why Thatcherism wouldn't work today" - an opinion piece by Fareed Zakaria.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z3

Cowperson

That article is a more articulate version of exactly how I view Thatcherism in my own mind. I mentioned earlier that I thought that a lot of people make the mistake of looking back at her reforms as if they are the same as if they were to be employed to today's problems.

This is also good reading for today's socialists who parade around saying that since the marginal tax rate was like 80% back in the 60s that somehow we could raise taxes that much today and the world economy would still turn.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

That article is a more articulate version of exactly how I view Thatcherism in my own mind. I mentioned earlier that I thought that a lot of people make the mistake of looking back at her reforms as if they are the same as if they were to be employed to today's problems.

This is also good reading for today's socialists who parade around saying that since the marginal tax rate was like 80% back in the 60s that somehow we could raise taxes that much today and the world economy would still turn.

The odd thing about Thatcher was she was a terrible politician so the things she did were compounded by the statements she made and really pointless political choices, her stance on South Africa and her support of Pinochet were just insane domestically and have ensured she will not be 'forgiven' if you will. There is a engagingly masochistic streak in the British voter you don't see in N America generally, Thatcher to some degree ran on a platform/image of 'you deserve to be punished and I'm the one to punish you'

She was a sort of Mike Keenan of British Politics really.

She also benefited greatly from being underestimated by her detractors and also was tremendously lucky, the Argentinians had they done the slightest prep or shown any resistance in the Falklands could have beaten the british handily

Again the miners, had they been led by a smarter leader would have recognised that the goverment was prepared and had a plan, had they just waited a year they could have caused the Goverment real problems once the coal stockpiles were lower.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

She also benefited greatly from being underestimated by her detractors and also was tremendously lucky, the Argentinians had they done the slightest prep or shown any resistance in the Falklands could have beaten the british handily

I don't think they would have even if they increased resistance.

What the British accomplished was considered impossible at the time, the British Submarines far outclassed anything that the Argentines had and the Argentine Navy was not proficient with anti-submarine operations.

the American's had also committed the Iwo Jima with a full complement of Harriers if needed.

The British had a distinct disadvantage in Air cover with 40 operational Harriers against Argentina's air force of 122 operations air superiority fighters.

The British Task Force was a two carrier task force, yes they were escort class carriers but still carriers.

the British Marines really outclassed anything that Argentina had at the time.

Once the Belgrano was sunk Argentina pretty much retired its navy from the battlefield.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't think they would have even if they increased resistance.

What the British accomplished was considered impossible at the time, the British Submarines far outclassed anything that the Argentines had and the Argentine Navy was not proficient with anti-submarine operations.

the American's had also committed the Iwo Jima with a full complement of Harriers if needed.

The British had a distinct disadvantage in Air cover with 40 operational Harriers against Argentina's air force of 122 operations air superiority fighters.

The British Task Force was a two carrier task force, yes they were escort class carriers but still carriers.

the British Marines really outclassed anything that Argentina had at the time.

Once the Belgrano was sunk Argentina pretty much retired its navy from the battlefield.

I think had the Argentinians prepared a viable runway for the super etandards and Mirages on the Island they could have dominated the air which would have made everything impossible and enabled them to challange the task force further out in the Atlantic, plus put a considerable force on the islands to challange a landing the task force would have been in trouble, the Argentinians just never thought the Brits would come at them.

The Mirage was far supiorior to the harrier in an air to air role, the argies should have found a way to use this huge weakness in the Brit arsenal, instead they left them on the mainland and essentially fought with half their arsenal.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I think had the Argentinians prepared a viable runway for the super etandards and Mirages on the Island they could have dominated the air which would have made everything impossible and enabled them to challange the task force further out in the Atlantic, plus put a considerable force on the islands to challange a landing the task force would have been in trouble, the Argentinians just never thought the Brits would come at them.

The Mirage was far supiorior to the harrier in an air to air role, the argies should have found a way to use this huge weakness in the Brit arsenal, instead they left them on the mainland and essentially fought with half their arsenal.

Maybe, but remember that the Brits did have their cruise missile capable submarines in the area and any air strip would have been probably hit and hit over and over again.

I agree the Argentinian's had a huge disadvantage in terms of having to keep their planes on the mainland.

The British Harrier had a decent enough war at that time to the point where the Argentine's were scrubbing raids whenever they detected the Harrier radar systems in the air.

Argentina lost their command and control capability navy wise when they lost the Belgrando.

The British Marines and Special Forces were also superior to Argentina's.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by NBC

I believe that Mrs Thatcher got more right than wrong - though she did have a few howlers - and that history will remember her more positively than either her opponents or successors

Maybe in one of your academic textbooks.

Meanwhile in the real world where real people feel emotions at their memories when her name is mentioned.

She will be remember by a significant part of the population as a cold hearted bitch that supported the apartheid regime, was best pals with a genocidal leader (and I'm not talking about Sadaam), had a state collusion policy for murder, and was an absolute dream for Sinn Fein/PIRA and their recruitment officers so much so that it came right back to bite her ......... just down the road from you.

Morrisey for all his emotions sums you up well NBC.

"Thatcher will only be fondly remembered by sentimentalists who did not suffer under her leadership, but the majority of British working people have forgotten her already"

[billybob123]

And conscripts vs volunteers is usually an unfair fight.

[Flame Of Liberty]

One could say that Thatcher saved the UK when she realized it's utterly pointless to base your policies on feelings of individuals incapable of grasping the big picture. Stark contrast to current "politicians" who bow down to every whim of their electorate, base their policy on mood swings in poll numbers and ruin countries in the process.

[icarus]

The Wizard of Oz song at the centre of an anti-Margaret Thatcher campaign will not be played in full on the Official Chart Show.

Instead a five second clip of the 51-second song will be aired as part of a Newsbeat report, Radio 1 controller Ben Cooper has said.

Sales of Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead have soared since the former Prime Minister's death on Monday, aged 87.

The song is set to take the number three spot in Sunday's countdown, according to the Official Charts Company.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21241791

[afc wimbledon]

^

I love being a canadian but I do miss the endless ascerbic ireverant humour of my mother country.

where else would half the country pitch in on a joke about a recently deceased that turns anger into a joke while at the same time being in appalingly bad taste.

Its a collective 'up yours' to the tories and sends the clear message that it doesn't matter what you to us do we will get the last laugh.

And before anyone complains this is the same mindset that let us carry on in 1940.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

^

I love being a canadian but I do miss the endless ascerbic ireverant humour of my mother country.

where else would half the country pitch in on a joke about a recently deceased that turns anger into a joke while at the same time being in appalingly bad taste.

Its a collective 'up yours' to the tories and sends the clear message that it doesn't matter what you to us do we will get the last laugh.

And before anyone complains this is the same mindset that let us carry on in 1940.

I truly do NOT miss the irreverent, media led, mindless, knock someone when they are down or not in a position to respond English 'humour'. This whole episode is disrespectful to a former leader and shows England in an extremely bad light. Shameful.