How Will History Remember Margaret Thatcher ?

Don't get the hate for Blair. Yes there were definately question marks over the Iraq wars, but by and large he didn't do too badly; possibly the first PM to blur lines between Labour and Conservative.

Of course by the end Thatcher united both the Conservatives and the Labour supporters - they pretty much all hated her.
 
paranoid marvin said:
Don't get the hate for Blair. Yes there were definately question marks over the Iraq wars, but by and large he didn't do too badly; possibly the first PM to blur lines between Labour and Conservative.

Of course by the end Thatcher united both the Conservatives and the Labour supporters - they pretty much all hated her.
Click to expand...

My bold - And there you have it. We waited 18 years for the Labour government we voted for, and that's what we got.

The only good thing Blair did was the referendum which led to the Scottish Parliament being reconvened. The people delivered it, he just gave permission.
 
What would Britain be like today , if she never became Prime Minister? Better or worse of?
 
Last edited:
BAYLOR said:
What would Britain be like today , if she never became Prime Minister? Better or worse of?
Click to expand...

I think our navy would be in a worse state than it is now if she hadn't come to power. The blundering into war over the Falkands opened our eyes when it was all about cutting costs. If I remember correctly, sale of The Hermes had already been agreed and if that had gone through, we might never have won in the end. It put the brakes on defence cuts to a certain extent.

I don't think we would be having this independence referendum if she hadn't come to power. In many ways, she was the last straw for a lot of people in Scotland.

Ironically, her decimation of Scottish heavy industry probably allowed Scotland time to recover and realign itself economically before actually reaching the point of deciding whether to stay or leave the UK. She may, in truth, be the prime architect of a new United Kingdom without Scotland.
 
That the problem Ace - the great majority of people in the UK are not massively interested in which political entity is ruining their lives - we just want continuity and consistency. If that means blurring the lines between parties then that's a good thing.

No political party can satisfy even the majority of their own voters - while in Labour there is the loony left that wants to take my earnings off me and give to some workshy scrounger, there are also others in Labour who are willing to let the market do most of the work.
 
BAYLOR said:
What would Britain be like today , if she never became Prime Minister? Better or worse of?
Click to expand...
That would have to depend on would have come to power if she hadn't. if it continued to be Jim Callaghan we'd all be living in almost continual darkness as the energy industry would be controlled by the mining unions; and if someone other than her from the Tories had got into power, we'd have been subject to regular elections as no Tory would have been the man she was, and their government would not have had a really workable majority (even if it was a majority in numbers, the union power base would be on the streets all the time).

We'd still be stuck, even now, in a 1970's timewarp. It was her breaking of union power that severed the umbilical cord between labour and the unions, and if that had not have happened, we wouldn't be where we are now so we would be massively worse off without any doubt.
 
In the safe SNP seats of the era - Conservatives are often the second party. Where I live you wouldn't think Labour or Lib-Dems actually existed.

Personally, I don't think you had to like her or her policies to have an admiration for the way she operated. No politician who makes it to PM is going to be entirely free of corruption. An awful lot of people were far better off under Thatcher than we are now. Some people that is reversed.
 
If Labour had got elected, then it's quite possible that we would have seen nuclear disarmament; could have changed quite a lot of things that. At a time of what seemed like imminent nuclear attack from the USSR, with the only thing (apparently) stopping the, being American missiles on UK bases, it could have been a real game changer on the political scene. It's also possibly why people voted for the Tories.
 
The question presupposed that there is such a thing as "History," presumably meaning a consensus of opinion among historians, ie academics leading very comfortable lives compared to most people. Somebody once said "A professor is a policeman of the intellect."

In fact there are as many versions of history as there are factions/special interest groups in a society. Ruling elites attempt to control history, often by the use of ritual and symbolism (acts of real magick) of which Thatcher's state funeral was a good example. Sometimes these rituals are derailed as in Diana's funeral- but the Establishement moves swiftly to repair any damage done. By controlling the past they control the present and the future.

But meanwhile the downtrodden and the dispossesed pass on their own histories, in whispers maybe, or in disguised forms. The internet has made a huge difference, but not as much as could have been- Wikipedia is a powerful tool for the elites to regain control of history, because most people are so lazy they'll go direct to wikipedia rather than trawling through dozens of different sites. Still, much of the truth is out there for those who can be bothered looking. I say "much of" because there are still rumours about recent history that don't seem to appear online.

Anyway, insofar as a consensus is achievable, I think that even her fans would surely agree that she was the most divisive figure in 20th century UK politics. Until Tony Blair she was also the most hated. I don't mean by everyone, of course. But Thatcher's opponents hated her with a real, gut-level hatred and rage that no other previous politician had evoked. And we still do.
 
Parson said:
Margret Thatcher's place in history will depend on who's writing the history. If it's written in the States by the conservatives she will go down as the 2nd greatest PM after Churchill in the twentieth century.
Click to expand...

That is a possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Foxbat History's (almost) Forgotten Heroines History 12
Extollager Hawking's Brief History of Time 1990 -- still worth reading? Book Discussion 20
L Cannot find a 1990s/early 2000s story about (ultimately erroneous) biological differences between Catholics/Protestants/ alternate history Book Search 5
Astro Pen Good book on the history of Penguin cover design Publishing 0
sknox Public school history History 62

Similar threads


Back
Top