Margaret Thatcher - freedom's friend
Friday, February 1, 2008 David Cameron has gone up another notch in my estimation. (Don't worry, he still has a long way to go.) This morning the Telegraph reports that he "heaped praise" on Baroness Thatcher when he presented her with the Morgan Stanley Great Britons Lifetime Achievement Award in London last night.
Writing in today's paper, Cameron says: "Today we know exactly what Thatcherism meant for our country: a victory in the Cold War, victory against unbridled trade union power, the sale of council houses, the liberation of the British economy."
My only concerns are: (a) some of us have known this for years - what took you so long, David? and (b) does he actually mean it? You see, with Cameron (like Blair before him), you're never quite sure if he believes what he's saying, or is he driven by some political motive to say what he thinks (some) people want him to say?
The jury is still out.
Reader Comments (29)
I don't believe any of them. All they want is our votes. Once they're in power, they seem to close the door, throw out everything they said, and put in ear plugs. After that it seems to be all about generating numbers for various lists that make them look good on the 'world stage' (regardless of how those numbers are created), and pandering to 'vested interests'.
Perhaps it was ever thus, and I'm only now informed and/or old enough to see it, but I'm sure it has become worse.
Democracy is just an idea, and a facade, as far as I can see. Politics seems to be entirely about self-interest to me.
Tony Blair went to see her too. Thatcher, Blair, Brown, all people who have removed, in stages, the balance of power from the hands of the people in the UK. So what does Cameron want to do then, continue with the same stuff?
Sorry Simon, I remember how bloody awful the Thatcher years were and the fact that Cameron went to see her just reduces my level of confidence in him even further!
Will they still be digging her out in years to come when she really is a corpse?
I must agree that I and all those in my neighbourhood and family suffered terribly under Thatcher too. That's the problem with that era. Those who did well were so separated from those who were being crushed that they still seem totally oblivious to the devastation her policies created for many people, and it was total devastation for MANY.
As time has passed, I can see that what she intended was pretty sound, in principle, and on paper. The problem was that she and her fellow Tories had no concept of what life is like for those who had no source of support underneath them.
In exactly the same way as the health fascists do today, she ignored the fact that we are humans, with emotions, needs, ideals and breaking points. Not just neat scenarios on paper.
If the basic right to housing had been made sacrosanct at that time, I think things could'be been very different, in spite of her policies. The very fact of becoming homeless, or being threatened with the possibility of homelessness (which seemed unthinkable before Thatcher) pushed many over the edge, and the results of that are still with us today.
Just to add to that, I think a society where some have everything and some have nothing can only work if those who have most also have some sense of compassion and philanthropy.
Unfortunately, what Thatcher created was an 'I'm all right Jack' mentality.
I've never quite been able to understand how her stringing together of the words 'There's no such thing as society' succeeded in entering the public's psyche so deeply (and harmfully). But I do feel that the concept of helping your neighbour and standing up for your fellow man was utterly destroyed during the 1980's.
Come to the North East of England and see Thatcher's legacy: pit villages without pits, industrial conurbations with no industry. Thatcher is still loathed here and people will put up with a hell of a lot under NuLabour in order to keep the Tories out.
I'm not surprised, Joyce. I actually come from the (supposedly affluent) South East originally, and was still living there during the Thatcher years. We didn't have the same experience as the North East, in that entire industries weren't wiped out in one fell swoop that way. Each tragedy down here seemed to happen in isolation - yet there were so many of them - and I remember hearing of a lot of suicides.
I wonder if those communities in the North East developed stronger bonds as they were united by the effects of those disastrous policies, while down South, people seemed to feel very alone in their plight (hence the suicides) - largely because of the way the media kept spouting on about the Yuppies, people getting rich quick in The City, house prices increasing etc. Anyone who wasn't 'living the dream' and acting like a 'Loadsa Money' tosser was made to feel as though there must be something wrong with them. Many were already on their knees financially, and the media added mental cruelty until they were completely broken.
Joyce said "Thatcher is still loathed here and people will put up with a hell of a lot under NuLabour in order to keep the Tories out."
Indeed; which is the reason so many of nu-liebor's very worst career-politicians are parachuted into seats they can't lose. MPs such as Mzz Flint, Mrs Balls [why do these nu-lab wimmins so often retain their maiden-names?], the Miniblands et al... they wouldn't stand a chance against a non-robot candidate in an old-fashioned hustings debate for a marginal seat. Their dissembling spinning cant would be torn apart. Automaton drones such as the aforementioned stains upon democracy are no more representative of old Labour values than Thatcher. Despite talking the language of "empowered communities", this is the very last thing these creeps want. All must be subservient to the political class. They Know Best.
For post-Thatcher, they are unable to regulate the market in any meaningful way, so have turned their zeal against ordinary people; regulating, controlling, micro-managing our private lives. They seek to "improve" us. They Know Best. We are assumed to be stupid and malleable information-starved peasants, unable to function in a civilised manner without a tight legal framework managing our every discourse.
As we have seen, they are merciless in their pursuit of Control. No lie is too low or too big. Flurries of bent statistics can be summoned at will, at our expense, then fed to an uncritical mainstream media so as to justify every nasty little wheeze their sick little power-corrupted minds can produce. Each wheeze will be focus-grouped for how it will play with a target voter-demographic; all the better if, as with the smoker-ban, it appeals to that demographic's innate prejudices. Most identified "minority" groups are Out of Bounds, but it seems bashing the poor never goes out of fashion.
I cannot believe what I have been reading here. Surely Margaret Thatcher bashing went out of fashion, along with Ben Elton and New Romantics?
This is like reading the Socialist Worker's Revue from 1980.
There has only been two Prime Ministers worth mentioning, regarding the legacies they left our country, and the first is undoubtedly, Winston Churchill, followed very closely by Margaret Thatcher.
To talk of pit closures, is like bemoaning the closure of the Gas light and Coke company.
I am surprised we don't have anyone out there saying that their son was put out of work as well, by Margaret Thatcher, as a chimney sweep's assistant.
As for "keeping the Tories out". You go ahead and try to do that. You got you own way 12 years ago, and now look at the disastrous mess we are in.
I am so surprised to hear this type of rhetoric, spilling out on a site like this.
We need a revolution, that is for sure, but we certainly do not need it leading from the far left, which it sounds like some people on here seem to be advocating.
Oh yes ... defending chimney sweeps. It is usually anti-smokers who accuse 'pro-smokers' of wanting to bring back child chimney sweeps, just because we see the ban as extreme.
Come on, Peter ... there was a big gap in Thatcher's understanding of working class experience, and whatever she achieved has to be balanced against the widespread resentment she caused in many areas of the country. She did undermine people's security and the economic infrastructure, and recognising this has nothing to do with political ideology.
I wasn't advocating anything, Peter, but merely making the observation that Thatcher's policies were so damaging to the Nort East that, even now, people in this area vote with the intention of keeping the Tories out No matter that, as Basil, I think, rightly points out, NuLabour bears little resemblance to the traditional Labour Party. It could be argued that this Government has done as much damage to rural life with some villages suburbs in
all but name.
As it happens I have never voted for NuLabour but I can understand the strength of feeling in the North East where the changes in the '80s were brutal and weren't accompanied by any substantial inward investment in alternative industries.
It's nothing to do with the 'far left', Peter, and it's nothing to do with fashion.
The idea that those who bash Thatcher must be 'lefties' is as ridiculous as the anti-smokers' line that anyone who voices opposition to the ban is a 'shill for the tobacco companies'.
The world isn't black and white, it is filled with shades of grey.
As I said before, I don't trust ANY politicians. Whatever you might consider 'fashionable' does not alter the devastation that Thatcher caused, and that many still feel today (because it irrevocably altered them), and future 'fashion' won't change the devastation that NuLabour are now causing to people whose livelihoods and lives have already been destroyed by this draconian smoking ban.
You have listed two phrases/words, in the same sentence, which obviously go together, they are "draconian" and "smoking ban".
But there is one other word which fits in perfectly with the two you mentioned, and must never be forgotten, and that is "Labour.
To knock Margaret Thatcher, in any way, after the way the Labour Party (no matter anout new names) has treated this country, is nothing less than a sin.
Just by what logic does Mrs Thatcher become irreproachable just because some of her opponents are corrupt?
Belinda, I was just about to frame 500 words to that very effect. You have encapsulated the thrust of my waffle into seventeen.
M. Thatcher, Friend to Freedom? Not my recollection. Economic freedom, yes. Personal freedom, hardly. I remember the use of state-machinery to crush dissent. I remember her Public Order Act limiting free assembly and the Poll Tax transferring the burden of local-taxation from property to the individual, regardless of one's ability to pay. Thatcher was the social-authoritarian who showed Tony Blair the way.
I dont know if anyone saw it on the television but Gordon Brown had a nice little tea party for Maragaret Thatcher when he took office. Perhaps he bending her ear on how to destroy this country even more and how to make working class people''s lives more miserable then they are at the moment with all these new rules and regulation NU Labour has introduced.I wouldnt trust any politician as far as I could throw them, they are all in the job to line their own pockets. It has been well noted recently that the poor is getting poorer and the rich are getting richer under this government no matter what area of the country you happen to live in. What this country is crying out for is an altetrnative party that has working class people's interest at heart like a people's party. Until we have that Im afraid no matter which party is elected into power we will always be down trodden by the very people we elect into power. As far as Im concerned there isnt a party worth voting for at this present time I hate them all.
Yes, beautifully encapsulated Belinda, and Basil, brilliantly put, also.
Peter, you really have to understand that a person can despise Thatcher and Nu-Labour at the same time. Equally. In both cases, because of the feeling of feeling crushed by their policies.
I'm never voting for Labour again, but I don't trust the Tories either. Essentially, I am no longer represented in this so-called 'democracy'.
UKIP is the only party which has publicly stated it is opposed to this legislation (smoking ban) and is against the erosion of people's liberties and choice. However, in spite of Margaret Thatchers faults, I never remember so many people in this country feeling as miserable as they do now. This government has interfered with people's social lives and personal freedoms on a level no previous government that I can remember ever did. She did pass unpopular legislation and (former) mining communities will remember those years with acrimony which is understandable. However, the amount of legislation currently being passed is at a very rapid rate and affects an increasing number of people and this will continue.
Yes, I note that UKIP are the only party who are standing up for smokers, but I don't really want to vote on a single issue if I can help it. Trouble is, it's beginning to look as though I'll have to.
With regard to the rate at which all this new legislation is going through, it's strange isn't it? Smells like an enormous panic. I wonder what is driving it. My guess is it's all about fear of falling short of various 'targets'.
My suggestion to the government (if it was capable of listening) would be, if you have to run roughshod over all of us and treat us like pieces of crap in order to meet your sacred targets, maybe, just maybe, THE TARGETS ARE THE PROBLEM.
Step away from the targets and step out of your offices into the real world for once. Look at what you're doing for chrissakes. You're not leading the way to Utopia, you're heading for disaster.
Struggling Spirit - they are doing all this to make it look as though they are doing something and meeting all these mad targets. The truth is, I feel they are heading for disaster and we all are. I think the word 'panic' is pretty apt. It's like a drowning man clutching at straws - the straws being these pieces of unnecessary legislation whilst not dealing with major issues.
oh dear i thought that at last a viable collection of people who would recognise the struggle for liberty.
what do we get a load of pseudo liberals talking about Thatcher UKIP and the appropriate way to vote
Liberty will never be achieved through a ballot box or any other "democratic" solution
Liberty starts with the confidence to defy tyrany
Smoking is a fundermental right but to even consider voting for a reactionary party like UKIP reflects an incredible simplicity
They would allow smoking and close the borders
really taking liberties
How do you suggest that we go about defying tyranny, Steve? What do you mean by UKIP really taking liberties if they allowed smoking but closed the borders? On what grounds would you argue that smoking is a fundamental right?
Yes, come on Steve, don't just call us names (what the hell is a pseudo-liberal?). If you feel you have a solution, share it. I'd like to see your answers to Joyce's questions.
Yes, Steve t - explain yourself. Joyce and Struggling Spirit have valid points. I most certainly could not describe myself as a 'pseudo liberal' and I don't believe the people who have commented above are simpletons.
I do not believe the state has the right to dictate what I choose to do to my body so smoking like taking alcohol or drugs is a pesonal choice and laws have nothing to do with life style choices.
Liberty is not selectable therefore to infringe on the liberties of people who wish to come to this country by closing borders as ukip suggest is hardly a liberterian model.
The concept of voting for a 5 year dictatorship in the belief that goverment will carry through the will of the people has consistently been shown to be rubbish.
Tryany is a situation where civil liberties are eroded and the individual is crushed.
OK it might be an exageration but the intrusion of the state into peoples lives is increasing daily.
The opportunity to consider alternative options to the voting system such as supporting direct action can be successful
( I have been involved in a protest/action in Derbyshire that lasted over six years to stop a quarry taking land ( nine ladies protest)and despite seemingly massive odds managed to stop the vandalism of this historical site.
so forget the possibility of the state or political parties helping to unravel unfair laws
Read Bakunin and Chomsky with your own ideas of course for a possible way forward
Best Wishes
steve t
Thanks, Steve.
I would agree that the State has absolutely no right to interfere in lifestyle choices as long as those choices do not harm other people.
To paraphrase Hobbes,when we live in society we all want to be protected from the harmful behaviour of others so we agree to refrain from indulging in that behaviour ourselves. From this principle the body politic passes appropriate laws and puts in place a system to encourage adherence to those laws.
Within this view "appropriate laws" are those which deal, and deal only, with behaviour which we all agree is unacceptable eg murder. All other behaviour should be dealt with by other mechanisms, eg good manners.
Personally, I too believe that smoking is a fundamental human right because I don't believe that my smoking directly harms others and no-one can possibly know the extent to which smoking indirectly harms others (eg as one of a range of contributory factors in an illness which results in loss of earnings). Although I'd be comfortable with it taking a benign interest and making available information to enable me to assess whether the risks of an activity are acceptable, the State has no right to try and protect me from harming myself.
Re the closing of borders and libertarianism how would your view deal with a policy of uncontrolled immigration which the infrastructure of the host country couldn't support?
These days I barely have time to read the ingredients on a food label let alone the likes of Chomsky but I presume that he might suggest alternatives to the ballot box in the fight against tyranny. Is there a blueprint for starting a revolution?
I say, calm down, Chaps !
Say what you like about Margaret Thatcher, at least she was an HONEST politician: you could love her or loathe her PRECISELY because you knew exactly what her intentions and philosophy were. The same could be said of only a handful of politicians in my life: I'd include Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, and Peter Shore in that category (and, among the current generation of MPs you could add Frank Field and Kate Hoey).
If we are successfully to challenge the growing
threat to our liberties in this country - from ALL directions - we desperately need to shed our former tribal loyalties and outmoded prejudices. Scrapping among ourselves merely makes life easier for The Enemy Within (if you'll forgive a celebrated - albeit perversely misunderstood - Thatcherism !).
Yes, I feel sorry for the miners, too (though Scargill's juvenile rhetoric did little to help matters). And one might also mention the destruction of our fishing industry - brought about solely as a result of Ted Heath's purblind love afair with 'Europe'. I don't hear much sympathy expressed for the fishermen, though. Nonetheless, the coal is STILL there -
to be mined by a more humane and advanced technology at some future date. And so are the fish. Once our fundamental freedoms perish, however....................
Struggling Spirit -
You cite Margaret Thatcher's (admittedly, rather clumsily-worded) "there is no such thing as society" as somehow providing evidence of her desire to turn Britain into some sort of smash-and-grab society.
How quickly people forget !
Well, it was in the Golden Age of the Seventies that NUPE nurses, for example, were turning away cancer patients in pursuit of their pay claim, and hospital porters were determining surgical priorities in my city.
What journalists now refer to as 'The Winter Of Discontent' was NOT the product of a warm-hearted altruism - which was suddenly swept away by the Wicked Witch of Finchley (much as it may comfort 'Guardian' and 'Daily Mirror' readers so to believe).
The VERY point she was attempting to make was that INDIVIDUALS - the components of Society - have an obligation to try and fend for themselves AND help others less fortunate: don't keep asking 'The Government' (or 'Society') to do something about it. If certain people choose to act selfishly (as the trade unions did with a vengeance in the Seventies), that can scarcely be laid at the door of any single politician.
But, I fear, the belief (which has been developing since the War) that 'the Government' can solve ALL our problems - including those we didn't even know we had - is precisely what is leading to the infantilisation of our nation, and the bossiness and bullying of the New Political Class.
For the curious, here is THAT passage in full:
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
Frankly, I see little to quarrel with there !
joyce
I dont believe that open borders would lead to the uncontrollable rush that the "red tops" encourge us to belief.
The fear generated is the main problem and the populist view of nationalists.
I know that I am demanding the impossible but its a start.
As far as I am concerned Thatcher contributed nothing to liberty unless you were lucky enough to afford it
although i did enjoy the freedom of the poll tax riots !!
immature eh
Steve, it isn't good enough to denounce a party for its immigration policy (as you did UKIP) on the grounds that a truly liberal policy does not, in practice, result in the collapse of the infrastructure of the host country. Only an irresponsible party would decide on a policy of uncontrolled immigration without first determining that the country could support such a policy.
There are many people in the UK today who feel that our immigration policy has already been too liberal. Some LAs claim that they can no longer cope with the resultant strain on housing, schools and medical facilities. The ONS now says that the UK is the most overcrowded country in Europe. This seems to be a direct result either of a lack of policy on immigration or a delibwerate policy of uncontrolled immigration. I believe that the indigenous population of a country has every right to expect its government to implement a sensible immigration policy.