There's a long established principle in enlightened faith traditions of condemning the sin of a person and loving the sinner.
I'm aware sin is a word many do not now embrace: if you think of it as missing the mark it's pretty close to what many will mean.
Thatcher missed the mark in what she did, spectacularly. And if Labour does not say so today it is not doing its job. Eulogise the person if it's thought appropriate; she clearly had skills. But that provides no excuse for in by way endorsing her thinking. That can rightly be condemned, even today.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I remember her saying ” there’s no such thing as society and greed was OK”. She, along with Reagan, de-regulated the finance industry. The mess we now see is the result of that policy.
She never said anything like “greed was OK” and the “no such thing as society” quote is always twisted completely out of context – read the full speech.
Respectfully, she followed Hayek
Yourcargument does not hold
Mrs. Thatcher was from working class stock, her father may have become a grocer because of his bad eyesight but his family were shoemakers and notably of Methodist beliefs. Quite how she ended up a Tory, derided by the toffs, is a mystery. Also, her thinking, in terms of political philosphy was never consistent. As a research scientist if the experiment didn’t work she went onto another one. So you never quite knew what the blazes next she might come with. In 1979 she was the one left holding the parcel when the music began to slow and stop in major sectors of the economy. The gathering problems were owed to Heath & Co. as much as Wilson and others who had dithered and delayed in dealing with major issues. “Thatcherism” is a convenient fiction that tells us little. See my blog for a fuller appraisal.
Actions speak louder than words.Her action blighted more then one generation just as the economic illiterates are doing currently.
I’m only aware of one enlightened faith tradition that expressly embraces the principle of hating the sin but loving the sinner; perhaps you could enlighten me.
OK, which?
Well. My Catholic Parish Priest urges me to do just that every Sunday. As I say, I may be lamentably unacquainted with other denominations and faiths, so I stand ready to be informed.
Buddhism does much the same
Glenda Jackson made a splendid speech today.
I am appalled that this comment has been allowed. On recent evidence Glenda Jackson is beyond batty and her speech was thoroughly disrespectful to a recently deceased person and her family, whatever you might think about her policies. The Speaker should have removed her from the House. Did you hear what she said? If so, your support for her rant disgusts me.
I have listened
I do not agree with you on this occasion
I think Glenda Jackson appropriately expressed the sentiment of many
I grew up in Manchester and was nineteen when I voted, for my first time, in 1979 -quite a coming of age! It has been a difficult form of aversion therapy to sit through all these programs about Thatcher. I have to admit that I can’t stop myself from dehumanising her and seeing her as an incarnation of evil, I know this is not good and I’m guilty of using Thatcher as a spitoon for my own projections just as the Government today has manipulated the discontent of poorly paid workers to project onto welfare payments. The parable of the Mote and the Beam is relevant here. having said this, I still find it hard to feel empathy for her, she was a bully, a thug, arrogant, strident, clearly lacking in compassion and focused on the lowest common denominator of the human psyche. It is utterly bizarre and meglomaniacal that she used that St. Francis(?) quote about ‘bringing harmony where there is discord’ because she created the opposite. When she took over, the whole culture tended to make you feel worthless if your ambition wasn’t monetary and we are still there. Glenda Jackson spoke well today and I remember the playwrite Howard Brenton writing that she ushered in a ‘Hurricane of Philistinism.’ Shame Labour are not unequivocally condemning the outrageous expense being lavished on her funeral, the toadying so and so’s. Suddenly we can afford it while we drive ill people mad with medically dubious ATOS assessments and hound people out of their homes for £15 – what a society!
Simon,
I’ve got to say, after the post-Thatcher elected PMs, Major, Blair(x3)(God what were we thinking)& Cameron/clegg, what stands out is her VISION even if it was a foul vision. She was someone who never asked “what do the focus groups say”.
BUT (& I think this important) her deep beliefs were fundamentally wrong & her adamantine insistence also was wrong. Like some other PMs (most criminally Bliar) she emulated Churchill. But Winston was also, for most of his career, an atrocious failure & did terrible things.
Don’t get me wrong, Churchill was a genius, but he happened to come along in time to take over that rarity in history: a clash between good & evil.
Looking at the British Empire, the Soviet empire & the USA pre-desegregation we don’t look that good but the German & Japanese empires filled all necessary criteria to be genuinely evil & much of what the Germans did, in the death-camps, is almost beyond evil.
Churchill achieved something amazing in a set of circumstances which probably won’t re-occur in a millenium. Thatcher & Bliar both misunderstood statistics in seeking to duplicate his achievements.
She believed that human beings were at their best competing with each other to try to grasp as much as they could. We actually have quite a lot of evidence to indicate that that simply isn’t true. People are designed to co-operate with each other.
so, her beliefs were, fundamentally, wrong. She was wrong. Simple as that.
With ‘vision’s like that, who needs hallucinations? William, visions are often fraudulent and dangerous -the stronger the vision, the less the consensus. WE need greater participation and collective decision making. It will slow things down – but all the better. If people have a nostalgia for demagogues it is a bad sign.
If you have not already seen this, it is the best critique of Thatcherism I have seen, covering all aspects, the privatisations, the deregulation of the banks, the City of London as a corrupt centre for tax avoidance of foreign capital, and the effects it has had on Britain.
Thatcher was deluded with the idea that the free market would make everyone rich, but she could not have understood how this would create an economy that would become a sort of poker game with most people losing, and most people becoming indebted to banks, and wealth trickling up, not down. The example of the stagecoach buses illustrates this.
I wonder if she would have changed her mind if she had known the results in 2008?
http://michael-hudson.com/2013/04/1843/
http://michael-hudson.com/2013/04/mrs-thatchers-mean-legacy/
Sandra, it’s a god question. Would she have changed her mind? Sometimes we have to distinguish between the intended and unintended consequences of a person’s actions. Most people believe that they are doing good. A few know that they are just grabbing for themselves-unfortunately it seems many of them are in the same industry! Some try to fool themselves by a disregard of what doesn’t fit. The old proverb is there is more ‘cock-up’ than conspiracy.
I don’t know the answer to your question. I would think part of her would not be happy with a large percentage of people being forced into poverty although would she could ever accept the policies changes necessary to reduce that situation? I’m not sure she would.
Well 20/20 hindsight is a common problem for most of us,including politicians. As for me,I tend to believe most are fundamentally good in their intentions,even if the outcome often proves otherwise.But I do revere Lord Lawsons alleged remark when in Margaret Thatchers Cabinet “Oh, do shut up Margaret!” – perhaps a few others doing the same might have made the world of difference.
I would love to think all are good
The evidence is some are not
Sandra, Michael Hudson’s analysis here, with hindsight, gives a very accurate picture of how Mrs T’s leadership allowed the banks and their controllers to manipulate themselves into a position of maximum extraction.
I worked in the City world in that era and it was not possible, on a day-to-day basis to be aware that these activities were taking place and I can believe that Mrs T did not fully understand how she was being used. At that stage perhaps she had not realised that they were not total gentlemen.
How could she understand – she was just a simple housewife?
Why do people think we are “naturally” drawn to compete in this market?
The most ancient Civilisation ;Egypt then Babylon, Persia, Alexandria
No suggestion of markets there !
Loving the “sin” but hating the “sinner” is a horribly Protestant concept.
as a Roman, I think I have, if anything, more time for the sin. It’s been around longer, God Knows, & more time to confess.
BUT they did have a habit of invading each other and carrying off slaves.
sin in the catholic tradition is no more than a convenient way of disowning stuff you are ashamed off. Taking responsibility is no part of that tradition. One thing you cannot accuse Margaret Thatcher of is not taking responsibility. It is also striking that, remembered by Tony Benn, she was able to differentiate between the person and their beliefs. Hate the sin, but like the sinner is I think where Richard is arguing from, although much of his output on this site would suggest like and Thatcher don’t sit well together for him.
Whatever you think of her policies, at least she would have had the balls to sort out the so called bankers. That’s more than our current politicians have.
Pardon for lowering the tone.
“Whatever you think of her policies, at least she would have had the balls to sort out the so called bankers. That’s more than our current politicians have.”
Thatcher deregulated the banks in 1980 and got rid of exchange controls. It was her policies that unleashed the bankers upon us. She completed the job with the so-called “big-bang” in 1987, something that created millionaires overnight.
It was Thatcher who handed this country on a silver platter to the finance industry!
‘One thing you cannot accuse Margaret Thatcher of is not taking responsibility.’
What! Where are the signs she took ‘responsibility?’ Think of all the human energy and resources wasted on privatisations, the short-termism – I can rememberin the 1980’s that the main growth industry was the rise of the stripogramme service and wive’s doing striptease in pubs when their hubbies were out of work – scam after scam after scam – so she took responsibility for that????????????????????????????
I am just about “Thatchered-out” due to discussions on other boards. However, those that bore the brunt of her policies, the steelworkers, the miners and the shipyard workers, have every good reason to despise her and not to be sorry she’s gone.
She used the courts and the police to stop the free movement of striking miners. The steel industry actually showed a profit. Many nationalised industries were actually not doing that badly. It was a lie to justify breaking these industries up and privatising them. Thanks to her, an island that previously had millions of tonnes of its own high quality coal now has to import much of it from oversees. British Steel was amongst the best in the world. Again, much of this now has to be imported, as has much of our gas.
Northern towns were stripped of their heavy industry and left as ghost towns. As with Sunderland, many cities were reduced to begging foreign nations to set up business here. People were left with massive joblessness and no hope. Alcoholism and drug use soared. Communities were destroyed.
Am I going to condemn people for partying and cheering the fact that Thatcher is dead; the woman whose policies tore the heart out of their communities and wrecked them? Absolutely not!
She sold off many of our national assets and almost totally destroyed our manufacturing base in the space of two years. If it hadn’t been for north sea oil, the UK economy would have almost certainly collapsed. She pushed unemployment to a record three-and-a-half million (four million). We were left with a “McJobs” service economy. along with the finance and banking sector, which took the money that could have been used to invest in the economy and used it to speculate instead.
She got too arrogant and big for her boots. She didn’t seem to think that ordinary people would not see through the poll tax, a tax that could mean an ordinary person paying more for services than someone who lived in Knightsbridge. Also, you had to pay for the privilege of being over 18; it didn’t matter if you didn’t happen to own any property – you still had to pay! Riots ensued and frightened the tories into getting rid of her.
We are still paying the price of Thatcherism. Neoliberalism is still the economic order of the day. It has almost wrecked this country.
RIP Maggie Thatcher. You won’t be missed by me!
Let’s say it loud and clear—Thatcher did NOT rescue Britain from decline, change it inexorably for the better etc etc. Rather, she made the country safe for the rich. She turned a social-democratic mixed economy into a neo-liberal plutocracy. She presided over the most rapid and spectacular growth of inequality in Britain (or any other OECD country) in the 20th century. Her legacy is one of a deindustrialised low-wage economy, where the rich openly despise the poor.
David Miliband’s qualified praise of Thatcher in Parliament was untimely, uncalled for and ultimately craven. I shall not dance on her grave, but nor will I partake in her beatification. She gave little and deserves little.
Agreed
I am guessing the Broadcaster Backing Conservatives where a little worried about people not hesitating to condemn Thatcherism, as the venue for tonight’s question time was changed to a more “neutral” area.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/bbc-question-time-moved-rochdales-2577811
*were a little worried
By now you may be fed up by now with those paying respect to Margaret Thatcher and perhaps shuddering inwardly at the event (the media circus) that we shall endure shortly.
As an aside, one question you may wish to ask is why we, the people, are going to pay for this funeral (one way or another we are – think of the policing costs!), when the departed had the decency at least to request that it should not be a state affair?
Given the ongoing economic crisis, you may wish to reflect on the following quote that has been attributed to Margaret Thatcher, that sticks in the craw.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”
Before you rush out and buy a certain Wizard of Oz song that has recently entered the charts, I recommend that you watch the following. The quote above assumes a rather different complexion when applied to banks (the Cypriot banking crisis is used as an illustration)
http://www.rdwolff.com/content/global-capitalism-monthly-update-discussion-april-2013
Interestingly, and I apologise for digressing again, is the bank owned by the State of North Dakota, the Bank of North Dakota. http://banknd.nd.gov/
Would it be impossible to fragment the Royal Bank of Scotland into regional banks in the UK in order to meet the needs of the local population? Surely this would be better than the Vince Cable’s idea. A green investment theme could be incorporated too.
NEF (and I) have been arguing for this for ages
That would be a brilliant idea, so don’t expect to see it implemented anytime soon!
Having said that, I see that the Post Office is going to provide banks accounts. I don’t know all the details, though. Is this to be provided “in-house” with the Post Office or contracted out to the Bank of Ireland as some other financial services are?
Not sure
A quick google search found this:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0b56250-a1c7-11e2-ad0c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QGanbb3l
Apparently, as with other financial services provided through the Post Office, this will be run in conjunction with the Bank of Ireland. Not the greatest idea due to the continued instability of Irish banks.
Why they cannot run this service in-house along similar lines to the old Post Office bank, I don’t know.
Me neither
What a shame
I loved Richard Wolff’s take on Thatcher’s ‘the trouble with socialism is that it runs out of other people’s money.’
In 2008 the banks ran ‘out of other people’s money’ and then asked for a bail out!
so true. I shall use it.