Her legacy is of public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed, which together shackle far more of the human spirit than they ever set free.
I think that says pretty much all that's needed.
May she rest in peace, but let's not for a moment forget the massive and ongoing harm she caused to this country and the wider world.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I’ve been challenging my tory ‘friends’ for some time to tell me what they thought of her support for Pinochet and the SA apartheid regime – but, guess what, I haven’t heard a dickybird yet.
To answer both (With Mr.Murphy’s permission – this is not an endorsement, merely an attempt to answer your point)
1/ Augusto Pinochet – I think this stems from the military assistance given during the Falklands War (Chile was an enemy of the Argentine junta) and thus provided valuable intelligence that saved the lives of British servicemen. I think she erred (and this was long after she fell from power, in the 2000s) on continuing to express her gratitude after the revelations of Pinochet’s mass corruption and obviously human rights abuses (which incidentally also occurred prior to Pinochet’s rule.) But I would argue he had proven a friend in her government’s time of need and she felt an obligation to repay him.
2/ Apartheid South Africa – She disliked the ANC links (long proven) with the Soviet Union but even within her party, a number of dissenters disagreed with her stance. If you read the memoirs (even via a simple index look up) of both Lawson and Howe they tried to get her to empathize with the Anti-apartheid lobby but I think the fact they were invariably Left of center caused a degree of myopia. OF course, you could argue that her engaging with the Afrikaner government rather than driving it into a corner lead to the relatively (I emphasize that word) peaceful collapse of the regime rather than its violent overthrow. However, I think it would be stretching to say that she was an ‘active supporter’ of apartheid, unless opposing sanctions which would mainly hit businesses employing tens of thousands of Black Africans is ‘showing open support’?
I think we’ll differ on her attitude to apartheid
Completely – That’s my interpretation – but as I said, even many in her own party were horrified by her outlook on the issue of Apartheid South Africa.
Cobblers!
I`m not sure that Margaret Thatcher actually supported apartheid,even if you believed that sanctions would not harm the black population,as well as the white – after all,who did most of the work?
But when the intransigence of Botha,was replaced by the realism of de Klerk,that things had to change,she was much in favour of releasing Mandela I believe,and told him so.He was well aware of the danger from Afrikaner hard liners,and also the S.A. Police,not to mention the military. Bur sense prevailed,and Mandela was released,and S.A. came to have free elections. Sadly the country has relapsed,and currently Jacob Zuma appears only to be interested in his own economic welfare,rather than those in the townships.
But it also says :-
“There can certainly be no going back to the failed postwar past with which Margaret Thatcher had to wrestle.”
So no high tax rates, no Capital controls, no union power bloc and no commitment to full employment then, not a lot for you to look forward to…..
New Labour and the continuing internal rift even within Labour today are in themselves the greatest compliment to Thatcher, for she was so successful in her policies that the centre shifted with her and stays there even today!
Well I just re-read it and could not find that text
I may be tired – but are you sure you’re not making things up?
Richard,
“Well I just re-read it and could not find that text
I may be tired — but are you sure you’re not making things up?”
I think it was just above your quote, as follows:
“There can certainly be no going back to the failed postwar past with which Margaret Thatcher had to wrestle. But there should be no going back to her own failed answer either. She was an exceptionally consequential leader, in many ways a very great woman. There should be no dancing on her grave but it is right there is no state funeral either. Her legacy is of public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed, which together shackle far more of the human spirit than they ever set free.”
Thanks, but that doesn’t sustain the point Richard made, does it?
“There can certainly be no going back to the failed postwar past with which Margaret Thatcher had to wrestle. But there should be no going back to her own failed answer either. She was an exceptionally consequential leader, in many ways a very great woman. There should be no dancing on her grave but it is right there is no state funeral either. Her legacy is of public division, private selfishness and a cult of greed, which together shackle far more of the human spirit than they ever set free.”
Very last paragraph Richard.
If we mean the cold war, I agree
And if we go back to thinking material growth is the only answer I also agree
But I think that’s also in the context written what the Guardian also meant
Wait, is that supposed to be a litany of negative attributes?
Thatcher was the product of the intransigence that preceded it.
Much like Robert Mugabe.
You do wonder what will arise from the current intransigence across Europe.
What a sad ineffectual miserable little person must have written this. Shame on the Guardian for allowing it to be published.
It was an editorial
Well, as I said ….
Richard your quotation from the Guardian almost perfectly encapsulates my feelings, and makes me sad as to what has happened to our country over the last 30 years or so. For me not much good came from her premiership. Not very happy times as I recall them. The images on our television sets during those days were of conflict either at home, or against opponents overseas. Those communities which were destroyed, forgotten, and have become the desperate places they are today deserve more from those who are today lauding her.
If the Tories thought she was so wonderful and loved her so greatly, why did they sack her? If you want to see the fruits of her policies, just travel up the M1 to South Yorkshire. No one is celebrating her life, or death, on the streets of Barnsley. They’re too beaten down to care.
Precisely
No one in Barnsley? There is a somewhat vigorous debate going on in the Barnsley local paper as it happens – not all would seem to agree with you!
I think the Guardian got it about right. Her legacy – fat cats, widening gap between rich and poor, obsession with house ownership, wallet lining, scam, job insecurity and fear, breakdown of community spirit,strident nationalism, philistinism, the human as only measurable by means of a narrow notion of productivity, vulgarity, small mindedness, social Darwinism, arrogance, casino banking. The list could go on. The great shame of the Labour party was that they didn’t grasp any alternatives such as a vigorous green agenda, bank regulation, post neo-classical economics. They are all Tories now.
Rest in peace??? As I told my mother in law, there’s no place in Hell for people like her, Reagan, Bush, Cameron and Mario Monti. The harm they’ve done will last long after they’re gone. I do not wish them peace.
Correction. “There’s no place in Hell for Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, Cameron and Mario Monti”. I’m quite fond of my mother-in-law. 🙂
New Labour and the continuing internal rift even within Labour today are in themselves the greatest compliment to Thatcher. Even our stupid Australian PM, this morning, had to laud her praises. Witness all the cowardly politicians come out now.
So many of our present problems can be traced back to her actions – mass destruction of viable industries by an over high exchange rate, parking many unemployed people on to disability benefit, shortage of decent social housing by her selling of the stock and not replenishing, squandering the bonus of North Sea oil, making it unacceptable to raise income tax; one of the fairest of taxes, deregulation of the City of London, encouraging private greed, increasing inequality thus leading to some of the present problems, selling off the family silver.. I could go on and on.
Have I got this right? -she IS going to get a state funeral – WHAT! It was awful watching newsnight last night. very few dissenting voices, other than Livingstone and some well made points by Shirley Williams. Blair was disgusting in his fawning praise and almost induced a gagg reflex as I watched. Milliband’s inane, innocuous and bland remarks were worthless as one would expect.
she was re-elected 3 times by the electorate, people seem to conveniently forget this fact when arguing that thatcher did harm to the UK – she could have been thrown out by the people of the UK, but they all chose not to – thats the consequence of democracy.
Being elected is no indicator of benignity or the absence of harm!
Anthony,
Indeed, she (or rather her party) won three elections.
But no, we (the people of the UK) did not ALL vote for her, far from it as I remember. And being elected does not prevent doing untold harm.
Anthoney, she was re-elected under the FPTP electoral system which meant that the Tories got a majority in Parliament with a minority of the electorate voting for them. The Labour party and SDP got more people voting for them combined than she ever did.
Under a more intelligent voting system she would not have got the majority she did and not have been able to push through policies that were bitterly opposed by many people, and had the awful consequences for so many as outlined by others above. In fact, as I recall, the only UK government ever to get an actual majority of the vote was the 1945 Labour government, whose legacy she set out to destroy.
you are advocating a voting system that was roundly rejected in the referendum recently – so im afraid the electorate disagree with you again! no doubt you also think this was wrong.
“she was re-elected 3 times by the electorate”
She was almost certainly going to only serve one term of office as she was the most unpopular prime minister on record before General Galtieri came riding to her rescue by invading the Falklands. She jumped on this with ill-disguised glee!
The “Gang of four” stabbed the Labour party in the back by leaving to form the SDP, a party that would effectively split the vote and helped to keep her in power.
Strange how you seem to have conveniently forgotton this!
The system that was proposed was not a proper Proortional Representation system, but a half cocked compromise which the Lib Dems got out of the Tories in return for supporting them in the coalition. Given the Lib Dems unpopularity that arose from going in to the coalition from those people who might have supported another voting system, it’s not a surprise they lost the vote.
My point stands, Thatcher did not get the support, votes or approval of a majority of the British people. Most of the electorate did not vote for her policies.
But unless a party wins 50% or more of the vote then there will always be a party or parties in power who won’t have been voted for by the majority of the electorate?
No
By definition not