Maggie Thatcher and Ronnie Reagan

Thatcher's character doesn't much interest me. Her adoption of Hayek's ravings as an ideology has had far reaching ramifications. There are two economic theories which seem to be presumed to be mutually exclusive - Neoliberalism and Keynesianism. Both are based in consumerism. If there is another alternative, I don't know what it might be. A balance between the two might be good, but it would have to be well defined. Then the only problem becomes sustainability.
 
Fast Eddie said:
My Grandad went out as a £10 Pom (although I thought it was £5) with family, inc their some who was to become my Dad.

He didn’t like it, and came back home to his old job down the coal mines in the north of England !
Click to expand...
Gosh! The sun must have got in his eyes!
 
Fast Eddie said:
Surely it was Argentina that caused the Falklands war, you know, by invading ...?!

I don’t know how you do things Bernhard, but if someone punches me in the face I’ll punch the f*cker back as fast and hard as I can! The time for diplomacy has passed when troops land on your beaches. What should she have done in your book ??

Did she use it to her advantage...? Absolutely...! But she didn’t start it.

I’m not defending Thatcher per se here guys, but I do find it interesting what she gets blamed for. Much of what John wrote, for example, is very fair argument.

But blame her for Brexit and your entire argument goes out of the window in my book !

As does any argument blaming her for defending her own country against armed aggression.
Click to expand...

Re; Did she use it to her advantage...? Absolutely...! But she didn’t start it.
maybe she did not start it, but. . . .her own actions gave the Military Junta the impression that the UK was no longer bothered or interested in the Falklands, and as a result we had the. . . . .

Franks Report (1983)

The government inquiry into the run up of the Falklands war was labelled as “ a classic establishment job”

The controversy began as soon as the report was presented to that House of Commons. It is reported that Thatcher read the main conclusions of the report to cries of "whitewash" and ironic cheers from the opposition.

Simon Jenkins reported that when the report arrived "she sat down, shut her eyes and asked her secretary to read the last paragraph, the exoneration. She needed no caveats, just that sentence.

Thatcher knew that she had escaped by the skin of her teeth from reading the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_Report_(1983)#Conclusions
 
That’s interesting. But as ever with history, it’s one side of the story.

Don’t make it right or wrong, just is what it is.
 
Fast Eddie said:
That’s interesting. But as ever with history, it’s one side of the story.

Don’t make it right or wrong, just is what it is.
Click to expand...
Don't you mean the lack of communication between 10 Dowing Street and the civil service and a certain Argentina military junta? Someone, somewhere misread the whole situation. . .
 
Bernhard said:
Don't you mean the lack of communication between 10 Dowing Street and the civil service and a certain Argentina military junta? Someone, somewhere misread the whole situation. . .
Click to expand...

Errr no, that’s not what I said, or meant, at all !

But, like you say, it was indeed a complex situation, lots of game playing, brinksmanship and gambling taking place. Plus perhaps miscommunication or at least miss interpretation on both sides.

Which... was kinda my point in the beginning, that it’s a tad rich to try and pin the thing on any one person... inc Thatcher...
 
Fast Eddie said:
Errr no, that’s not what I said, or meant, at all !

But, like you say, it was indeed a complex situation, lots of game playing, brinksmanship and gambling taking place. Plus perhaps miscommunication or at least miss interpretation on both sides.

Which... was kinda my point in the beginning, that it’s a tad rich to try and pin the thing on any one person... inc Thatcher...
Click to expand...
No it was not, if you read about the Frank's report. I retaliate what I previously said, Thatcher was trying to save money by imposing cutbacks - every time the Tory party imposed cutbacks, even today they don't save money but end up paying out even more money - are you people paying attention here?- Thatcher was esspressly told that if she removed the Governor of the Falklands the Argies would invade whereas another civil servant said they would not. She backed the wrong horse and guess which civil servant subsequently got promoted upstairs? It wasn't the one who was right!!!
 
Bernhard said:
No it was not, if you read about the Frank's report. I retaliate what I previously said, Thatcher was trying to save money by imposing cutbacks - every time the Tory party imposed cutbacks, even today they don't save money but end up paying out even more money - are you people paying attention here?- Thatcher was esspressly told that if she removed the Governor of the Falklands the Argies would invade whereas another civil servant said they would not. She backed the wrong horse and guess which civil servant subsequently got promoted upstairs? It wasn't the one who was right!!!
Click to expand...


We in Australia are probably 40 years behind the UK. We also have Tory (conservative) governments making cut-backs which are almost invariably false economy. They have the same approach to economics whether the climate is boom or bust - always austerity. Where the Americans are better, is usually in their ability to take risks and manage them. Our politicians talk about 'having a go', but they never do it. The only time we have Labor governments is when the economy is stuffed.
 
acotrel said:
The only time we have Labor governments is when the economy is stuffed.
Click to expand...
As a result of Labour government or in response to the economy? Either way, the Labour Govt cannot change things for the better if they have no money- the only thing they can do is raise tax, which is never a good way to stay in power.
 
Fast Eddie said:
Errr no, that’s not what I said, or meant, at all !
Which... was kinda my point in the beginning, that it’s a tad rich to try and pin the thing on any one person... inc Thatcher...
Click to expand...
We may very well have to agree to disagree . My point being that the decision was made at No 10 Dowing St, and if anything else the buck stops at the top, right on Maggie's doorstep, it can't go any higher. Where she was trying to save money by removing the Falklands Governor- which the Argies - even the military junta saw as a "hands off" when it came to those islands as long as the Governor was there - instead she and she alone, caused a war over some islands in the far flung Atlantic, that ended up causing the British taxpayers to pay for the RAF airbase, some £10 million pounds( and rising) a year. That is a purely a Margert Thatcher legacy for which I for one am not grateful for. I hope that is as clear as mud! The subsequent parliamentary inquiry and Frank's report into the war was regarded as a whitewash by anybody who was not an ardent Thatcher supporter, which , come to think of it, sounds like you are.
 
Last edited:
I think the Falkland Islanders themselves thought they were going to be dumped.No more driving off into the sunset in their Morris Minors past transplanted hedgerows.My impression from a radio documentary . Felt a bit sad ,because here was virtually the sole part of the old empire the Brits had not acquired by conquest.. they were actually empty and unpopulated.

I am not sure at what stage in the so called war Thatcher decided she actually wanted to fight it , I think the invasion had actually happened , I do not remember all the details, maybe she suddenly realised that here was an opportunity to establish her brand, whatever, certainly it was an enormous risk , but my gut feeling is that at the outset she was no more behind it than the Tory party was behind Churchill at the outset of ww2.

She did not became an ism until its succesfull conclusion, It was in her second term that the so called wets were rusticated from the cabinet , and the program of privatisation got under way . Although privatisation was pretty much her baby the complicity of the labour party should not be overlooked. BT was the biggest share floatation in history , no one knew what would happen.. a few hostile remarks or counter threats would have killed it .

Prior to the Falkands her record was underwhelming ,unemployment had more than doubled and that of itself would or should normallyhave spelt certain electoral defeat..

However she also failed to put the oil money and its revenues to good or any account.. Sterling became a very overvalued currency which made British manufscturing unviable and effectively spelt its death knoll except as small niche undertakings . A once in a generation opportunity squandered.
 

Similar threads

W
Maggie the Abandoned Beasty
Replies
1
Views
1,770
grandpaul
grandpaul
Back
Top