The brainless, drivelous bile snarled – or rather vomited – out by the terminally-brainwashed is staggering. No, she was not a saint, but a balance is called for. When she assumed power, Britain was in a shambles: dying industries, debt, inflation (which had reached up to 25% under Labour), unions thinking that THEY ran the country, excessive state interference and all the rest, culminating in the “Winter of Discontent”. By the time she left, things had been to a great extent put right, AND she had saved helpless British citizens from brutal fascists.
As for the miners’ strike:
– Each ton of coal dug in most of the mines closed had to be subsidized. It was cheaper to import coal.
– If a country is willing to subsidize ONE sector of the economy then why are not ALL workers entitled to a subsidy to “protect” their jobs? If MY private company is not making a profit, it goes bankrupt and I have to look for another job, although I get some dole and other benefits to help. I always failed to see why miners seemed to consider themselves a special case. We are ALL “workers”, including non-miners. I would in the private sector not expect other workers to subsidize me. Why should I? And in any case, someone has to EARN the wealth. We can’t ALL be subsidized.
– The reason why the miners thought they were special is also tied up in their leaders’ political beliefs: they did not believe in free-market economy but in a “socialist” one, and I am sorry but that path only leads to ruin as was seen in the USSR and elsewhere – and was increasingly evident in Britain until Thatcher arrived.
– A subsidy is money that if used to prop up a failing industry cannot be used elsewhere, either for investment in new technology, improved infrastructure or in welfare: education, health, pensions and so on.
– Given that it was cheaper to import coal, to continue subsidising it in perpetuity would be akin to making the mining industry part of the social services, forever dependent on benefits.
– No country can do this and thrive. No one sector of the economy deserves to be kept going on the backs of other workers whose taxes subsidize it.
– Thatcher was democratically elected THREE TIMES by the people, and you either believe in democracy or you don’t. As it happens, I do, however imperfect it is. The miners’ leaders did not believe in it. They not only failed to ballot all their members but were willing to break the law. You may not like the law, but one cannot pick and choose which ones to obey. Or if you do, that is anarchy.
– SCARGILL’S AGENDA: Scargill’s stated aim was to defeat (by illegal means) a democratically-elected government. For this alone, he had to be defeated, and ONLY Thatcher could have done it. Had she not succeeded, then Britain would still today be in thrall to the unions, endless strikes, increasing and increasingly-pointless subsidies, “Spanish practices”, falling productivity, declining industries gone the way of the once-magnificent British car industry and so on, and inevitably impoverishment. And with impoverishment comes fascism, because then the people get angry and you need an iron fist to control them. ALL socialist dictatorships have been ruled by an iron fist. ALL OF THEM depend on physical, military might to stay in power. NO THANK YOU SCARGILL.
– And please note that NO WESTERN DEMOCRACY has followed Scargill’s agenda. They have ALL privatised most of the “commanding heights” of Old Labour – they cannot all be wrong. Even the Noo Labour Party does not want Scargillism ….. hardly ANY of Thatcher’s reforms were rolled back by subsequent Labour governments. Apparently, the only people wanting a return to WilsonoCallaScargillism are in the Socialist Workers’ and/or Anarchists and “Class War” Parties, the ones smashing up Brixton and Bristol and now planning to disrupt her funeral.
As has been pointed out HERE, anarchists should applaud Thatcher for reducing state interference in people’s lives. AND after her you didn’t have to wait three months for a black telephone designed in the 1950s.
Thatcher’s error re the miners was to carry out her policy too fast and with excessive inflexibility, but as I see it whatever she had done would have provoked riots by those who had a non-democratic agenda.
As for MT in general, there is a hysteria of hatred on the part of the usual suspects which is both moronic and indecent. She did NOT “destroy manufacturing”. When she left, British industrial output was HIGHER than when she arrived. She destroyed a number of failing industries and regenerated the economy of Britain which had been driven into vast inflation and endless industrial disputes by the Labour Party.
What is needed even from those who hate her is some balance. She has received astonishing tributes from world leaders of all colours, shapes and sizes AND from the vast majority of the British people who elected her THREE TIMES.
HOUSING? Many thousands of ordinary working people got onto the property ladder thanks to her. IMHO anyone renting their dwelling is always a second-class citizen: forever at the whim of landlords, unable to feel master in his or her own house, unable to leave anything to the kids. She tried to improve on that, and succeeded. It is true that after her not enough housing was built, but to blame her alone for this is stupid. May I remind you that the last Labour government’s principal housing policy was to favour the odious, loathsome and disgusting policy of “buy-to-let”, which is no more than encouraging fat landlords to profit from poorer people’s homelessness.
THE FALKLANDS: She also stood up for democracy and freedom, including in the Falklands. No other bastard would have saved the Falklanders who – let us remember – were invaded by fascist colonialists. The idea that Spanish-descendents who butchered South American Indians and stole their land have a right to the Falklands is hilarious. People should read the history of those islands. Even Gorbachev acknowledged the role she played in the dramatic developments in Eastern Europe.
As for the cost of her funeral etc, she saved Britain over SEVENTY BILLION QUID by demanding and getting an opt-out from the EU budget. Let’s contrast this with Labour, which – in the few days AFTER losing the last election but BEFORE handing over the keys of the moneybox to the Tories – SIGNED AWAY yet MORE billions to Brussels. And when they finally DID hand over power they admitted: “There is no money left.” You could not make it up.
“There is no such thing as society.” As usual, she was quoted out of context. What she meant was that a strong society is one where individuals and their families work hard to improve their lot, thereby simultaneously improving “society”, since successful people pay more tax which helps to pay for the weaker. The idea that the state owed people a living was anathema to her, but is of course the ingrained mindset of the cretins dancing on her grave. NO SOCIETY can thrive without individual hard work, thrift and morality, which is what SHE grew up with and which coloured all her political beliefs. What a contrast to many in recent generations whose main thought is what the state should do for them.
WELFARE: Did she abolish welfare? RIDICULOUS. It was maintained and later grew under her government and since then of course has ballooned to insane proportions. If she were seeking to “destroy” industry and/or welfare and/or the working classes, then she utterly FAILED. What she did destroy was the disastrous, venal and undemocratic power wielded by irresponsible unions with an openly Maxist (= fascist) agenda.
Let’s have some balance …..