This morning's Today programme attempted a definition.
How would you define Thatcherism?
Try and keep it to no more than 100 words.
« Will Sinn Féin sell its 'principles' for £500,000? | Main | The Conservative Party will not walk by on the other side »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Not sticking for any nonsense
Posted by: Grenville | April 09, 2009 at 09:01
A belief in sound money and perhaps a little unfairly a laissez-faire attitude toward economics. In foreign policy a single minded approach to boosting British trade and a tough line on Western interests.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | April 09, 2009 at 09:13
The free economy and the strong, independent state.
Posted by: Better Off Out | April 09, 2009 at 09:13
Too much dogma.Too little pragmatism.
Posted by: Jack Stone | April 09, 2009 at 09:19
Upsetting sad people like Jack Stone.
Posted by: Ray | April 09, 2009 at 09:23
COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.
Posted by: S | April 09, 2009 at 09:25
In the context of the 1980s I would summarise Thatcherism thus:
On every single important issue facing the country, it was right. From sound money to independent deterrent to (yes) the single market to the right to buy: Thatcherism was right. Its opponents were wrong, not mildly wrong, not tangentially wrong, but full-on, miss-the-point, utterly other-worldly wrong.
Just to save leftwing friends the time, one of them will post a counter-definition along the lines of: she was a philistine and will never be forgiven in the blah blah blah
This, or its like, should be translated as:
she destroyed the left and we found her unbeatable so we decided to traduce her image since iconoclasm was the last power we had available to us, as our unions lay wrecked and our powerbase bought their homes and transferred their allegiance. We took refuge in institutions like the BBC to fight our countercultural guerilla campaign, and in this we've largely succeeded, which is why you'll never find a drama about the ideas behind Thatcherism, just cliche-ridden drivel about her gender and its supposed handicap in her rise to power.
Posted by: Graeme Archer | April 09, 2009 at 09:29
Making Britain Great Again.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | April 09, 2009 at 09:32
Graeme Archer (above) great one! My effort below...
Low and fair personal tax, less central government, liberal freedoms within the law; save what money you can, don’t rely on credit, don’t expect something for nothing, know your rights but accept your responsibilities; strong police and armed forces, strong and patriotic in foreign affairs, have courage in your convictions, especially when you’re right! Socialism and communism are evil. Image shouldn’t be what counts, slap down wets.
Posted by: Span Ows | April 09, 2009 at 09:33
Thatcherism is not a coherent ideology but a personal creed. It came from deep within the great lady herself. Her experience of a small business, a strong father, a love of nation and her scientific trading produced her governing ideas. As she became Prime Minister she changed and not always for the best. Thatcherism changed too along her personal journey.
Posted by: Social conservative | April 09, 2009 at 09:41
Putting the needs and rights of the individual ahead of those of the state
Posted by: Paul D | April 09, 2009 at 09:46
Not being afraid to speak out for what you believe in and sticking to your guns.
Putting country before party, pity all the Tory leaders who followed her have failed to do this.
Posted by: Edward Huxley | April 09, 2009 at 09:52
Thatcherism was the death of socialism [and Heathism], and for that we are profoundly grateful.
Posted by: London Tory | April 09, 2009 at 09:55
OFF TOPIC UKIP COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.
Posted by: UKIP Campaigner | April 09, 2009 at 09:57
Thatcherism was the politics of the necessary. Some may argue it strayed too far to the right but that was merely a counterbalance to the quasi-communism Britain was sleepwalking into. The Iron Lady in fact saved Britain from itself. And for that we should all be grateful. For had she not taken on the unions and won this country would be in an even sorrier state than it is currently. Second only to Churchill in terms of parliamentary status in the last 100 years, and in fairness he had a world war to contend with.
Posted by: rascalrob | April 09, 2009 at 10:05
Thatcherism is what we need more of.
Posted by: Robert Eve | April 09, 2009 at 10:05
It was ultimately about conviction politics. Such a contrast with the focus group politics of Blair and the polldriven politics of Cameron.
Posted by: DCMX | April 09, 2009 at 10:10
To modify Robert Eve's comment and to build upon Graeme Archer's "Thatcherism is what we need NOW"
Posted by: phil gallie | April 09, 2009 at 10:12
A profoundly moral belief in the importance to a good society of personal responsibility, freedom of the individual, sound government finance, free-markets and the rule of law.
Posted by: Forlornehope | April 09, 2009 at 10:16
This is really all you ever need to know about 'Thatcherism'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fU5JojqrX8
Posted by: joshuwahwah | April 09, 2009 at 10:16
For me the bedrock of Thatcherism was self reliance, grit, frankness, honesty and patriotism. A bit like Kennedy - Stop waiting for Society to change your lot, change your lot (and change society) - The infamous "There is no such thing as society".
I think she achieved the self-reliance bit, but the change society bit was unplanned (hence the brackets); She won the war but there was no vision for the peace. Left in the hands of the Reckless, Feckless, Power hungry and just down-right greedy, self reliance became a licence to print money and steal freedom.
The ruling elite have always had the ability to take things too far, after all they wrote the rules. It's only under NuLabour and Spin that ultimate excess was indulged in. The chief facilitator in this system of abuse, the ultimate illusion, is the unwritten constitution.
We need a new Thatcher - someone to champion once again the creed of self reliance. We face the same challenge as we did after the Winter of Discontent, just far worse, and after a decade of illusion, we start with zero trust from the people (and rightly so). Give the power back to the people, never again to be ruled by big business or corrupt government. Build a new, relavant and competitive industrial base. Let the mantra this time be "Without society we are nothing". And yes, "No rights without obligations", "No choices without considering consequences". Let social justice be our compass. Let's build a new Jerusalem in this green and once pleasant land.
Posted by: Alistair Thomas | April 09, 2009 at 10:21
Well done for deleting 'UKIP Campaigner's' annoying drivel.
Why can't he use his name and keep to the topic? He seems to be a Militant-style entrist. Please make the ban permanent. I am quite happy to represent Kippers alongside the three or four other traditional reactionaries who are capable of coherent comment on the matter at hand.
You are better off out of it 'Campaigner'.
Posted by: Henry Mayhew - ukipper | April 09, 2009 at 10:25
Popular capitalism - the creation of the property-owning democracy.
Posted by: Adam in London | April 09, 2009 at 10:29
Whatever conclusion is arrived at as to what Thatcherism is, it undoubtedly gets up Lefties' nostrils big time and so must be accounted 'A Good Thing'.
I make the observation both in jest and seriously.
The Left identified her and her philosophy as being thoroughly dangerous to what they perceived as their divine right to dominate political thought in this country and, as we saw with Heathism and Butskellism (and may yet see again in the not too distant future), have the Right broadly & cravenly kowtow to it.
There will be many definitions of it but to me, if you grew up in the 60s and lived through Thatcherism and that awful period which preceded it, then you know instinctively what it is: a game changer.
Some, though sadly not some who would now aspire to govern the country, might think that we need such a game changer now to destroy the destructive consensus which has sadly grown up on the ever-burgeoning size and thus cost to the taxpayer of the State.
Posted by: The Huntsman | April 09, 2009 at 10:44
"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…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."
Posted by: Account Deleted | April 09, 2009 at 10:59
Slightly over, but from these basic principles almost her entire programme arises:
1.Don't spend money you don't have (including the Government)
2.Support people when they try to help themselves (increasing home ownership and reducing personal taxes)
3.Criminals are not victims first but criminals first and victims second.
4. In foreign policy, look to Britain first (It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour)
5. In economics, don't rely on the Government (reduction in state control on the economy)
I think that the most neglected part of the Thatcher project was getting round to reforming the welfare state and public sector so it too ran under her principles - and that this is the reason that this is the area Conservatives need to focus on most after the next election.
Posted by: Account Deleted | April 09, 2009 at 11:03
Thatcherism is the embodiment of British ‘gut feeling’ common sense. It is the belief that the most important role for government is to do what is right. It is the conviction that government must serve the public good above any sectional interest. It is the determination to keep the interference of the state in the lives of its citizens to the minimum. It is the commitment to protect and champion individual liberty and perhaps most of all it is the belief that with freedom and ‘rights’ for the individual comes responsibility and duty to family, community and country.
Posted by: Mike Love | April 09, 2009 at 11:19
Thatcher once said she considered laissez-faire a dirty French phrase and that she believed in strong government.
Thatcherism was not a dogma or even a set of ideas. It was the ability of the Iron Lady to influence events through sheer force of will.
Posted by: Cicero | April 09, 2009 at 11:23
A belief in the family as the basic unit of society; free enterprise as the main engine of economic, scientific and social progress and the people - as represented by parliament - as the only legitimate source of political authority. All this, combined with duties of; public service for those with the right talents, self-reliance for those capable of it and responsibility to help the less fortunate. Finally, an affectionate (though critical) regard for tradition.
Posted by: Tom Paine | April 09, 2009 at 11:25
Powellism-Lite.
Posted by: Paul Oakley | April 09, 2009 at 11:28
Pretending to be a radical right-wing reformer whilst actually following broadly let-wing policies; for example, maintaining state-run education and health systems, centralising control over local government, tightening gun ownership laws, and increasing the power of the EU over UK interests.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | April 09, 2009 at 11:28
You know, there is no such thing as Thatcherism. There are individual politicians, and there are parties.
Posted by: John Anslow | April 09, 2009 at 11:35
"There will be many definitions of it but to me, if you grew up in the 60s and lived through Thatcherism and that awful period which preceded it, then you know instinctively what it is: a game changer"
And conversely if you grew up in the 80's as I did and lived through Thatcherism you knew only too well that she and the Tories needed replacing. She was the sole reason I joined the Labour party.
Posted by: joshuwahwah | April 09, 2009 at 11:37
She was the sole reason I joined the Labour party.
The labour brainwashing worked on some then - even more reason for the need of a new Thatcher for the new era of Thatcherism to end labour for good and free the people from mental tyranny.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | April 09, 2009 at 11:50
No Norm, I am afraid it wasn't brainwashing. It was the destruction of the mining community in which I lived.
The final straw was seeing my father have a nervous breakdown. He used to be a draughtsman in the steel industry. He worked for a company called 'Firth Brown' in Sheffield. Well as you know the steel industry was decimated. The day the Bailifs turn up at the house and turfed us into the street is something I will never forget. My dad is to this day on 8-9 Valium tablets per day. So no brain washing just real life sir.
Posted by: joshuwahwah | April 09, 2009 at 11:55
The duty of a UK government is to create and maintain a benign society in which all individuals, businesses and institutions can operate freely within UK law.
Posted by: David Belchamber | April 09, 2009 at 12:00
Thank you joshuwahwah; what took you so long? It's great that you can speak for our entire generation, I must have missed that course at school. Was probably when the teachers were on strike, which I admit doesn't narrow the year down much, in an 80s context. Those were the days, eh!
@phil gallie: is that *the* Phil Gallie? Ayrshire's finest! A long road from the political committees in our front rooms.
I wonder though if nowadays, for those of us of (ahem) a certain age, the best synonym for Thatcherism might be "nostalgia"? Am certainly guilty of this myself. All of the big issues felt more obvious in the 80s than they do now- perhaps partly a function of La Thatch's approach, but not totally I think. It's amazing to remember the Labour Party manifesto of 1983, but it really did exist. I have this memory of film footage of Denis Healey on a platform at the back of a half-empty and very dark room, with a bright red, ugly "Labour" banner above his head, hanging at an angle, as he croaked his way through a speech about the importance of preventing people from buying their own homes. It wasn't hard to be a Conservative back then. Not that it is now, of course, ah, I mean [continues p94]
Posted by: Graeme Archer | April 09, 2009 at 12:01
Putting the GREAT back into BRITAIN.
Posted by: michael mcgough | April 09, 2009 at 12:12
No Norm, I am afraid it wasn't brainwashing. It was the destruction of the mining community in which I lived.
Thatcher was against the unions who had ruined mining, you know.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | April 09, 2009 at 12:23
"She was the sole reason I joined the Labour party."
So....you had no visions about what you felt Labour was going to do for the British People? No "Jerusalem"? No "Bring Me My Bow of Burning Gold"?
Interestingly this is ammunition to throw at those who would argue that much of our Conservative support now comes from people whose main motivation is negativity towards Labour!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | April 09, 2009 at 12:30
I am a Canadian conservative. I am a big fan of Baroness Thatcher. She saved the United Kingdom from utter ruin. It made me quite sad to see the Cameron conservatives distance themselves from this great lady. I am glad that this increasingly not the case.
She along with President Reagan and Pope John Paul helped free millions from the yoke of communism. She is a force for freedom and liberty. She believes in self reliance. She understood she had to take on union power which was destroying the United Kingdom.
She is greatly admired by your Canadian and American conservative friends. She should be honoured and cherished!
Posted by: Roy Eappen | April 09, 2009 at 12:30
"And conversely if you grew up in the 80's as I did and lived through Thatcherism you knew only too well that she and the Tories needed replacing. She was the sole reason I joined the Labour party.
Posted by: joshuwahwah | April 09, 2009 at 11:37"
In other words, if you had no understanding of the historical context and economic collapse for which Thatcherism was the cure, you knew only too well that she needed replacing.
I actually wrote an essay on what Thatcherism is, it was about eight pages. If you like Tim, I'd be happy to send it in and have it uploaded here, but it's rather larger than the 100 word limit :P Still, I thought it as pretty good.
Posted by: Ash Faulkner | April 09, 2009 at 12:40
Hi Sally,
I hope your well by the way?
Of course I knew what the Labour party stood for and I still do.THe fact is this, if you get bitten by a snake you don't go and buy one as a pet.
We all are very different people. Some benefited from 'Thatcher' and others suffered. Me and my family were in the latter category. Now I respect your views but surely you understand where I am coming from? If you have suffered under a Labour Government you will not vote or indeed support them, so why not respect me for having suffered and making a choice?
Posted by: joshuwahwah | April 09, 2009 at 12:43
It is the emphasis on individual responsibility which lead to success socially and economically.
The idea that one person, no matter how disadvantaged, can cast off the shackles of the state to make something of them themselves with the help of minimal state involvement and low taxation.
It is the maintaining of strong social institutions to keep society strong without conceding that we have to give into everything Amnesty International suggest.
It is an ideology which put country, market and individual before the dream of a European State.
Simply put, Thatcherism was the greatest thing to happen to british politics.
Posted by: Joseph S. | April 09, 2009 at 12:44
Very well thank you joshuwahwah and I hope you enjoyed your holiday in Barcelona!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | April 09, 2009 at 12:47
It was the destruction of the mining community in which I lived.
The miners had all the public sympathy they could use for years. Heath lost the general election in 1974 for disgreeing with the miners, even though, even then, their selfishness and greed had led them to blackmail the rest of the country by denying electrical power to homes, businesses, schools and hospitals.
What Thatcher did in 1984-85 would have been done by any government because the country had had enough, was tired of selfishness, arrogance, greed, blackmail and violence. I'm sure you don't like hearing it but that's the truth.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | April 09, 2009 at 12:49
Thank you Sally. It was a short break, unfortunately.
Posted by: joshuwahwah | April 09, 2009 at 12:51
Well, whatever Thatcherism was, it was very, very, good, and it rescued Britain from disaster!
Maggie was the second best PM this country has ever had.
BUT Mrs Thatcher left office in 1990 nearly 20 years ago and we must now concentrate on the future!
Posted by: Freddy | April 09, 2009 at 12:54
For Norm... It was the sole reason i joined the Conservative Party. Heath stood in the Middle Of the Road and was run down by the Unions. 1973/4 was Anarchy in the UK. Quite simply, Thatcher saved the UK from oblivion.
Posted by: Mike Love | April 09, 2009 at 12:56
joshuwahwah at 11:37
>>And conversely if you grew up in the 80's as I did and lived through Thatcherism you knew only too well that she and the Tories needed replacing.<<
I grew up in the Eighties, in a single-parent working class family. So I lived through Thatcherism just like you did, and saw it from ground level.
Nothing you said has any bearing on what I, my friends or my family at the time thought. We were all Conservative voters and to the best of my knowledge all still are Conservative voters.
Margaret Thatcher saved Great Britain from the train wreck of the Seventies and rebuilt this country from the smoking ruins of failed socialism. Plenty of Eighties people who grew up through it know that all too well. We understood that hard times were necessary while repairs were made. We blamed Labour for doing the damage, not Thatcher for having to fix it.
Thatcher's downfall was that she came to think she was "too big to fail". I rather think the power went to her head, though I'm aware that's heresy to say here. The poll tax, incorrectly-implemented and badly-presented, was hijacked by the Left and spun into something it never was. If it had been handled properly, history would look very different.
Posted by: Steve Tierney | April 09, 2009 at 13:03
others suffered. Me and my family were in the latter category. Now I respect your views but surely you understand where I am coming from?
In other words, you support Labour because it's good for you and your family personally and to hell with everyone else.
Just the kind of selfish attitude that Labour supporters routinely claim is the defining characteristic of Conservatives!
Incidentally, just because you lost your job under a Conservative govt doesn't mean that it was govt to blame. I did too. I was made redundant from my then job under John Major, but I've got the understanding to appreciate that it wasn't actually Major's fault, and that it wasn't because he had anything against me personally.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | April 09, 2009 at 13:05
@Steve Tierney
Well said!
Posted by: Freddy | April 09, 2009 at 13:14
Doing what was right, doing what was necessary, rather than doing what was convenient.
Dealing with issues that had to be faced, from the more militant Unions and their true agenda to fixing the economy so that we would never need to go to the IMF again.
Oh, and winding up Neil Kinnock in the House!
Posted by: John Ward | April 09, 2009 at 13:17
an ideological commitment to free markets which, while having positive bennifits, fundamentaly undermined traditional conservative belief in order and social bonds
Posted by: James Cullis | April 09, 2009 at 13:23
My family suffered a lot of misfortune too in the early '80's and my mother disliked Mrs Thatcher hugely as a result.
My own view was that any government would have had to act to reform British industry,Mrs T did it more quickly and effectively than others would have done. The stripping of the Union barons of much of their power was also very necessary. I doubt anyone else would have had the stregth and conviction to do that.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | April 09, 2009 at 13:24
A political recipe for tackling the ills that had accumulated by the late 1970s: Crippling taxation, overmighty trade unions, rampant inflation, a sense of inevitable decline in the status of the UK.
A firm belief that the individual is the best master of their own fate and that freedom under the rule of law is the most effective way to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number.
Posted by: Alex | April 09, 2009 at 13:34
Doing what is right for the country - she put the Great back into Great Britain both financially and in the international community
Standing up to oppression of our country - The Falklands war (you cannot just take what is ours, ask & negotiate but not take). Arthur Scargill was not elected by the country but repeatedly held the country to ransom (always in winter and probably caused the early deaths of some of the elderly people)
Fairness -
You get to keep more of what you earn.
Social services still provided a safety net for the poorer people (it should never pay more than a worker can earn)
Even Poll tax was fair (but badly implemented). Why should a single person household pay the same as a house with four workers in it for local services ?
Small Government - get out of the way of the people rather than the attempt of total control of the population that we now have
There is lots more I could say but those are the main items
Posted by: Alan.Summ | April 09, 2009 at 13:55
"The wrong definition is 'whatever Margaret Thatcher herself at any time said or did'. The right definition involves a mixture of free markets, financial discipline, firm control over public expenditure, tax cuts, nationalism, 'Victorian values' (of the Samuel Smiles self-help variety), privatisation and a dash of populism."
Nigel Lawson, 'The View From No. 11', p64
Posted by: Leslie K. Clark | April 09, 2009 at 14:04
Early Thatcherism: a form of liberalism rather than conservatism, distinguished by its obsession with market economics at the expense of moral and cultural conservatism, national independence, and contempt for many British traditions and institutions including private life and the married family.
Late Thatcherism: still obsessed by markets but slowly coming to the realisation that the fundamental issue in British politics was sovereignty and Britain’s relationship with the European Community, and that Thatcherism’s previous enthusiasm for the Common Market and the Single European Act was incompatible with being able to fully and effectively run your own country.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | April 09, 2009 at 14:28
The
Herculean
Attitude
To
Creating
Hope,
Eventually
Repudiating
Ingrained
Socialist
Mentality.
Posted by: Colin Hughes | April 09, 2009 at 14:28
It was the following:
- not as dogmatic as both its proponents and detractors would later claim;
- internally inconsistent (an ultra-free market accelerates the pace of social change and makes it more difficult to stick to old-fashioned values);
- as integrationist as any British administration in history. She signed the SEA. Never forget that.
Posted by: Realpolitik | April 09, 2009 at 14:34
Britain strong and free.
Posted by: Iain Murray | April 09, 2009 at 15:15
If you have suffered under a Labour Government you will not vote or indeed support them, so why not respect me for having suffered and making a choice? Josh 12:43...
Fair point, it is my hatred of Brown that enables me (at last) to really see how people can hate Lady Thatcher. That said you really need to look at the history of what had gone on before to see that it wasn't Maggie's doing that destroyed communiites.
The poll tax, incorrectly-implemented and badly-presented, was hijacked by the Left and spun into something it never was. If it had been handled properly, history would look very different.
Steve Tierney 13:03, so very, very true...
Posted by: Span Ows | April 09, 2009 at 15:17
By joshuwahwah’s logic, 226,000 repossession orders in 2008 = 633,000 people irrevocably confirmed as Labour-haters.
There's always a bright side.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | April 09, 2009 at 15:36
"Putting the needs and rights of the [rich] individual ahead of those of
the staterest of society"Posted by: Miller2.0 | April 09, 2009 at 15:38
"Putting the needs and rights of the [rich] individual ahead of those of the state rest of society"
You've got a nerve, making that kind of accusation. Socialist leaders are notorious for enriching themselves without regard to their followers. Witness the way that trade union leaders so often have salaries way higher than the members who pay for them. Witness the revelations we've heard about Labour ministers and expenses.
Socialism does nothing for the poor except keep them in poverty. It destroys the wealth that could end that poverty. Its ideology has all but destroyed the UK's education system, removing a path out of poverty for a whole generation.
If you hate poverty, vote Conservative, because the economy will do better under the Conservatives, and only a prosperous economy will reduce poverty. If you like rich people, become a socialist politician, and stupid people will support your every selfish action.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | April 09, 2009 at 16:33
The BBC's Today program trying to define Thatcherism. Hmmmm.
Wake up people!!! Stop trying to define it and ask WHY NOW?
Are they trying to marshall anti-Tory support by raising the spectre of the most divisive political figure of recent times perhaps?
Why not choose a historical policy likely to make a comeback like "IMF Bail Outism".
Posted by: A Reformed Labour Voter | April 09, 2009 at 16:48
Clearing the way for people to work for their own benefit, and be responsible for their own actions.
Thatcherism was not an abstract ideal, at its heart was the actual process required to get from where we were to where we should be.
Anyone can paint a utopian picture, few can show you how to get there from the cr*ppy position we are staring from.
Posted by: pp | April 09, 2009 at 16:51
'I grew up in the Eighties, in a single-parent working class family. So I lived through Thatcherism just like you did, and saw it from ground level.'
Well said Steve, as did I and I don't think there was a better time to be a child. To paraphase, 'We'd never had it so good'. Everything just seems worse these days. In the 80's at least there was an incentive to better yourself and your situation, something sadly lacking now.
Posted by: rascalrob | April 09, 2009 at 17:24
Thatcherism was distinctly rum. It allowed spivs into the public schools and encouraged the lower orders to rise above their station.
This is what happens when a nation permits a lower middle-class grocer's daughter to rule the roost over men of breeding.
Posted by: Viscount Crouchback | April 09, 2009 at 17:48
I think this is a really interesting thread, with some first class comments.
Right from the start I had me idea of how 'Thatcherism' is used nowadays, but it was not until 'A Reformed Labour Voter' @ 16.48 above that anybody else came up with the way that I feel that 'Thatcherism' is used for!
OF COURSE! it is the BBC which has proceeded 'true to form' (who else!!!), and is using 'Thatcherism' as a stigma to try to brand current Conservative policy/policies as examples of 'Thatcherism'.
If you were to ask those BBC editors to define 'Thatcherism', I would put money on them being UNABLE to define it any more accurately or truthfully than Joshuwawawa+, was able to. Joshu+++'s definition is a personal grudge, influenced by personal misfortune, another commenter added more...
The BBC's usage of the word 'Thatcherism' is ALWAYS a political hammer, used to attack the Conservative Party policy.
Maybe it has been wheeled out again today, because the utter venality of so many of the top Labour Ministers regarding the milking of the public purse for their ?expenses? - which is definitely hitting the public consciousness, has left those socialist editors little option, other than to hijack a word, that very few ordinary people (unpolitical) would be able to define accurately, and, knowing this, they will then use to caste a slur on present day Conservative ideas!
Of course they - the BBC could have been instructed by Mandelson or Campbell, it smacks of their sort of twisted snide thinking!!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | April 09, 2009 at 18:02
Having had my pop at Labour's Broadcasting Corporation, I will now join in the fun defining Thatcherism.
I must say that I find the rose tinted spectacles of many contributors fascinating. Here is my own humble attempt:
"Late 20th Century ideology which preached faith in market forces, low taxation and individual self reliance".
Still sounds good doesn't it? In practice of course like all ideologies, it flattered to deceive. The reality and consequences of Thatcherism (under Mrs T herself) in Government 1979-90, were as follows:
1. Extreme monetarism in early '80's helped crush many manufacturing businesses - unnecessarily.
2. Crushed the NUM but also our Coal Industry and led the dash for Gas. We are now importing the majority of our gas - much of it from Mr Putin's Russia!
3. Inadvertently gave birth to the whole Climate Change scam (by offering cash to scientists to come up with a reason why fossil fuels were destroying the planet & usher in new Nuclear Power Stations). Ironically, no new Nuclear Stations were ever built.
4. Privatised our Utilities. Now in the hands of the French Government & German companies. All charge more in UK than at home.
5. Lower State Involvement in every day life proved beyond it in practice as did a true low Tax economy (though it rid us of the ludicrous taxation levels of the 60's & 70's).
6. Despite a suspicion of the EU - and to her enduring credit, Mrs T did hold much EU regulation at bay AND gained the rebate (leading to good inward investment) - however, ultimately the EU continued to extend its influence over the UK. This led to Chancellor Major enrolling us in the calamitous ERM.
7. It started and finished in Recession but the enduring economic legacy was the Deregulation of Credit & Light Touch regulation of Financial Markets (this became the economic backbone of New Labour and courtesy of Mr Brown's incompetence, has led us to economic meltdown)
8. The enduring political legacy was a perceived arrogance and lack of compassion. The Conservatives were seen as the 'Nasty Party' - and continue to struggle with this issue to this day.
I think that we would be best served by leaving Thatcherism where it belongs. In the past.
The future is about getting THIS abhorrent Socialist Government out. And rebuilding our country without any isms just good, well thought out policies under a Prime Minister called Mr Cameron.
Posted by: A Reformed Labour Voter | April 09, 2009 at 18:16
Well, indeed. What was "Thatcherism", really? What did she ever actually do?
She gave Britain the Single European Act, the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Exchange Rate Mechanism. She gave Britain the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and the replacement of O-levels with GCSEs. And she gave Britain the destruction of patriarchal authority within working-class families and communities through the destruction of that authority’s economic basis in the stockades of working-class male employment.
No Prime Minister, ever, has done more in any one, never mind all, of the causes of European federalism, Irish Republicanism, sheer economic incompetence, Police inefficiency and ineffectiveness, collapsing educational standards, and everything that underlies or follows from the destruction of patriarchal authority.
Thereby, the middle classes were transformed from people like her father into people like her son. She told us that "there is no such thing as society", in which case there cannot be any such thing as the society that is the family, or the society that is the nation. Correspondingly, she mis-defined liberty as the "freedom" to behave in absolutely any way that one saw fit. All in all, she turned Britain into the country that Marxists had always said it was, even though, before her, it never actually had been.
Specifically, she sold off national assets at obscenely undervalued prices, while subjecting the rest of the public sector (fully forty per cent of the economy) to an unprecedented level of central government dirigisme. She presided over the rise of Political Correctness. That most 1980s of phenomena was so much of a piece with that decade’s massively increased welfare dependency and its general moral chaos. Both were fully sponsored by the government, and especially by the Prime Minister, of the day.
Hers was the war against the unions, which cannot have had anything to do with monetarism, since the unions have never controlled the money supply. Hers was the refusal to privatise the Post Office, thank goodness, but against all her stated principles.
Hers were the continuing public subsidies to fee-paying schools, to agriculture, to nuclear power, and to mortgage-holders. Without those public subsidies, the fourth would hardly have existed, and the other three (then as now) would not have existed at all. So much for "You can’t buck the market". You can now, as you could then, and as she did then.
The issue is not whether fee-paying schools, agriculture, nuclear power or mortgage-holding is a good or a bad thing in itself. The issue is whether "Thatcherism" was compatible with their continuation by means of "market-bucking" public subsidies. It simply was not, as it simply is not.
Hers was the ludicrous pretence to have brought down the Soviet Union merely because she happened to be in office when that Union happened to collapse, as it would have done anyway, in accordance with the predictions of (among other people) Enoch Powell.
But she did make a difference internationally where it was possible to do so, by providing aid and succour to Pinochet’s Chile and to apartheid South Africa. I condemn the former as I condemn Fidel Castro, and I condemn the latter as I condemn Robert Mugabe (or Ian Smith, for that matter). No doubt you do, too. But she did not then, and she does not now.
Speaking of Mugabe, it was she who refused to recognise the Muzorewa government, holding out for the Soviet-backed Nkomo as if he would have been any better than the Chinese-backed Mugabe.
And hers was what amounted to the open invitation to Argentina to invade the Falkland Islands, followed by the (starved) Royal Navy’s having to behave as if the hopelessly out-of-her-depth Prime Minister did not exist, a sort of coup without which those Islands would be Argentine to this day.
There are many other aspects of any "Thatcherism" properly so called, and they all present her in about as positive a light. None of them, nor any of the above, was unwitting, or forced on her by any sort of bullying, or whatever else her apologists might insist was the case. They were exactly what she intended.
Other than the subsidies to agriculture (then as now) and to nuclear power (now, if not necessarily then), I deplore and despise every aspect of her above record and legacy, for unashamedly Old Labour, and therefore ex-Labour, reasons. The definition of New Labour is to support and to celebrate that record and that legacy, because it did exactly as it was intended to do. It entrenched, in and through the economic sphere, the social revolution of the 1960s, making the constitutional changes since 1997 logically inescapable. You should not so support or celebrate unless you wish to be considered New Labour.
But then again, who cares these days? Who really ought to care? When the next General Election is upon us, people will have the vote who were not born when she was removed from office. At that Election, my own generation of post-Thatcher teenagers will first enter Parliament in some numbers, a few being already there. And by the time of the Election after that … well, you can finish that sentence for yourself.
Thirty years on from her ludicrous Assisi Moment, we have an opportunity to consign her to the history books once and for all. That opportunity was denied in 1990, when her ejection by her own party made her a mythical figure. Such would not have been her lot if she had been removed by the electorate, probably in 1991. But let us take our opportunity in 2009.
Get over her!
Posted by: David Lindsay | April 09, 2009 at 18:42
Following are two reasons why I, a Canadian, liked Maragret Thatcher (as well as Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney) things were going reasonably well and we were safe, or at least felt so, with Conservatives in power against the rest.
“…having a conservative rather than liberal view of foreign and security policy, I agree with Winston Churchill, who once remarked of his alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany: ‘If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least try to make a favourable reference to the Devil.’”
And from her book "Statecraft" the second thing is...
"Individualism has come in for an enormous amount of criticism over the years. It still does. It is widely assumed to be synonymous with selfishness -- an argument which I have already examined and I hope successfully dismissed. But the main reason why so many people in power have always disliked individualism is because it is individualists who are ever keenest to prevent abuse of authority.
Posted by: edmund Onward James | April 09, 2009 at 18:43
"Statecraft" -- Margaret Thatcher (And Individualism) quotes and comments
http://onwardjames.blogspot.com/2008/11/statecraft-margaret-thatcher-and.html
Posted by: Edmund Onward James | April 09, 2009 at 18:46
She told us that "there is no such thing as society", in which case there cannot be any such thing as the society that is the family, or the society that is the nation. Correspondingly, she mis-defined liberty as the "freedom" to behave in absolutely any way that one saw fit.
Well that's several ways to (I guess purposely) misquote and misappropriate in just one paragraph. Well done.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | April 09, 2009 at 18:50
When Margaret Thatcher, along with Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney, the three conservatives were in power things were going reasonably well and I felt safe in Canada.
“…having a conservative rather than liberal view of foreign and security policy, I agree with Winston Churchill, who once remarked of his alliance with the Soviet Union to defeat Nazi Germany: ‘If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least try to make a favourable reference to the Devil.’”
And from her book "Statecraft" is another reason, the exceptionalism of individualism.
"Individualism has come in for an enormous amount of criticism over the years. It still does. It is widely assumed to be synonymous with selfishness -- an argument which I have already examined and I hope successfully dismissed. But the main reason why so many people in power have always disliked individualism is because it is individualists who are ever keenest to prevent abuse of authority."
Posted by: Edmund Onward James | April 09, 2009 at 18:52
Purist free market dogma that rewarded some and devastated others.
Posted by: Michael Heaver | April 09, 2009 at 20:15
She helped our servicemen to win a war for Britain - the Falklands War. She put boldness & bravery back into Britain. Bless her!
Posted by: Agincourt | April 10, 2009 at 16:16
* Supporting free enterprise and creativity in the private sector.
* Improving accountability in the public sector.
* Promoting family values.
* Encouraging individual responsibility.
* Reducing the power of large trade unions.
* Fighting for freedom.
* Promoting English interests and values abroad.
* Law and order.
* A firm stance against terrorism.
* The defeat of socialism.
Posted by: Julian L Hawksworth | April 11, 2009 at 23:17
It was more or less the 1945 Tory Manifesto and, in short, a reaction against socialism.
I actually wrote something on the subject about a year ago: http://nizhinsky.blogspot.com/2008/01/july-1945-strike-one-for-thatcherism.html
You can have a read of the 1945 Manifesto here:
http://www.conservative-party.net/manifestos/1945/1945-conservative-manifesto.shtml
Posted by: Nizhinsky | April 13, 2009 at 20:52
Individual Liberty combined with Nationalism - perhaps conservative libertarianism.
Posted by: Felix Bungay | April 17, 2009 at 15:30
Not being frit to do what needed to be done.
Posted by: Dorothy Wilson | April 17, 2009 at 16:02