BTH
Well-Known Member
Thatcher destroyed the social fabric of this country. Surely that was enough?
How much have Thatcher/Reagan contributed to the state of the world today?
- Thread starter SebastianBlue
- Start date
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I think it ‘worked’ as long as living standards rose, and most people were getting a slice of the cake. That’s no longer the case and hasn’t been for over a decade. That is an existential problem for this economic system imo.The word that immediately came to mind was neoliberalism. They certainly weren't the brains behind it and there was an inevitably about the direction of travel away from the postwar consensus regardless of who was in charge.
In many ways they are bit part players who just happened to take power at a certain point in history. But the ideology was fully embraced on their watch and is their ultimate legacy.
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised.”
Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems
Financial meltdown, environmental disaster and even the rise of Donald Trump – neoliberalism has played its part in them all. Why has the left failed to come up with an alternative?www.theguardian.com
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The thing about Thatcher is that she was (I think) pretty honest. I think she’d be pretty horrified at the current state of some of the industries she sold off. Especially the water companies and rail network. Think she’d probably run a ‘way it was implemented’ argument, rather than admit it was her fault, but it’s impossible to conceive that she’d be anything but disappointed.
Because it’s clearly not worked. In so many different ways. Huge strategic mistake.
Because it’s clearly not worked. In so many different ways. Huge strategic mistake.
Eccles Blue
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid 3 came to my mind and I couldn't choose between them. Not for Reagan but for Thatcher.
Bleak, Divisive and destructive.
Bleak, Divisive and destructive.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
Yes but you need to look forward - to the future if you want to grow and progress. Looking back on previous administrations is like the Brexit idea that we want to be like it once was - even progressive administrations like Blair had enough faults and yes the Middle East was a disaster but things like Surestart and Building for Schools were about future generations not the past.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I’m more ambivalent about her than most people. I think she had some good and impressive qualities as a person, but I think she definitely made the country a poorer place, long term. And that route was forged by her personality. So, end product shite, but I don’t agree with any suggestion that she was irredeemably evil.
And what an achievement. For a woman, I mean. Hugely impressive feat.
Think she’d bore the arse off me, mind! No way would I want to go on holiday with her!
Kinkybyname
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 2,818
- Team supported
- Manchester City
fk me some people need to let it go - divisve and not a saint, for sure, but closed fewer mines than Wilson and killed less military personnel than Blair - and the predicted Third World War nuke propaganda posters seem quite quaint now, compared with the shitshow we now have
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
SebastianBlue
President, International Julian Alvarez Fan Club
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 56,022
Excellent title for a history book.
If I were to give Thatcher the benefit of the doubt (I feel dirty saying that, and not in a good way), I might consider that she didn’t fully grasp how selfish and greedy many people could be.
Her embrace of neoliberalism and the trickle-down theory of unrestrained capitalism might have been based on the naive belief that once people had enough money, they would be more inclined to reinvest profits into their businesses, thereby improving standards and services, and to invest in their staff by offering financial rewards.
However, what we actually saw was a surge in greed and selfishness, with companies prioritising cost-cutting at any expense and funneling profits to shareholders, often at the expense of employees, service quality, and long-term sustainability.