AHC: Margaret Thatcher remembered warmly by the left-wing

[ECavalier]

But is the decline could and indeed should have been handled in a better way. Oh and even if you were to put aside the miners you have the wholesale sell off of public utilities and outside of telecoms, where technology probably had more impact than policy, its hard to argue any of them represented a gain for the country, the worst example being the railways.

Railway privatisation was Major not Thatcher: you’re blaming her for things she didn’t even do.
As for utilities why shouldn’t they have been privatised, what advantages did their being under state ownership bring?

 

[Atrophied]

My main point was that the conservatives really hated the unions and the unions were not saints aswell wich is being forgotten about tough.

yeah i havent heard of any country running the utilities themselves unless they are weird i think outside power but i might be wrong.
Altough i do think that any conservative goverment was going to de natonilize stuff and it isnt a thatcher centric stuff. Altough you are probably right that some things really shouldnt have been done and is another thing to hit her with i guess.

 

[Garrison]

Railway privatisation was Major not Thatcher: you’re blaming her for things she didn’t even do.
As for utilities why shouldn’t they have been privatised, what advantages did their being under state ownership bring?

What advantage did privatising them bring would be a better question.

 

[Scotty]

well I'm convinced - it appears that the 35% unemployment rate in my home town in the 80's and me personally being on free school meals for my entire school life was a small price to pay in saving the planet

actually - i'll continue to hate her if thats ok with the rest of you

 

[Garrison]

At the very least I think we've answered the OPs question, kill her off early, change her personality and policies, or it isn't going to happen. Because 40 years after she came to power and 30 after she left office people still hate OTL Thatcher's guts.

 

[Simon]

It's fair, I think, to say that Margaret Thatcher remains reviled amongst the left-wing in a way that very few Conservatives (or for that matter conservatives) have ever been.

That's generally for two reasons – she won and her own side did for her. Even the previous Labour Prime Minister had recognised things needed to change but it was Thatcher who implemented them and changed the accepted status quo so dramatically, coupled with her being ousted by her own MPs denying the left the catharsis of beating her in a general election.

Give it some time, once the living memory of the coal strikes and milk snatching fades people will be more inclined to look at the finer details, and a certain part of the left will ignore all the the details and focus on how she was a woman in power who did stuff.

I'm not so sure. The myth of Thatcher is so strong that in some areas the attitude towards her seems to grow worse and lose nuance as you go down the generations from people who were adults at the time, as for the 'woman in power who did stuff' bit there are those who discount her as a female leader because she wasn't the right kind of feminist.

Therefore, there is no real reason for the left-wing to compare Margaret Thatcher favourably to her successors, because her successors were all closer to them than she was.

The one big difference might be Brexit. Whilst certainly not a fan of where the EU was headed she wouldn't have countenanced leaving the single market.

… or shes not a heartless Tory bitch (which I find unlikely).

Well it's nice to see that we can have a reasoned discussion.

A government concerned with the economy would have been looking to create new job opportunities...

The problem is that for many places that simply wasn't possible. The pit village my father grew up in was lucky enough to be just close enough to the regional urban centre to be viable, for many others out in the wilds of the countryside where the mines were the only real employers their locations meant new businesses weren't interested in setting up there. It's harsh but in some ways we would have been better off demolishing them. Build new estates with the necessary amenities near to the local towns and cities and decant the communities as one.

Now retraining is another option but with the best will in the world it's difficult for someone who's middle aged to switch to an entirely different industry. That's not to say that the government shouldn't have tried, and it was a major failure, but I'm not sure how successful it would have been. The other problem is that the manufacturing sector whilst IIRC generally increasing value over her time in office also saw sharp declines in employment numbers reflecting a, long overdue, increase in mechanisation and automation.

First off terrible comparison, secondly as has repeatedly been pointed out Thatcher's action were political not economic...

Well that's been claimed but it doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm certainly not going to deny that there were political aspects, on both sides, during the coal disputes but the fact remains that many of the coal mines were loss making requiring subsidies to continue. Past a certain point that's hard to continue justifying.

… the worst example being the railways.

Which didn't occur under her leadership. IIRC her government sold off some of historically linked companies like the hotels, caterers, ferry companies etc., and you can make the argument the previous sell-offs set the scene, but the railways themselves didn't happen until Major.

What advantage did privatising them bring would be a better question.

Most of the people I know who had to deal with BT prior to privatisation seem to be of the opinion that the main advantage was a large increase in customer service.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

The one big difference might be Brexit. Whilst certainly not a fan of where the EU was headed she wouldn't have countenanced leaving the single market.

Her legacy on that point isn't so good. Although personally pro-EU she always showed disdain in public, worked against her own officials and started a tradition of blaming the EU for domestic problems. Remember that her fall began when Geoffrey Howe, who had always been her most loyal minister, resigned and gave a speech where he tackled her exactly on this.

 

[TheSwedishHistorian]

There were really two major things that tarnished her reputation and us the biggest source of much if the hatred towards her and how she is remembered.

How she handled the closing of coal mines. She could have tried to replace all the jobs lost with education and replacement jobs but she didn't. If she did she would have been seen differently, but she was Margaret Thatcher so she didn't really like job programs.

Secondly, no poll tax and peaceful resignation. Everyone remembers how something ends

 

[V-J]

The one big difference might be Brexit. Whilst certainly not a fan of where the EU was headed she wouldn't have countenanced leaving the single market.

I know this is a popular view on the other place, but I think it's fairly intuitively not accurate. In Statecraft she clearly sets out a proto-hard Brexit prospectus.

Britain must quit EU, says Thatcher

Outburst by ex-PM will embarrass new Tory leader.

www.theguardian.com

This was all the standard position at the time (Late nineties, early 2000s) for people who would later go onto be hard Brexiteers. Far from having a proprietorial attitude towards the Single Market, she actively disowned her signing of the SEA. Her health also didn't hold up for her to experience the years of angst over free movement - not really a concern even as late as the early 2000s.

It's more likely she goes full Faragist/No Deal At All than soft Brexit in a world where she's compos and alive during the Brexit years.

 

[dcharles]

There are some very good answers here. I thought I'd add to the discussion by giving some of my own additional thoughts on the subject.

I do think, as @overoceans says, there is a tendency amongst a certain part of the left to favourably reassess conservatives that have left office in juxtaposition with conservatives who are currently in office. We've seen this on both sides of the Pond, but the most notable example I can think of would be how George W. Bush, previously reviled by the left-wing, is now somewhat romanticised.

W is not romanticized. It is just a rational recognition that he was less extreme than the people who followed him.

 

[Dr Dee]

It's harsh but in some ways we would have been better off demolishing them. Build new estates with the necessary amenities near to the local towns and cities and decant the communities as one.

Wow. This reminds me of the proposals in the 30s to flood certain Welsh mining valleys and turn them into reservoirs.

Well that's been claimed but it doesn't necessarily make it true. I'm certainly not going to deny that there were political aspects, on both sides, during the coal disputes but the fact remains that many of the coal mines were loss making requiring subsidies to continue. Past a certain point that's hard to continue justifying.

It's certainly the case that deep mining in the UK just couldn't continue on the same scale as it had in the past. However, the sheer scale of the closures which followed really seems to have more to do with treating the miners as 'the enemy within' as opposed to taking the scalpel to a doomed industry.

Most of the people I know who had to deal with BT prior to privatisation seem to be of the opinion that the main advantage was a large increase in customer service.

Hmmm...if my dealings with BT are anything to go by, I shudder to think what their customer service was like pre-privatisation!!

 

[V-J]

Hmmm...if my dealings with BT are anything to go by, I shudder to think what their customer service was like pre-privatisation!!

BT pre-privatisation, hmm, well, how do you fancy waiting six months to get a phone line installed?

 

[Workable Goblin]

yeah i havent heard of any country running the utilities themselves unless they are weird i think outside power but i might be wrong.

Publicly owned utilities are not actually that uncommon; even in the United States you have systems such as Austin Power or the Chattanooga Electric Power Board, and globally publicly owned utilities were probably more common than private systems during the middle part of the century. Certainly in Europe you had such entities as EDF in France, Vattenfall in Sweden, ENEL in Italy, and so on and so forth. Given the relatively small geographical size of Britain, it was not at all surprising that it would have a single national utility operating the entire power grid, one operating the entire gas grid, one operating the entire telephone network, and so on and so forth.

Now, the rationale for public ownership is fairly simple: public utilities are essential for modern life, and are a prime example of a natural monopoly due to the geographical limitations on stringing wires, laying pipe, or otherwise building the necessary infrastructure to deliver electricity, water, gas, telephony, or whatever other service they provide. So, all countries (including the United States) have long recognized that leaving utility provision purely to "the market" is a bad idea, since a rational profit-seeking utility would charge as much as possible for its services while investing as little as possible in the infrastructure, leading many people to lack access to whatever it is the utility provides while leaving those who do have access inflated bills. To counteract this, they have historically imposed stringent regulations on utilities, with a large amount of government oversight and involvement in utility business. It is not unreasonable to look at this and decide that it would be better to cut out the middleman and simply publicly own the utility; then it could simply be directed to do whatever it is the public wants the utility to do (such as connecting rural homes) rather than regulated into doing it. Likewise, it could be made to charge less, since it would not need to make a profit; or, if it did make a profit, could be used to supplement public budgets and thus enable slightly lower tax rates than would otherwise be necessary.

Personally, I might add, I find the argument for public ownership more compelling than the one for privatizing most utilities, particularly as the promised degree of competition and innovation does not seem to have materialized since these privatizations began to occur in the 1980s. But, on the flip side, it's difficult to see any British administration of the 1980s and 1990s avoiding utility sector privatization, since they were a trend of the 1980s and 1990s. It might be possible for Britain to take a more Swedish or French approach and retain a significant degree of ownership of the electrical sector (or any other utility sector), but wholly avoiding privatization is very unlikely.

 

[Dr Dee]

BT pre-privatisation, hmm, well, how do you fancy waiting six months to get a phone line installed?

At least it would have worked...

 

[NHBL]

From the tenor of the discussion, it seems that the only way she would be remembered warmly by the left is if they have a "Maggie Thatcher Day," where kids collect money for an effigy, like Guy Fawkes, and burn the effigy in a bonfire.

On a more serious note--how long does she last without the Falklands?

 

[marktaha]

As someone who did NOT prosper under Thatcherism, I still regard her as having saved Britain from drift.and decay under the real life Hackers Sir Humphreys and union bullyboys. She brought herself down.with the Poll Tax and would have been far more competent than Boris!

 

[marktaha]

I'm not sure you can - my first thought was 'she dies earlier before she guts the coal industry and what bits she'd left of the steel industry' but by the time of the Brighton bombing the Miners Strike was well into action

the only option is therefore as is already mentioned - either she does'nt become PM (in which case shes just Maggie the Milk Stealer - which will fade more easily with the passage of time) or shes not a heartless Tory bitch (which i find unlikely)

as for the comments of the bumbling buffoon that have set this thread away - no comment, as its current

I remember school milk with anything but affection!

 

[marktaha]

Or that they hated they woman who did her best to destroy their communities with a passion..c

As for the coal industry, the National Coal Board (NCB) had been closing pits rapidly since its inception in 1947. When output was at its peak between 1913-1920, there were 1 250 000 men and boys working underground, and when you factor in the people working overground and all the related industries, something like 4% of Britain's entire workforce was related to coal. Britain also mind 25% of the world's total coal, and was responsible for 55% of coal exports at this time too. Many of the pits then still had coal gotten by hand with picks, haulage relied on pit ponies and self-acting inclines, and flame safety lamps used instead of electric ones.

By 1947, that number was down to ~750 000, largely due to increased mechanization (electric coal cutters/longwall shearers, hydraulic props, diesel and electric locomotive haulage), and private operators closing money-losing pits.

The biggest job losses in the pits came between 1960 and 1970, falling from ~700k to ~290k. It wasn't just a matter of "rule by shop stewards", and NUM (National Union of Mineworkers, represented miners and colliery staff) and NACODS (National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers; represented officials) labour being expensive, but because foreign coal became cheaper. British Railways was also dieselising, coal-fired ships were being scrapped, and home heating was switching to gas, oil, electric or to smokeless fuels instead of open coal fireplaces. Mining attracted far fewer people because the pay became below average with 1970s inflation.

In Victorian times, when coal mining was poorly regulated, and over 1000 men and boys each year lost to devastating explosions, there was never a shortage of coal miners. Why? At that time, the average factory worker made 1 shilling a day. A mine haulier or shifter (labourer) could make 2s a day, and a miner actually getting the coal could make 2s/6d - 2 1/2 what a factory worker did. Colliers also got a customary benefit- all the free small coal (coal that was in pieces too small to sell) he could carry, and a "tied cottage"- typically a 1 1/2 storey dwelling that was free or had massively subsidized rent. There was also a path to advancement- typically, in a coal mine, the officials (above the miners but below management and spent the day underground) were promoted from "practical miners". Shotfirers (responsible for explosives) made a bonus; deputies, master shifters and master hauliers made a higher salary, and overmen (the most senior underground officials, responsible for safety and production) made even more than that- often more in a day than a factory worker in a week.

By the 1970s, the NCB is bleeding miners. It doesn't pay well. The excellent apprenticeship program has young men signing up, staying the minimum 4 years in the pits, and leaving. I saw an old interview with a Yorkshire miner in the 1970s. It went something like this:

Interviewer: Have you always been a miner?

Miner: Aye. And me dad, abd granddad,and great-granddad.

I: Are you proud to be a miner?

M: I were proud. Not anymore. They don't pay you what you're worth, and it'll never be safe like overground work is. Every day you could just as easily not come home.

I: You have a son?

M: Aye, I do. He's in school now and I forbid him to leave like I did.

I: What if he told you he wanted to go down the pits?

M: I'd break his legs.

Even without Maggie on the right, and militant Marxist NUM President Arthur Scargill on the left, the coal industry is on the brink, and it's going to fall on someone.

A gross oversimplification, but if coal fetches £40/ton on the market but costs £120/ton to mine, and most of the best deposits are depleted, how long can you go on?

Michael Parkinson's father said something similar.

 

[marktaha]

Her major sin was using revenue from North Sea Oil to bankroll unemployment benefits and tax cuts, rather than anything innovative.

(Additionally, high interest rates led to an over-inflated pound sterling, which crippled Britain's remaining industrial exports).

Were we supposed to leave the unemployed to starve?

 

[marktaha]

Have her not back the Khmer Rouge, have her not tie her image so much with Reagan, and have her supporters not constantly try to whitewash her to start with.

One of my criticisms of her was her failure to back Reagan over Grenada. She should have sent in British troops to help put down the Reds!