OK, this is a preliminary study for my Government & Politics course starting next year. Basically, we have to study opinions of politics and politicians during a certain time-era during the 20th Century. I've chosen the 1970's under Thatcher. What I want to know is what score you would give Margaret Thatcher in terms of how good a Prime Minister she was. Here are the criteria you need to judge her by if you are going to vote:
1. Her management of the economy (during her time as Prime Minister ONLY)
2. Her management of social security (including NHS, Education etc.)
3. Her management of international relations
4. Her management of one international incident (I have chosen the Falklands War for obvious reasons)
5. Her management of one domestic affair (I chose her handling of the strikes of the labouring population (mainly miners and manufacturing labourers) during her time as Prime Minister)
Please try to stay away from any political bias you may have either for or against Thatcher when choosing how to score her. Basically, I need you to score 1-10, 10 being the best and 1 the worst. Please remember, I AM NOT forcing you to do this, but I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes of your time to help me. Once you have scored her, please post a comment consisting of a few lines explaining your choice. Thankyou everyone I appreciate it
Hi Taffy.
First, a bit of a pedantic point: mostly Thatcher was PM during the 80s, not the 70s. 70s Prime Ministers are usually considered to be Wilson (his second stint), Heath and Callaghan.
So, each point in turn.
1. Her management of the economy (during her time as Prime Minister ONLY)
7. Thatcher's implementation of Monetarist policies enabled Britain to break away from the massive 70s economic slump (which culminated in the '3 day week'). During the 80s there was strong economic growth which her policies (particularly tackling high inflation) contributed to.
However, the growth was unchecked and allowed to become excessive. This led to the early-90s downturn (and eventual recession). Had the economy been managed better during her time, there would have been a softer landing.
2. Her management of social security (including NHS, Education etc.)
5. Hard to say on this one. Unemployment rose under Thatcher (due to many industries being forced out - steel, coal, car manufactoring etc). This put a large strain on the Social Security budget. The NHS was not funded well (as a result?). Education was ok - but nothing of note was added or subtracted. In my opinion every government since the 1960s has tinkered with education and there is rarely any notable benefit.
3. Her management of international relations
6. 2 key areas in international relations for Britain. Our relationship with the US and our relationship with the EU (or EEC as it was then).
Thatcher formed a very close bond with the US - and given that the Cold War was ongoing during her premiership - I think that this was a sensible alignment. (You could argue that this 'special relationship' has led to continued closeness and therefore the current relationship Blair and Brown have with Bush. But that could not be foreseen at the time).
Thatcher was quite cold towards Europe: "this woman's not for turning" etc etc. Difficult to say. The EEC was far more hostile towards Britain at the time (bear in mind that it was under a decade earlier that the French under De Gaulle kept vetoing Britain's entry). The interests of the EEC were heavily weighted in favour of certain countries and therefore we needed a tough line to keep a rough economic harmony (in the early 80s Britain was the 'poor man' of Europe - but the difference between our payments and receipts made us the second highest net contributor - behind only Germany).
4. Her management of one international incident (I have chosen the Falklands War for obvious reasons)
8. Some argue that we should not have fought this war: "like 2 bald men fighting over a comb". I understand the point, however this could be said about many places. Let's suppose the French invaded the Isle of Wight. There's not much there - so why should we care? Equally a country has a duty to protect its borders and its citizens. While the Falklands are geographically closer to Argentina, they are still not on their doorstep (300 miles!).
Of the war itself there is little controversy. Apart from the Belgrano incident. Personally I agree that the Belgrano should have been sunk. It was a powerful ship that had been sailing in and out of the 'exclusion zone'. It was a danger to British forces (and indeed sailing directly at the British taskforce). That it was sunk outside of an arbitrary zone, established by Britain is irrelevant.
5. Her management of one domestic affair (I chose her handling of the strikes of the labouring population (mainly miners and manufacturing labourers) during her time as Prime Minister)
9. When Thatcher came to power, the unions had a large amount of power. Using this power (strikes) had ground the country to a halt and stunted our economic growth.
Thatcher broke the unions. The methods were brutal at times, but I genuinely believe that this was a social upheaval that needed to be made for Britain to move forward.
We now have a flexible workforce and our economic growth has exceeded those European countries which still have a strong union presence. Indeed many people in France consider that they need to have a Thatcher figure to make their labour force more flexible.
However, while the 'macro' issues were right, it was hard on the population in the areas affected. There was huge unemployment and depression in many Northern areas, which should not be forgotten. Of course, in the long run it has enabled many 'working class' people to escape the dreadful conditions of the mines. I would imagine if the mines were to re-open now you would not get many indigenous workers to go down there as they would just not accept the work.
Phew. That was a long one.
And just for your information, on those 'political compass' things, I rate between 'Liberal' (left wing) and 'moderate' (centre).
gringots
