Tracy Thatcherite: Margaret Thatcher- The Downing Street Years

Source:Tracy Thatcherite.

Source:The New Democrat

Margaret Thatcher coming to power in Britain in 1979 is very similar to Ronald Reagan coming to power in America in 1981. Both countries economies were in very bad shape with high unemployment, inflation, interest rates. But in Britain’s case their economy was in worst shape with their taxes much higher, more people on public assistance and in poverty and a lot of their economy under control of the U.K. Government. Socialists had dominated Britain post-World War II with a few exceptions and that is the country that Maggie Thatcher inherited.

To understand Margaret Thatcher you have to understand the difference between a British Conservative and an American Conservative especially as it relates to economic policy. Thatcher didn’t run and want to end the British welfare state, but to reform it and create a society where not as many people would need it. Because more people would be working with good jobs and able to take care of themselves. And create a society with high economic and job growth with growing wages and more people paying into the welfare state and fewer taking out of it.

Maggie Thatcher wanted to create a Britain where people who could were expected to work and be able to take care of themselves. With the welfare state there just for the people who truly needed it. And for whatever reasons weren’t able to take care of themselves. And if you at Britain in 1990 when Prime Minister Thatcher left office and compare that with how the country was when she came into office in 1979, she was very successful. And also look at how she changed the Labour Party with Tony Blair. Changing them from less of a socialist party with the super welfare state and more of a new democratic liberal party that wanted to use government to empower people. Instead of trying to take care of everyone.

Modern Lonely TV: Tories- The Course of Margaret Thatcher (2001)

Source:Modern Lonely TV.

Source:The New Democrat

I’m not an expert on British politics obviously, but I do follow their politics and government similar to how British political junkies follow American politics. And what the British Labour Party went through from 1997 after they just lost the U.K. Government and were back in the opposition for the first time since 1979 and really didn’t start recovering until 2008 or 2009 when David Cameron became their leader in opposition, looks very similar to me how the American Republican Party looked in 1961. After they just lost the White House and were now not only the opposition party in America, but the minority party in both chambers of Congress with small minorities at that.

It took the Republican Party in the 1960s really 6-8 years before they started recovering from the 1960 presidential loss with Richard Nixon. They didn’t have that one voice that could unite the whole party together. The Conservatives with the Northeastern Progressives and their growing religious conservative base in the South. The British Conservatives in the late 1990s and 2000s were much worst off actually than the 1960s Republicans. The American and British systems of government are obviously very different. Where in America you can still be in power even without the White House. By controlling either the Senate or House in Congress and having a say in the national agenda.

In Britain winner takes all. The majority party in the House of Commons in Parliament decides who the Prime Minister is and can form the U.K. Government. And because the Conservatives lost in 2001 and 2005 and the fact that Britain doesn’t have what America has in mid-term elections, they were out of power the whole time from 1997 until May of 2010. Thirteen-years and were stuck in the minority in Parliament and as the opposition party as well. And they pre-David Cameron never had that one leader that could bring the whole party together and convince their country that the Conservatives should be back in charge in London and back in government.

The Conservatives were in charge in Britain for eighteen-years from 1979-97. That is a long time to have all the power in one country, especially a country of sixty-million or so. And always having to be responsible for governing the country and having to deal with all the bad and good on your own. And I think they just burned out and the British people wanted a different voice and a different vision in how to lead their country. Which is what Tony Blair represented as New Labour as someone who would use government to try to empower people. And not try to run everything in the country through government. And Tony Blair was able to lead Britain for ten-years with that message.

Thatcherite Scot: 'Margaret Thatcher's First Speech at White House as PM!'

Source:Thatcherite Scot- United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) speaking at The White House December, 1979.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Margaret Thatcher's First Speech at White House as PM!" 

From Thatcherite Scot

This speech was given about three weeks after the Iranian hostage crisis in which Iranian Islamists took fifty Americans, working at the U.S. embassy in Tehran, hostage in November of 1979.  This was Thatcher's first visit to Washington after becoming Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, about three months earlier. She ran on a platform of completely changing Britain's socialist ways and moving past a welfare state that tried take complete care of all citizens.

Prime Minister Thatcher wanted to create an opportunity and entrepreneurial society where Brits would be able to take care of themselves.  She did not want the British government to be running major sectors of the economy.  She wanted energy and aviation to be run by the private sector.  She was certainly not a socialist  nor even a liberal, conservative, or even a libertarian in the American sense.  By American standards, the best way to describe her would be as an economic Right-Progressive, similar to Nelson Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhower, Tom Dewey, Richard Nixon, and other Progressive Republicans. 

Prime Minster Thatcher didn't want to eliminate the welfare state in Britain but she didn't want the welfare state to take care of people who could take care of themselves if they just had a good job.  She thought that the government should not try to run people's lives and that Brits should be permitted to manage their own economic affairs.  The results, in terms of where Britain was economically when she took over in 1979 and when she left office in 1989, show that she was very successful.

The Daily Telegraph: 'Margaret Thatcher: The Woman Who Made Britain Great Again'

Source:The Daily Telegraph- Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979-90)

"Almost 25 years have passed since Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street, and yet the full scale of her achievement is still surprisingly hard to set out. So completely has her legacy shaped modern Britain, so fully have she and her ideas been woven into its fabric, that it can be hard to appreciate the depth of our debt to this most extraordinary of individuals. For she was not one of those politicians who had the good fortune to go with the grain of her times. She was a leader who wrenched this nation from the path of demoralisation, diminishment and... 

From The Daily Telegraph 

Margaret Thatcher, in some ways was very lucky because she arrived on the seen as first Leader of The Opposition in the United Kingdom in the mid 1970s and then of course Prime Minister in 1979 at the perfect time when Britain was down and when socialism was not working and when the British were looking for a different message. Not so much different from what the United States was going through in the late 1970s. And Ronald Reagan came onto the scene.

Margaret Thatcher, didn’t set out to destroy socialism, but empower Brits to have the freedom to take care of themselves and take on more responsibility in governing their own lives. And handing more power down from the central government in Britain to the British people themselves. 

Maggie Thatcher, coming to power in Britain was truly a Conservative Revolution from when the Socialists in the Labour Party had all the power in Britain, to a time where there was a new message in Britain, that was conservative and getting government out of the business of running people’s lives.

I believe Maggie Thatcher, would be called a Northeastern, or Bob Dole even Conservative Republican in America. Someone who was in favor of having a public safety net. But that it wasn’t the job of government to take care of physically and mentally able people for their entire lives to help people who truly need it, but to help them help themselves. To put physically and mentally able people to work. Help people who are out-of-work get back to work, or go to work for the first time in their lives. As well as move Britain away from Marxist state economics and create a larger private sector in Britain.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Reason: John Blundell- 'Margaret Thatcher, Meryl Streep and The Iron Lady: Fact vs. Fiction'

Source:Reason Magazine- actress Meryl Streep playing United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England)

Source:The Daily Post

“When I first heard of this movie,” says John Blundell, “I immediately was a little worried because of Meryl Streep’s own ideas and polices and so on that are very distinctly not Thatcherite.”

As a longtime Margaret Thatcher ally, few people are in a better position than John Blundell to assess the veracity of the Oscar-nominated bio-pic, The Iron Lady. The former head of influential free-market organizations such as The Institute of Economic Affairs, The Institute for Humane Studies, and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Blundell is also the author of Margaret Thatcher: A Portrait of the Iron Lady (2007) and the new Ladies for Liberty: Women Who Made a Difference in American History.

On the eve of the 2012 Academy Awards ceremony, Blundell sat down with Reason.tv to discuss the controversy surrounding the film (which depicts its titular character in the throes of demenita), Streep’s widely praised performance, and the continuing power of Thatcher’s social and political legacy.

“I must admit,” he says, “to being pleasantly surprised. I think overall Margaret comes out of this process with her reputation enhanced and, of course, Meryl Streep’s reputation hugely enhanced.”

From Reason Magazine 

I saw the Iron Lady, the Meryl Streep bio movie about former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher back in May. And I was expecting a great movie about one of the most important world leaders, in at least the last thirty years. And I was disappointed, I don’t believe this movie was intended for political junkies. Or even people who love history such as myself, whether its American history or world history. This movie was intended for people who love movies and feel the need to be entertained.

I think this movie is for people who are not interested in learning about important historical events and people and don’t find that interesting enough to watch that type of thing or read about it. So they see a movie and hopefully its more dressed up for them and comes off as more and I hate this term to describe things like this, but as sexy.

One credit I would give the Iron Lady and something that I was pleasantly surprised by, was that this movie didn’t try to make Maggie Thatcher look like some type of Conservative fool who was interested in selling out the interests of the country to private business interests and didn’t care about the needy and was always looking to go to war. I think Meryl Streep did a very good job of playing Maggie Thatcher as the person she was. And not some Hollywood Leftist vision of her.

To me, what stands out about Maggie Thatcher, who had about a twenty year career in the British Government in the UK Parliament, as Leader of the Opposition and then of course as Prime Minister, is all the important things in her career that they didn’t cover. They didn’t cover much of her as Leader of the Opposition and how she rose from that to be Prime Minister or. Her interactions with the UK Prime Minister. I believe they showed one Question Time performance, or her relationship with President Reagan, or, how she dealt with the Soviet Union.

The Iron Lady covered a little bit of the Falkan Islands conflict with Argentina in 1982 and her attempts to cut the British debt and deficit. But about an hour of this movie was about her life post-Prime Ministership. Even though it’s as Prime Minister where she really made her impact, not only in Britain, but the world as well.

I thought that Meryl Streep did a very good job of playing Maggie Thatcher with the material that was given her. As far as what aspects of her life they covered. But no offense to Prime Minister Thatcher, this movie as far as appearances has a similar issue as the movie Game Change had with Sarah Palin. Except that I believe that Meryl Streep is too attractive, too cute, and beautiful to play Maggie Thatcher. Whereas in Game Change, Julianne Moore is not attractive enough to play Sarah Palin, at least as far as I’m concern. 

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: 'There is No Such Thing as Public Money'

Source:The Free State- The Iron Lady Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom)

"Margaret Thatcher addresses the Conservative Party conference in 1983." 

From Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

When former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says: “There’s no such thing as public money, but taxpayers money" she’s dead on. Unless government’s owns a business, or business’s like state- owned enterprises, all the revenue that government’s get is through tax revenue one way, or the other. And it’s generally done through multiple taxes, like income taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and other taxes. And many more unfortunately. (From my perspective) 

Government’s are supposed to use all of this revenue for the betterment of the country. Not for their own profits, or to make themselves rich, or waste the money. Again unless government owns their own enterprises, all the revenue it gets is through taking that money from the people through taxes and sometimes they give some of it back. Through tax cuts and tax refunds and other tax subsidy’s. Oil subsidy’s come to mind.

Meaning that what government does with our money, they have to spend it wisely. Not waste it and spend our money on things that will be keep our country great and make it better. Spend our money to do things that we can’t do for ourselves. Like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, infrastructure investment and a few other things. But not try to do for us what we can do for ourselves and do better. And not try to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from the abuse of people who would do them harm.

So to have the most efficient government possible (if that’s possible) it would help to lay out exactly what government should be doing. And can do well and that gets to what government can do for people that they can’t do for themselves, or what government can do as well. And provide as much competition for the private sector as possible. Or do as well to be as efficient with our money as possible. 

And this gets to areas like national security, public safety, regulating the economy, being efficient with tax revenue, keeping debt and deficits down, or eliminate them. Keeping tax rates down so there’s as much money in the economy as possible.

Keep taxes down, so the people have plenty of revenue to take care of themselves. So they are not dependent on public assistance just to survive. 

Public education, for most of the population that can’t afford private schools, K-12 as well as higher ed. 

If government’s just concentrated in these areas instead of trying to have a piece of every pie that’s made, then they would have less to manage and would waste less money. Because they would only be working in areas that they are efficient in. And not doing too much and being a drag on the economy. 

When people say government’s money, or public money, they are actually talking about taxpayer money, or our money. Money that they take from us that’s not volunteered to them. So with this being these case, they need to be efficient with our money as possible so they waste as little of it as possible.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended) 

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)