SO LONG MAGGIE
Margaret Hilda Thatcher (1925-2013)
in
“The
Economist”, 13 April 2013
I
have always had the most profound admiration for Margaret Thatcher. I admired her
fortitude, her courage, her straightforwardness, her principle-abidance
posture, her uncompromising defence of her country’s national interest.
I was only a teenager, but
I remember her upholding the special relationship between the United Kingdom
and the United States, I grew up regarding Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan
as the ultimate defenders and promoters of freedom in their countries and in
the world.
I remember her staunch
opposition to Soviet Union and what she represented during the latter stretch of
the Cold War. She owes the Soviets for
the nickname that made her justice: the Iron Lady! But I also recall that
Thatcher was the first Western politician to recognize that Mikhail Gorbachev,
at a time he was just a Politburo member, as someone “we can deal with”.
The Iron Lady riding a Challenger I in
West Germany.
She also fought the
elite-driven relentless expansion of EU powers and integration, again what she
viewed as the UK’s national interests. “I want my money back”, came to symbolize
her attitude towards then European Community.
And, of course, I remember
the steadfastness with which Margaret Thatcher sent an expeditionary force to
the South Atlantic to take back the Falklands archipelago from an invading
Argentinian force.
Most
of all, Margaret Thatcher stood for freedom. Freedom in Eastern Europe from the
Soviet and Communist juggernaut. Freedom in Great Britain and in the West from
the smothering and stifling embrace of the omnipresent state. “The problem with
socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
This
freedom creed, freedom in the political field, but in the economic one as well
was coined as Thatcherism, which can be considered a crown of glory in Maggie’s
political career: to be awarded an ism
after herself. Even Labour under Tony
Blair understood that to be viable and eligible it would have to let go of some
of its traditional tenets and hold on to the crux of Thatcherism. There is an
enduring legacy of Margaret Thatcher.
Today we miss her
determination in the pursuit of the common good not coddling up to special and
spurious interests. As Maggie once said:
“If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on
anything at anytime, and would achieve nothing”.
So
long Maggie! God bless you!!!
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, or Maggie and
Ronnie,
arriving at Camp David in 1984.
arriving at Camp David in 1984.
Margaret Thatcher in 1983 when she won a landslide
victory at the polls.
12 comentários:
And her legacy will live on: the over expansion of credit, which led to excessive debt, and eventual economic stagnation; the growth of the financial sector and liberalisation of banks, which led to the current crisis; the decline of industry was helped by the cut in union power and the emphasis on short term profits; human rights, social support, and communities were replaced by a culture of individualism and quick profits The country now has more debt, less solidarity, more corruption, far great inequality and less quality of life. Thanks Thatcher.
And her legacy will live on: the over expansion of credit, which led to excessive debt, and eventual economic stagnation; the growth of the financial sector and liberalisation of banks, which led to the current crisis; the decline of industry was helped by the cut in union power and the emphasis on short term profits; human rights, social support, and communities were replaced by a culture of individualism and quick profits The country now has more debt, less solidarity, more corruption, far great inequality and less quality of life. Thanks Thatcher.
And her legacy will live on: the over expansion of credit, which led to excessive debt, and eventual economic stagnation; the growth of the financial sector and liberalisation of banks, which led to the current crisis; the decline of industry was helped by the cut in union power and the emphasis on short term profits; human rights, social support, and communities were replaced by a culture of individualism and quick profits The country now has more debt, less solidarity, more corruption, far great inequality and less quality of life. Thanks Thatcher.
Já estava a estranhar a ausência deste post :)
Fernando
o Ken Livingstone
o The Guardian, Thursday 11 April 2013 18.40 BST
o
A North Sea oil rig off the Scottish
It is a truism that history is written by the victors. As Margaret Thatcher's economic policies were continued after she left office, culminating in economic catastrophe in 2008, it is necessary to throw out the myths peddled about her. The first is that she was popular. The second is that she delivered economic success.
Unlike previous governments, Thatcher's never commanded anything close to a majority in a general election. The Tories' biggest share of the vote under her was less than 44% in 1979, after which her vote fell. The false assertions about her popularity are used to insist that Labour can only succeed by carrying out Tory policies. But this is untrue.
The reason for the parliamentary landslide in 1983 was not Thatcher's popularity – her share of the vote fell to 42% – but the loss of votes to the defectors of the SDP and their alliance with the Liberals. Labour's voters did not defect to the Tories, whose long-term decline continued under Thatcher.
Nor did Thatcher deliver economic success, still less "save our country" in David Cameron's silly and overblown phrase-mongering. In much more difficult circumstances in 1945, the Labour government, despite war debt, set itself the task of economic regeneration, introduced social security and pensions, built hundreds of thousands of homes and created the NHS. In the 31 years before Thatcher came to office the economy grew by about 150%; in the 31 years since, it's grown by little more than 100%.
Thatcher believed that the creation of 3 million unemployed was a price worth paying for a free market in everything except labour. Thatcher's great friend Augusto Pinochet used machine guns to control labour, whereas Thatcher used the less drastic means of anti-union laws. But their goal was the same, to reduce the share of working class income in the economy. The economic results were the reason for Thatcher's falling popularity. As the authors of The Spirit Level point out, the inequality created led to huge social ills, increases in crime, addictions of all kinds and health epidemics including mental health issues.
Thatcher's destruction of industry, combined with financial deregulation and the "big bang", began the decline of saving and accumulation of private- and public-sector debt that led directly to the banking crisis of 2008. The idea that bankers would rationally allocate resources for all our benefit was always a huge lie. Now the overwhelming majority are directly paying the price for this failed experiment through the bailout of bank shareholders.
Thatcher was sustained only by one extraordinary piece of luck. Almost the moment she stepped over the threshold of Downing Street the economy was engulfed in an oil bonanza. During her time in office, government oil receipts amounted to 16% of GDP. But instead of using this windfall to boost investment for longer-term prosperity, it was used for tax cuts. Public investment was slashed. By the end of her time in office the military budget vastly exceeded net public investment.
This slump in investment, and the associated destruction of manufacturing and jobs, is the disastrous economic and social legacy of Thatcherism. Production was replaced by banking. House-building gave way to estate agency. The substitute for decent jobs was welfare. Until there is a break with that legacy there can be no serious rebuilding of Britain's economy.
The current economic crisis is already one year longer than the one Thatcher created in the early 1980s. In effect the policies are the same now, but there is no new oil to come to the rescue.
We can succeed by rejecting Thatcherism – the politics and economics of decline and failure.
Freitas Pereira
Caro Amigo Sr. Miguel Ribeiro
Já trocamos idéias sobre o assunto Thatcher. Com todo o respeito que devo à sua opinião, permita, por favor, que acrescente algumas palavras às do Ken Livingstone, transcritas acima.
Conhece bem a minha historia profissional. Acontece que durante os anos Thatcher e Reagan, tinha a responsabilidade dos dois mercados, RU e USA, particularmente na industria automóvel. Assim, passei anos viajando nos dois países, dos quais conheço bastante bem a estrutura industrial.
A nossa filial, era na zona de Brownhills,, "the Black Country", não longe de Wolverhampton, e passava o meu tempo nas fabricas da região de Birmingham, Norte de Londres e Newcastle. Foi nesses tempos que vi desaparecer uma a uma, as grandes marcas automóveis conhecidas no mundo inteiro, absorvidas pelos concorrentes ou desmanteladas, nesse pais que foi pioneiro nesta industria.
A filosofia econômica de Thatcher era duma grande simplicidade : destruir os empregos industriais e apostar nos serviços. Foi assim que a industria inglesa desapareceu. E foi assim que a City de Londres e a finança substituíram no PIB a parte industrial.
Excelente para enriquecer aqueles que já eram ricos, mas catastrófico para as classes trabalhadoras e a classe média. Eu bem notava a diferença de nível de vida dos meus colegas ingleses , "sênior management", quando me convidavam para casa deles.
Curiosamente, a mesma política econômica , o "Thatcherismo", chamado "Reaganomics" nos USA, aplicada por Reagan, além da desregulação da economia, levou para a falência a mesma industria automóvel americana : Ford, General Motors e Chrysler . Foi Obama que obrigado a injetar 800 mil milhões de dólares nesta industria, a salvou de desaparecer totalmente.
Quanto à luta contra o comunismo de Thatcher como de Reagan, é curioso de constatar hoje, que os USA sem o parceiro Chinês estavam na bancarrota, e dependem mais que nunca da boa vontade deste pais para conservar o valor do dólar. Ora A China é uma ditadura comunista. Nunca as potências ocidentais ditas democráticas, colaboraram tanto com o comunismo.
Nas reações no RU à morte de M.Thatcher, se não aceito os insultos à sua memória e ainda menos manifestações de alegria de ingleses nas ruas de Londres e noutras cidades, não posso deixar de constatar que nunca na historia da democracia inglesa, a memória dum primeiro ministro foi tão contestada e o custo mesmo do seu funeral foi tão discutido.
Freitas Pereira
Dear Tee,
It's amazing how two people can write so different comments about the same person.
To avoid an escalation I shall hust go biblical: let's say that Moses led the Israelis to the promised land, but it is not his fault that they messed up afterwards.... ;-)
Fernando Daniel!!!!
This is an outstanding moment for me! One of my best friends, one of my best students, one of the most socially pleasant persons I know, one of the most loyal followers/readers of "Tempos Interessantes" has FINALLY posted a comment in my blog!
And yes, this post is overdue, but sometimes inspiration, time and excessive care play tricks on me.
Sr. Freitas Pereira,
Eu sei que, ao contrário de muitos outros assuntos, neste estamos distantes. No problema. É normal e saudável.
A desindustrialização excessiva foi um erro que custa caro. Mas a realidade sócio-económica do Reino Unido no final da década de 70 era catastrófica. Doze anos depois estava de pé novamente.
Em relação à China, pergunto-me onde ela estaria se os EUA fossem à bancarrota e lhe deixassem de pagar e comprar? Parece-me que a dependência tem dois sentidos.
Margaret Thatcher continua a ser polémica, mas a morte de nenhum ex-PM depois de Churchill causou tanta comoção e impacto nem nenhum teve as honras que Maggie vai ter.
Finalmente, meu caro amigo, citando um indivíduo cujo alcunha é "Red Ken" não se pode esperar grande isenção quando escreve sobre Thatcher....
Sem duvida, Sr.Miguel Ribeiro, que continuo a apreciar o seu excelente"blogue", mesmo se não estamos de acordo sobre todos os temas. Saudável ? Exatamente!
Sobre "Ken le Rouge", direi que fazer crer que este excelente "Mayor of London", é um "rouge", só a interpretação conservadora anglo saxonica desta cor o pode permitir . Ken é a personagem que convidava o mês passado os capitalistas franceses candidatos à evasão fiscal a virem para Londres, a quem prometia de desenrolar o "tapete vermelho" dos VIP !
Nos USA, os democratas também são considerados como "rouges" ! Obama rouge ! Estranha mistura das cores!
Disse muito bem que Blair não mudou de política econômica quando ganhou contra os conservadores. Mas Blair é um social democrata liberal ! Não vejo diferença nenhuma entre ele e Maggie.
Blair é ainda mais culpado de conservadorismo quando se conhece o estado de ruína do sistema de saúde inglês ( amigos meus vêm tratar-se na Normandia !) depois da privatização de Thatcher. Ora o Labour sempre protegeu os serviços sociais ingleses.
Os caminhos de ferros ingleses, a British Rail, que já era anacrônica antes, embora o pequeno almoço com os "eggs and bacon"a bordo seja agradável !, é muito pior hoje depois da privatização de Thatcher. Linhas como a Glasgow-Londres, operada por Virgin, e outras porções de trajetos operadas por várias companhias, mesmo francesas, fazem deste serviço o pior da Europa. A única linha moderna é o TGV Paris-Londres, que a França pagou, porque Maggie não queria pagar! Hoje, os ingleses são os maiores utilizadores - 68% - desta linha. Permito sugerir-lhe de a utilizar um dia, porque é realmente um prazer de entrar no TGV em Calais com o automóvel e de chegar a Victoria Station. Este é o meu transporte preferido quando vou ao RU.
Enfim, a situação econômica atual do RU, não é nada melhor que o resto da Europa, apesar de ter conservado a sua moeda e o seu banco nacional. O "thatchérismo" , como o "reganomics" nos USA, não evitou a queda do "rating" nem a recessão. A austeridade imposta por Cameron põe os ingleses de tanga, como os outros. A classe média, como os outros.
Freitas Pereira
Caro Sr. Freitas Pereira,
O Ken do século XXI é, se me permite, muito diferente do do século XX, do tempo de Thatcher. É mais um dos múltiplos "convertidos", mais por ganância do que por convicção. Também temos muitos desses por cá.
Quanto à austeridade, ela existe, embora no Reino Unido se faça mais do lado da despesa do que acontece no continente. E sempre têm a vantagem de poder escolher as medidas em vez de terem os Alemães a impô-las....
Rui Miguel Ribeiro,
thanks again for the great blog!
Regarding the comment of Sr. Freitas Pereira; Actually american car manufacturing suffered due to its own problematic leadership which was dreadfully outdated. That is partly why it began to suffer again few years back not because of political leadership. Interesting comments from readers anyway!
Enviar um comentário