Welcome back to the Randomizer!
I apologise for the delay in uploading this article, but
with covering shifts at work, it has been difficult to try and keep focus on
working with this at the same time. But now it is complete.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said three weeks ago in light of recent events, my
topic for this article will look into Margaret Thatcher. What does the name
mean to you?
Does it stir feelings of greatness and patriotism when she
beat the Argentineans to reclaim the Falklands, how she gave people the
opportunity to buy council houses to make their own homes, and how she overcame
the male dominated society of Parliament to be Britain's first female Prime
Minster?
Or does it stir hatred and resentment, how she closed down
the mining industry and put many a community out of work as well as taking on
the trade unions, how she tried to force through the legendary Poll Tax,
causing a massive riot in the centre of London, and finally how she set a trend
of privatisation for businesses around the country?
Even after her death over three weeks ago, she will always
provoke great emotions inside people. Watching the news a few days after her death,
I saw images of students and people my age celebrating and dancing in squares
and such. Now I can understand people from that time celebrating because they
were there when she destroyed the miners. But those students? They might know
about what she did, but I don't think they have the right because they were
young. I know some things that she did, but I had no cause to celebrate her
death.
So what will I look at today? Firstly I shall give some
background information on her life and what she did politically as well as some
other tidbits. Second, I will look at some of the most important events to crop
up in her political career which affected the nation. And Thirdly I will ask
the question: What was Margaret Thatcher?
This will be as important to me as it is to you because this
is a journey of trying to understand the woman herself and how the country she
ran for over 10 years is still deeply divided after her time in power and also
trying to understand how she kept bringing Jimmy Saville over for Christmas (to
be honest who would?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Hilda Roberts (or more widely known as Meryl Streep
to her friends) was born in Grantham in 1925.
When she came to Oxford University in the 1940s to study
chemistry, she became part of the Oxford University Conservative Association,
rising to be president. After she graduated, she tried finding work as a
research chemist in Essex (well that explains why she went mad then.
Essex....no). But she still found time to put herself forward as the
Conservative candidate for Dartford in the 1950 and 1951 elections. She lost
both times because it was a safe Labour seat.
(Yes Minster Dictionary: Safe = LOL you have no chance)
Two months after she lost in the 1951 elections, she married
Denis Thatcher and threw herself in training to become a lawyer. A couple years
later, she gave birth to the twins Carol and Mark. Thatcher (Margaret, not
Denis in case that caused confusion) did qualify to become a barrister, but
still took a foray into politics. In the 1959 elections, she won the seat at
Finchley and entered into government for the first time under Harold Macmillan
(Supermac to his chums). Presumably a back-bencher at first, her first posting
was Junior Minster for Pensions in 1961. It didn't last since Labour won in the
1964 elections and she had to shuffle off to the Shadow Side of Parliament.
(Yes Minster Dictionary: Shadow Side of Parliament = The
losers of the last election. They sit on the right hand side on your TV screens
whenever stations show Parliament in session. HA right hand side....).
In 1967, Thatcher became part of the Shadow Cabinet under
Edward Heath and rose to become Shadow Education Secretary. She took the post
full-time when the Conservatives took power in 1970.
Now this is the start of a few barrels of laughs and
probably the start of how Thatcher became hated, by children of all people. In
an attempt to cut spending (as Conservatives have an unrelenting habit of),
Thatcher controversially stopped free milk for primary school pupils aged 7-11.
This gave her the unofficial popular title of 'Thatcher the Milk Snatcher' and
sent children making their own banners and marching on Parliament to get their
milk back! .................That would be a great image if true.
But in those early years of the 1970s, Thatcher was one of
many spokes in the wheel of disaster for the Conservative government. In the
country, unemployment was at one million and the trade unions were gaining
strength. Heath tried to curb this but failed, and the unions rose against him.
In addition, the working miners' organised strikes in '72 and '74 over pay
issues. The latter was particularly devastating because it led to the infamous
Three-Day-Week. Heath called a general election, asking 'Who governs Britain?'
Answer: 'Not you'. Heath resigned as prime minister and Labour under Harold
Wilson took over.
During that time, Thatcher also said she believed that there
won't be a female prime minister in my lifetime. Oh the irony. A year after
they lost the election, Thatcher challenged Heath for the leadership and
defeated him in the first round of balloting. Heath resigned soon afterwards
and in the second round, Thatcher won an outright majority and become leader of
the Galactic Empire.....oh sorry the Conservative Party. Easy to get those two
mixed up.
During the next four years, Labour over saw a complete slump
in the country, eventually leading to 'The Winter of Discontent'. Jim Callaghan
(the only member to hold all top 4 jobs at given times) had said that the
country was not in chaos because he didn't believe they existed. He has never
had a mid-life crisis apparently. The Sun responded with their famous slogan:
"Crisis? What Crisis?" After a vote of no confidence, Callaghan was
forced to call an election.
(Yes Minister Dictionary - The Winter of Discontent = See
Stark family motto for reference)
Thatcher used the slogan 'Labour Isn't Working' in her
campaign to help disintegrate any hope of Labour keeping power. After the
Winter of Discontent, the people swung to her. Thatcher won the election,
gaining over 60 seats in the process and became Britain's first female Prime
Minister, just like she said she wouldn't. Whoops. On the steps of Number 10
Downing Street she quoted Saint Francis of Assisi, saying:
Where there is discord, may we
bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt,
may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope
Irony that her premiership ended with such problems.
At the start of her tenure, she privatised businesses and
raised the interest rates in an effort to subdue inflation. But at a cost: Unemployment
rose to 2 million and riots broke out in Brixton with the allegation of police
brutality against a black youth. Thatcher's government become increasingly
unpopular. But there were two significant events that turned everything around.
First was the Iranian Embassy Siege in 1980. Six men held 26
staff hostage in the embassy for six days, killing one after their demands were
not met. Thatcher's deputy at the time Willie Whitlaw approved the use of SAS
forces to storm the embassy and save the hostages. The attack was a great
success. Five of the terrorists were killed and one captured. Thatcher herself
congratulated the troops for their success, visiting their barracks.
But her next event was a triumph that trumped the siege. It
was of course, the Falklands War. Argentinean forces under the military junta
of General Galteri invaded the Falkland Island with the claim it is theirs by
right. Thatcher responded with a 'Get the fuck off my islands' and sent a task
force to recapture them. Both sides gained certain victories over the other.
ARA General Belgrano was torpedoed and sunk by HMS Conqueror in controversial
circumstances. A couple days later, HMS Sheffield was hit by an Exocet missile
and sunk. In the end, the British Army landed on the islands and crossed to
Port Stanley. On the 14th of June, the Argentinean force
surrendered.
The victory boosted Thatcher's popularity greatly and she
called a general election for the next year. The Tories once more trounced
Labour and Thatcher easily secured a second term against Michael Foot (the
Labour leader at the time). Her second term proved more controversial then the
first, and it could be considered to be the trigger for the great divide when
it came to her.
1984 was a busy and near fatal year for the 'Iron Lady'.
After she was elected, she appointed Ian McGregor (yes, the same McGregor that
tried to get Peter Rabbit. The swine!) as head of the National Coal Board. As
reputations go, his was for cutbacks and closures when he was managing British
Steel. And closures and the mining industry obviously went hand in hand!
In that year of 1984, The National Coal Board set about the
motions of closing down 20 mining pits around England, Scotland and Wales, a
loss of 20,000 jobs. So what did the miners do? .......do leaves grow on trees?
The miners erupted. Strikes around the country combined into a National Union
of Miners Strike in March, under the leadership of one Arthur Scargill. This
wasn't just a class struggle, it was a war.
For close to a year, the two sides fought each other
verbally and physically. Picket lines became commonplace, and some places like
Orgreave became a kind of battlefield as police and miners clashed. But at
times, the miners even fought themselves, as some who were called 'scabs' went
back to work and were attacked for their trouble. A few actually died during
the strike. One man David Wilkie, a taxi driver who drove the non-striking
miners to work, was even killed in the south of Wales where miners were hit
hard. These events, along with those going back to work, put an end to the strike
in March 1985. Thatcher had done what Edward Heath couldn't do over ten years
prior: Defeat the miners.
However a few months beforehand, the miners possibly could
have won thanks to the IRA. In October, Thatcher was down in Brighton for the
Conservative Party Conference at the Grand Hotel. While working on her speech,
a bomb was detonated close to her room. She and Dennis survived, but five Tory
party members lost their lives. The next morning, Thatcher attacked those who
planned the bombing saying:
"All attempts to destroy democracy have failed".
(Yes Minister Dictionary - Above quote: Ha Ha, you suck I
rule!)
Indeed, democracy rallied again years later in the 1987
election, and once more Thatcher was elected for a third time. According to
Wikipedia and the BBC, unemployment was lowering to around 2 to 2.5 million
people, but inflation was increasing.
And those last three years would sign the death knell (no
pun intended) for her leadership. The popular (shit in those days) Community
Charge Tax was fiercely unpopular as local council set the tax rates apparently
to high levels and people marched in the streets once more in London of March
1990. Meeting with police and violence starting up, a full scale riot broke
out. One woman was even knocked down and run over by mounted policeman. And on
the same level of surprise, police ran away from the rioters. Such the like
would not be seen again until the Riots of 2011.
And in those same three years, members of her Cabinet very
slowly were eased out. Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson resigned in
conflict with her personal advisor and was replaced by Kermit the Frog, or John
Major as he's more known. Michael Heseltine had buggered off a few years later
over a disagreement with Westland Helicopters and would come back to haunt her.
But it was Geoffrey Howe, Thatcher's own deputy prime minister, who would start
off the end with his resignation on 1st November 1990. However, he
gave his speech nearly a fortnight afterwards and told others to tend their
loyalties (after being embarrassed by her so I've heard. Don't mess with
Geoffrey Howe kids. He will END you!).
Michael Heseltine came back to challenge her for the
leadership of the Conservative party, which Thatcher accepted. She won the
first round of balloting, but it wasn't enough to secure a favourable position.
And after consulting with each of her cabinet members, she resigned. As she
left the house she had lived in for 11 years, she gave a teary farewell to the
nation and walked to the car that would take her back to the life of a
backbencher, possibly always thinking in the back of her mind that she had been
betrayed. (She could always get cauldron out and cast spells for revenge? Then
again, I don't think she would've liked the karma coming back onto her)
(Yes Minister dictionary - consulting = told to piss off and
never come back).
In the years after her resignation, she released books and
made speeches throughout the world, even at one point being followed by Nick
Broomfield for a Channel 4 documentary. Her husband Denis died in 2003 after
suffering from pneumonia. She attended close friend Ronald Reagan's funeral and
called for the release of General Pinochet. Later it was revealed that she was
suffering herself from dementia (and caused me to feel sympathy for her for the
first time after watching that film. O_O). She had her portrait painted and a
statue commemorated for her in the House.
With her death just over three weeks ago came a mixture of
feelings. Miners celebrated (actually it was a double celebration that included
Jimmy Saville as well), People poured tributes. Even George Osbourne shed a
very very suspicious tear at her funeral. Should've met Glenda Jackson for a
chat.
For many people, it could be said that the name Margaret
Thatcher is double-sided, loved and hated, praised and vilified. So now is the
time to look at some of the well-known events during her era and perhaps judge
ourselves whether she is one or the other. Or even both.
---------------------------------------------------------------
· 'The Milk Snatcher'
The cutback of milk was the first controversy she
encountered when on the front line of front bench politics. Milk was made
readily available after the Second World War for school children up to the age
of 18. And we all readily blame Thatcher for such a cancellation.
But interestingly enough I came across a report from the
Independent newspaper on 9th August 2010, which stated that Thatcher
actually OPPOSED the legislation of ending school milk but was forced into it
by the Treasury. I assume the conversation was: "We want more money to
lavish on our mansions where we can lodge in while we use 53 pounds a week.
Thatcher, do your duty!".
According to the BBC news from 1st January 2001,
Documents released under the 30-year rule revealed that Thatcher did have a
negative view on ending school milk, but offered a compromise that it would be
available in nurseries and primary schools. So it does seem that the 'Milk
Snatcher' title is a tad harsh since she had to take most of the flack for such
a decision. But it would be foolish to say her compromise shouldn't still incur
some protests from parents, because she made the compromise in the first place.
The milk was still taken away from school children.
What is also interesting to note is that under Harold Wilson
a few years before, the milk for secondary school children was cut back. Though
I would assume that they could always cope with not having the milk in school
and could always have a glass at home if they so chose to. But for those in
primary school, it could help them to develop their bones and bodies for later
life and taught that milk is an essential ingredient.
Milk was the first of many problems for Thatcher in her time
on the front. It surprises me that she isn't the first person to start the trend
in cutting back the milk. But the controversy will remain as one of her
'issues' since she made the compromise in the first place. Even though she
didn't want to, she made the decision in the end and it will stick to her like
butter on toast.
· The Falklands War:
Coming at a time when her popularity was shrinking as fast
as Baldrick's brain, the Argentine invasion of the Falklands (the Mulvinas as
they call it) gave her the opportunity to not back down from a country invading
her sovereign territory by force. After all, it became her defining reputation
to come out and fight against those she considered her enemies. It was a
win-or-lose situation. But there are some points which lead people to believing
Thatcher was a war criminal.
Around the islands was a 200 mile exclusion zone made by
Britain, which lead to the controversial talking point of sinking the General Belgrano.
The ship itself was not in the exclusion zone at the time of its sinking, being
30 miles out of range. John Nott believed that it was right to do so because
they were a threat to the taskforce sent out to fight. The Argentine response
was outrage, apparently even using the UN charter and a ceasefire resolution in
response. Bit strange that they aggressively invaded the islands yet use a UN
resolution at a time like that. That's just me though.
According to the Telegraph from Boxing Day 2011, Major David
Thorp was asked to complete an inquiry into the sinking by Thatcher herself. He
claims that the Belgrano was re-positioning into the exclusion zone, as opposed
to the Argentinean response at the time that the ship was returning to port. To
me, it seems an odd decision. Why would the Belgrano try and move into the
exclusion zone in the first place? An unlikely answer might be that recently,
the Argentineans have said that the sinking of the ship was a legitimate act of
war, though that could be considered a stretch because if the Argentineans knew
they were close to the exclusion zone, why would they still make a move?
Vice Admiral Sir Tim McClement has said that militarily, it
was the right thing to do. If any of the aircraft carriers had been sunk, then
that would be damaging to the Navy and possibly end the taskforce's mission. He
said that Sir Sandy Woodward (what a name!) was seeking out to end the threat
by the Argentinean ships and a possible pincer movement: A case of eliminating
the threat and succeeding.
But what is interesting to find is that there was no actual
formality of declaration of war from either side. Seriously? Not one of them
declared war on the other? Hmmm. Doesn't that mean that both sides just killed
one another without the pretext for authorised conflict? This subject got waay
too complicated. Doesn't this mean that in the long-run, the sinking of the
Belgrano was unjustified because there was no formal declaration?
But apparently in The
Official History of the Falklands Campaign: Vol. II: War and Diplomacy (try
saying that fast three times), declaring a state of war has more ramifications
then reading 50 Shades of Grey (notably the mighty predication of the book's
release and subsequent madness ensuing in parents buying all sorts sex-toys and
police cuffs and.....ok I'm stopping there before I destroy your imaginations.
Sorry! ).
Anyway, Freedman (p.90) states that:
A British declaration of war in
1982, for example, would have immediate implications for all Argentines
resident in or carrying business in British terrority. They could be subjected
to a variety of restrictions, up to internment and the process could lead to
the effective abrogation of all contacts involving Argentine nationals, and
turn any trading with Argentina into a criminal offence, allowing for the
seizure and requisitioning of Argentine merchant ships in British ports and the
suspension of all bilateral treaties. There were about 1,000 Argentines with
indefinite leave to stay in Britain and another 4,000 with limited leave, of
whom 1,000 were registered with the police. The best assessment was that there
was no serious risk of acts of sabotage or terrorism and so there were no
security reasons to intern or expel them as this would require emergency
legislation as well as invite reciprocal action against British citizens in
Argentina
Short Answer: Argentina would have screwed and been screwed
over.
Long Answer: If the British had declared a formal war
against Argentina, it would have meant that Argentineans living in the UK would
have been subjected to a loss of freedom in the country and any legal trading
would have become abolished, along with the ripping up of treaties. Besides
that, it was also claimed that the Argentines posed no threat to British
security at home so there wouldn't have been a reason to send them away from
Britain in the first place. If they had done so, then Argentina would have
responded by doing the same.
So it seems the Argentinean Junta was only interested in
getting the islands back and not has a full-out direct war with Britain.
Likewise, Thatcher's only objective was to get the islands back. If either side
had declared a war, it would have made the matter so much more complicated and
possibly destructive than it needed to be.
Going back to the original question if the sinking of the
Belgrano was justified, the answer is just as needlessly overbearing apart from
the military side of things. Yes, it gave Britain breathing space from the
Argentine forces strategically and eliminating a threat to the task-force
specifically. It also apparently pushed the Argentine Navy back to the ports
and take no further part in the war (eh?).
But there doesn't seem to be a rational explanation because
of the complexity of how the war was fought. If the countries were in a state
of conflict, then Britain would have had the right to sink the ship. But with
the war being disputed over territories, it becomes impossible to give a
straight answer in terms of looking at any kind of field. Also with the
exclusion zone in place, it will remain controversial if the Belgrano's
intended course WAS going into the zone in the first place.
And I should also mention the obvious point that the biggest
number of men lost in a day in the war was from the sinking itself. 323 lives
lost. Did so many lives need to be killed off in this circumstance? This was an
aggressive dispute between two nations that will inevitably involved deaths of
soldiers, but the way the Argentinean sailors were killed is not to be
understated in anyway shape or form.
The sinking of the Belgrano will always remain a prolific
talking point for those studying, conversing or essaying about the Falklands
War. With the research I have done for this, I think the debate will still
continue on for many years to come. So
the only answer I can give at the moment is this: Militarily the best move, but
remains mysterious at best.
· The Miner's Strike:
The one event that led to a great divide in the nation and
in Thatcher herself, the effects of The Miner's Strike can still be felt today in
different parts of the country. My dad was telling me how one mining village
called Edlington had become a complete wasteland, presumably after the
Yorkshire Main Colliery (coal mine) had closed down when the strike collapse.
In fact it might not be surprising to note that many mining communities have
lost more than the jobs that held them steady. They lost a way of life. In
striking against the government, they were trying to fight against the
encroaching death of their society. Instead after a year of fighting against
the police and authority, their fate had become sealed.
Taking Yorkshire as an example at the beginning of the
strike, it had 56 collieries open. As of this year, only TWO remain open, at
Hatfield and Kellingley. I'm asking myself how much that does affect such a
huge community. 54 coal mines shut over a 29 year period. How does that psychologically
affect the mining community? I can only guess harder than anyone could possibly
imagine. I can't begin to see how deep the scars go because I wasn't there to
see it. All I have is the Internet and stories of the time to help paint, in
blatant terms, not a pretty picture.
Earlier I mentioned that Thatcher had appointed Ian McGregor
to Head of the National Coal Mining Board. Now what I'm about to say is quite a
stretch. I have a theory that she had a chance to be the one to try and defeat
the miners since Edward Heath couldn't do it twice, taking it by the horns.
According to Sky News, she believed a strike was coming
inevitably. There even was a plan by Nicholas Ridley to curb strikes into the
Government's favour, and suggested to: "import coal at short notice"
(p.25). On orders, McGregor stocked up
on coal stocks in the power stations, ready for it to happen someday soon. So it
might be that Thatcher wasn't just planning to defeat them, but also to make
sure they were prepared to have what the miners could throw at them, and win
comfortably without bending backwards to their demands, just like Heath had
done a decade prior.
Of course, the miners would not go down without a fight.
When the announcement of the closures came on 6th March, the NUM
declared national strikes almost a week later. Soon, picketing became part of
the miner's life as they opposed the government. But as the strike continued,
eventually it became a class war. And the Battle of Orgreave paid testament to
that.
On the 18th June 1984, Miners clashed with the
police outside when the former picketed at the Orgreave Coking Plant, and
violence ensued. Bricks and stones were thrown around, and the miners tried to
attack lorries that had come to pick up the coal. In the end, over 90 miners
were arrested and charged with rioting, though all were eventually acquitted
and the police themselves were impeached for attacking the miners. Peter
Mansell was interviewed by The Guardian, stating his experience of seeing an
ambulance coming up to the miners:
We opened up to let them through
- course we did, we're respectful people. But when the ambulances got to the
other side, police got out from the ambulances, they attacked us with
truncheons on one side and horses from the other side. We got absolutely
hammered (The Guardian, 8th April 2013).
Says something about police brutality doesn't it? Arthur
Scargill said that:
The intimidation and brutality
that has been displayed are something reminiscent of a Latin American state
A month after the incident, Thatcher's fighting spirit this
time was directed at what she called 'the enemy within'. As opposed to the
enemy "without". Seriously, she said that in the speech. That's not a
joke I made up. Much. This obviously helped turn the tide and help miners.....oh
wait no that's probably bollocks.
So far it looks like ALL the miners were united under one
banner. But as the strike continued, money became scarce among those striking.
Their financial aspects had nearly disappeared and they had to make do with all
sorts to make some money. Some groups of people decided that to keep welfare
for themselves and family, they would take probably the only option open to
them: going back to work.
As I've mentioned above, Scabs was a term used to describe
those who didn't or gave up striking and went back to the pits. They became
something akin to a coin. You either saw a traitor to the cause or a peaceful
person. For many people who chose this, they were attacked for what was seen as
a betrayal against the common foe. But there are stories that cut deep.
Families were torn apart, friends going into different pubs etc. It puts a
whole different perspective on how the miners divided against each other.
Neil Greatrex was interviewed by the BBC in 2004, saying:
When your father dies without
speaking to you for six years, it shows it wasn't just those bastards in the
NUM affected by the strike. He wouldn't speak because I was against Scargill,
he would only speak through my brothers
This is a plain example of how the strike struck hard
through family lines. Not speaking to a relative must have felt a lifetime. The
divisions must still run through those communities like the Berlin Wall, as
much as I can gather. So far, it makes me feel disturbed because it is a very
terrible situation where everything you choose to do might turn your friends
into your most deadly enemies. The lines were fraught all over the country. There
are even attacks on the Nottinghamshire county miners for not participating in
the strike, still to this day.
Yet as winter finally came (with Ned Stark's face plastered
everywhere), more and more miners went streaming back to work. Tony Kearney's
article Dispute That Tore Communities Apart for The Northern Echo states that:
...the NCB (National Coal Board)
announced a £650 Christmas bonus for anyone returning to work. Around 900 men
across the country took up the offer in the first week...At the start of
November, 52,000 miners were at work at 101, by the end of the month there were
68,000 at 146 pits...(2009)
That looks a massive difference with the incentive of money
bringing the miners back to work. Despite deaths happening in different parts
of the country, the flood of men increased throughout that winter and by
February 1985, the Coal Board declared that the majority of the miners had gone
back to work.
Finally on March 3rd, the NUM met with the Trade
Union Congress and with a narrow vote majority of 98-91 after a deadlock, the
strike was over. The long war against the Government was lost. And Thatcher could
celebrate another victory.
The Miner's Strike was probably something that was planned
as a victory from the start for Thatcher's government; A class war on her
terms. The miners themselves, it saddens me to say, had no chance of winning at
all even when fighting for their jobs. With the onset of winter, it was
inevitable that the miners would soon come back into the fold. Now in the near
thirty years since, the mining communities have disintegrated and the NUM has
declined into near obscurity as well. It could be more than easy to say that a
way of life has simply died. It has been buried so many feet under and is
unlikely to ever rise again.
For Thatcher (or insert miner's term for her), it must have
been an emphatic victory. Or something like 'Yeah, whatever'. It's difficult to
find information to what her reaction would be. But then again, we can imagine
what it would be. The Miner's defeat was a definite change of air in industry
from ten years prior. The government had re-asserted itself as the dominant
power and it would not be easy to break again.
At the end of it all, what is the end result? I would
definitely say that a way of life has been lost, because a miner's life brought
some steady balance for himself and his family. Now that has disappeared, where
are those people now? Have they found other jobs or have they sunk into the
depths? That is I think where the anger lies. It was the blatant actions made
against the miners that have caused such grievence. The loss of a steady job
where people feel as if they have no more chances in life, no purpose to try
and follow through. Thatcher's government did away with that, and offered no
chance of reprise for them, nor would many governments do so even after near
thirty years of pain.
From here on in, Thatcher would be known as the by-word for
evil in mining communities for years to come, and probably for good reason too.
· The Poll Tax:
This was the one event that signalled the ending for
Thatcher's premiership: The Poll Tax. Or Coummunity Charge if you're a
Thatcherite. Or a fuck you to everyone else. So how did such a tax cause many
people to rise up against their decade long leader? Bear with me on this, my
explanations might take a while.
The 'Rates' taxation system was in place so many years since
time eternal. It worked when a specific amount was charged by the local
authorities depending on the value of the house you lived in. This presumably
included such immunities as rubbish collecting and buying essentials like food
and drink, toiletries, electricity, and books. Books are good, don't you know.
The Poll Tax had its roots as far back to the 1970s,
developing into this idea: Instead of charging tax depending on the value of
the household, it would be charged per adult living in the house. If two adults
were living in a house, it would include them in the system. The same goes for
their children who haven't left the nest yet, like me (my day will come soon, I
promise you that). Those exempt from the pay were students, pensioners and the
unemployed, who paid a small amount and got a number of tax rebates. It was
believed that the tax was an effort to get the public to pay for services the
government provides.
Unfortunately, the Poll Tax fell flat on its face. On a hard
ground. And it lost all its teeth. After being smacked repeatedly into the same
ground by the people. Now there are a number of reasons for the Poll Tax ending
up in intensive care for the rest of its life.
One of the biggest was: Not everyone could afford to pay
such an amount. Say like a family is living in a council house, while an older
couple lived in a bigger house. Who pays the amount then? The family because
they have the more members living in, if their children had not left yet. It
became a expensive expenditure since the burden of taxation fell onto them
mostly, and it left people with the prospect of being worse off.
The Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland first a year before
England and Wales. Some Tory MPs in Scotland thought it would be popular.
Erm....this is in a country where Tories aren't very popular anyway I think.
The Scottish were absolutely livid and protested against it, nursing some
resentment from the Miner's Strike as much as those in England. It was the
precursor to shifting events down south.
But before the Poll Tax was implemented, protests had
started up in earnest. One planned demonstration took part in London on 31st
March 1990. Up to 70,000 took part in the rally to Trafalgar Square, though it
could be substantially between 70,000 and 200,000. The square itself became
filled up quickly with hardly much space for probably two-thirds of the other
protesters. The organisers had been denied in taking the protest to Hype Park.
Unfortunately, everything changed when some of the
protesters took to a sit-down in Whitehall. After refusing police requests to
move, the arrests began. Soon the police became pelted with missiles from the
crowd, and just as quickly violence spread through to neighbouring areas, like
Charing Cross and Pall Mall. After the initial stand-off, the police line
retreated and came back with those in riot gear to charge the attacking
protesters.
The protest soon gave way to the infamous Poll Tax Riots.
Cars were up-turned and set alight, police vans were attacked, windows were
smashed etc, the amount of violence that occurred cannot be understated. But
the performance of the Police that day was disturbing. Police cars and vans
drove through the crowds Mounted Policeman charged at the protesters, attacking
them with whatever they had, even knocking and running over a woman. The riots
continued on throughout the evening and night to 3 am the next day. Video
footage uploaded on Youtube shows a number of violent conduct from Police
officers onto those equally violent people.
At the end, the price of damage done was £400,000, 300-400
people were arrested and 113 people were injured, 45 of them police officers.
It would be one of the worst riots in the city itself until 2011.
After the Poll Tax was finally implemented, millions of
people refused to pay up. The Government tried to turn this about by
introducing a reduction in their bills. But it wasn't enough for the people,
and Thatcher's popularity plummeted faster than Felix Baumgartner. Even those
in her own party were vocally critical of the tax. The backbench MPs opposed
her support of the Poll Tax. She became more and more isolated herself from her
Cabinet, and eventually was a direct influence on Geoffrey Howe's resignation,
leading eventually to her downfall.
The Poll Tax was an absolute failure for Thatcher. In seeking
to bring proper payment for public services, the public instead turned on her.
After she resigned, the tax was quickly done away with by her successor Kermit
the Frog/John Major, replacing it with the still-in-place Council Tax. It was
far from being the only reason why she was finally brought down, but it is one
of the major ones. The people had spoken out, her Cabinet had spoken out. And
the message was clear: Go.
It was the end for 'The Iron Lady'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So after looking into these main events of her political
career, one question remains: What was Margaret Thatcher?
One thing I can note about her was that she was a fighter.
She didn't back down easily from making decisions she thought were right for
herself and the country. Her steely determination was rigid and once she made a
course, she would follow down that path regardless of what anyone else
believed. But it also turned many people against her as much as it attracted
them. Her decisions against the miners and those against the poll tax had
turned warm supporters into very dangerous enemies. And the voters, when they
feel betrayed by their government, have the final say. It was the most defining
feature of her character.
With her fighting prowess came a certain degree of
ruthlessness. Her victory over the miners is still considered to be a crushing
blow to the industry and to the people she considered to be the biggest
domestic threat. She was also very determined to keep the poll tax in place
despite what her Cabinet thought, showing complete uncompromising and
disregarding behaviour, in contrast to her time as Education Secretary. Maybe
in later years, she became selfish; Someone only answerable to herself because
she was in effect the leader of the country.
In my eyes, Margaret Thatcher was a she-wolf in a lion's
skin. What I mean by that is that it reminds me of Dr Helen Castor's TV series She-Wolves, how women had managed to
overcame adversity to be one of the most powerful people in the world. And the
lion has always been a symbol of the UK since God knows when. Thatcher did just
that, planning her moves to a tee and making sure in the end she would be victorious,
but somewhere along her premiership she lost her way with her determination to
force her way onto others. The lion skin fell away to reveal her for what she
was: Not the spawn of Satan, nor an angelic creature. But a ruthless fighter
who thought she was right the whole time.
The name will be a dividing curb for the nation for many
years to come and she will always be loved and hated in some way or another. I
just hope the Conservatives don't make a shrine to her........urgh. It will be
hiding somewhere in Cameron's office. But I digress. Thatcher will be
remembered for both good and bad. She may not be around anymore, but the name
will live forever.
Margaret Thatcher. A she-wolf in a Lion's skin.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because this article took longer than anticipated, it has caused me to lose a week's worth of writing my book, so to make up for that, I will not be posting on here 'til three weeks time. I will have a suprise in store for you then.
Until then, this is the Randomizer signing off!
No comments:
Post a Comment