There are plenty of things Margaret Thatcher did which progressives are right to have opposed. Support for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet abroad, the casual disregard her government showed to the unemployed at home, the emasculation of local government and the introduction of Section 28.
There are plenty of things Margaret Thatcher did which progressives are right to have opposed. Support for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet abroad, the casual disregard her government showed to the unemployed at home, the emasculation of local government and the introduction of Section 28 to name but a few.
She also brought in a few progressive measures, though. Here are five:
-
The abolition of corporal punishment. Under Margaret Thatcher’s government corporal punishment was abolished in 1986. Mrs Thatcher did not vote herself (she was entertaining Nancy Reagan at the time), and several pro-caning Tory MPs missed the commons vote – which was won by 231 votes to 230 – because they were stuck in traffic caused by preparations for the wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, which took place the following day.
-
Took action on HIV/AIDs. It was the government of Margaret Thatcher which started the fightback against the spread of HIV/AIDS, launching a number of campaigns to draw attention to the spread of the disease and promote safe sex as the 1980s epidemic gained ground. Mrs Thatcher had serious misgivings about mounting a campaign at all – she wanted the traditional family to be reclaimed as the backbone of British life, therefore any “deviant” behaviour was to be condemned – but her government broke the ice in talking about sex – safe sex.
-
Took climate change seriously. For some Margaret Thatcher was a climate change pioneer. Mentioning climate change at the Royal Society in 1988, she told scientists that climate change warranted government action to diminish pollution and promote sustainable development. She also threw her weight behind global efforts to phase out CFCs.
-
Promoted European intergration. Despite the Conservative Party’s strained relationship with Europe, Margaret Thatcher signed Britain up to the Single European Act, which created the European single market, signaling greater European integration by making it easier to pass laws, strengthening the EU Parliament and laying the basis for a European foreign policy.
-
Liberated the Falklands from a fascist junta. Despite her uncomfortably close relationship with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and the fact that she denounced Nelson Madela’s African National Congress as terrorists, Margaret Thatcher sent British forces halfway around the world to defend the self-determination of the islanders against an aggressive government of the far right.
54 Responses to “Five progressive things done by the governments of Margaret Thatcher”
NoBigGovDuh
When Britain Banned “Promoting Homosexuality” http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/when-britain-banned-promoting-homosexuality
Mike Shone
The Falkland Islands war was hardly progressive. The Falklands had 1,400 permanent residents. It was mainly a sheep farm : some quarter of a million grazing on rough land. It was some 8000 miles from the UK…hardly even the Channel Islands.
The residents of the Falklands were the subject of largesse in the form of millions upon millions of pounds of tax-payers money in the form of the British military. Not for them the poverty and unemployment inflicted by her government on the inner cities, steel and mining towns etc etc.
256 British service personnel were killed and of course many more maimed. One serviceman was sacrificed for every 5/6 islanders! And over a thousand Argentinians ,mostly young conscripts , lost their lives. It would have been cheaper to have bought each islander a multi-million farm in New Zealand!
Victor Kane
April 2 was Veteran’s Day and Day of the Fallen in the Malvinas War and a national holiday.
There is an article, very important, timely and a must read today, written right
then and there, on April 5, 1982, (3 days after the occupation), published in
issue number 328 of Politica Obrera (note: originally published UNDER THE
DICTATORSHIP IN ARGENTINA and DISTRIBUTED CLANDESTINELY as well as
internationally) entitled “To struggle against imperialism, no support for the
dictatorship”.
(See http://po.org.ar/po1216/la-posicion-de-politica-obrera-en-abril-de-1982/
for full Spanish text).
In case you cannot understand Spanish (you should, important things are
happening and going to be happening, sooner rather than later in Argentina and
all of Latin America), here are the main points extracted from the above
referenced Politica Obrera article of April 5, 1982, in English:
* The article starts out as follows: “The occupation of the Malvinas by the
military government has given rise to an international crisis involving the
principal imperialist powers and poses for Argentine workers and
anti-imperialist sectors a set of problems, which, if they are not solved
correctly, may sterilize the long and painful struggle of our people against the
military dictatorship appeasing imperialism. Important problems are also posed
for the workers, and especially for the revolutionaries, of the imperialist
nations oppressing them –the United States, Great Britain, France. The correct
solution to these problems depends upon the cause of proletarian
internationalism being correctly developed”
* “If recovery of the Malvinas is to change masters in the South Atlantic, or to
resolve a dispute hampering the delivery of the riches of the region to foreign
capital, it is clear that the action looks anti-imperialist, but its real
projection is a greater submission to imperialism. Such a thing should not be
surprising in a continent where bourgeois nationalism has long-standing training
in demagoguery and in the tactics of deception of the masses.”
The article, after quoting in this sense extensively from the mainstream press,
poses the following:
“Argentina is a nation oppressed by imperialism, the question of the Malvinas is
an aspect of that oppression. Given this overall situation, what is the priority
in the struggle for liberation?
“Today, the Argentine State undertaking the recovery of the Malvinas is held by
direct and indirect agents of the powers subjugating our nation. To what extent
can this constitute an act of sovereignty when it is undertaken when the country
(and even the government that runs it) is politically dominated by the agents of
national oppression? It follows that the priority here is different: first crush
the internal reaction, cut the ties (economic and diplomatic) of submission and
build a powerful anti-imperialist and revolutionary home front, based on the
workers. The priority for a real national struggle is to break the internal
reactionary front and to set up the revolutionary front of the masses. This has
occurred in all the major epics of national emancipation: the French, Russian,
Chinese, and Cuban.
“In relation to the priority for the struggle of national liberation, the
occupation of the Malvinas is a diversionary action, out of which the
dictatorship expects to derive benefits, domestic and international, for the
Argentine exploiters and for the bourgeois imperialists that “protect” them.
This is the government that, simultaneously with the action of the Malvinas,
intervenes militarily in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Bolivia. Galtieri and his
staff must have thought that U.S. imperialism would reward them for their
services, and allow them to occupy the Malvinas. Whatever the course of events,
what is clear is that the occupation of the Malvinas is not the focus of
national liberation, but a diversion. The dictatorship has appealed to it in
order to escape from its deep internal crisis and impasse.”
* “If there is war, the nation should take up arms and take the fight to every
square inch of the country”
“If war is declared, it is not out of patriotic fervor but rather out of an
authentic anti-imperialism that we say: war to the death, revolutionary war
against imperialism. That is, not just a naval war in the South [Atlantic] but
attacks upon the imperialist properties in all of national territory,
confiscation of foreign capital, and, above all, arms for the workers.
“The workers and socialist parties of Europe have lined up, once again, with
their imperialist bourgeoisie. They believe that by labeling Galtieri as a
“little dictator” they consecrate themselves as democrats, when the principal
oppression is that of the “democratic” imperialists, precisely those that
brought the little dictator to power. We call upon the authentic European
revolutionaries to repudiate their governments, defend Argentine rights to the
Malvinas and make every effort to sabotage the war fever of the “democratic”
British Crown, historic imprisoner of whole peoples.”
* “The dictatorship does not want any struggle against imperialism”
“The policy of the dictatorship is: “respect the property” of the oppressors…
There is evidence that [the dictatorship] is getting ready to accept the
“mediation” of Reagan, on the basis of a word of mouth recognition of Argentine
sovereignty in exchange for a gradual return of these islands together with
strong conditioning of economic, military and domestic policy (Nicanor) Costa
Mendez (he was the chancellor of the dictatorship-Editor) and Ross have already
said in the UN, to agree to negotiate on the basis of a formal recognition of
sovereignty.
“Supporting national demands should not be confused with political support for
whom, as in the case of the dictatorship, intends to lead the struggle for those
demands, because that would signify supporting the inconsequential, traitorous
and even anti-national leadership of the struggle for national demands.”
* Working class and anti-imperialist independence in the face of the
dictatorship
“The intention has been and remains that of dragging Argentine workers behind
the dictatorship, using the issue of the Malvinas, and also that of cleansing
them of their crimes, making people forget their appeasement and aggression
towards working people. And this, especially, after the great day of March 30
which broke the back of the efforts towards slowing down and paralyzing the
struggle attempted by the Multipartidario.”
[see http://po.org.ar/po1214/la-mayor-movilizacion-obrera-bajo-la-dictadura/ “On
March 30 [1982], the workers [50,000] gained the streets placing themselves at
the vanguard in the task of ending the dictatorship, with a union leadership
standing for the exact opposite”. The Multipartidario (Multipary) was a
consensus of parties which took out a full page paid ad in the Clarin newspaper
saying “The parties making up the Multipartidaria together with others consulted
insist in supporting the idea of reconciliation proposed by the [Catholic]
Church and aspire to extending the coincidence we have achieved to the whole
nation, including the Armed Forces”. The ad appearing in the Clarín newspaper on
December 15, 1981 was signed by the UCR, PJ, MID, Partido Intransigente, Federal
y Democracia Cristiana, and was supported by the Socialista Unificado (PSU),
Confederación Socialista Argentina (CSA), Frente de Izquierda Popular (FIP),
Línea Popular, Socialista Popular (PSP-García Costa), Comunista (PC), Socialista
Popular (PSP-Estévez Boero) y the FIP-Corriente Nacional.]
* “The Position of Politica Obrera in April, 1982” goes on to present a program:
“Given the overall situation and attempts to submit workers to tailing and
supporting the dictatorship, we declare the need to maintain working class and
anti-imperialist independence with a precise program which must:
1) Denounce the attempt to capitulate to imperialism, whether by submissive
negotiation (on economic or foreign policies), or by a withdrawal of troops in
exchange for the phased and conditional return of the islands.
2) Demand the intervention of the property of all foreign capital already
sabotaging or speculating against the national economy.
3) In case of war, spread the fight throughout the country, attacking and
seizing big imperialist capital and, above all, call upon the workers to arm
themselves.
4) Instant satisfaction for the demands raised by the unions and other workers’
organizations, and meeting of the demands of movements of family members and
mothers of the desaparecidos (missing).
5) Encourage the formation of a united anti-imperialist front, to put this
program into actual practice.”
* The Real War is at Home: “The decisive battle will be the domestic front”
“The dictatorship faces two alternatives: either inserting the occupation of the
Malvinas into a deal with imperialism, or deciding to fight. In both these cases
its internal dislocation is unavoidable: in the first, because its loss of
prestige among the masses and patriotic sectors would be brutal, in the context
of the general impasse of the regime; and in the second case, because the home
front with the big capital would be broken.”
“The bourgeoisie is already aware of this problem as reflected in the editorials
of the press: La Prensa (4/3), lamenting Reagan’s “lack of understanding”, in
this newspaper’s demands to insert the Malvinas claims into the Yankee strategy;
as well as in the divergence of Clarin (4/3) calling for a shift to Third World
politics.
“For all of these reasons the demands for unrestricted political democracy and a
Sovereign Constituent Assembly remain in force.”
The position of the Partido Obrero, Politica Obrera 31 years ago, was right on
and deserves being understood today, just as it was understood last night when
Jorge Altamira explained on national TV that only the “red flag”, of which we
are all proud, is truly capable of defending national interests against
imperialism.
The topic of the red flag is trending strongly in Argentina these days, since it
was vilified recently by President Cristina Kirchner on Twitter
https://twitter.com/CFKArgentina/status/317058438435848192 “March 24 in the
Plaza. “People uniformly dressed in red, calling themselves the left.
Threatening, with sticks in their hands”. See
http://po.org.ar/blog/2013/03/31/la-provocacion-del-24-de-marzo-partio-del-gabin
ete-nacional/ “The provocation of March 24 came right out of [Cristina
Kirchner’s] the National Cabinet”. See also
http://storify.com/seguitribuna/trapos-rojos-e-informes-de-twitter for a
complete interchange of tweets and a video of CFK denigrating the red flag.
salamisausage
heap,
What a heap of hilarious claptrap. Thatcher
left office in 1990!! 23 years ago!! Most of the time since then
the New Labour coalition was in office, led by Blair and Brown
and the political midgets that frequent the current opposition
front bench. They inherited the strongest economy in Europe and
benefited from eight years of booming worldwide trade.
Unfortunately, as a result of the infamous and squalid deal done
in the Granita restaurant, the country was saddled with an
economicly illiterate Chancellor who truly believed he had banished
boom and bust, and saved the world. We know where that led us.
Only a fool would dispute that the 13 years of
New Labour mendacity, sleaze and mind-boggling incompetence are
directly responsible for the amount of brown stuff in which we
are currently immersed.
You clearly come from the Derek Hatton school
of political analysis. This idiot was interviewed by BBC News
this morning claiming that Thatcher was responsible for the war
in Iraq. “Blair would never have invaded except for
Thatcher” was his claim. This is despite the claim made
frequently by Blair that it was the SkyGod and George Bush who
gave him the order.
Pathetic.
salamisausage
heap,
Your use of the name Malvinas tells us a lot
about your allegiances. The people that the British forces
liberated from a fascist colonial power regard themselves as
residents of the Falkland Islands, as does the rest of the world
outside Latin-America.
There was no jingoism emanating from Thatcher.
She was very well aware of the risks involved in displacing an
entrenched and well-supplied invader. We know also that she was
frequently in tears as a result of the loss of life on both
sides. She was insistent that the defeated Argentines be allowed
back to Argentina as soon as possible with the maximum help from
British forces and the minimum of humiliation.
Your distorted views are typical of Sun and
Mail readers.