Margaret Thatcher dies before becoming party leader or PM?

[mullauna]

whether she dies in a bombing raid during the wall, falls down some steps or is killed by Irish nationalists or Bulgarian umbrella tips is immaterial, all that matters is that she is dead before she becomes Tory leader.


I was born in 1980 and my earliest political memory of her is her fall in 1990. 

[stevep]

Dec 7, 2018 7:59:19 GMT mullauna said:

whether she dies in a bombing raid during the wall, falls down some steps or is killed by Irish nationalists or Bulgarian umbrella tips is immaterial, all that matters is that she is dead before she becomes Tory leader.


I was born in 1980 and my earliest political memory of her is her fall in 1990. 

  I would expect Heath to be replaced after his defeat in 74 but who does it and how far right the party goes I don't know.  IIRC Keith Joseph was seen as her mentor and she only stood for the party when he stepped down from challenging Health after a controversial speech in which he argued among other things that poor people should have fewer babies than the better off.  Possibly if this hadn't happened he might have won or his harder line policies might have meant a more moderate rival could have gained the job.

  Basically it depends on whether you get some form of 'Thatcherism' with its rejection of a mixed economy and a sense of the common good, being replaced by hard line free-market views and if so is it less successful and hence destructive than OTL?  Could Britain manage to go through a short period without too much economic destruction, possibly especially in the new success areas of computing and alternative energy, where we were so successful before 79?  If so it could be markedly more successful both economically and socially.  Especially if a broader economic base and less emphasis on the city of London could mean a better fiscal sector that isn't the current cancer on the country.  [Its ironic that Joseph argued that the service sector was a wealth consuming part of the economy but his policies did much to make its power so much greater. ]

  If we avoid some form of Thatcherism completely there is likely to be some attempt to change the post-war consensus at some stage but how successful it is and whether it would be destructive as OTL or possibly beneficial in some ways.  There need to be a revamp as the initial ideas of Keynesian economics had lost focus due to political drift but could be plenty of options as to how it would go.

  Overall Britain is almost certain to be better off under your scenario as Thatcher was deeply destructive to both the British economy and possibly even more so British society, which she famously rejected.  It hopefully would be far less divided and demoralised as well as much more successful economically.

[raunchel]

Dec 7, 2018 10:27:56 GMT stevep said:

Dec 7, 2018 7:59:19 GMT mullauna said:

whether she dies in a bombing raid during the wall, falls down some steps or is killed by Irish nationalists or Bulgarian umbrella tips is immaterial, all that matters is that she is dead before she becomes Tory leader.


I was born in 1980 and my earliest political memory of her is her fall in 1990. 

  I would expect Heath to be replaced after his defeat in 74 but who does it and how far right the party goes I don't know.  IIRC Keith Joseph was seen as her mentor and she only stood for the party when he stepped down from challenging Health after a controversial speech in which he argued among other things that poor people should have fewer babies than the better off.  Possibly if this hadn't happened he might have won or his harder line policies might have meant a more moderate rival could have gained the job.

  Basically it depends on whether you get some form of 'Thatcherism' with its rejection of a mixed economy and a sense of the common good, being replaced by hard line free-market views and if so is it less successful and hence destructive than OTL?  Could Britain manage to go through a short period without too much economic destruction, possibly especially in the new success areas of computing and alternative energy, where we were so successful before 79?  If so it could be markedly more successful both economically and socially.  Especially if a broader economic base and less emphasis on the city of London could mean a better fiscal sector that isn't the current cancer on the country.  [Its ironic that Joseph argued that the service sector was a wealth consuming part of the economy but his policies did much to make its power so much greater. ]

  If we avoid some form of Thatcherism completely there is likely to be some attempt to change the post-war consensus at some stage but how successful it is and whether it would be destructive as OTL or possibly beneficial in some ways.  There need to be a revamp as the initial ideas of Keynesian economics had lost focus due to political drift but could be plenty of options as to how it would go.

  Overall Britain is almost certain to be better off under your scenario as Thatcher was deeply destructive to both the British economy and possibly even more so British society, which she famously rejected.  It hopefully would be far less divided and demoralised as well as much more successful economically.

Despite my personal admiration of Thatcher (sorry, she did achieve quite a lot), you're right that she overall was bad for the UK. I don't know what would have happened without her, but I think that there would have been a deeper crisis of the eighties which would have had its effects. It also was unavoidable to have some sort of reaction to the spending and the issues on the labour market. Thatcher however wasn't the right kind of medicine. She was a bit too harsh and extremist in how she dealt with the overly powerful unions for instance.

The post-war consensus can't last without serious alterations. The demographics changed as did the basic economic landscape. So reforms would have happened, probably in a Thatcherite direction, but not that completely. The end of the cold war also caused a general neoliberal shift, which was only worsened by Thatcher's tenure, so I expect a slightly saner Britain, but many of the most fundamental issues still remain, even without hard Thatcherism.

[James G]

Dec 7, 2018 7:59:19 GMT mullauna said:

whether she dies in a bombing raid during the wall, falls down some steps or is killed by Irish nationalists or Bulgarian umbrella tips is immaterial, all that matters is that she is dead before she becomes Tory leader.


I was born in 1980 and my earliest political memory of her is her fall in 1990. 

Dead.
Not losing her first attempt to become MP, not deciding to quit politics, not failing to get into the Cabinet, but dead.
Why? What the heck?

[stevep]

Dec 7, 2018 16:28:58 GMT raunchel said:

Dec 7, 2018 10:27:56 GMT stevep said:

  I would expect Heath to be replaced after his defeat in 74 but who does it and how far right the party goes I don't know.  IIRC Keith Joseph was seen as her mentor and she only stood for the party when he stepped down from challenging Health after a controversial speech in which he argued among other things that poor people should have fewer babies than the better off.  Possibly if this hadn't happened he might have won or his harder line policies might have meant a more moderate rival could have gained the job.

  Basically it depends on whether you get some form of 'Thatcherism' with its rejection of a mixed economy and a sense of the common good, being replaced by hard line free-market views and if so is it less successful and hence destructive than OTL?  Could Britain manage to go through a short period without too much economic destruction, possibly especially in the new success areas of computing and alternative energy, where we were so successful before 79?  If so it could be markedly more successful both economically and socially.  Especially if a broader economic base and less emphasis on the city of London could mean a better fiscal sector that isn't the current cancer on the country.  [Its ironic that Joseph argued that the service sector was a wealth consuming part of the economy but his policies did much to make its power so much greater. ]

  If we avoid some form of Thatcherism completely there is likely to be some attempt to change the post-war consensus at some stage but how successful it is and whether it would be destructive as OTL or possibly beneficial in some ways.  There need to be a revamp as the initial ideas of Keynesian economics had lost focus due to political drift but could be plenty of options as to how it would go.

  Overall Britain is almost certain to be better off under your scenario as Thatcher was deeply destructive to both the British economy and possibly even more so British society, which she famously rejected.  It hopefully would be far less divided and demoralised as well as much more successful economically.

Despite my personal admiration of Thatcher (sorry, she did achieve quite a lot), you're right that she overall was bad for the UK. I don't know what would have happened without her, but I think that there would have been a deeper crisis of the eighties which would have had its effects. It also was unavoidable to have some sort of reaction to the spending and the issues on the labour market. Thatcher however wasn't the right kind of medicine. She was a bit too harsh and extremist in how she dealt with the overly powerful unions for instance.

The post-war consensus can't last without serious alterations. The demographics changed as did the basic economic landscape. So reforms would have happened, probably in a Thatcherite direction, but not that completely. The end of the cold war also caused a general neoliberal shift, which was only worsened by Thatcher's tenure, so I expect a slightly saner Britain, but many of the most fundamental issues still remain, even without hard Thatcherism.

  We will have to disagree there.  Definitely achieved a lot but virtually all negative.  There were problems in the late 70's I remember them well.  However Thatcherism was an extreme overshoot, a bit like while Czarist Russia had serious problems Bolshevism wasn't [by a very long way] the best solution.  In 79 we not only still had a broad if problematic industrial base but some excellent areas of growth in especially computing [both hardware and software] and alternative energy as well as a potential great boost in N Sea all.  The former, along with a lot else were sacrificed on the alter of 'free-market capitalism' and the latter was largely wasted on growing bureaucracy and the massive spending necessary because of the huge growth in unemployment under Thatcher.  Possibly even worse was her rejection of the entire idea of social responsibility and that communities exist, up to and including the nation.  [She played lip service to the latter but did both my countries [England and Britain] immense harm which later mis-leaders have worsened further.

[lordroel]

Do I need to get worried about this thread going of rails in the future.

[raunchel]

Dec 7, 2018 16:43:05 GMT James G said:

Dec 7, 2018 7:59:19 GMT mullauna said:

whether she dies in a bombing raid during the wall, falls down some steps or is killed by Irish nationalists or Bulgarian umbrella tips is immaterial, all that matters is that she is dead before she becomes Tory leader.


I was born in 1980 and my earliest political memory of her is her fall in 1990. 

Dead.
Not losing her first attempt to become MP, not deciding to quit politics, not failing to get into the Cabinet, but dead.
Why? What the heck?

I guess because it's the most efficient way to ensure that she won't have any influence whatsoever. 

Dec 7, 2018 16:56:48 GMT stevep said:

Dec 7, 2018 16:28:58 GMT raunchel said:

Despite my personal admiration of Thatcher (sorry, she did achieve quite a lot), you're right that she overall was bad for the UK. I don't know what would have happened without her, but I think that there would have been a deeper crisis of the eighties which would have had its effects. It also was unavoidable to have some sort of reaction to the spending and the issues on the labour market. Thatcher however wasn't the right kind of medicine. She was a bit too harsh and extremist in how she dealt with the overly powerful unions for instance.

The post-war consensus can't last without serious alterations. The demographics changed as did the basic economic landscape. So reforms would have happened, probably in a Thatcherite direction, but not that completely. The end of the cold war also caused a general neoliberal shift, which was only worsened by Thatcher's tenure, so I expect a slightly saner Britain, but many of the most fundamental issues still remain, even without hard Thatcherism.

  We will have to disagree there.  Definitely achieved a lot but virtually all negative.  There were problems in the late 70's I remember them well.  However Thatcherism was an extreme overshoot, a bit like while Czarist Russia had serious problems Bolshevism wasn't [by a very long way] the best solution.  In 79 we not only still had a broad if problematic industrial base but some excellent areas of growth in especially computing [both hardware and software] and alternative energy as well as a potential great boost in N Sea all.  The former, along with a lot else were sacrificed on the alter of 'free-market capitalism' and the latter was largely wasted on growing bureaucracy and the massive spending necessary because of the huge growth in unemployment under Thatcher.  Possibly even worse was her rejection of the entire idea of social responsibility and that communities exist, up to and including the nation.  [She played lip service to the latter but did both my countries [England and Britain] immense harm which later mis-leaders have worsened further.

I mean that her achievements are more in the personal domain. She did manage to conquer the male bulwark of politics, and that's something I respect. Her politics weren't all that good, but something had to be done about the growing issues. Of course, most of my information is second hand, so I might be wrong on some points.

[stevep]

Dec 7, 2018 18:17:27 GMT raunchel said:

Dec 7, 2018 16:43:05 GMT James G said:

Dead.
Not losing her first attempt to become MP, not deciding to quit politics, not failing to get into the Cabinet, but dead.
Why? What the heck?

I guess because it's the most efficient way to ensure that she won't have any influence whatsoever. 

Dec 7, 2018 16:56:48 GMT stevep said:

  We will have to disagree there.  Definitely achieved a lot but virtually all negative.  There were problems in the late 70's I remember them well.  However Thatcherism was an extreme overshoot, a bit like while Czarist Russia had serious problems Bolshevism wasn't [by a very long way] the best solution.  In 79 we not only still had a broad if problematic industrial base but some excellent areas of growth in especially computing [both hardware and software] and alternative energy as well as a potential great boost in N Sea all.  The former, along with a lot else were sacrificed on the alter of 'free-market capitalism' and the latter was largely wasted on growing bureaucracy and the massive spending necessary because of the huge growth in unemployment under Thatcher.  Possibly even worse was her rejection of the entire idea of social responsibility and that communities exist, up to and including the nation.  [She played lip service to the latter but did both my countries [England and Britain] immense harm which later mis-leaders have worsened further.

I mean that her achievements are more in the personal domain. She did manage to conquer the male bulwark of politics, and that's something I respect. Her politics weren't all that good, but something had to be done about the growing issues. Of course, most of my information is second hand, so I might be wrong on some points.

  In that I agree, as the 1st female leader of any major party let alone making it to PM.  Also she was a rarity in being a scientist, albeit briefly and seem seemed to forget about the scientific method when she gained power.

  In the negatives while there was a need to do something about the excessive power of the unions but that needed rebalancing not destroying.  Ditto with the total rejection of any idea of social cohesion.  As both a liberal and a nationalist I find her policies utterly repulsive.