Any self-respecting careerist going against the prevailing agenda of the Thatcher years, as now, would've known they were destined for the political wilderness. For anyone interested in a political career, no doubt nominal power (and its perks) is the next best thing to real power. It seems precious few conviction politicians graced that particular era.
The Iron Lady by Richard.Fisher
We know Jesus disapproved of usury, yet the religious Tony Blair gave us the National Lottery. Apart from that, he promised many great things - proving that he knew what was required of him - and yet he delivered so little of what he promised. Instead, we got more Thatcherism - dubbed Blatcherism by some - and war, of course. For some reason, when I think of Mr Blair, I remember the Biblical words, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?' That's not a feeling I have when I think of Mrs Thatcher whom many say genuinely believed she was doing the right thing. Even if that was true, although I should respect her memory, it would seem to me she, like Blair, Brown, and most of the rest of them, was merely a cog, albeit a high profile one, in the strategy of the actual world powers of her time.
Now, with the monetarism that Mrs Thatcher espoused, the banking crash seems to me not so much a question of failed ideology, but more the successful strategy of the oligarchs. They've succeeded, again. Why should they care if the world erupts into war now that their strategy has brought us to this pass? Have they lost their pension funds? Will they freeze or starve? Will they be where the bombs fall? What do they care about the colour of your skin, your culture or creed as long as you remain in the poverty and peonage to which they believe you belong?
It seems inevitable now that they'll proceed unabated with their fraudulent, fractional reserve, debt-based fiat currency system - using it to acquire all the world"s real assets. They'll privatise everything of value, and leave the rest of us holding mountains of paper and digital promises. Once again, they'll own the land on which we walk - and upon which they'll soon forbid us to demonstrate.
It's such patent nonsense for anyone, referring to fiat currency, to say that "there's no money' to pay for social needs. It doesn't even stand the test of definition. How long would it take to run out of digits on a computer screen? What is fiat currency but paper - and now digital promises? You might run out of paper, but not empty promises - as long as your lack of compunction holds out. What sort of fools would value the promises of proven scoundrels? The euphemistic "quantitative easing' for banksters and austerity for everyone else puts the entire charade into perspective. More and more people are waking up to that, yet few seem to do much about it.
Boycott the banks, is my suggestion; we might as well get some bartering-practice in; we'll need it. As usual, that same marauding clique will sell arms to all and sundry and, as usual, we, the hoi polloi will have to pay - with interest, of course - with our blood and treasure.
This is a strategy for success (if you like that sort of thing) that'll continue to succeed until the majority of us are entirely sick of it and ready to work together for a proper strategy for the common people. Often people I meet say that'll never happen - in a way that makes me wonder if they'd wish things any other way - (until it comes back to bite them personally). That sort individualism is a legacy often attributed to Mrs Thatcher too - but we shouldn"t forget the part the media played in stimulating that cultural shift. Although there have been times more promising for ordinary people, the vestiges of more recent such progress are dwindling fast. What happened? Did we forget the value of public ownership?
Private housing/homeownership was a part of the strategy that rolled back the progress of the common people. Thatcher apologists remind us of that aspect of her legacy, which they portray as a virtue from which many of us benefited. Yet, how many families will hold onto the wealth they acquired from buying their council homes? How much will remain as legacy for succeeding generations of ordinary people? Some families will benefit, but I believe it was a mere pawn in the privatisation chess game. They sacrificed a piece, as part of a winning strategy. Many British people sank all their blood sweat and tears into their newly acquired property. How many will hold onto it, even if we ever do again rise above the austerity we face? Anyone in need of housing now will be well aware of the marked difference in value between social and private housing. Two identical ex-council houses, sitting side-by-side can illustrate exactly what privatisation has meant. You'll often pay double for the more precarious tenancy of privately held property. Privatised industry is simply outsourced industry. Privatised health simply means profit for the few. I could go on, though I shouldn't need to.
Mrs Thatcher might well have been an ideologue, but the people who parachuted her into power were not; they were strategists. She's gone now; her legacy might take longer to fade, but the strategy was ever-present and always will be lurking within that megalomaniacal element amongst us.- sometimes less visible than at other times. It thrives on the inertia and lack of coordination of the majority. Its mind boggles gleefully at our inability to call its bluff and deal with it.
She'll no doubt get her state funeral just like her predecessor Sir Winston Churchill. He, like Lady Thatcher, has many quotes for our reflection, but the one I'm reminded of tonight is the one that goes, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". A contemporary and an adversary of his, Benito Mussolini, had something to say about democracy too. "Democracy is beautiful in theory; in practice it is a fallacy", he said. Will we ever prove these people wrong?
Yet that was the generation that brought the British people by way of Prime Minister Clement Attlee (one of Churchill's UK adversaries), the NHS (National Health Service). Churchill referred to him as a "modest little man with much to be modest about". He might've been modest but in terms of human progress, in my view his legacy, with the help of a war-weary electorate, stands far above that of all his contemporaries, because his is an egalitarian, democratic legacy. He probably knew that eventually we'd be conned out of it, but at least we got a glimpse of the sort of society we could have, were we ever to learn to work together - for the optimum environment for any political system must surely be the one that enjoys optimal majority support.