Margaret_Thatcher_Analysis

      Chapter 8, Politics in Britain, Video: Margaret Thatcher Ousted (4 questions) Margaret Thatcher once famously remarked, "There is no society; there are only individuals." How is this sentiment reflected in Thatcherism' In translation, if there is no society, there cannot be social welfare. Margaret Thatcher makes this statement to support her views against a large, expanded government. She disagrees strongly with “socialist” government aid, because it does not promote economic growth or competiveness. Thatcher has a strong “every man for himself” and “survival of the fittest” mentality; it just so happens that ‘the fittest’ these days refers to financial wealth. Many of her public policy reforms, referred to as Thatcherism, largely include the privatization of once-municipal functions, such as public housing, hospitals, even local public administration. Thatcher felt that privatization of public goods would create a more competitive market for Britain and therefore, more efficient and beneficial services. As a result of a more business-like, cost-benefit approach to governing, Thatcher succeeded in reducing the rate of inflation, but did little to aid the rise of unemployment. As a neoliberal and a free market advocate, Thatcher reduced personal income taxes to grant the individual more freedom, although she raised indirect taxes (i.e. excise taxes) to compensate. But this, of course, continued to benefit the wealthy and hurt the poor. She has been criticized for not making significant strides to help the homeless; however, to be fair, she doesn’t feel anything needs to be done about homelessness. She treats government as a business, not a welfare program. The decisions she made as prime minister strongly reflect this sentiment. Margaret Thatcher's policy reforms have tended to be deeply polarizing. Indeed, according to a poll conducted shortly after she was removed from office, 52 percent of the British public said that her policy reforms had had a positive influence on British society, while 48 percent said they had a negative impact. Do you think that the reforms introduced by Thatcher had a positive or negative impact on British society' On what basis do you make your assessment' First of all, with regard to public opinion and without looking at Margaret Thatcher’s actual policy reforms, I am deeply compelled to argue that she certainly made a positive impact on British society: she has compelled great controversy and concern (involvement) in public policy amongst British peoples, and she has reduced inflation and increased competition in the provision of cost-efficient public goods. As far as her policies of privatization and excessive free market are concerned, there was a large portion of the population in need of economic help that she more or less ignored. She might certainly be criticized as being out-of-touch or indifferent to the needs of the working class and too patronizing of private corporations. Personally, I feel she was too focused on Dollar signs (or Pounds, actually) and not focused enough on social well-being. There were definitely other methods, long-terms solutions, to the economic crises, rather than the short term spending cuts she made. I think it was her quick fix approach that caused so much controversy throughout Britain: she had in mind the success of the few and important rather than the welfare of the many and in need. As an American, I see one of the largest political failings of our people in the huge percentage of apathy towards public policies. As a result, I genuinely favor expression of any radical views that might stir up controversy and involvement among people of all political backgrounds. Margaret Thatcher has led Britain somewhere, anywhere, but where it was. I think that even if it wasn’t in the best direction for the country, it was better than nowhere. Without drastic measures, Britain’s drastic times would only have worsened. Through the great controversy she created, Thatcher provoked great interest. It is hard to advocate that Thatcher really had a negative impact on the country, considering if nothing had been done, things would have been inarguably worse. I feel that Thatcher, even if I don’t whole-heartedly agree with her policies, was a decisive, strong-willed, and firm leader and, thereby, had a positive impact on her country. Although discontentment within the Conservative Party had risen during Margaret Thatcher's last few years in office, her removal from office was seen as a dramatic move, and most analysts were surprised. (A) Why do you think Thatcher was removed by her party' (B) If you were a member of the British Conservative Party, would you have supported her removal' Why or why not' (A) There are many reasons for Thatcher’s removal from office, but the last straw was certainly her increasingly autocratic tendencies. Although she reduced the responsibility of government through privatization, she increased her authority simply by exercising it. I think to myself, “Is it really drastic to remove some one from office after she’s occupied it for the past 10+ years'” The answer comes down to changing times. She lasted as the Conservative Party leader for so long because she was a strong, decisive leader and she was taking Britain somewhere. But, like all strong leaders, she began to behave somewhat tyrannically: refuting the advice of junior colleagues and ignoring public opinions polls. Also, her views for government were somewhat outdated; the economy wasn’t in the same declining state and needed more attention to public good rather than economics. (B) I would certainly have supported her removal if for no other reason than simply she had been in power long enough, if not too long. Her ideas have always been radical, but radical doesn’t necessarily mean innovative and progressive, which is a consistent necessity when governing a society. She was not receptive the Britain’s changing needs; it seems as though she forgot that she was meant to serve her country more than just lead and control it. The removal of a sitting prime minister during their term of office illustrates one of the principle differences between parliamentary and presidential systems. Does the fact that a prime minister can be removed from office at any time, while presidents can only be removed through regularly scheduled national elections make parliamentary systems more democratic' Why or why not' Democracy is, essentially, government for the people, by the people. I think the people’s freedom to vote their leader out of office when they desire to expresses very strong democratic ideals. I firmly believe that parliamentary systems are more democratic: there is generally a greater range of representation of the people’s political views, which gives almost all parties a chance to express their needs and interests, and parliamentary systems (at least the parliament of Britain) are generally more flexible in policy implementation- able to do pretty much anything as long as it has popular support. The United States’ presidential system is a republic, not necessarily a democracy: We vote for representatives to vote for our president; we do not have equal representation, simply by the nature of our elections (the winner-take-all structure provides no representation for any weak, non-majority parties), and state and federal leaders have limited terms that are rarely ever curtailed (except in the event of extreme moral misconduct) and cannot be extended by popular vote. The extent of our policies and their implementation is subject to the U.S. Constitution and other legislature, which are extremely arduous to amend. It can surely be argued that many of the United States provisions are set up to protect democracy: the electoral college ensures that smaller states have an equal chance to be heard, and term limits prevents any authoritative regimes- two situations that would otherwise undermine fair public representation. Too much democracy without the necessary checks and balances can cause injustice- the majority, although always the strongest, is not always fair or just (i.e. Hitler’s Third Reich). So, although the United States’ “democracy” has representative restrictions that are designed to protect democracy, I still contend that parliamentary systems are (by definition) more democratic, and inarguably provide for more representation.