大家来严肃认真的谈谈撒切尔的是非功过吧

Dracula

Some of the British comments I read online,

From the left, in Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commen ... -thatcher-editorial

From the right, in Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comme ... in-great-again.html

From Economist,

http://www.economist.com/blogs/b ... margaret-thatcher-0

From Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1 ... .html#axzz2PyJyd1nb

An interesting view from America:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/art ... conomic-legacy.html

Personally, I think she is a great political figure, one of the greatest Prime Minister in British history, and has had a lasting influence not just in Britain but around the world.

Dracula

晨池 发表于 2013-4-9 21:15
我也觉得奇怪，她只不过是一个下台已经二十多年的前国家领导人，英国居然有人上街庆祝。。。反响如此强烈。 ...

Read Megan McArdle's comment, you may understand the issue involved a little better,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/art ... conomic-legacy.html

Dracula

洗心 发表于 2013-4-9 21:29
个人认为上街庆祝的大都是LOSER, 从这点上也可以看出英国左派不成器

Their reactions and hatred towards her are understandable. Thatcher's policies destroyed those miners' livelihood, that region's economy and the surrounding communities. But  i think her breaking the union was necessary. Maybe she should have done more to mitigate some of the human sufferings, although I doubt it can be really effective.

Dracula

洗心 发表于 2013-4-9 22:34
美国人这篇不错。

你觉得这篇靠谱吗？

First of all, Margaret Thatcher was not an ideologue, but a very pragmatic politician, only choosing to go to battle when she could win. For example, she took a conciliatory position towards unions when she first came to power in 1979, and the confrontation with the miners only came after she won a landslide election in 1983 and stockpiling a large quantity of coals during 1983-1984. Also, although she took a firm stand and did not negotiate with IRA, letting 10 IRA prisoners hunger strike to death, one year after IRA bombing of her hotel, she signed an agreement with Irish government involving them in Northern Ireland affairs, paving the way for the peace process. So I am not sure we should attribute too much of her policies to these abstract political ideas.

Secondly, I am not sure what 强势政府 means. Civil liberties did not suffer during her government. She did not declare martial law, or imprison opposition politicians or restrict freedom of speech and criticism against her. What she did is strengthening central government in Westminster at the expense of local governments, which most conservatives nowadays find regrettable. But overall, British government's power (central plus local) was declining. As to her imperial style towards her cabinet colleagues, this had nothing to do with any political philosophy. I think after she won 3rd general election in 1987, there was hubris and she grew overconfident in her own judgement and impatient to hear any contrary views. Also almost all of these ministers were promoted by her, and she knew most of their portfolios better than themselves. But eventually this brought about her downfall, she had to resign in 1990 because she lost support from her cabinet. And similarly her governing style has little to do with 强势政府. The government did not gain more power over its citizens. It is just change of balance of power between the prime minister's office and the cabinet.

Dracula

胖卡门 发表于 2013-4-9 23:38
在大家怀念她时
请记住她说过的三句话

Can you provide the source of these citations? It is inconceivable to me that she could use such coarse language in public especially in Commons debate.

Dracula

老兵帅客 发表于 2013-4-10 00:30
从某种意义上来说，她和丘吉尔一样，属于英国上个世纪最伟大的政治家，属于民主队伍中的独裁者。没有他们 ...

I am not sure what you mean here. Churchill was fully in charge over military matters during the war, but for domestic matters, he left most of these to his coalition Labor colleagues, which is good both for him and the country, since he understood little of economics and was a disastrous Chancellor of Exchequer during 1920s. Similarly, during his second time in office from 1951-1955, he concentrated most of his time on foreign policy, leaving domestic policy formulation to the young generation. Especially after suffering a stroke in 1953, he wasn't in charge of most matters. So I am not sure labeling him as a democratic dictator is accurate.

Strong personalities always have the tendency to an authoritarian style. For businesses, this can lead to fantastic results such as Steve Jobs in Apple, or complete disaster with examples abundant. However, for affairs regarding the whole country, I don't think we should accept such risks and completely forego democratic checks and balances. As to your references of Nazis and Hitler, look how well that worked for the Germans. By 1945, millions died, the rest struggling on the brink of starvation, most of the cities were completely destroyed, the country lost large chunks of territory and was divided for more than 40 years. The rule of Hitler was a complete disaster for Germany.

Dracula

洗心 发表于 2013-4-10 16:23
资料， 伦敦前市长，现在洋五毛 JOHN ROSS 对撒切尔的评价
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/773685.sh ...

This is John Ross's biography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ross_(academic)

He was not London mayor himself, but former London mayor Ken Livingston's adviser. Also he is a Trotskyite, so his opinion on Thatcher is not surprising given its being from political far left.

Dracula

洗心  撒切尔对工会下狠手的同时（支持），她对富人的政策究竟如何？ 是基本一碗水端平还是过于偏袒？看到的评论多两极分化，按左右划线没啥干货

From what I read, top income tax marginal rate came down from 83% to 40%, which can be interpreted as benefiting the rich, but can also be read as encouraging entrepreneurship. There was a big bang reform in the City, which made London one of the two global financial centers rivaling New York, and its trading volume even surpassing New York before recent financial crisis. In general, southern England, especially London benefited greatly from her reform, and these are solid Tory territory nowadays. For Northern England and Scotland, these former industrial areas suffered a lot, though not completely due to her policies, globalization played an important part as well. Conservative Party has largely been driven out of these areas. As I remember, Tories did not win a single seat in Scotland during the last general election in 2010. Post Thatcher, income distribution in Britain becomes more unequal, but her policy is only one of the contributing factor and not the determining one, technology change and globalization are more important. As to the class system, from what I read (I only visited Britain once), the country becomes more meritocratic, aristocratic connections and family background matter less. So it is a mixed picture.