Who was more hated during their reign: Tony Blair or Margret Thatcher?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not quite a parody thread. Thatcher never pissed off her own voter base quite as much, maybe? Did she ever have to rely on opposition parties to get things through? Not that those things really define popular opinion.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:37 (nineteen years ago)

Thatcher's approval ratings at the end of her reign were 2% lower than Blair's at the end of his.

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:38 (nineteen years ago)

she lasted longer though.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:38 (nineteen years ago)

Thatcher by a mile. Blair may be unpopular but he never had people rioting in the street.

― Matt DC, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:39 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, in terms of political blunders the poll tax was much worse than Iraq.

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:39 (nineteen years ago)

A better thread would be Blair vs Wilson.

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:39 (nineteen years ago)

Thatcher polarised people a lot more. I'd say probably 55% of the country despised and 45% loved her.

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:40 (nineteen years ago)

by 2007 did anyone love Blair? look at the mean and it'd average out maybe.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:41 (nineteen years ago)

absolutely. i dont really think blair is hated. blair hasnt provoked hatred, hes provoked disllusionment and resignation, certainly among his core base

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:41 (nineteen years ago)

Thatcher's approval ratings when she was kicked out were 24%. Even the Tory faithful were abandoning her at that point.

xxp

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:41 (nineteen years ago)

thing is, he may well get away with his 'legacy' in tact, particularly if the economy tanks in the next couple of years, after he is gone. all depends on iraq though, for his 'legacy'

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:43 (nineteen years ago)

thatcher was dead in the water, blair can say he walked away at top of his game (whether true or not isnt really the point, it will 'become' more true, with distance)

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:43 (nineteen years ago)

Hated i guess is the wrong word... did anyone shed a tear yesterday though? apart from JohnPrescott/AlastairCampbell/PeterMandelson/CharlesClarketcetc

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:43 (nineteen years ago)

To the Q: Hah!

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:44 (nineteen years ago)

his 'legacy' in tact

Yes, being tactful is what he will be remembered for

― Nasty, Brutish & Short, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:44 (nineteen years ago)

when was the last time a UK PM left office on his own terms?

― Alan, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:46 (nineteen years ago)

Wilson? (ahem)

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:47 (nineteen years ago)

Well, Wilson left because of his creeping (possibly justified) paranoia.

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:47 (nineteen years ago)

What I'm wondering is this: did he actually have a choice re: Iraq? The way he was on Clinton's side (democrat, seems logical) and then also on Bush's side (republican, huh?) was a bit "hold on, what does that Special Relationship ACTUALLY mean, behind the screens? That the UK, no matter who's in charge, is always on the US's side, no matter who's in charge there?"

― StanM, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:50 (nineteen years ago)

of course

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:51 (nineteen years ago)

yep.

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:52 (nineteen years ago)

which is why he might get away with, depending how the future unfolds.

and that'll have been his gamble all along anyway

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:52 (nineteen years ago)

that wasn't always the case though was it. we didn't got into vietnam and i'm sure there's more examples.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:53 (nineteen years ago)

Blair is hated by pretty big swathes of the country, especially in rural areas.

― Matt DC, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:56 (nineteen years ago)

The right-wing hate a (nominally) left-wing leader isn't really a story though, right?

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:59 (nineteen years ago)

is that right hating or wrong hating though?

crosspost

― RJG, Friday, 11 May 2007 09:59 (nineteen years ago)

i dont think thats actual hate, or is about blair specifically, its just rhetoric

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:00 (nineteen years ago)

rural =/ right wing. such a sad meme.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:00 (nineteen years ago)

Then nor is the left's hatred of thatcher.

― Ed, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:01 (nineteen years ago)

Just because you're from the sticks xp.

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:01 (nineteen years ago)

thatcher wasnt hated because she was on the rightwing, thatcher was hated because of specifics, that directly affected peoples live (industry, mines, polltax etc). ie, england changed during thatchers reign, it didnt during blairs reign. change is always going to be traumatic

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:03 (nineteen years ago)

i lived in manchester for a while toward the end of thatcher, ca. '90, and the general vibe there was like people under occupation. anger and fear mixed with righteous determination to overcome. even nyc under bush ii doesn't compare. i haven't been in the u.k. for years, but has blair really generated anything like that? i can see disgust and disappointment, but i guess i'd be surprised if anyone was giving him the kind of rank revulsion and hatred i saw toward maggie.

― tipsy mothra, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:04 (nineteen years ago)

england will probably keep changing

crosspost

― RJG, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:06 (nineteen years ago)

it's kinda true but the cow milkers used to read the mirror in the '60s and '70s. no one milks cows these days. well, not so much.

xp

tbh in the shires during the fuel crisis, foot and mouth and the big countryside alliance march the hate was kinda palable. i guess it wasn't the same as during thatcher but a whole bunch of people felt very, very wronged.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:06 (nineteen years ago)

You see the Britain of 96 as being similar to the Britain of 07 then Six, or do you see the differences as being solely cultural?

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:06 (nineteen years ago)

well, i think there has obviously been change, but its been gradual, insidious, incremental - which partly contributes to disillusionment rather than hatred. fast past changed is visceral, immediate, but more importantly, it seems fightable. incremental change seems inevitable, almost without directors

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:11 (nineteen years ago)

Here on the smaller neighbouring island, Blair was being feted yesterday for his work on Northern Ireland. People in Britain may not care much about it now, and it might have been overshadowed by Iraq, but it's still a big deal here. Therefore from our point of view, Blair is miles better than Thatcher.

― accentmonkey, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:13 (nineteen years ago)

the thing i find interesting is how much of his own side he alienated, as intimated up thread it took thatcher a lot longer to truly lose her heartland. the double whammy of iraq and tuition fees is gonna kill the young (middle class?) vote for at least a generation. and the unions not that they'd switch parties but he fair pissed them off right.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:19 (nineteen years ago)

As the local elections proved, that doesn't mean anything until the Lib Dems are electable.

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:20 (nineteen years ago)

did anyone shed a tear yesterday though?

I started to cry yesterday, watching his speech, but I didn't really understand why. I don't think it was out of pity for Blair and I'm certainly not sad to see him go. His insistence that he had acted in good faith over Iraq just seemed so inadequate, and as if he was clutching at straws, desperately trying to convince himself that he had done the right thing despite all evidence. I think it was the bit where he said "for some people, it could never be worth it" that made me cry. It seemed as close as he could get to an admission of failure and error.

What Blair really wants us to believe is that his heart was in the right place, that he isn't a bad or dishonest person. His insistence on constantly repeating that he acted in good conscience makes me furious. It wasn't up to him to ignore the rest of the world and act on his own instinct. He doesn't have a Presidential mandate to direct the country according to his own personal conscience. What should I care if he truly believed everything he was saying? I am judging him by his actions, not the state of his soul.

― Cathy, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:22 (nineteen years ago)

Blair was always 'inclusive'

Thatch was 'let's parcel up the whole nation and feed it to 'our' kind of people'.

That's why the hatred.

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:23 (nineteen years ago)

it means the tories will be safe for 10 or so years, possibly. maybe that's a bit hysterical but it means something.

xp

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:24 (nineteen years ago)

Re: Ireland: how much was his work?

George Mitchell was on (CNN, I think) yesterday, talking about how he called up Ahern and Blair, telling them they had to come over and sign this Good Friday thing asap, after he had worked on it for months and it looked ready, and they both did come over without reservations, which was why Blair had been so important for Irish peace process.

― StanM, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

As soon as the LibDems are 'electable' they'll drop most of those fluffy vaguely leftish credentials.

This is a moot point because they are not going to become electable in at least the next ten years. They had their chance to make up serious ground and they blew it.

― Matt DC, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

Cathy otm. I felt the same yesterday, and the 'hand on heart' bit was the bit that left me absolutely seething. It reminded me of Big Bro contestants saying 'yeah I may have punched him in the face but I was just being me/just doing what felt right' - does not excuse or even properly explain the actions. And it was at this point that I thought perhaps I dislike him almost as much as I do Thatcher.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:37 (nineteen years ago)

its the 'i generation' and the 'feel' generation. i do what i think feels right to me. bush is the same too. you dont have to justify anything, it just feels right, and it comes from the heart, and you'll just have to trust me

― 696, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:38 (nineteen years ago)

I mean, all those kids on asbos etc won't now get away with everything they do if they just say: "Hand on heart, I did what I felt/thought was right."

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:40 (nineteen years ago)

Well, actually...

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:40 (nineteen years ago)

what, have Asbos gone RIP now?

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:41 (nineteen years ago)

and they both did come over without reservations, which was why Blair had been so important for Irish peace process.

Right. It was partly an attitude (which of course was partly due to the HUGE work done by John Major before him) of being prepared to work the thing through, and partly a determination on his part that no matter how unfashionable it became to stick at it, he was going to stick at it. Bertie Ahern was praising him yesterday for having personally worked on drafting certain parts of the current policing bill. I don't know how true that is.

As Mister Monkey pointed out, the IRA never tried to blow up Tony Blair, so you could see why he would have a different attitude to the peace process to Thatcher's attitude, but on the other hand, the IRA didn't want to blow up Tony Blair, because he never thought they and their entire community were crawling scumbags in the same way she always appeared to think.

― accentmonkey, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:43 (nineteen years ago)

at least she thought about them and their entire communities

― RJG, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:45 (nineteen years ago)

I have no idea what that means.

― accentmonkey, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:46 (nineteen years ago)

"He doesn't have a Presidential mandate to direct the country according to his own personal conscience."

and of course he doesn't. but he does have the power to persuade his parties MPs, and a vote was taken in parliament by MPs.

― Alan, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:47 (nineteen years ago)

Every time "she" appointed a minister for Northern Island, it was in the spirit of "I hate you, hope you die!"

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:49 (nineteen years ago)

she didn't often think of people and their communities

― RJG, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:49 (nineteen years ago)

The answer is obviously Thatcher. Blair inspired more in the way of seething resentment than the out-and-out rage provoked by Maggie.

― braveclub, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:53 (nineteen years ago)

thatch was hated almost as much for being a woman in authority* as she was for her damaging policies, something which seems to have been forgotten, somewhat curiously. the whole "handbag" thing, ffs.

* ok, by differing groups of ppl, to some extent....

― Grandpont Genie, Friday, 11 May 2007 10:55 (nineteen years ago)

I have a lot of trouble reconciling Blair with his bad actions because I can just about believe he didn't really want to make Iraq/NHS/society/whatever worse and whatnot but he ended up out of his depth after unprecedented, unexpected situations and had to follow v muddy longlong-term 'damage limitation' escape routes. Did he have much tougher situations to deal with than Thatcher - at least internationally? Seems that way to me - maybe it's just that Thatcher was herself tougher (not a good thing in this case).

― blueski, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:01 (nineteen years ago)

he does have the power to persuade his parties MPs, and a vote was taken in parliament by MPs.

Blair allowed his own personal conviction that the war was necessary to become an irrational acceptance of very biased evidence of a WMD threat. Some MPs voted in favour of the war because they believed it was a humanitarian intervention, but I think the majority did so because they believed that Blair had some reason to claim that Saddam was an imminent threat other than willing self-delusion.

Of course, these MPs must bear the responsibility for allowing themselves to be convinced. They should have been listening to wider opinion rather than allowing themselves to be swept up in Blair's conviction.

It reminded me of Big Bro contestants saying 'yeah I may have punched him in the face but I was just being me/just doing what felt right' - does not excuse or even properly explain the actions.

OTM too.

― Cathy, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:20 (nineteen years ago)

Did he have much tougher situations to deal with than Thatcher - at least internationally? Seems that way to me

Thatcher was a Cold War prime minister. Surely the threat of all-out nuclear war was a little more consequential than anything Al Qaeda could throw at us? Also Thatcher was almost blown up by the IRA. Also, during her time sovereign British territory was invaded by a foreign power.

As for Iraq, since it was totally a war of choice, it wasn't a "tough situation" for Blair until he made it so.

― underpants of the gods, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:23 (nineteen years ago)

re the "woman in authority" hate, is this a general thing or to do with her clashes with the miners who i suppose could be portrayed as old fashioned in regards to identity politics? someone was telling me at the weekend about how when gay groups tried to protest with the miners they got bricks hurled at them. who was it that most responsible for the "PC-ization" of labour movements?

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

I've constructed a tally chart in my mind of all the changes the Labour government has made to the country/world in the last ten years, with a column alongside with ticks and crosses next to the things I think the Tories would or wouldn't have done if they'd been in power, eg. I think they would have gone into Iraq as well. OK, I accept this is my own personal hypothesis and nothing can be proven. However, I'm still left with a a significant list of good stuff Labour have done which I'm fairly sure the Conservatives wouldn't have done and another list of bad stuff I suspect the Conservatives would have done, which Labour haven't. I really ought to put this list on paper and run it by a few people whose opinions I trust, just to be sure, but nonetheless I'm 99.9999% certain I'd take Blair over Thatcher thankyouverymuch.

― Madchen, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

See the front of today's Independant.

― Mark G, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:48 (nineteen years ago)

That's my list! I wish they hadn't printed it in red so I could use red pen on it. It'll have to be tory blue.

― Madchen, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:50 (nineteen years ago)

Well yeah, policy-wise on just about everything I'd take Blair over Thatcher. But my levels of dislike for the characters of Blair and Thatcher have become closer to being equal than I thought they would.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:51 (nineteen years ago)

Hm, perhaps not on 'just about everything'. Perhaps on a few things. I'd sooner have had neither.

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:53 (nineteen years ago)

Also, if I had to snog one or the other... ARGH!

― Madchen, Friday, 11 May 2007 12:01 (nineteen years ago)

I had to cope with such thoughts for a moment when I read back what I'd said there about sooner having 'had' neither. *spew*

― Zoe Espera, Friday, 11 May 2007 12:02 (nineteen years ago)

Thatcher was a Cold War prime minister. Surely the threat of all-out nuclear war was a little more consequential than anything Al Qaeda could throw at us? Also Thatcher was almost blown up by the IRA. Also, during her time sovereign British territory was invaded by a foreign power.

But these things are all "easy" from a policy point of view. Clear-cut enemies who can be painted as being in the wrong very easily, making aggression on the PM's part much easier to justify.

I think I agree with the idea that Blair got out of his depth.

― accentmonkey, Friday, 11 May 2007 12:52 (nineteen years ago)

in the sense of cosying up to W or in the sense of developing a mesianic streak after kosvo intervention?

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 13:32 (nineteen years ago)

not that those thing are necessarily exclusive. thinking he could bend wolfowitz and cheney et al to his will i guess his biggest mistake. but it's all there in the 1997 manifesto: whatever works innit.

― acrobat, Friday, 11 May 2007 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.