[Closed] Explain the "Thatcher" thing to me

We shouldn't fall out over it.

With the greatest of respect, I don't tend to fall out with people unless they make incredibly broad-brush statements, then tell me to calm down.

Inflammatory [i]and[/i] patronising .... guaranteed to get me riled.

I grew up in the sixties in a mining community. The last of the deep pits in our area closed in the sixties, there was some opencast in the seventies, and there are a handfull of drift mines still working these days.
I never voted for Thatcher.
However, I do remember (what became) British Leyland, I do remember the miners' strikes, I do remember the communities split (and I mean families, best friends; deep, deep splits some of which were never to be resolved). It's convenient to blame Thatcher but she knew that the manufacturing industries, the steel industry, the mining industry were losing out to cheaper foreign industries. The unions probably did more damage in speeding up this process than she did.
Where she was wrong IMO was in not supporting the manufacturing industries, not leading by example in buying British, not subsidising British industry in a global market.
She is remembered because she was a strong leader; poltics changed after her leadership - the boundaries between Parties has become blurred, the press and media have a much bigger influence with a much wider audience. The Political Parties try to win elections by cowtowing to the electorate rather than standing up for ideals these days.
So, for me - I didn't vote for her Party. I didn't agree with the nationalisation of the utilities. I do however respect her strength as a leader and believe that the blame for a lot of things that were failing anyway was conveniently laid at her door. As for the Poll Tax, with hindsight it was probably one of the [i]fairest[/i] systems of local taxation proposed but by that time nothing she proposed was going to win her votes.

well, she brought an end to this:

(Spot TJ 😉 )

z11, she also brought some people a load of overtime too........ 😉

Pointless as you need to blame your own parents for your upbringing than a government.

Should we blame your parents for your obvious lack of education? 😐

psling - Member
....It's convenient to blame Thatcher but she knew that the manufacturing industries, the steel industry, the mining industry were losing out to cheaper foreign industries. The unions probably did more damage in speeding up this process than she did....

A view conveniently overlooked by the Fatcha haters was that in many industries, the "right" the unions were fighting for was the right to remain in an unmodernised, unrecontructed work environment that was becoming increasingly vulnerable to cheaper imports &/or more modern production methods.

And so it came to pass, the unions blocked modernisation and their industry fell to the power of foreign competition, but it was all Fatcha's fault, obstructive work practises and stubborn opposition to change played no part in the decline of UK manufacturing and other heavy industries, oh no......

Thesis => antithesis => synthesis => new thesis => etc. How knowledge and experience evolves.

In terms of economic history, the 1970's and 1980s were periods of thesis and antithesis, whereas the 1990's became more of a period of synthesis. [b]As always, both extremes sowed the seeds of their own destruction.[/b] The 1970s were an appalling period for the UK as a whole. Mining was not exempt from this. Miners wages had been crushed by rampant inflation leading to the 1972 call by the NUM for a 45% wage increase to compensate for the loss of earnings previously suffered. Not unreasonable one could argue, but what global industry would survive wage inflation of 45%? We then had Satley...confrontation....miners winning...the Yom Kippur War...the oil shock...an inflation crisis....wage demands/conflict etc.

[so it is worth being sympathetic to those whose lives suffered during those periods]

So Thatcher arrives and takes on the extremes of the 1970s - inflation, union power, increase welfare state, rigid adherence to Keynesian economics (although Callaghan pre-emptied her here) and introduced a different set of extremes laid out in Hayek's, "The Constitution of Liberty". Inflation was targetted via (the extremes of) monetarism, union power/restrictive practices was taken head on leading ultimately to appalling scenes of the Miners strike, the welfare state was attacked with a renewed focus on self-reliance which had its own extreme in "there is no such thing as society.", competition was introduced to the benefit of many before ending in an over-reliance on privatisation and free-markets etc.

[ditto, we should be sympathetic to those who suffered here. Hora, perhaps you did not have personal experience of the personal impact on individuals and communities, so really its not for you to comment on the pain that others still feel here]

The synthesis arrives in New Labour and Mandlesson's infamous line, "we are all Thatcherites now." Politics shifted to a central ground and the good parts of the Thatcher legacy remained and the bad parts rejected. This legacy remains with the real as opposed the rhetorical differences between Labour and Tories being marginal. Political extremes on both sides became and remain marginalised. The responses to the current crisis would have been generally the same whatever party had won the last election but with roles reversed.

The new thesis however was characterised by an unbalanced economy - financial services and public sector - and excess levels of leverage at the household, bank, corporate and sovereign levels. And so we now have a crisis that requires smaller financial services and public sectors and the extremes of leverage to be addressed but in the crisis context of the collapse (and possible re-birth) of the € project. So the new antithesis is represented by extremes in banker-bashing, the over-regulation of financial services, the attacks on the public sector wages and pensions and rhetorical errors such as Cameron's credit card gaffe. As before, this will not be pretty, but hopefully a new synthesis will arrive in time (2016?).

So not all bankers/public sector workers are to be vilified. Many good people are going to suffer through this period irrespective of government policies - as bet your bottom dollar the reaction to the crisis will lead first to extreme policy reactions. [b]Abusing each other and glorifying/celebrating the death of individuals is unlikely to be a solution.[/b]

Perhaps if we had listened to the unions and maintained some of the old working practices rather than looking at the short term cost benefits, we wouldn't have to suffer the longer term [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestige_oil_spill ]damage.[/url]

I do like Ewan McColl

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom ]Relatively balanced outlook on the British economy without all the crap from the pseudo-politicos on this forum who believe that only they know the truth.[/url]

Thatcher can't die. You'd have to be human first.

I remember my dad's expressing the opinion (in the late 80s) that Thatcher did some stuff that needed doing to Britain but ended up going too far in a lot of cases. That view seems to tie in with teamhurtmore's comments above that significant problems often lead to overreactions that fix the problem but create further problems themselves.

I grew up near Aberdeen, which thanks to North Sea oil generally did pretty well throughout the Thatcher years so compared to a lot of people my opinion of her is fairly abstract, though I wouldn't say I'm a big fan.

A view conveniently overlooked by the Fatcha haters was that in many industries, the "right" the unions were fighting for was the right to remain in an unmodernised, unrecontructed work environment that was becoming increasingly vulnerable to cheaper imports &/or more modern production methods.

..and what if she was wrong and the unions were right?

The right most obviously being fought for was the right not to be managed by utter cocks in the main, and clearly the failure to win that argument and her policies have led to a strong thrusting British manufacturing base , where we are so clearly not vulnerable to cheap imports.......hang on..wait a minute! 😯

Ton - I grew up in a former mining town, my Nan worked in a pit canteen. I moved to the former Durham coalfields in the 80's, living in a cat D village.

My village pit, like many of the Durham mining villages, closed in the 60's as the NCB killed all the small pits and embedded its future in deep mine super pits.

I've worked with and been friends with a lot of former miners, and steelworkers, and their families, drank in the same clubs as them, and as a kid I stood on the picket lines with my Dad while another industry fought for its survival. My dad was a union shop steward, and spent a good while blacklisted.

The one thing I've learned through that whole experience is that times move on... All the old boys knew they had been watching the death throws of an industry that was doomed to be a thing of the past, and had been propped up for a long time.

Do you think I revel in what happened to the industries? not one bit - but you cannot blame Thatcher for it all, it was going to happen sooner or later anyway, and whenever it happened, it would have been horrific for those communities -

The death of the small pits in the fifties and sixties was a far greater catastrophe in its sheer scale, and those villages and towns will probably never recover. Mention to someone in the North East the category D villages and you'll hear a tale or two.

Do I blame them for fighting for their survival? of course not, but I do blame sucessive governments for creating whole towns that were essentially ghettoised to reliance on one employer, which is what caused the real pain in the long run, and I do blame the unions for refusing to give an inch, which in the end is what sealed their fate.

Mark my words, we'll see it again, the cotton industry, the rag trade, steel, coal, shipbuilding - the financial industries, callcentres, pharma companies, they'll all close at some point... we need to consider whether our comfortable lifestyle is really sustainable when people in other countries will do the same for a pittance?

It would be nice to see us all have improved lifestyles, but the trickle down effect is currently trickling down to india, bangladesh, china and south america - as we get poorer and less comfortable lifestyles, they will get something gradually slightly better than the abject poverty they've been living in for decades - its not nice for us, but like I say, times move on, and maybe a slight averaging out of our rich western lifestyle to some other countries, in the grand scheme of things, is overdue.

An example of teh shortsightness and blinkered apraoch.

A coal burning power station and a coal mine - near to each other and connected by a railway. The mine produces high quality coal cleanburning coal.

Polish coal exported at a subsidised price is cheap so a contract is made to use this coal instead despite the fact it is dirtier and burns less cleanly. The UK coal mine is shut.
However the cost of the polish coal plus the cost of the miners unemployment benefits is actually higher than the cost of the UK coal

so the total cost to the UK is actually greater, there is a social cost as well in the unemployment, but the electricity is cheaper to produce so the power station can be sold off to create profits for the private sector. The Uk loses money, a state asset and has higher unemployment. A lose / lose situation unless you have the money to buy shares in the now private power station.

so as a result of the blinkered approach to the costs of generating electricity the country is worse off. the balance of payments is worse, people have lost their jobs and the pollution from the station is higher

The unions had a hand in the destruction too. If there had been more compromise the impact would have been lessened. Scargill is just as hateful a character

Do you think I revel in what happened to the industries? not one bit - but you cannot blame Thatcher for it all, [b]it was going to happen sooner or later anyway,[/b] and whenever it happened, it would have been horrific for those communities -

True, but the way it was done with an apparent disregard for the future was callous in the extreme. I've seen nothing in all the years that have since passed that makes me think that the Tory policies of confrontation and repression were justified.

I've no argument with the need to modernise, and I agree that the union leaders needed to bend in the wind - hence my views on the current public sector pensions strike - but to just terminate industries and double the unemployment to 3m was wrong on every level.

Emsz - bet you wish you never asked!

She was very polarizing as you can see from above. I was very definitely an anti Thatcher. She started privatisation of the railway when I was there which was really coming to terms with things in this period on its own by 'sectorisation for a start. (I know John Major was PM when legislation went through in '93).

Last election I did not vote labour because Gordon Brown was complimentary about her not long before the election (voted Lib Dem so I suppose that makes me partly responsible for current problems).

She inspired quite a bit of music, we didn't have FB or twitter to release our tensions, listen to Tramp The Dirt Down (Elvis Costello) Blue (Fine Young Cannibals) Billy Bragg or Christy Moore. [CM is on a boxed set, very eloquent on Reagan / Thatcher when not railing on anti abortion in Ireland etc etc.]

All the above is of course true TJ and there is really no excuse for the way it was done.

They (the unions) were as much to blame as the government of the day, with entirely unreasonable and unsustainable demands, which, along with the rapidly emerging manufacturing industries in the far east, created the circumstances which allowed The Government (not just Thatcher) to behave in the way it did. Coal was only one industry however and many of the problems could have been sorted out if it wasn't for union leaders attempting to take over the running of The Country, which left the Government little option but to 'break' both them, and as a consequence, their members.

Although Thatcher is quite rightly vilified for many of her and her parties actions, little is mentioned of the man, who in my opinion was equally responsible for much of the suffering in coal mining dependant communities, Arthur Scargill. This [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3067563.stm ]BBC link[/url] explains it quite well.

thatchers main agenda was to destroy the power and right of working class people.
and by destroying the countries most powerfull union, she managed to do this.
hatefull spitefull woman, who acted on her own twisted agenda without a thought for anyone.

A few years ago I was managing a business where it looked very likely that we were going to become unionised to a fair amount of panic amonsgt my colleagues in the boardroom. We got ACAS in and I'll never forget the guy who came down to see us. Completely straightfaced he sat there and told my MD that "you will only get a union if you deserve one"....folowed a few seconds later by "I reckon its going to happen from what I've seen". I had to feign a coughing fit to get past that moment.

Never a truer word spoken in my experience. Think about it, if you're working for a good caring employer who plays a straight bat with you, why would you want to pay to be represented by a union? Thats as true at a national level as it is at a organisational one. So then think about the industrial troubles under Tory governments in recent times. Bad crews or bad captains? Pretty sure I know the answer.

along with the rapidly emerging manufacturing industries in the far east,

PS: Having been one of the first companies to seriously trade in China, which is what you are talking about, (India/Taiwan/Japan/Phillipines etc had been going like 10 men for some time before Thatcher), I'm here to tell you that the boom from there did not really pick up speed until almost 10 years after Thatcher came to power. In the main British companies at the time did not want to do business there because it was notoriously difficult and unreliable. Ultimately we had little choice because of the disasterous state of the UK economy largely caused by selling off utilities and things like coal and steel.

Relatively balanced outlook on the British economy without all the crap from the pseudo-politicos on this forum who believe that only they know the truth.

Interesting comment on that link

However, Mrs Thatcher's modernisation of the British economy was far from trouble free; [b]her battle against inflation resulted in mass unemployment with the jobless count passing 3,000,000 by the start of 1982 compared to 1,500,000 three years previously.[/b] This was in part due to the closure of outdated factories and coalpits which were no longer economically viable; this process continued for most of the rest of the decade. [b]Unemployment peaked at nearly 3,300,000 during 1984 before falling dramatically in the final three years of the decade, standing at just over 1,600,000 by the end of 1989[/b]

So the closures of all the various industries mentioned drove the unemployment up to 3,300,000.

However by the end of the decade the unemployment figures were back down to almost the level seen before all the closures.

So, genuine question, either all those that lost their jobs as part of the closures

a) found new work

or

b) retired

or

c) the figures were seriously doctored and reclassified

So if she permanently devestated the country, why did unemployment figures drop back to the level they were at before her evil crusade?

Figures were doctored. the way unemployment was counted was changed frequently reducing the headline numbers dramaticaly

because everyone got a job in a call centre

Ton - bus ask yourself why? Arguably (oh, no!!) she came to power in response (among other things) to a union movement whose main agenda was to destroy the power of businesses and entrepreneurs. And by destroying governments (Wilson, Callaghan and Heath) and industries, they managed to do this. Hateful, spiteful people (seems extreme, but...?), who acted on their own twisted agenda without a thought for anyone.

BB - I like that: "Completely straightfaced he sat there and told my MD that "you will only get a union if you deserve one".

Figures were doctored. the way unemployment was counted was changed frequently reducing the headline numbers dramaticaly

Doctored enough to wipe millions off the figures? Again, genuine question. I do know the way of classifying unemployed was changed but it must have been a hell of a change to shave millions off the top.

Even now I hoard and worry over money

*splutters coffee over screen*

With the amount you spunk over frames, forks etc?

Back on topic.

If there is a hell, then Thatcher *and* Scargill will be gaffer taped in a loving embrace for all eternity whilst evil little pixies poke them with hot sticks.

Berm Bandit

Not just talking just about China, as the others you mention were still 'emerging'. I was working in the oil industry at the time and I remember a tender for a semi-submersible rig being awarded to an Indian shipyard. They built two for less than a UK or other Western builder was willing to build one.

Doctored enough to wipe millions off the figures? Again, genuine question. I do know the way of classifying unemployed was changed but it must have been a hell of a change to shave millions off the top.

Yep, also take a look at the numbers claiming incapacity benefit.

TJ - your claims aren't supportable - according to the ONS:

Economic inactivity trends
[i]Data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS)
back to 1971 show that the overall inactivity
rate has remained fairly stable over the
period, even though there have been
notable variations in the economic cycle.
Despite this stability, there have been some
distinctive changes in the composition of
the economically inactive group.
Unless otherwise stated, analysis in this
article is based on those aged 16 and over
and below state pension age (that is, 60 for
women and 65 for men).
Th e total number of economically
inactive people in the UK stood at 7.9
million for the three months to September
2008, a rise of around 864,000 since
the beginning of 1971. Despite this, the
economic inactivity rate has remained
stable over this period because the total
population for this age group has also
increased.
Figure 1 shows that the proportion of the
population who were economically inactive
fl uctuated around 21 and 22 per cent
throughout the 1970s. Inactivity increased
during the early 1980s’ recession, with the
rate reaching 23 per cent during the fi rst half
of 1983. As the economy improved in the
1980s, the rate fell to around 19.3 per cent.
However, the recession in the 1990s drove
the rate back up to the level experienced in
the 1970s. In the three months to September
2008, the economic inactivity rate was 20.9
per cent (down by 0.2 percentage points
from a year earlier).[/i]

If large numbers of people had been pushed off the unemlpoyment figures onto, for example, long term sick, then it would show in the economic inactivity figures.

f large numbers of people had been pushed off the unemlpoyment figures onto, for example, long term sick, then it would show in the economic inactivity figures.

so what about the millions on youth opportunity schemes or enterprise allowance schemes ? millions of people massaged off the UB totals but still financed by the govt. and with no chance of full time employment at the end.

BB - good points and question and an important marker for the next few years. There is no doubt that UN was a direct consequence of T policies and marked the transition in the structure of the UK economy. This is shown by the bell-shaped curve of UN. In time, supply side reforms helped the private sector to absorb some of the losses of the private sector but with a painful lag. So this was the period that went from a Keynesian inspired state-oriented to a more enterprise oriented economy (see Zulu's personal experiences above).

Gordon Brown's version of Keynesian economics was less extreme and hopefully the repercussions on the public sector will also be less so. But the government is dreaming if it thinks that the private sector is going to pick up the slack in the immediate future. So we will see the same bell curve again. Two losers - financial services and public sector - the new winners - answers on a postcard...!!

BoardinBob - Member

There are certain members of this forum who would swear that black was white because it fitted with their predictable, short sighted and narrow minded politcal views.

Unfortunately the OP asked a question that you will never get a correct answer to (Have you read some of the religeous threads?).

Politicians are all scum who, as Jessa says, should be shot in front of their families, for crimes against humanity.

I don't remember a great deal about the 70's due to my age but do remember the constant power cuts, my dad coming home from work because he couldn't do any work, sitting by the windows in school to be able to read books and boxes of candles. Pretty miserable really not the rose tinted version offered by many on here. A view that is reflected by many others [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6729683.stm ]here[/url]

Emsz, like someone else has said look back at history before and after Thatcher and make your own mind up.

because everyone got a job in a call centre

Zulu-Eleven - Member
TJ - your claims aren't supportable

Boarding bob - yes. Probably reduced the count by 25% or more. 20+ alterations to how the numbers wer counted each time reducingthe headline figure

16 and 17 year olds removed from it. Entitlement to benefits was cut - you used to get a benefit if you were out of work no matter what - but it became means tested so if one person in a houshold was unemployed they got no benefit so did not appear in the count. YTS and so on removed from the count. Students lost entilement to benifits in teh summer hols so they came off the count.
etc etc

you used to get a benefit if you were out of work no matter what - but it became means tested so if one person in a houshold was unemployed they got no benefit so did not appear in the count. YTS and so on removed from the count. Students lost entilement to benifits in teh summer hols so they came off the count.

students used to be able to claim benefits in the summer hols ?

FFS.

She had some great friends and allies around the world who's beliefs she defended steadfastly

she wouldn't have a bad word said against them

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Back in the days of grants, yes. The grant only covered you for term time. (And you didn't have to pay it back either. I did demonstrate against the introduction of student loans...)

Why wait til she'd dead, celebrate her now at

http://www.maggies-club.com/#http://www.maggies-club.com#

Actually looks aright for those of a certain age... which is, thinking about it probably, too old tooo party...

http://www.squaremeal.co.uk/restaurants/london/view/104226/Maggi e's

In a Jeremy Clarkson type comment 😆

All those people who voted for her should be took outside and shot lol

and on the other side of the fence all those who did well out of her will no doubt wish that all those who lost there jobs because of her and had to become dole scum (in there views )should have been shot so the money spent on there unemployment could have been saved as f*** them we are ok type of society we became.

On a serious point when she departs down to hell we might at last find out the full truth about the Hillsbough dissaster .

jota180 - Member
She had some great friends and allies around the world....

...as do many politicians

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Hmm: don't suppose I would have gone self-employed ('86) or bought a flat ('88) in a different climate than was prevelent in Thatcher's Britain. Worth remembering though that VAT went from 7.5% to 17.5%..so much dor reducing taxes; also the interest rate on my mortgage soon went up to 13%! That nearly finished me off.
I do echo the sentiments about generations of folk who have never had jobs, but at the same time know that you can't cure the ills of soceity by throwing money at them, the will to better your life has to come from within the individual (accept it's way harder to do this if you've never had a leg up from anyone and only ever had poor role models amongst peers and family).