Twenty Five years since Margret Thatcher came to power

[PMC]

Just noticed in the news that it's been a quarter century since Margaret Thatcher came to power in the UK.

Seeing as it looks like a controversial topic I was interested in perspectives from both Brits and other nationalities about their views on legacies of Thatcherism...

Let the debate begin!

[KennyR]

Apart from all the unemployment, inflation, poll tax, death of British Industry, milk snatching, social deprivation of a scale not seen since the 40s, complete and total inability to compromise, IRA troubles, and ultranationalist flag waving, she was okay.

No, I'm lying. Neither she or her government had a single redeeming feature.

[mikeymike]

KennyR, your bias is starting to get tiring.

[KennyR]

Bias? Which parts of that are untrue?

Thatcher was a radical who decided to try out a system of politics on Britain that had failed before in the past, and failed again under her. After the first three years of her government alone, unemployment reached levels not seen since the depression of the 30s. Fact, not bias. This was not accidental but a ploy she used to keep down the inflation caused by her deregulation of the stock market. Fact. She mindlessly continued with monetarism through thick and thin, wrecking the industries that employed most of the poorer part of the nation. Fact. It was during her rule that it became acceptable to live off social benefit as a living. Fact.

There is one main reason she stayed in power. She discovered the secret to popularity: show the flag and say lots of nice things about Britain. If it wasn't for the victory in the Falklands and ineffectualness of the Labour opposition at the time, the civil disturbances her policies raked up would have ended up with her booted out. As it was we had to endure 15 long, hard years of her, and we have the neds and chavs to show for it.

[Glaucus]

All Kenny said, plus she was rather hard to look at! I suppose back then plastic surgery wasn't what it is today, but she has no excuse for that hair!!! :pissed:

:-D

- Mike

[mikeymike]

Like for example how the unions had a huge amount of influence over the government, strikes resulting in streets covered in litter? Yeah she screwed up big time in a few ways, but she also fixed some of the issues introduced by Labour. Ok, so ditching UK industries is a mistake, but what was labour doing about the severe problems manifesting in those areas?

You talk like Labour is perfect and always has been.

Sadly I wonder whether Douglas Adams was right about politics, having the most incompetent person in power so they can do the least damage :-)

But the point of my last post is that you're playing the same record way too often. Try to think of something interesting to point out, something that people would be more surprised to hear you say. There's little point in having a forum where everyone says the same thing over and over again.

[Wilse]

I'm with Kenny on this one.

we have the neds and chavs to show for it.

For something a bit more lighthearted, go here:

http://www.chavscum.co.uk/howto.html

[Cyberus]

:lol:
Ah man, what a topic. Just something else for the pot: Thatcher created a large middle-class, or at least espoused the middle-class idealogy, hence why those in the most prosperous areas of the UK tend to be materialist, neighbourhood watch, monarchist, bmw driving, 'my lawn is greener than yours' Conservative voters [to use a Kenny-ism for effect].
Also, it is these middle classes who prospered most from the stock market and property boom, including the most recent one (assuming prudent investing of course), whilst our industry fell apart in Scotland, the North of England and Wales; Industries that were huge, industries which Britain excelled at. At one point we made something like half of the world's ships, we exported steel and coal, our manufacturing enjoyed the prestige that countries like Germany and Scandanavia countries still have today.

Whole towns and cities worsened socially almost overnight. Where there was once community, there are now drugs, violence, unemployment, poor education [THE most important public service IMO], poor hospitals, no hope...

Even in the South-East, we seem to have no rural economy, no fishing industry (true of whole of UK), not really much manufacturing, in fact, nothing but service industries - soon to be outsourced to India no doubt...

This current government has just made a bad situation worse. They have failed to deal with immigration properly, which has only fuelled the support of far-right groups, they have proved to be just as dishonest and corrupt as the last government, if not worse, they have done nothing for our public services or infrastructure - I thought 'socialists' cared? They took us to war on the pretext of a lie, and for the first time in my life, I feel ashamed to be British.

[KennyR]

Mikeymike wrote:
Yeah she screwed up big time in a few ways, but she also fixed some of the issues introduced by Labour. Ok, so ditching UK industries is a mistake, but what was labour doing about the severe problems manifesting in those areas?

Nothing. They needed to be replaced, and the country needed to swing back to the commercial right. I know as well as anyone what the UK was like in the 70s; the economy was stagnating, the unions ran industry like crime bosses, and the government monopolised on too many things that people should have been able to have choice in.

Thatcher removed a lot of government monopolies, for instance giving people the right to buy council homes. She brought back vitality to the market by making it more attractive for people to invest. She redemocratised the unions (although not on purpose...). She brought back national pride, and probably if Kinnock had been in power in 1982 the Falkland islanders would be driving on the other side of the road and taking siesta.

But these achievements will be forever overshadowed by the negative things she did, the biggest of which was the inability to compromise, either with her politics, her political rivals, or with the two distinct classes she was making. If that lady had been for turning, we might have had a stronger, happier Britain.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Cyberus wrote:
:lol:
Ah man, what a topic. Just something else for the pot: Thatcher created a large middle-class, or at least espoused the middle-class idealogy, hence why those in the most prosperous areas of the UK tend to be materialist, neighbourhood watch, monarchist, bmw driving, 'my lawn is greener than yours' Conservative voters:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
that's truly an understatement
I've been in the suburbs of London....
btw. BMW is passé, you have to drive 4wd and have two or more horses, for the 'countryside effect'

[The_Editor]

I'm with Kenny on this one too.

Geography was one of my strong subjects at school but I'd never heard of the Falklands before 1982 !!

I lived and worked through all that "Thatcherism" materialistic crap.

As a newly wed starting a family I can assure you all, I was lucky ... I never went to the wall.

My younger brother however ... Anyone heard of negative equity ?

Monthly Mortgage payments of £800 :-o (mine still isn't that today after "upgrading" to a better house!!)

Thousand upon thousands of homes reposessed.

Fuel .. Our own North Sea Oil had just come on stream.
We should've had the lowest fuel prices in Europe. ..Where the hell did all that revenue go ?

Well I bet a sizable chunk went to the media ..To help Thatchers Divide & Conquer techniques.

EG: I hated Scargill guts but I'd never met the bloke, Why ?

Because of the influence of the media.

And : Most importantly: EVERYTHING he said would happen....

DID !! :-o


Yes .. I remember my younger brother coming to us in tears having posted his house keys through the Building Society's door. ( The worst possible thing he could have done ~ financially).


I'll end this by saying .. i am NOT a Labour supporter although I will readily admit to strategic voting at that time to get the Buggers out.


As a side note...

Imagine the horrendous mess Labour were to find GB .co.uk were really in.

And, They couldn't admit England was in such a mess .. Stock markets would tumble... etc . ( you get the idea).

[The_Editor]

This current government has just made a bad situation worse. They have failed to deal with immigration properly, which has only fuelled the support of far-right groups, they have proved to be just as dishonest and corrupt as the last government, if not worse, they have done nothing for our public services or infrastructure - I thought 'socialists' cared? They took us to war on the pretext of a lie, and for the first time in my life, I feel ashamed to be British.

Come the next election a whole new generation come on "stream".

I think you will find such radical political groups such as BNP increasing their numbers substantially.

Dark times ARE ahead. :-o

[mikeymike]

Nothing. They needed to be replaced, and the country needed to swing back to the commercial right. I know as well as anyone what the UK was like in the 70s; the economy was stagnating, the unions ran industry like crime bosses, and the government monopolised on too many things that people should have been able to have choice in.
Thatcher removed a lot of government monopolies, for instance giving people the right to buy council homes. She brought back vitality to the market by making it more attractive for people to invest. She redemocratised the unions (although not on purpose...). She brought back national pride, and probably if Kinnock had been in power in 1982 the Falkland islanders would be driving on the other side of the road and taking siesta.
But these achievements will be forever overshadowed by the negative things she did, the biggest of which was the inability to compromise, either with her politics, her political rivals, or with the two distinct classes she was making. If that lady had been for turning, we might have had a stronger, happier Britain.
So she did do some good stuff then, so you're willing to admit that what you originally said was inaccurate? I think you can give a more balanced opinion if you want to, which is more than can be said for a lot of people who have strong political opinions, but I think you damage your side of the argument by not being more balanced.

- back to the point -

I also wonder whether it is possible for a government leader to do great good without screwing up big time as well. I'm not a Thatcher supporter, nor do I think she did 'great good', but she did fix some things at the cost of others.

One thing I'm fairly sure rings true is that in UK politics, the longer a government stays in, the more corrupt they get. I think we need to have a faster government turnover :-)

I don't think 'dark times are ahead', but I think a faster government turnover is inevitable. I think a lot of people will vote Tory to get rid of Labour, and vice versa come the election after that.

[Fade]

@ The Editor
"Where the hell did all that revenue go ?"
--------------

If it was like in the US, it went into every socialist program the Democrats could dream up.

I sometimes think they wouldn't have stopped until they found a way to put a government worker on the payroll to wipe your a** for you.

[KennyR]

Fade wrote:
Where the hell did all that revenue go ?"
--------------

If it was like in the US, it went into every socialist program the Democrats could dream up.

Maggie put money into socialist programs?!? You must be kidding!

If you want to know where most of the revenue went, it went into paying unemployment benefit for the three million unemployed in the UK. Not even Thatcher could cross the line and cut benefits, unlike Reagan.

Oh, and there was the money leaked out of the country by various scams into island tax havens, a favourite pastime among the millionaire classes in the deregulated commercial atmosphere.

[The_Editor]

Indeed.

Didn't her wayward son suddenly become a millionaire ?

Something to do with Arms trading as well ?

[Fade]

@ KennyR
"If you want to know where most of the revenue went, it went into paying unemployment benefit for the three million unemployed in the UK. Not even Thatcher could cross the line and cut benefits, unlike Reagan."
-----------------

Kenny, who fed you that line of crap?

In the US, unemployment is paid into a fund that is administrated at the state level, not federal. Reagan couldn't have cut it even if he wanted to.

We do have a federal unemployment program, but it doesn't come into play for the average worker. It is normally only used when a whole class of workers lose jobs because a foreign country is trying to flood our market with a particular product; and then only after you have used up all your state benefits.

[BADHead]

It will be a day to Celebrate for the North when the {bleep} is DEAD.

[PMC]

mikeymike wrote:
KennyR, your bias is starting to get tiring.


Bias?

Seems a pretty accurate analysis of Thatcher's time in power to me. I'm interested in people's perspectives here.

[PMC]

mikeymike wrote:
Like for example how the unions had a huge amount of influence over the government, strikes resulting in streets covered in litter? Yeah she screwed up big time in a few ways, but she also fixed some of the issues introduced by Labour. Ok, so ditching UK industries is a mistake, but what was labour doing about the severe problems manifesting in those areas?



In the 70's under Callaghan, Britain was virtually held to ransom by the trade unions. Something needed to be done, and the Miner's strike in 1984/5 was an example of a battle between the Tories and the old guard. However it became a battle of ideologies that Thatcher HAD to win, regardless of whether it was the right thing to do. The political symbolism of beating a union was too great a prize to miss.



You talk like Labour is perfect and always has been.

Sadly I wonder whether Douglas Adams was right about politics, having the most incompetent person in power so they can do the least damage :-)

But the point of my last post is that you're playing the same record way too often. Try to think of something interesting to point out, something that people would be more surprised to hear you say. There's little point in having a forum where everyone says the same thing over and over again.


Well, I have to say that mikeymike was right about his comments on the policy of monetarism. Short term economic boom was the goal in the 80s with little thought being made about the consequences in the 90s. Yes, unemployment did reach record levels in Britain during the early 80s. Yes, MT did appear to pay little attention to the social issues in Britain at the time.

[AccyD]

PMC wrote:
Yes, MT did appear to pay little attention to the social issues in Britain at the time.


I disagree - I thnk that she felt that she was doing the best for the country by trying to improve the economic situation so more people could enter the workforce. This would have benefitted everyone, through lower taxes, and less crime & better standards of living.

What paople always seem to remember is the union busting activities and the initial pain under monetarism, we needed this to reform the archaic labour market (look at France & Germany now), we went from the sick man of Europe to the leading light because of the reforms she set in motion.

As proof of the success of her reforms, look at the limits the EU is looking to force upon our workforce to make us less competitive so that France & Germany can compete - without Thatcher we would have been a much poorer country today.

[KennyR]

AccyD wrote:
...without Thatcher we would have been a much poorer country today.

I don't think so. Most of the prosperity of the 80s came from the North Sea oilfields. What Thatcher did was allow everyone with cash to simply snatch away all the UK's services, slash them up and suck out the cash, and restore them as inferior and poor quality private services. This impoverished Britain, especially the inner cities.

Compare Thatcher's monetarism with the current UK economy. The economy is thriving like no time post-Empire, and unemployment is at a record low (even if the actual figure is cynically faked). The government do this by juggling regulation and deregulation to suit, and not following monetarist or socialist rules to the point of dogma. Opening up the European market could result in the most prosperous days the UK has ever seen. It's done well for us so far. Thatcher on the other hand was more interested in trading with the Americans - whose market is, by their own admission, very self-centred.

Thatcher was not interested in social issues because society is not part of the monetarist doctrine. Whether she really thought that leaving the market to govern itself and end up in the hands of tycoons would help everyone in the long run, or simply didn't care, I'll never know.

[AccyD]

KennyR wrote:
Compare Thatcher's monetarism with the current UK economy. The economy is thriving like no time post-Empire, and unemployment is at a record low

Yes but the economy is thriving today, prescisely because of the reforms that Thatcher and her Govt put into place. The 20yrs prior to her accession to power was a period dominated by strikes and strong trade unions, making any form of growth almost impossible, by "breaking" these groups she enabled a more prosperous country as people could rely upon the essential services (such as waste removal, power when you need it), allowing them to think about wealth creation through new businesses.

Without these reforms we would be in an even worse mess now than the French and Germans are who have yet to carry out the labour market reforms we did in the 80's.

But also, don't forget by divesting the inefficient nationalised industries, such both created a boon in the share holding society, expanding equity investments to many sectors of society which had never experienced this before. I admit the redundancies which followed were harsh, but precisely the type of people who needed to benefit from privatisation were the lower social classes, this has been proved by the lower utility prices that we now have (can you remember when phone calls or electricity was as cheap as it is now??). Think about how much more this has reduced business' costs and enabled them to invest in new technology and also give their consumers more disposable income to increase demand and fund new jobs.

Also, by removing the burden of funding inefficient state industries from the taxpayer, everyone benefitted from lower taxation, again encouraging a more enterprising economy.

So as you can see Thatcher's legacy has enabled UK Plc to prosper to be the power it is today.

[PMC]

AccyD wrote:

I disagree - I thnk that she felt that she was doing the best for the country by trying to improve the economic situation so more people could enter the workforce. This would have benefitted everyone, through lower taxes, and less crime & better standards of living.


Certainly she had a vision, there's no doubt about that. She did attempt to empower the working classes by giving them the opportunities to buy council homes etc, but in doing so she managed to alienate a significant portion of the population that she didn't seem to give two hoots about. If she was trying to encourage people into work, why did we have record unemployment during the 80s? I think at one point we had nearly 6 million people on the dole, which was around ten percent of the population.

Her economic policy was also flawed. By taking us from economic stagnation in the 70s to massive growth in the 80s the economy was put under strain. Her policies were similar in substance to 1920's America - ie short term economic growth with very little thought put into the consequences and a very "lassez-faire" approach to government interference in the economy. However, just like in 1929, the massive growth was followed by a recession that bit very hard and took John Major's government years to finally sort out.



What paople always seem to remember is the union busting activities and the initial pain under monetarism, we needed this to reform the archaic labour market (look at France & Germany now), we went from the sick man of Europe to the leading light because of the reforms she set in motion.

As proof of the success of her reforms, look at the limits the EU is looking to force upon our workforce to make us less competitive so that France & Germany can compete - without Thatcher we would have been a much poorer country today.

The "initial pain" you describe resulted in massive unemployment, the death of our manufacturing industry, the stock market crash in 1987 and of course the many millions of home owners who were blighted by negative equity.

I wouldn't say her reforms were a great success because it took Major / Clarke years to clean up the mess, which of course Blair / Brown built up on.

[Fade]

@ PMC
"She did attempt to empower the working classes by giving them the opportunities to buy council homes etc,"
---------------

There's that word again, Council.
First "council" tax, and now, being allowed to buy a "council" house.

What have I stumbled upon? It kind of sounds like a local socialist commune kind of thing. Is this some remnant of when everything belonged to the king or am I completely off base?

Were the working classes not allowed to own their own homes or property before M. Thatcher, or was this just a case of poor people not being able to afford them?

[PMC]

Fade wrote:

There's that word again, Council.
First "council" tax, and now, being allowed to buy a "council" house.

What have I stumbled upon? It kind of sounds like a local socialist commune kind of thing. Is this some remnant of when everything belonged to the king or am I completely off base?



Not nearly so anachronistic...

It refers to local government. In the UK we have central government to decide national policy, economics, legislation etc and a county government which administers local police, refuse collection etc. Local councils also own homes which are let to low paid individuals or people on benefits, and one of Thatcher's schemes was a system whereby tennants of council owned property could buy the homes they were renting.

Council tax is a tax levied by councils upon residents and is calculated according to the value of the property in which you live. Until very recently, central government funded local councils to a high degree, but Blair & co have cut funding, so councils have upped local taxes to compensate.



Were the working classes not allowed to own their own homes or property before M. Thatcher, or was this just a case of poor people not being able to afford them?



LOL! We don't treat our working classes as second rate citizens anymore!

Because council homes were specifically there to house the low paid, a good proportion of working classes couldn't afford to buy their own homes and had no real incentive to. Poorer people now had the chance to buy cheap homes and invest in them. This in turn raised funds for local councils and everyone was happy - until the housing market overheated and crashed in the late 80s.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

@ PMC

You also forgot to mention that in Wales there is the Welsh Assembly, and in Scotland there is the Scottish Parliament.

Local Government is meant to look after things at the local level - Central Government (also known as Westminster) is meant to look after the national level - which obviously can have a bearing on the local.

Now when Labour came to power they changed the rules so as to effectivly making the oppositon government at local level ineffective. They do not have the power to veto.

Now, what this means is that whoever is running local government has pretty much a free rain. Most county councils are labour - and therefor Central Labour Government is able to tell them at the local level what to do. As noone can oppose in effect what we have is Central Government dictating at the local level.

Likewise if you are a Tory, Lib Dem or whatever council - you dont have an opposition either. However, they are pretty much allowed to carry on running things locally by their affiliates.

I dont like this system cos opposition is important. Opposition irons things out. Opposition is Democracy in action.

Which brings me on to the additional tear of government added to Scotland and Wales.

Before Central Government - Westminster would decide policy for the whole of the country. This was seen by many - usually nationalists as unfair - they wanted their own parliament. So Labour set about devolving government on the premise that it will make it smaller. They offered Wales an Assembly, and Scotland a Parliament. This is a major change that required the concent of 70% of the electorate. In Scotland tha Parliament went through - meeting that 70% turnout.

But in Wales IIRC around 20% bothered to show up to vote and the vote was passed by a margin of 2 or 3 votes. Many people didnt show up as the concidered that to be as good as a no as 70% of the electorate (those who can vote) was required.

So basically in Cardiff we have this big monlithic organisation, that is duplicating a what of Central Gov is doing. Costing us a lot of money to keep going - and taking away power from local government as Wales is so bloody small anyway that the Assembly is in essence a local government. they have removed power from the lower level and stacked another level on top..

Now to take things further. Scotland now has its own Parliament - with its own MP's. Labour have wanted to get policies through - but had no chance, so called upon their scottish MP's to vote for them in Westminster. Yet the things that they are voting on dont affect Scotland. My point if you are going to have devolved government - only allow them to vote in the parliaments and assemblies to which they have been elected.

So basically our politcal system is becoming top heavy, and unacountable. Gaping holes are occuring in our democracy.

[Bobsonsirjonny]

BTW - as I was born in 1979 - does that make me a product of Thatcherism? ;-)

[sumner7]

Before she came to power, milk was free for kids in schools. Now, you have to pay for it thanks to her!

[T_Bone]

sumner7 wrote:
Before she came to power, milk was free for kids in schools. Now, you have to pay for it thanks to her!

:-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

HORROR OF HORRORS!!!!!!!

FOOD ISN'T FREE!!?!?!?!?!?!!?/1111!!!

;-)

[KennyR]

Free milk? Well, there's an interesting one. Free milk for schoolchildren was introduced at a time in the UK when child diseases, malnourishment, and rickets (vitamin D deficiency that causes soft bones and disfigurement) were rife.

Free milk solved all of the above. With, what, maybe less than 150 ml of milk per child the nation's health improved unbelievably. Rickets and mulnutrition were eradicated in one stroke. This was also at a time when many children couldn't afford the pittance to get that milk.

And let's be honest, what's more useful for a nation, the health and wellbeing of its children or 0.00001% extra tax to pay for the milk??

Thatcher took away the free milk, actually before she came in to power, in about 1975 or so. It wasn't such a big deal, since virtually everyone could afford the milk by then. But when you undo a great good - even when it's not needed any more - you're always going to get attacked for it. Unfortunately when she came into power she undid a lot of goods, not all of which needed undoing...

[Bobsonsirjonny]

Thing is Margaret Thatcher did do some good - she broke the corruption in the unions. The milk thing can be seen as mean - but like you said it wasn't needed anymore.

She would have been fine for just the first 4 years - she started to mess things up though when she was voted back in.. plus Kinochio was a pillock.. and Scargill was clueless and useless to the fight on his hands.

Talking of nutrition though - have you seen what school children eat lately.. Far better to get the nations health sorted as logically it will have a nock on effect to Health Care. It will free the NHS up more - and with some simple NHS re-structituring - ie bring back the Matron in the long term you will improve efficiency and save money.