Thatcher is dead

[Foogirl]

That's not attracting new industry, that's attracting entrepreneurship, when other countries were busy sorting out new car factories for areas affected by mine closures, Thatcher was encouraging small business? That doesn't seem to have worked out too well. Not everyone is as lucky in business as your father, especially not in Scotland, nor does everyone want to start their own business. The decline I witnessed in the area I grew up in London was not due to laziness, but there physically being no work after the Royal Docks were closed and no public transport linking the area to the outside world. The result was and still is an area which is physically cut off and overwhelmed by drug addicts.

There are pockets everywhere which have suffered from underinvestment, as well as from a lack of will from people (of all backgrounds) to make a change. And this is true of every city in every Country in the world, no matter what your politics. But seriously, if you lived in an area where there was no work, and no way to get to work, would you not move?

There were also a fair few car companies that came to the UK and opened up manufacturing plants in the 80s, most of them in the Enterprise Zones who were afforded tax incentives too. They weren't just for small enterprises. Much of Silicon Glen in Scotland has its roots in Tory policy of the time and has totally turned around an area that lost heavy industry.

I'm surprised you think we didn't have tangible assets. What do you think British Coal was? British Rail? British Steel? British Gas? The British Shipbuilders Corporation? British Airways? British Petroleum? Rolls Royce?

The point being coal mining was declining. (And incidentally, it was John Major who privatised that, not Thatcher) Steel production was faltering. Shipbuilding was becoming uncompetitive. The global market was the reason for these things and doesn't it make sense to sell something before it becomes worthless. I've said all along, we wouldn't still have these industries if Thatcher hadn't sold them off.

British Rail was completely self-sufficient in the 1970s and not privatised until the early 1990s, by which time BR was one of the most efficient railways in Europe. If you're suggesting we're better off with a privatised rail network, then I wonder what you think is more positive about it? I don't have the figures for cancelled trains in the 1970s or prices (and I doubt you do either), but the fact is, 20 years after the railways were sold off, the situation is worse, not better, for the rail user. Not only are we paying massively overpriced fares (take a look at this article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21056703), but you're also more likely to be involved in a fatal accident thanks to the splintered nature of maintenance and safety.

I think there were some huge mistakes made in the privatisation of the rail network. I think the infrastructure should have remained in the Government's hands. I think there should have been (and still should be) more Government involvement in the way the services are carved up. I think it is wrong to have different companies running different lines across the Country. I did go on trains in the 70s from time to time and it was never pleasant - and its supposed to be fun for kids!! I'm not suggesting the rail network is brilliant, but I do think it is better than it was.

It looks like you've just lifted this off Wikipedia, but there's more to it. She ushered in the era of highly questionable investment banking and her deregulation was what allowed foreign owners to own more than half of the City's assets. More selling off of family silver if you like. Her actions are what meant the FSA was necessary, ineffective or not.

That's harsh! I don't do wiki. I did study the Thatcher period quite extensively in Economics and found the Andrew Marr book a very interesting read. What she did was bring the UKs financial services sector more in line with that of the rest of the worlds and allowed it to compete. Investment banking in itself isn't a bad thing, if regulated properly. That hasn't happened here nor in the US. Everybody from Thatcher to Gordon Brown, and successive Presidents in the US, have been dazzled by the wrong type of people and the amounts of money being made in the FS industry. The whole thing has been a failure, but I don't believe that has been solely because of the deregulation of financial services in the early 80s. Goodwin et al couldn't have done what they did without A) deregulation of the banking system and B) the backing of some very high ranking politicians - Blair/Brown/Salmond all played their own role. I agree Thatcher was to blame for many things, the banking crisis certainly wasn't one of them.

That's not a very good analogy, but one of the inventors of the atom bomb changed fields in disgust at what his research had led to after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, warning of the dangers of nuclear weapons until his death. So if he felt responsible for what his groundwork had enabled, why shouldn't Thatcher be afforded the same judgement?

He put that on himself. And whilst I would wonder what he thought was going to happen with that particular invention, it would be wrong for others to judge him for developing it.

The biggest myth surrounding Thatcher is that she did anything good for the country in the long-term. Hopefully, as the dust from her horrendously inappropriate sendoff settles, people will start analysing her legacy properly instead of coming up with the ill-researched platitudes about "there was no alternative" and "she made Britain great again".

I don't think, and have never suggested she did either of those things. Of course there was an alternative, there could have been a slower recovery (as we are facing now) She could have done better with the housing sell off by allowing Local Authorities to have more control. Lots of things she could have done better. She has changed a few things in the longer term. She did (albeit unwittingly) Change the face of politics by causing such a split in the Labour party and I do think that's been for the good. The Lib Dems might not be particularly effective but having a louder voice from the middle I think has tempered the radical nature of both parties, and she was the whole reason "new labour" came about, which I think is a far better option than old labour.

She did remove workers' rights in that she made it illegal to strike in certain circumstances via the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, dramatically contributing to the fall in union membership and therefore affecting millions of workers' right to fair representation.

See, I also think this is one of the things Thatcher did for the good, in the long term. Unions do still protect those who need it, if they choose to have it. Those millions of workers opted out of this. I think it was right to restrict the right to strike in certain circumstances, the number of strikes we have had since then shows it still is an effective tool at their disposal. I also think with the introduction of much of the European employment legislation there are fewer unscrupulous employers out there. I can see there being any number of reasons union membership fell (and continues to do so today) But I can't accept it is down to this one piece of legislation, introduced not only long after Thatcher came to power, but a fair while after she left too.

Why is that? Is it because people are lazy and don't want to get off their arses, or is it because charity alone is not enough? People generally want to work, but there has to be opportunity for employment for that to happen.

I don't know why. I really don't. I can't understand what drives 3 generations of a family to stay in an area with few opportunities, during two booming economic periods where jobs were easy to come by.

But still the government refrained from selling off schools, libraries, museums and hospitals. Britain is currently going through its first ever triple-dip recession. Britain has suffered some of the worst infrastructural damage in Europe over the past few years. Unemployment is at its highest for years, manufacturing output is down and people are being forced to move 200 miles away from their homes to find affordable housing. Britain is a laughing stock the world over for its ill-conceived neo liberalism which has proved to be worth nothing with its taxpayers blindly footing the bill and getting misty-eyed at Thatcher's legacy. I think that's a more accurate description of a country being "on its knees".

We are indeed in a pretty pickle. And I'm not sure what the best way out of it is. I disagree we are a laughing stock - yet. We haven't reached the Greek/Cypriot/Spain situation - yet. At the moment we are at the table discussing the solution with the world, rather than being part of the problem. This current situation is as much a global phenomenon and has its roots in many, many different places. Which is a whole other debate. I'm not misty eyed about Thatcher. I disagree with many of the things she did and didn't do. Her way was one way of dealing with a deep recession, Milliband, Cameron etc all have a different version. I don't think there is any one of them who will get it totally right. We suffer less for longer or more for shorter, that seems to be what it comes down to. I actually think the best way is just to introduce what will work (be it quickly or slowly) and hunker down and get on with it. None of it is going to matter in the long term because in 10 or 20 years we'll be here again after another boom and the only thing we can do is make hay whilst the sun shines and try to put away enough to get through the next recession.

She made all the changes she wanted because she ultimately wielded the power, but essentially you're saying she closed down the profit-making mines to make a point. Way to reward good business.

She didn't. She left them open. She also closed fewer mines than had been closed under previous governments. Major closed more, and as I said earlier it was he who privatised British Coal. We've had many power hungry leaders. I genuinely think she was the least power hungry of them all. I don't think she woke up one morning and thought "oh, I'll make 1.5 million people unemployed today, just because I can, what a hoot" The most power hungry leaders exhibit much more concern about their electoral position and tend to ally themselves with those who can get them back in to power. She was so divisive and made enemies from so many different areas, I don't think you can be on a major power trip if you aren't concerned with maintaining your position.

Oh I think it's something she can be accused of with certainty. Right to buy created a generation of homeowners who evolved into NIMBYs who were only out for their own interests. Not only that, it has created the housing crisis we're seeing today where people can barely afford to rent and spend up to 80% of their wages on housing. I see you've also got something against what you probably perceive as lazy benefit scrounging layabouts who want everything served to them on a plate. I'm not trying to change anyone's point of view here, but I am interested in presenting the facts instead of poorly-researched buzzwords.

ooh, that's unfair. I know a lot of people (many in my family) for whom the Right to Buy worked very well. Not to make lots of money, or to become NIMBYs but to give them some return for the hard work they've done in their lives. I think it was one thing the Government could give back to those who paid rent for a property because they couldn't afford to buy, but who got to retirement and had nothing to show for it. These people then had assets they could pass on to their families and that benefited the poorer in society and allowed their children to have more opportunity. Overall I was against the policy (and still am) but I can see where it has helped.

Of course I have something against lazy benefit scroungers who expect things to be handed to them on a plate. I pay for them to do nothing. But I also am well aware simply claiming benefits doesn't make you a lazy scrounger and there are far more hard working (or "want to work") claimants and I have no issue with the state helping them along the way. My biggest beef is with anyone (of any background) who has a sense of entitlement and acts like a little bird, beak open, expecting to be catered for. It does seem we have too many people who have that sense of entitlement. Is Thatcher responsible? I have no idea. Some would say there has always been an element of that in the UK. Is it worse now? I don't know. The Daily Mail thinks so

It's nice that it all worked out for your father, but for most people it didn't. You could also argue that having to move 600 miles with your school-age kids to start again is a pretty disproportionate requirement, but if it's resulted in your father making millions, I'm sure it's easy to forget the upheaval.

He hasn't quite "made millions" (I wish!!) But he has worked incredibly hard to build a successful business which is now in the hands of my big sister. Sure it was a disproportionate move, but that's where my grandparents happened to live and we couldn't afford to do anything other than live with them. If they'd been closer we would have moved there! My point really was, it wasn't actually an upheaval. It was just what needed to be done.

The reason social housing is hard to come by now is because of Thatcher's right to buy scheme and the councils' selling off of housing to make money. This isn't a thread about Major or Blair (by all means make one if their legacy is what interests you), but you can't excuse the woman's actions by arguing that no-one else undid them, so they can't be that bad. Unfortunately our political system allows regularly changing, majority governments who bring in sledgehammer reforms as quickly as possible before the opposition gets in again, only to see them tinkered with, added to and even reversed completely in a few years, sometimes to win political points. It's what we're seeing Gove doing to the education system now and it's what Thatcher did in the years she was allowed into office.

Sadly neither Blair or Major did it for me either. I generally don't like any politicians! Sure her actions can't be excused because nobody undid them, I'm just always surprised that (primarily) Labour supporters will direct all their ire at Thatcher but totally ignore the fact these things could have been turned around by others. I really do wonder why Labour didn't re nationalise or open the mines, or kill the right to buy (or build more social housing) Not to say this would make it better, what Thatcher did, but it would seem if their way was better, why not do it?

Totally agree. Short termism is what kills economies. You can't turn a country round in one term. Ironically this is why I do tend to prefer coalition Governments but of course, when it all goes tits up with this one it will be because coalitions are a bad idea - not because the idiots within it are making an arse of it.

Like I said, I'm hoping her death encourages some discussion about her legacy and I was very pleased to see Cameron not having profited at all in the polls from the Tory pomp and circumstance that was orchestrated yesterday. She lived to a ripe old age, was able to share most of her life with her husband, sorted out her kids financially and given an almost royal sendoff? What's there to feel sorry for?

Discussion is good. I'm certainly enjoying this debate. Free (mostly) from rhetoric and emotion.

What's to feel sorry for? It doesn't matter how old a person is when they die, how well they lived or how they are sent off, they leave behind a family who loved them, who will miss them and for whom life will never be the same. All the money or "Tory Pomp" could never replace the loss of a mother, or a grandmother.

I really am curious if Labour had been in power whether there would have been a state funeral. Isn't it the Queen who decides?

 

[Tasha]

Just want to say thank you Piper and Foo, this is really interesting to read.

 

[Piper84]

Thanks for your response Foogirl! I don't have much time at the moment to reply but will soonish.

Just to confirm, the "poorly-researched buzzwords" comment was directed at the media coverage we're seeing at the moment, not you

 

[Piper84]

There are pockets everywhere which have suffered from underinvestment, as well as from a lack of will from people (of all backgrounds) to make a change. And this is true of every city in every Country in the world, no matter what your politics. But seriously, if you lived in an area where there was no work, and no way to get to work, would you not move?

I can't speak from experience, but I was compelled to move out of London because me and DH both on full-time salaries can't afford to live in my area, renting or otherwise, thanks to the housing crisis. In that way, I am a bit of a refugee, but I am royally pissed off by the fact and I don't think it should be that way, and it's nothing to do with me not willing to "make a change". I want to go home at some point and for that to be reasonably possible.

There were also a fair few car companies that came to the UK and opened up manufacturing plants in the 80s, most of them in the Enterprise Zones who were afforded tax incentives too. They weren't just for small enterprises. Much of Silicon Glen in Scotland has its roots in Tory policy of the time and has totally turned around an area that lost heavy industry.

I don't know much about Scottish economics, apart from the fact that Perth is apparently the third largest financial centre in Europe (?). However, the turnaround can't have been that successful or else why would the Conservatives have suffered such massive damage to their voting base in Scotland since her time in office? Thatcher's enterprise zones only created 13,000 jobs https://www.londonchamber.co.uk/docimages/10504.pdf (p. 25). Unemployment peaked at 3.25 million during Thatcher's time in office. It seems her enterprise zones were nothing to be praised. I can't think of any major car plants opening during Thatcher's premiership, but feel free to enlighten me.

The point being coal mining was declining. (And incidentally, it was John Major who privatised that, not Thatcher) Steel production was faltering. Shipbuilding was becoming uncompetitive. The global market was the reason for these things and doesn't it make sense to sell something before it becomes worthless. I've said all along, we wouldn't still have these industries if Thatcher hadn't sold them off.

Why do you think the British arms industry is so prosperous? It's because of investment. Lack of investment would see it declining too. No effort was made by the Thatcher government to revive these industries, which would have definitely been possible. It's not just about who can make the cheaper goods; it's about who makes them well. The reason Germany is such an export giant is because of the quality of its goods, not their cheapness. You've mentioned it before: short-termism.

I think there were some huge mistakes made in the privatisation of the rail network. I think the infrastructure should have remained in the Government's hands. I think there should have been (and still should be) more Government involvement in the way the services are carved up. I think it is wrong to have different companies running different lines across the Country. I did go on trains in the 70s from time to time and it was never pleasant - and its supposed to be fun for kids!! I'm not suggesting the rail network is brilliant, but I do think it is better than it was.

The sad thing is, the government has actually had to renationalise some lines because they were being run so badly. They sell them off and then we have to fund them through the government anyway. It's a bad deal for all involved, apart from the companies who profit from the overinflated rail prices. I travelled on the trains a lot as a child (late 80's, early 90's) and it was fun. I have fond memories of the Intercity from London to Edinburgh. I think a family return ticket cost 50 quid. Some networks were shoddy, but at least you knew the tracks were being maintained.

That's harsh! I don't do wiki. I did study the Thatcher period quite extensively in Economics and found the Andrew Marr book a very interesting read. What she did was bring the UKs financial services sector more in line with that of the rest of the worlds and allowed it to compete. Investment banking in itself isn't a bad thing, if regulated properly. That hasn't happened here nor in the US. Everybody from Thatcher to Gordon Brown, and successive Presidents in the US, have been dazzled by the wrong type of people and the amounts of money being made in the FS industry. The whole thing has been a failure, but I don't believe that has been solely because of the deregulation of financial services in the early 80s. Goodwin et al couldn't have done what they did without A) deregulation of the banking system and B) the backing of some very high ranking politicians - Blair/Brown/Salmond all played their own role. I agree Thatcher was to blame for many things, the banking crisis certainly wasn't one of them.

She definitely laid the groundwork. It was her deregulation in the 1980s that allowed US and other banks to buy up the City and high-risk economics meaning knock-on effects from other economies were all the more dangerous. While blame for the recent financial crisis can't be put completely at her feet, she played a massive part. She made short-term gains, but at quite a price. She relied on North Sea Oil to fund her projects and at the same time reduced all kinds of social spending. She was a disaster in this respect, long-term.

He put that on himself. And whilst I would wonder what he thought was going to happen with that particular invention, it would be wrong for others to judge him for developing it.

She may not have designed the atom bomb, but Thatcher was perfectly willing to use her country (which some argue she didn't even like) as a guinea pig for her ideas, with disastrous consequences.

I don't think, and have never suggested she did either of those things. Of course there was an alternative, there could have been a slower recovery (as we are facing now) She could have done better with the housing sell off by allowing Local Authorities to have more control. Lots of things she could have done better. She has changed a few things in the longer term. She did (albeit unwittingly) Change the face of politics by causing such a split in the Labour party and I do think that's been for the good. The Lib Dems might not be particularly effective but having a louder voice from the middle I think has tempered the radical nature of both parties, and she was the whole reason "new labour" came about, which I think is a far better option than old labour.

You may not think that, but thousands apparently do. I disagree that New Labour has been a good thing, as ever since Blair embraced Murdoch we've just seen parties pandering more and more to the lowest common denominator tabloid press. New Labour was another big reason for the financial crisis. The tribalism that Thatcher encouraged in politics with her refusal to accept that consensus can play a helpful role in politics means that we have successive governments trying to outdo each other with how much they can change in a short period of time, and heaven forbid there be any cross-party consensus, as that just shows weakness(!).

See, I also think this is one of the things Thatcher did for the good, in the long term. Unions do still protect those who need it, if they choose to have it. Those millions of workers opted out of this. I think it was right to restrict the right to strike in certain circumstances, the number of strikes we have had since then shows it still is an effective tool at their disposal. I also think with the introduction of much of the European employment legislation there are fewer unscrupulous employers out there. I can see there being any number of reasons union membership fell (and continues to do so today) But I can't accept it is down to this one piece of legislation, introduced not only long after Thatcher came to power, but a fair while after she left too.

I don't think her methods were wise. By starting a war with the unions she removed too much, too quickly, to show her conviction. What happens when multinationals decide to lay people off these days? They choose UK workers first, because they know people won't make as much of a fuss as if they tried the same in France, Germany, Italy, or any other country where workers' rights are better represented. It's extremely damaging.

I don't know why. I really don't. I can't understand what drives 3 generations of a family to stay in an area with few opportunities, during two booming economic periods where jobs were easy to come by.

It's a human need to be near your family networks, and some people don't have family scattered over the country. You have personal experience of having to move hundreds of miles for your parents to keep their standard of living. I have the same experience, and it is difficult, isolating and sometimes a real test to be positive about things for the LO. Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, the UK has also lost something in that I got my degrees in the UK, am highly qualified and then left to give my skills and taxes to another country. Long-term investment in jobs and industry would help combat this kind of personal and economic disadvantage for individuals and governments.

We are indeed in a pretty pickle. And I'm not sure what the best way out of it is. I disagree we are a laughing stock - yet. We haven't reached the Greek/Cypriot/Spain situation - yet. At the moment we are at the table discussing the solution with the world, rather than being part of the problem. This current situation is as much a global phenomenon and has its roots in many, many different places. Which is a whole other debate. I'm not misty eyed about Thatcher. I disagree with many of the things she did and didn't do. Her way was one way of dealing with a deep recession, Milliband, Cameron etc all have a different version. I don't think there is any one of them who will get it totally right. We suffer less for longer or more for shorter, that seems to be what it comes down to. I actually think the best way is just to introduce what will work (be it quickly or slowly) and hunker down and get on with it. None of it is going to matter in the long term because in 10 or 20 years we'll be here again after another boom and the only thing we can do is make hay whilst the sun shines and try to put away enough to get through the next recession.

I'm afraid what the current government is doing is far more damaging than what we've had in recent times. Austerity economics have been discredited (interesting article: https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/grad-student-who-shook-global-austerity-movement.html) and yet our Chancellor continues on the path. When I think about it, it's so simple. This kind of policy gives this government the chance to dismantle the welfare state (a massive achievement) and at the same time sort out their mates with cushy contracts to run services which have no place in the hands of unaccountable, private enterprise, such as councils' children's services and healthcare in some areas. But what can we expect from a cabinet of millionaires?

She didn't. She left them open. She also closed fewer mines than had been closed under previous governments. Major closed more, and as I said earlier it was he who privatised British Coal. We've had many power hungry leaders. I genuinely think she was the least power hungry of them all. I don't think she woke up one morning and thought "oh, I'll make 1.5 million people unemployed today, just because I can, what a hoot" The most power hungry leaders exhibit much more concern about their electoral position and tend to ally themselves with those who can get them back in to power. She was so divisive and made enemies from so many different areas, I don't think you can be on a major power trip if you aren't concerned with maintaining your position.

It's widely reported that she was champing at the bit to get revenge for Heath's defeat by the unions, and she used her power to do so (Britain is often alleged to allow PMs quasi-directorial powers, thanks to its loophole-filled political system and travesties such as the Act of Parliament).

As for mines, previous governments, such as Wilson's, closed mines which were unprofitable or didn't have enough reserves and reached agreements with the unions to do so. Thatcher decided the mines she closed were uneconomic by setting her own, unattainable financial targets. She fixed the figures for herself and that's the reason we always hear about these supposedly failing mines. It wasn't the case.

ooh, that's unfair. I know a lot of people (many in my family) for whom the Right to Buy worked very well. Not to make lots of money, or to become NIMBYs but to give them some return for the hard work they've done in their lives. I think it was one thing the Government could give back to those who paid rent for a property because they couldn't afford to buy, but who got to retirement and had nothing to show for it. These people then had assets they could pass on to their families and that benefited the poorer in society and allowed their children to have more opportunity.

Overall I was against the policy (and still am) but I can see where it has helped.

Of course I have something against lazy benefit scroungers who expect things to be handed to them on a plate. I pay for them to do nothing. But I also am well aware simply claiming benefits doesn't make you a lazy scrounger and there are far more hard working (or "want to work") claimants and I have no issue with the state helping them along the way. My biggest beef is with anyone (of any background) who has a sense of entitlement and acts like a little bird, beak open, expecting to be catered for. It does seem we have too many people who have that sense of entitlement. Is Thatcher responsible? I have no idea. Some would say there has always been an element of that in the UK. Is it worse now? I don't know. The Daily Mail thinks so

I think the number of people who commit benefit fraud is massively overstated, especially at the moment, when we have ministers suggesting that the Philpotts are an example for why we need to have a long look at the benefits system (!). I wish more attention would be paid to those evading taxes and hiding funds offshore, who contribute a hell of a lot more to the deficit. Polls show that people believe 27% of the benefit budget is falsely claimed. In fact it's estimated by the DWP to be 2.1%, and some of that is due to error as opposed to fraud https://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error. At the same time, HMRC estimates that unpaid tax is 30 billion quid https://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps.htm#4 While benefit fraud is of course wrong, I wish the government spent more time and energy on the missing 30 billion than the peanuts lost through fraud and error.

He hasn't quite "made millions" (I wish!!) But he has worked incredibly hard to build a successful business which is now in the hands of my big sister. Sure it was a disproportionate move, but that's where my grandparents happened to live and we couldn't afford to do anything other than live with them. If they'd been closer we would have moved there! My point really was, it wasn't actually an upheaval. It was just what needed to be done.

I hope your home life/school life wasn't too badly affected by it. I also hope there wasn't too much in-law drama for your parents!

Sadly neither Blair or Major did it for me either. I generally don't like any politicians! Sure her actions can't be excused because nobody undid them, I'm just always surprised that (primarily) Labour supporters will direct all their ire at Thatcher but totally ignore the fact these things could have been turned around by others. I really do wonder why Labour didn't re nationalise or open the mines, or kill the right to buy (or build more social housing) Not to say this would make it better, what Thatcher did, but it would seem if their way was better, why not do it?

It's a symptom of our tribal political culture in the UK (lucky you in Scotland, with your proportional representation and all!), exacerbated by, you guessed it! I'm afraid John Smith's untimely death has a lot to answer for. As far as I know, Labour continued with the housing associations and had social housing built, but not under the control of the councils. I would be interested to see what changes are made if Miliband gets in, if any.

Totally agree. Short termism is what kills economies. You can't turn a country round in one term. Ironically this is why I do tend to prefer coalition Governments but of course, when it all goes tits up with this one it will be because coalitions are a bad idea - not because the idiots within it are making an arse of it.

I wish more people in government knew what short-termism was and appreciated it more! Coalitions are a great idea if they are practiced in a political system which has kept up with modern times. Unfortunately we're still stuck with ours, where not winning an outright majority of votes is somehow considered a failure and consensus is a dirty word.

Discussion is good. I'm certainly enjoying this debate. Free (mostly) from rhetoric and emotion.

What's to feel sorry for? It doesn't matter how old a person is when they die, how well they lived or how they are sent off, they leave behind a family who loved them, who will miss them and for whom life will never be the same. All the money or "Tory Pomp" could never replace the loss of a mother, or a grandmother.

I really am curious if Labour had been in power whether there would have been a state funeral. Isn't it the Queen who decides?

From what I can gather, Thatcher was tended to by carers in her final years and all her surviving family live abroad. I'm not really interested in her as a person, but surely that says something about how much her family really cared?

Ironically, it was Gordon Brown who decided she would have a ceremonial (not state) funeral, years ago. Maybe he was trying to foment discord (there's some long-term thinking for you The Queen had no say in it, but was said to be very uncomfortably with the level of pomp, until now only seen at Diana's funeral and the Queen mother's.

 

[Natsku]

You two debate so well, I am jealous! I should go back to Uni, I feel so dumb next to you two

 

[Pearls18]

You two debate so well, I am jealous! I should go back to Uni, I feel so dumb next to you two

I don't even know how to multi quote

 

[Natsku]

You two debate so well, I am jealous! I should go back to Uni, I feel so dumb next to you two

I don't even know how to multi quote

 

[tina3747]

You two debate so well, I am jealous! I should go back to Uni, I feel so dumb next to you two

I feel like I'm in the debate version of a hip - hop battle

 

[Tasha]

Haha Tina, now have visions of them with microphones and rapping all of their points, whilst adding in a few 'rude bois and bitches'

 

[Natsku]

 

[Foogirl]

Say Boooooiiiiii

I can't speak from experience, but I was compelled to move out of London because me and DH both on full-time salaries can't afford to live in my area, renting or otherwise, thanks to the housing crisis. In that way, I am a bit of a refugee, but I am royally pissed off by the fact and I don't think it should be that way, and it's nothing to do with me not willing to "make a change". I want to go home at some point and for that to be reasonably possible.

London is a tough nut to crack, property wise. We have a similar problem in Scotland with Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I moved away from Aberdeen just for a change, but now find I can't get back there. I do understand about not being able to get back to where you want to be but I was talking from the other side, where economically it makes no sense to stay in one area and sometimes you have to do what makes sense. I do believe there should be more affordable housing in the expensive cities as we do need low paid workers living there, but I also think, if you are a shopworker, you can't live in Chelsea, sometimes you just have to accept that.

I don't know much about Scottish economics, apart from the fact that Perth is apparently the third largest financial centre in Europe (?). However, the turnaround can't have been that successful or else why would the Conservatives have suffered such massive damage to their voting base in Scotland since her time in office? Thatcher's enterprise zones only created 13,000 jobs https://www.londonchamber.co.uk/docimages/10504.pdf (p. 25). Unemployment peaked at 3.25 million during Thatcher's time in office. It seems her enterprise zones were nothing to be praised. I can't think of any major car plants opening during Thatcher's premiership, but feel free to enlighten me.

Nissan opened in Sunderland in 1986, their first plant in Europe. British Leyland expanded in Bathgate. As well as car manufacturing, manufacturing of electronic components increased with the likes of Sun Microsystems.

Not sure about Perth and its financial sector (although there are a couple of large insurance companies there) Aberdeen is the oil capital of Europe and has been barely touched by the recession. House prices in Edinburgh have remained constant, pretty much. We're doing so well up here Salmond thinks we can go it alone......

Scotland and the Conservatives have a history of falling out. Scotland is historically Labour supported. The problem (as put by Malcolm Rifkind) was Thatcher was very "English", she was Tory and she was a woman. She was a very centralist PM and was against any form of devolution. When the nearest part of the country to London is still over 400 miles away, naturally it is going to seem there is no real consideration given to individual needs. Where she came most unstuck was with the Poll Tax. The story touted by her opponents was we were used as a guinea pig for it and as I said here before, that wasn't true. She never wanted to introduce it here first. I think she might have got away with a lot of the problems were it not for that. But there are no areas still reeling from her policies, no desolate areas, no pockets of long term unemployment.

Of course, despite Enterprise Zones, unemployment still rose, but the fact they were created show she didn't just shut the mines and bugger off.

Why do you think the British arms industry is so prosperous? It's because of investment. Lack of investment would see it declining too. No effort was made by the Thatcher government to revive these industries, which would have definitely been possible. It's not just about who can make the cheaper goods; it's about who makes them well. The reason Germany is such an export giant is because of the quality of its goods, not their cheapness. You've mentioned it before: short-termism.

The nationalised power stations were finding UK produced coal was too expensive. And coal is coal (mostly) it makes little difference to the furnace at the power station whether it comes from Cornwall or China. Sure a government can support manfacturing through subsidy, but it has to still be for the benefit of the nation and beyond employing more people in the public sector, I'm not sure where the benefit is. One of Scotland's problems is the number of people employed in the Public Sector and over the long term that is unsustainable. Look where we are with Pensions now. Imagine how much bigger that crisis would be with decades worth of workers from these nationalised industries?

Germany does build quality, but there are other economic reasons for their export success, not least because of their place in the EU. They also have a different mind set within their society and because of their history, buying German and not being reliant on anyone for anything is very important. Quality v price can only be dictated by the buyer, however, and it would appear price is more important to the Brits because even the industry we do have struggles to be bought in the UK.

The sad thing is, the government has actually had to renationalise some lines because they were being run so badly. They sell them off and then we have to fund them through the government anyway. It's a bad deal for all involved, apart from the companies who profit from the overinflated rail prices. I travelled on the trains a lot as a child (late 80's, early 90's) and it was fun. I have fond memories of the Intercity from London to Edinburgh. I think a family return ticket cost 50 quid. Some networks were shoddy, but at least you knew the tracks were being maintained.

Yep, tracks are a worry! Certainly the model of privatisation hasn't worked with the railways, but I don't think that means privatisation was a bad idea. And I don't think a privatised company shouldn't be offered subsidies. Some areas cannot support a profit making service and it is the government's responsibility to ensure the infrastructure is available to all. Where there is a failure is in the process to tender these routes and in effective auditing of the operators. The fact remains that public sector companies just do not perform well. Public sector projects are seen as a great way to make money. There isn't the expertise within the public sector - there can't be because of the lack of competetive salary for directors and because hands are tied by red tape and procedure. A private business with an eye on profit is better placed to run the railway network - as long as they are being made to comply with the conditions in place.

She definitely laid the groundwork. It was her deregulation in the 1980s that allowed US and other banks to buy up the City and high-risk economics meaning knock-on effects from other economies were all the more dangerous. While blame for the recent financial crisis can't be put completely at her feet, she played a massive part. She made short-term gains, but at quite a price. She relied on North Sea Oil to fund her projects and at the same time reduced all kinds of social spending. She was a disaster in this respect, long-term.

North Sea Oil was all of our saviours. We would be in a much worse position without it. We had to cut social spending, we couldn't afford it. Government became much more streamlined because of it. Gone were the days where a service or department could spend all their budget and get the same next year, there was far more accountability for overspends. Clawback wasn't popular and led to some strange antics, but this shows the problem with the mindset within the public sector. "We've only spent £900,000 this year, lets blow the other £100,000 on office plants so we don't lose it next year" Most businesses would say "excellent, we're £100,000 under budget, lets target the same for next year" This STILL goes on in the public sector and it drives me insane.

I'm still not convinced her policies in building up the financial sector were a disaster. I believe the financial sector has been very good for the UK economy and will continue to be, despite the latest crisis. The de-regulation helped this to happen. The UK was living in a bubble and as a world power it can't afford to be on the sidelines. I really don't think it would do us good NOT to be linked with other economies. This crisis is the downside of that, but having those links also encourages other nations to invest in us. I guess it comes down to what sort of nation you want to be. Entirely self sufficient, or linked to the global economy. I tend to look outward and believe the strength is in numbers (same reason I'm against Scottish Independence)

She may not have designed the atom bomb, but Thatcher was perfectly willing to use her country (which some argue she didn't even like) as a guinea pig for her ideas, with disastrous consequences.

See, I just don't get this. Every single policy was designed to allow the UK to prosper. And it did. Nobody can deny the boom that followed. And things did get better for the majority of people. The national debt had fallen, unemployment had fallen, inflation was down, interest rates hit a historical low during her first 3 years in power. I'm not saying she was all good. She just wasn't all bad.

You may not think that, but thousands apparently do. I disagree that New Labour has been a good thing, as ever since Blair embraced Murdoch we've just seen parties pandering more and more to the lowest common denominator tabloid press. New Labour was another big reason for the financial crisis. The tribalism that Thatcher encouraged in politics with her refusal to accept that consensus can play a helpful role in politics means that we have successive governments trying to outdo each other with how much they can change in a short period of time, and heaven forbid there be any cross-party consensus, as that just shows weakness(!).

Was there ever a consensus in politics? Tribalism was there, but I think part of the problem was with the courting of the media, we were made more aware of it. And we saw more of a media split with different media entities declaring their support for one side or the other rather than their previous role of being a mouthpiece for the Government, whichever party was in power. With the advent of more television channels and a move away from the BBC being the main source of news, media bias very much shaped the nation's view of Thatcher. And I have to say, I suspect much of it was because she was a woman in charge, which in the 70s wasn't something the male dominated media industry was very enlightened about. Did she make a conscious decision to be more accessible? I don't know. Perhaps her status as first female prime minister meant she was always going to be more of a media story and it grew from there. I'm far more suspicious of Tony Blair's attempts to be a "People's Prime Minister" Was he not the first one to hire a spin doctor?

I'm also skeptical about the current situation being the fault of "New Labour" Old Labour would have fallen into the same problem (and then some) At least with all the problems the UK was having, it wasn't also running a hugely unprofitable public industry.

I don't think her methods were wise. By starting a war with the unions she removed too much, too quickly, to show her conviction. What happens when multinationals decide to lay people off these days? They choose UK workers first, because they know people won't make as much of a fuss as if they tried the same in France, Germany, Italy, or any other country where workers' rights are better represented. It's extremely damaging.

I'd like to see some figures to back that up. But even if it were true, I'm not sure France or Italy are the kind of nations I'd like to be emulating in terms of their union's power or the worker's fondness of strikes. If people want to hold a government accountable, striking and holding a nation to ransom isn't the way to do it. The miner's strike was definitely not Thatcher's finest hour, but I do feel Scargill was at least 50% accountable for the whole thing and the miners were stuck in the middle. Incidentally, I read a piece about Scargill at the weekend and it seems he has finally fallen out of favour with the union, and some of his actions during his tenure are being heavily questioned. I'm afraid I will never agree that the unions need more power.

It's a human need to be near your family networks, and some people don't have family scattered over the country. You have personal experience of having to move hundreds of miles for your parents to keep their standard of living. I have the same experience, and it is difficult, isolating and sometimes a real test to be positive about things for the LO. Without wanting to blow my own trumpet, the UK has also lost something in that I got my degrees in the UK, am highly qualified and then left to give my skills and taxes to another country. Long-term investment in jobs and industry would help combat this kind of personal and economic disadvantage for individuals and governments.

I do understand that. We don't really have family scattered across the nation. As I said earlier I chose to move away from them, not because of the economy, I just fancied a change. Now that I have a family, I'd love to be back there as you are right, it can be isolating. But if the work here dried up, I'd move again, to wherever the work is. Its all well and good to be on the doorstep of your family but that doesn't pay the bills. Just as you and I can't move to where we want to because of the economy, I fail to understand why others wouldn't be prepared to move away for the same reason.

I'm afraid what the current government is doing is far more damaging than what we've had in recent times. Austerity economics have been discredited (interesting article: https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/04/grad-student-who-shook-global-austerity-movement.html) and yet our Chancellor continues on the path. When I think about it, it's so simple. This kind of policy gives this government the chance to dismantle the welfare state (a massive achievement) and at the same time sort out their mates with cushy contracts to run services which have no place in the hands of unaccountable, private enterprise, such as councils' children's services and healthcare in some areas. But what can we expect from a cabinet of millionaires?

Name the last time we didn't have a cabinet of millionaires? We want politicians to be just like us but we don't want them to have a decent salary or be able to claim expenses. I'm not sure being a millionaire precludes you from understanding the people you serve. Just as I can imagine how it is to have money, I assume those who do can imagine how it is not to have it! I'm totally for dismantling the welfare state - to an extent. Now is the time the government can use austerity as an excuse to bring it back under control. As far as I am concerned the welfare state was never designed to be an alternative to a salary and yet even now we're being told it is being reduced to make it so no-one on benefits can claim more than someone earning the average wage. Given the average wage is a hell of a lot more than a lot of people are earning, no-one on benefits should be given anywhere near that amount.

The cuts being made to council services are not down to the government, they only take away a pot of money. Local Authorities and health boards choose where that comes from. Of course they target the vulnerable, they have the quietest voice and cost the most. I can't see that changing and again isn't restricted to one party, or to this time of austerity.

For every piece from every think tank or every "expert" will have a differing opinion on whether what the Tories are doing is right. The alternative is to borrow more and spend out of the recession. Given it was too much borrowing by people that got us in to the mess, I'm not sure that too much borrowing is the best way to get us out of it.

It's widely reported that she was champing at the bit to get revenge for Heath's defeat by the unions, and she used her power to do so (Britain is often alleged to allow PMs quasi-directorial powers, thanks to its loophole-filled political system and travesties such as the Act of Parliament).

Revenge? Or looking to make sure the same thing couldn't happen again, given what followed? If I saw my Country being held to randsom in the way it was in the early 70s, I'd want to find a way to put a stop to it.

As for mines, previous governments, such as Wilson's, closed mines which were unprofitable or didn't have enough reserves and reached agreements with the unions to do so. Thatcher decided the mines she closed were uneconomic by setting her own, unattainable financial targets. She fixed the figures for herself and that's the reason we always hear about these supposedly failing mines. It wasn't the case.

Again, I'd like to see the figures on this. It sounds very much like rhetoric spouted by the Unions. I find it very hard to believe all of a sudden every mine in the UK was performing well, given the decline of the industry over the preceeding years, and the global market conditions for coal and steel.

I think the number of people who commit benefit fraud is massively overstated, especially at the moment, when we have ministers suggesting that the Philpotts are an example for why we need to have a long look at the benefits system (!). I wish more attention would be paid to those evading taxes and hiding funds offshore, who contribute a hell of a lot more to the deficit. Polls show that people believe 27% of the benefit budget is falsely claimed. In fact it's estimated by the DWP to be 2.1%, and some of that is due to error as opposed to fraud https://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error. At the same time, HMRC estimates that unpaid tax is 30 billion quid https://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/tax-gaps.htm#4 While benefit fraud is of course wrong, I wish the government spent more time and energy on the missing 30 billion than the peanuts lost through fraud and error.

I never even mentioned fraud! I'm talking about those who feel an entitlement to be looked after by the state and don't feel they have to contribute. The system allows them to do this quite legally! They are a minority, but they are the lazy scroungers I have a problem with. Kicking them off benefits won't clear the deficit but it will make me feel better. And don't get me started on HMRC!!!

I'm actually less concerned about those who avoid tax (not evaders, they should be shot) I'm of the opinion that Average Joe on the street does it too. Who hasn't paid the builder cash for a discount? Who wouldn't pay less tax, if they could? Who wouldn't feel a little pissed off that if they worked really hard the only reward was to pay a bigger percentage of their money to the government? Is it "Hiding" money offshore or using the current legislation to minimise your tax bill? That said, it does seem very bizarre to target government departments to cut costs and HMRC don't think one solution for them is to fix their mistakes. But as I said earlier, civil servants lack the expertise. They should privatise it.

I hope your home life/school life wasn't too badly affected by it. I also hope there wasn't too much in-law drama for your parents!

None whatsoever. We lived with the nice grandparents

It's a symptom of our tribal political culture in the UK (lucky you in Scotland, with your proportional representation and all!), exacerbated by, you guessed it! I'm afraid John Smith's untimely death has a lot to answer for. As far as I know, Labour continued with the housing associations and had social housing built, but not under the control of the councils. I would be interested to see what changes are made if Miliband gets in, if any.

Yeah, we're living the dream up here Here's where Thatcher was spot on. Stop all this separatist nonsense and stay as one big happy family.

Yes Labour built houses, but not nearly as many as Thatcher/Major did. From https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours_social_housing_record-1455"Between 1979 and 1996 the total building for houses by local authorities and by registered social landlords was 913,690, while from 1997 to 2008 building totalled a significantly lower 290,750."

The changes Milliband will make are........absolutely none and I predict he will blame the previous government for all the problems he faces in changing anything.

From what I can gather, Thatcher was tended to by carers in her final years and all her surviving family live abroad. I'm not really interested in her as a person, but surely that says something about how much her family really cared?

Ironically, it was Gordon Brown who decided she would have a ceremonial (not state) funeral, years ago. Maybe he was trying to foment discord (there's some long-term thinking for you The Queen had no say in it, but was said to be very uncomfortably with the level of pomp, until now only seen at Diana's funeral and the Queen mother's.

I moved away from my family, as did you. Do you love them any the less? My sister lives close by, but could I up sticks and re-locate if they needed looking after? I'd like to think nothing would stop me, but it isn't uncommon for older relatives to be cared for when they have family in another part of the country.

I always take what the Queen (or anyone else) was "said" to have thought or believed or stated. Interesting about Gordon Brown. I suspect it was only as he realised what a shitty job it is to try and clear up a fekking mess and how no-one appreciates you for it, that she wasn't actually a bad old Burd

Booooyakaaaah shaaaah, ovaa to you Pipahhhhhhh

 

[Piper84]

Lol! I'm afraid I'll take a while in replying to this again as, guess what, we're moving again

 

[tina3747]

Lol! I'm afraid I'll take a while in replying to this again as, guess what, we're moving again

I blame Margaret thatcher.

 

[Foogirl]

Lol! I'm afraid I'll take a while in replying to this again as, guess what, we're moving again

I blame Margaret thatcher.

 

[Natsku]

I'm moving too but I don't think I can blame Thatcher who will take the blame???!!!

 

[Foogirl]

Personally, I'd blame Alex Salmond, the leader of the Scottish national party. It might not seem like his fault, but he's not adverse to blaming anyone else for all his failings.

 

[Bex84]

I agree with alot of what foogirl is saying. My dh comes from london and we could not afford to live there. I come from a little village in countryside and we couldent afford to live there. I dont blame thatcher. They are both popular areas so house prices are high, dh is in a fairly well paid job and im a sahm. We live an hour away from both our parents though in opposite directions. I dont feel i have a right to live somewhere just because i was born there. Where i grew up the parish council bought own houses and rent cheap to those born there but this is from their own money not the governments as people dont tend to stay due to cost. Me and dh considered housing cost and jobs and schools when choosing where to live. I really dont think thatcher should be blamed

 

[Piper84]

Lol! I'm afraid I'll take a while in replying to this again as, guess what, we're moving again

I blame Margaret thatcher.

Actually I'm blaming the job market in Germany for making people move all over the place and never allowing them to settle down

 

[Piper84]

London is a tough nut to crack, property wise. We have a similar problem in Scotland with Edinburgh and Aberdeen. I moved away from Aberdeen just for a change, but now find I can't get back there. I do understand about not being able to get back to where you want to be but I was talking from the other side, where economically it makes no sense to stay in one area and sometimes you have to do what makes sense. I do believe there should be more affordable housing in the expensive cities as we do need low paid workers living there, but I also think, if you are a shopworker, you can't live in Chelsea, sometimes you just have to accept that.

I wonder why you use Chelsea as an example? Like all London boroughs, Kensington and Chelsea has social housing. Do you think it should be reallocated to people who can afford private rents? I'm saying this because there is one estate in Southwark where the council is actually doing that, despite the fact it will have to rehouse thousands of families in the process. I think a healthy community is made up of various social classes and it helps if a lot of people have a strong connection to the area. Abramovic and the Saudi princes and oil barons only stay in Britain for a certain number of days a year so avoid as much tax as possible despite buying up swathes of property in such areas. They bring nothing to the area except dodginess and probably aren't that active in town hall meetings, let's be honest. If my parents’ generation were able to get a reasonable mortgage and live in a house in inner London while working on a pretty low salary, why shouldn’t the next generation?

Nissan opened in Sunderland in 1986, their first plant in Europe. British Leyland expanded in Bathgate. As well as car manufacturing, manufacturing of electronic components increased with the likes of Sun Microsystems.

As far as I can work out, British Leyland was sold in 1982, production at the Bathgate plant stopped in 1985 and it was closed completely in 1986. In fact, it was Thatcher who eventually sold British Leyland off for far less than it was worth. Another largely unionised and Labour-supporting workforce was laid off. While attracting Nissan to Sunderland was a good move, the workforce that was employed there was a fraction of the number laid off during her time in government and by no means sufficient.

Scotland and the Conservatives have a history of falling out. Scotland is historically Labour supported. The problem (as put by Malcolm Rifkind) was Thatcher was very "English", she was Tory and she was a woman. She was a very centralist PM and was against any form of devolution. When the nearest part of the country to London is still over 400 miles away, naturally it is going to seem there is no real consideration given to individual needs. Where she came most unstuck was with the Poll Tax. The story touted by her opponents was we were used as a guinea pig for it and as I said here before, that wasn't true. She never wanted to introduce it here first. I think she might have got away with a lot of the problems were it not for that. But there are no areas still reeling from her policies, no desolate areas, no pockets of long term unemployment.

Thatcher was very “English” but I don’t think her devastating effect on the Scottish Conservative base can be ascribed to her distaste for devolved powers or her gender. She may not have wanted to impose the Poll Tax in Scotland first, but she did. She may not have intended to support Pol Pot’s government, but she did, etc. etc.

Of course, despite Enterprise Zones, unemployment still rose, but the fact they were created show she didn't just shut the mines and bugger off.

But that was essentially what she did. Enterprise Zones were mainly a token gesture and the fact they didn’t work and still nothing was done shows she did bugger off and leave people to it.

The nationalised power stations were finding UK produced coal was too expensive. And coal is coal (mostly) it makes little difference to the furnace at the power station whether it comes from Cornwall or China. Sure a government can support manfacturing through subsidy, but it has to still be for the benefit of the nation and beyond employing more people in the public sector, I'm not sure where the benefit is. One of Scotland's problems is the number of people employed in the Public Sector and over the long term that is unsustainable. Look where we are with Pensions now. Imagine how much bigger that crisis would be with decades worth of workers from these nationalised industries?

The benefit is sustaining communities. The effect of such mass unemployment on an area is always underestimated and always leads to problems such as urban decay, crime, drug addiction and all the wonderful stuff that comes with it. If they had thought about it in the long-term, surely they would see the effect on health and social services would be minimised if employment wasn’t removed so quickly and without any contingency planning. The pensions crisis has been caused by successive governments dipping into the funds for other purposes and not repaying it.

Germany does build quality, but there are other economic reasons for their export success, not least because of their place in the EU. They also have a different mind set within their society and because of their history, buying German and not being reliant on anyone for anything is very important. Quality v price can only be dictated by the buyer, however, and it would appear price is more important to the Brits because even the industry we do have struggles to be bought in the UK.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Self-sufficiency hasn’t been mentioned with much seriousness since the 1930s, and like most of what went on in Germany in those days, it is completely rejected by their modern democracy. Selbstversorgung involved stopping trade with other countries and preparing for war, which I don’t think is a realistic explanation for the importance of quality manufacturing these days. When I say that Germany is an export giant, I mean it makes a lot of its money exporting quality goods. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t import, quite the opposite. In any case, there was no reason for Britain not to have invested in the same kind of long-term planning for our industries, other than laziness, idiocy or intent (maybe a combo). Britain produces quality too, just on a much smaller scale these days. Surely a more solid manufacturing base is better to provide stability in times of economic crisis?

Yep, tracks are a worry! Certainly the model of privatisation hasn't worked with the railways, but I don't think that means privatisation was a bad idea. And I don't think a privatised company shouldn't be offered subsidies. Some areas cannot support a profit making service and it is the government's responsibility to ensure the infrastructure is available to all. Where there is a failure is in the process to tender these routes and in effective auditing of the operators. The fact remains that public sector companies just do not perform well. Public sector projects are seen as a great way to make money. There isn't the expertise within the public sector - there can't be because of the lack of competetive salary for directors and because hands are tied by red tape and procedure. A private business with an eye on profit is better placed to run the railway network - as long as they are being made to comply with the conditions in place.

It depends what you mean by “performing well”. As I said in a previous post, British Rail was one of the most efficient railways in Europe and completely self-sufficient. The NHS (despite its bad press from this government) is one of the most efficient health services in the world (although slightly more could be spent on it). The country’s best doctors work for the NHS and the country’s best teachers work for state schools, where they are actually paid more. Are schools unsustainable? Should councils be making some kind of profit? Or should they be providing a satisfactory service? If they can do that, then I don’t see any need to streamline them unless massive liberties are being taken.I disagree that private enterprises with an eye on profit are the best people to run a railway network/buses/schools/hospitals/council services. We don't need shiny carriages and snazzy upholstery and million pound brand changes and faulty tracks, we need trains that are affordable and run on time. When an organisation’s first goal is profit, service will always suffer, as shown time and again from the previous governments’ privatisation projects, not to mention they are completely undemocratic and a bad deal for the population.

North Sea Oil was all of our saviours. We would be in a much worse position without it. We had to cut social spending, we couldn't afford it. Government became much more streamlined because of it. Gone were the days where a service or department could spend all their budget and get the same next year, there was far more accountability for overspends. Clawback wasn't popular and led to some strange antics, but this shows the problem with the mindset within the public sector. "We've only spent £900,000 this year, lets blow the other £100,000 on office plants so we don't lose it next year" Most businesses would say "excellent, we're £100,000 under budget, lets target the same for next year" This STILL goes on in the public sector and it drives me insane.

But like so many things from her era, it was and is unsustainable and provides no long-term use.

I'm still not convinced her policies in building up the financial sector were a disaster. I believe the financial sector has been very good for the UK economy and will continue to be, despite the latest crisis. The de-regulation helped this to happen. The UK was living in a bubble and as a world power it can't afford to be on the sidelines. I really don't think it would do us good NOT to be linked with other economies. This crisis is the downside of that, but having those links also encourages other nations to invest in us. I guess it comes down to what sort of nation you want to be. Entirely self sufficient, or linked to the global economy. I tend to look outward and believe the strength is in numbers (same reason I'm against Scottish Independence)

Britain is already looking in from the sidelines, partly because of the latest crisis and partly because of the ridiculous pandering to extreme Eurosceptics in the Conservative party. Cameron’s visit to Germany to discuss the EU recently didn’t even make the news here. I’m not saying that’s a reliable and all-encompassing statement on the state of Britain’s image abroad, but it’s pretty damning.

See, I just don't get this. Every single policy was designed to allow the UK to prosper. And it did. Nobody can deny the boom that followed. And things did get better for the majority of people. The national debt had fallen, unemployment had fallen, inflation was down, interest rates hit a historical low during her first 3 years in power. I'm not saying she was all good. She just wasn't all bad.

Unemployment rose consistently under Thatcher and all the good she supposedly did had been wiped out by the time the Conservatives left power.

Was there ever a consensus in politics? Tribalism was there, but I think part of the problem was with the courting of the media, we were made more aware of it. And we saw more of a media split with different media entities declaring their support for one side or the other rather than their previous role of being a mouthpiece for the Government, whichever party was in power. With the advent of more television channels and a move away from the BBC being the main source of news, media bias very much shaped the nation's view of Thatcher. And I have to say, I suspect much of it was because she was a woman in charge, which in the 70s wasn't something the male dominated media industry was very enlightened about. Did she make a conscious decision to be more accessible? I don't know. Perhaps her status as first female prime minister meant she was always going to be more of a media story and it grew from there. I'm far more suspicious of Tony Blair's attempts to be a "People's Prime Minister" Was he not the first one to hire a spin doctor?

Yes – the period between 1945 and 1979 is called the British post-war consensus and stopped when Thatcher was elected. I’m not sure about the sexism thing and would be interested to read more about it, but it’s certainly not the reason I abhor her legacy. Blair was just as bad in my view for a lot of different reasons.

I'm also skeptical about the current situation being the fault of "New Labour" Old Labour would have fallen into the same problem (and then some) At least with all the problems the UK was having, it wasn't also running a hugely unprofitable public industry.

I’m not sure. John Smith got rid of trade union block voting so it wouldn’t necessarily have been more of the same, continuing where Callaghan left off.

I'd like to see some figures to back that up. But even if it were true, I'm not sure France or Italy are the kind of nations I'd like to be emulating in terms of their union's power or the worker's fondness of strikes. If people want to hold a government accountable, striking and holding a nation to ransom isn't the way to do it. The miner's strike was definitely not Thatcher's finest hour, but I do feel Scargill was at least 50% accountable for the whole thing and the miners were stuck in the middle. Incidentally, I read a piece about Scargill at the weekend and it seems he has finally fallen out of favour with the union, and some of his actions during his tenure are being heavily questioned. I'm afraid I will never agree that the unions need more power.

They may strike more often, but they have far better railways and employee benefits and are by no means targeted first for mass redundancies, as we are in Britain. I don’t believe that the term “holding a nation to ransom” is appropriate here either, when it was their livelihoods the miners’ were trying to salvage (their cause was also supported by a great number of non-miners).

I do understand that. We don't really have family scattered across the nation. As I said earlier I chose to move away from them, not because of the economy, I just fancied a change. Now that I have a family, I'd love to be back there as you are right, it can be isolating. But if the work here dried up, I'd move again, to wherever the work is. Its all well and good to be on the doorstep of your family but that doesn't pay the bills. Just as you and I can't move to where we want to because of the economy, I fail to understand why others wouldn't be prepared to move away for the same reason.

Would you say the same thing for emigration? I’m not suggesting people should stay rooted to the spot, waiting for someone to come and help them, but there should be a reasonable distribution of jobs around the country so that there aren’t communities dying out because their young people move off somewhere else to find work.

Name the last time we didn't have a cabinet of millionaires? We want politicians to be just like us but we don't want them to have a decent salary or be able to claim expenses. I'm not sure being a millionaire precludes you from understanding the people you serve. Just as I can imagine how it is to have money, I assume those who do can imagine how it is not to have it! I'm totally for dismantling the welfare state - to an extent. Now is the time the government can use austerity as an excuse to bring it back under control. As far as I am concerned the welfare state was never designed to be an alternative to a salary and yet even now we're being told it is being reduced to make it so no-one on benefits can claim more than someone earning the average wage. Given the average wage is a hell of a lot more than a lot of people are earning, no-one on benefits should be given anywhere near that amount.

Blair’s first cabinet, for example. The problem is when these ministers start passing favourable tax cuts for high earners or refusing to tax millionaires higher amounts, which is a complete conflict of interests. I think MPs’ salaries are fine; what I don’t think is fine are the positions they’re allowed to hold on management boards and the like while simultaneously claiming to represent their constituents.
The welfare state is there for people who need it. What’s happening now is that the people who need it (the disabled, the unemployed, low-earners) are being lambasted for claiming it and put in the same category as mass child murderers. Most civilised countries have a welfare state which works fine. I don’t see why we’re supposed to think Britain is any different.

The cuts being made to council services are not down to the government, they only take away a pot of money. Local Authorities and health boards choose where that comes from. Of course they target the vulnerable, they have the quietest voice and cost the most. I can't see that changing and again isn't restricted to one party, or to this time of austerity.

The government is allowing councils to surrender control of schools and any number of public services as well as ignore central legislation such as the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. It may be a passive role, but they are most certainly directing where the cuts are made.

For every piece from every think tank or every "expert" will have a differing opinion on whether what the Tories are doing is right. The alternative is to borrow more and spend out of the recession. Given it was too much borrowing by people that got us in to the mess, I'm not sure that too much borrowing is the best way to get us out of it.

The link I posted was the report on a young academic who exposed the errors made in a study showing that austerity is effective in the long-term. The studies that austerity politicians are using to excuse the damage that is being done are based on error. It’s not about a think tank or an expert in any way apart from the fact the expertise the government are relying on at the moment is bogus.

Again, I'd like to see the figures on this. It sounds very much like rhetoric spouted by the Unions. I find it very hard to believe all of a sudden every mine in the UK was performing well, given the decline of the industry over the preceeding years, and the global market conditions for coal and steel.

Half the pits were turning a profit, but this wasn’t enough for the new government, which wanted an excuse to privatise it all and use lack of productivity as an excuse. There was even a coal surplus in the years leading up to the strike, which allowed the government to stockpile it in the event of the inevitable industrial action. They dealt with this by lowering targets and therefore saying there were too many miners, a large number of whom would have to be made redundant. It’s common knowledge if you look for the information.

I never even mentioned fraud! I'm talking about those who feel an entitlement to be looked after by the state and don't feel they have to contribute. The system allows them to do this quite legally! They are a minority, but they are the lazy scroungers I have a problem with. Kicking them off benefits won't clear the deficit but it will make me feel better. And don't get me started on HMRC!!! I'm actually less concerned about those who avoid tax (not evaders, they should be shot) I'm of the opinion that Average Joe on the street does it too. Who hasn't paid the builder cash for a discount? Who wouldn't pay less tax, if they could? Who wouldn't feel a little pissed off that if they worked really hard the only reward was to pay a bigger percentage of their money to the government? Is it "Hiding" money offshore or using the current legislation to minimise your tax bill? That said, it does seem very bizarre to target government departments to cut costs and HMRC don't think one solution for them is to fix their mistakes. But as I said earlier, civil servants lack the expertise. They should privatise it.

Sadly, it’s this minority of people who are being used as an excuse to dismantle the welfare state. What about the millions of people who have used it as a safety net to get back on their feet?

Yeah, we're living the dream up here Here's where Thatcher was spot on. Stop all this separatist nonsense and stay as one big happy family. Yes Labour built houses, but not nearly as many as Thatcher/Major did. From https://fullfact.org/factchecks/labours_social_housing_record-1455"Between 1979 and 1996 the total building for houses by local authorities and by registered social landlords was 913,690, while from 1997 to 2008 building totalled a significantly lower 290,750."

I’m not actually defending Labour’s record – the opposite in fact. I would be interested to see how much of the building between 1979 and 1996 was down to the problem of housing shortages we still had from the last war. If there was that much housing built, surely there would be no need for Labour to do much more?

The changes Milliband will make are........absolutely none and I predict he will blame the previous government for all the problems he faces in changing anything. I moved away from my family, as did you. Do you love them any the less? My sister lives close by, but could I up sticks and re-locate if they needed looking after? I'd like to think nothing would stop me, but it isn't uncommon for older relatives to be cared for when they have family in another part of the country.

Well actually my parents moved away from me first, and then I moved away . Thatcher’s children live in tax havens (or try to, anyway) and as far as I can work out, there weren’t many visits. This isn’t the case where I’m concerned. I’m not really interested in her personally, but I read an interesting review of a programme on about her recently which had some of her letters. She didn’t really care about her widower father so it seems, so it wouldn’t be surprising if her children had the same attitude to their elderly parent.

I always take what the Queen (or anyone else) was "said" to have thought or believed or stated. Interesting about Gordon Brown. I suspect it was only as he realised what a shitty job it is to try and clear up a fekking mess and how no-one appreciates you for it, that she wasn't actually a bad old Burd

Thankfully it’s the only way we get to know what she’s thinking, and when she is “said” to have said something, it’s usually pretty unanimously reported by the media, regardless of political persuasion, which makes me think it’s as reliable as we’re gonna get.

 

[sue_88]

I think this is the best history lesson I've ever had!

Much better than Ms 'Spinster' Stevens 10 years ago who stank like wee, had camel toe everyday & spat everywhere