Try Blair, Churchill and Thatcher as the three longest (?) serving pms in the last 70 years and lo, they all had deals and relations with the scum of the earth.
I'm sure there are also posters on websites in far away countries of which we know little who describe their leaders' erstwhile allies in such terms.
I love the fact that most posters on here judge whether any article written about Thatcher is good or bad by their own political persuasion. Thatcher was probably the second most important politician of the 20th century. She's going to polarise opinions. For me, I've mixed feelings about her. My formative years were in the 80s, and even though I was born and raised in a fairly poor working class family, life didn't seem too bad, even though I had friends and relatives in East Midlands mining communities, who really did struggle. The traditional jobs in my area were in the hosiery and knitwear trade, and those industries did wither and die during my youth, but was Thatcher to blame? I dunno.
The opposite extremes of support we are getting really amuse me. Grave dancing or canonisation both seem to be over reaction to me, but then, I guess I never bought shares in British Gas, or had my mine closed down.
"It was the same in the 1970 general election when Edward Heath won a majority even though he was a long way behind Harold Wilson on measures like “best PM”. "
For some strange reason the PB tories aren't so keen to highlight that one. ;^)
Edward Heath was a great Prime Minister - someone that all Tories should be proud of.
His victory in 1970 was the only occasion since the war when a party with a working majority was replaced by another also with a working majority.
I know trolling is common on the internet, but not normally from a site's owner!
From memory the big shut down of the pits occured just after the 1992 election. I have vague recollections of general outrage and a big march through London which enjoyed quite a bit of popular support - pictures of miners being applauded throuh the streets of Knightsbridge spring to mind. I think Michael Heseltine may have been the minister who did it. But maybe I have got it wrong.
In any case, there was nothing wrong in shutting the mines - they were uneconomical, the job was dangerous and it cut short lives. The problem was in not preparing for the consequences of shutdown. It is no coincidence that some of the most God forsaken parts of these islands are those where heavy industry suddenly and quickly moved away. Once those jobs had gone there was nothing left and the community breakdown that followed has not yet been put right. At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made.
@Plato: "I've just got my polling card and will be voting Tory - I've had a gut full of the LDs duplicity and lefty authoritarianism masquerading as liberals both in HMG and on PB. When Chris_G00 and Richard Tyndall leave, it says a lot as both were highly respected posters.
There are a few exceptions but they're not at all what I believed them to be. The Tories are very far from perfect - but the best of bad job."
RT @jimwaterson: Anti-Thatcher protestors who hit the @RitzyCinema sign inadvertently destroyed promo for its ongoing Argentine Film Festival v/@ultraculture
A full understanding of Thatcher’s remarkable career also requires an analysis of her stance on the national game, an ill-informed arrogance that has since been wisely avoided by prime ministers ever since.
You are kidding aren't you? Quoting a football commentator on politics? Why not Sid Waddell on darts if he was still with us?
Try this instead.
RT @purpleline: @henrywinter@telegraph football is a Socialist game run by elites, just like Labour. Champagne socialists like Sir Alex keep the money
No, quoting a football commentator on what Mrs Thatcher planned for football - the ID card scheme under which the only way to get into a football ground would have been to have had an ID card. It would have killed football in this country.
Amazingly, there are still people who think that taxing everyone the same amount regardless of their income/wealth is fair.
Council Tax, Residents' Parking Fees or car permits; Car Park Fees in hospitals, metered street parking, multi-story car parks, television licences, road tax, fuel duties, beer, wine spirits and tobacco duties...
From memory the big shut down of the pits occured just after the 1992 election. I have vague recollections of general outrage and a big march through London which enjoyed quite a bit of popular support - pictures of miners being applauded throuh the streets of Knightsbridge spring to mind. I think Michael Heseltine may have been the minister who did it. But maybe I have got it wrong.
In any case, there was nothing wrong in shutting the mines - they were uneconomical, the job was dangerous and it cut short lives. The problem was in not preparing for the consequences of shutdown. It is no coincidence that some of the most God forsaken parts of these islands are those where heavy industry suddenly and quickly moved away. Once those jobs had gone there was nothing left and the community breakdown that followed has not yet been put right. At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made.
Not going to argue that the way money was spent left a lot to be desired. Somewhat symptomatic of the fact the governments aren't very good at spending money well?
The whole period from an industrial viewpoint was a period of change. Industry changed / evolved and our society moved at the same time. Regardless of Mrs Thatcher, a lot of this change would have come about over the next few years, if we were to be a remotely competitive economy. One of the drawbacks of change is that it creates winner and losers. The management of the losers left a lot to be desired.
"In Britain she failed, in large part because the people were not worthy of her. She wanted to create a property-owning democracy, populated by small business owners and respectable workers with their own homes and share portfolios, in which "society" was not a synonym for the state but rather a network of self-reliant and charitable families supporting themselves and looking out for their neighbours. That's what she meant when she said that there was "no such thing as society". Unfortunately, the people she emancipated sold their shares at the first opportunity and invested the proceeds in drink and cheap holidays; while those who made fortunes under her government too often failed to see any obligation to their fellows. The freedom she offered required a discipline and moral conscientiousness that she herself possessed but that too many, not being of her own wartime generation, lacked. Today's selfish and deracinated society is her legacy but was never her intention."
At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made.
Indeed SO. The most important stat re. Thatcher (particularly in light of of all the 'benefit culture' chat going on) I heard on this morning's Today programme, 1979 - 2 million solely dependent on unemployment & disabilty benefits, 1991 - 6 million solely dependent on unemployment & disabilty benefits.
From memory the big shut down of the pits occured just after the 1992 election. I have vague recollections of general outrage and a big march through London which enjoyed quite a bit of popular support - pictures of miners being applauded throuh the streets of Knightsbridge spring to mind. I think Michael Heseltine may have been the minister who did it. But maybe I have got it wrong.
In any case, there was nothing wrong in shutting the mines - they were uneconomical, the job was dangerous and it cut short lives. The problem was in not preparing for the consequences of shutdown. It is no coincidence that some of the most God forsaken parts of these islands are those where heavy industry suddenly and quickly moved away. Once those jobs had gone there was nothing left and the community breakdown that followed has not yet been put right. At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made.
Not going to argue that the way money was spent left a lot to be desired. Somewhat symptomatic of the fact the governments aren't very good at spending money well?
The whole period from an industrial viewpoint was a period of change. Industry changed / evolved and our society moved at the same time. Regardless of Mrs Thatcher, a lot of this change would have come about over the next few years, if we were to be a remotely competitive economy. One of the drawbacks of change is that it creates winner and losers. The management of the losers left a lot to be desired.
Personally, I think it is bizarre that parliament has been recalled to debate Thatcher's legacy. Our politicians clearly have far too much time on their hands.
Amazingly, there are still people who think that taxing everyone the same amount regardless of their income/wealth is fair.
Council Tax, Residents' Parking Fees or car permits; Car Park Fees in hospitals, metered street parking, multi-story car parks, television licences, road tax, fuel duties, beer, wine spirits and tobacco duties...
Leaving aside council tax - which is based on house values as a proxy for ability to pay, and therefore not a flat rate - all of the others are voluntary fees for services, and therefore people do not have to pay.
The poll tax was a tax, it was compulsory, and people went to jail for non-payment. If the poll tax had been non-compulsory it would be different, but people use council services (such as street lighting) in a way that you can't make optional. There's no way to have them turn off when someone who has decided not to pay the charge for the service walks along.
Consequently, a charge for local services has to be compulsory, which makes it a tax, which means that a flat rate is not fair.
Things like the BBC licence fee are optional - I choose not to pay, and so I don't receive live broadcasts of TV services. Consequently a flat rate charge is perfectly fair.
Most of the population can instinctively grasp this distinction, which is why the poll tax was so unpopular, but the BBC licence fee is resented only by a small minority of extreme rightwingers.
Personally, I think it is bizarre that parliament has been recalled to debate Thatcher's legacy. Our politicians clearly have far too much time on their hands.
Fodder for the papers and TV News but the public is unlikely to be paying rapt attention.
And today I feel the pain of Toby Young, Louise Mensch and certain other commentators who so clearly wanted to be able to spark a Twitter and blog war yesterday about how awful the left is because of its rejoicing over Mrs T's death. But it did not happen. Rather than mass dancing in the streets what we got was a sober assessment of her legacy and a few pockets of crusty of SWPers trying and failing to grab attention for themselves. Poor old Toby, poor old Louise. Never mind.
People of little education should reflect before posting: The late 'Eighties and early 'Nineties were periods of low oil-prices that made the North-Sea fields marginal at best. If we were awash with oil-revenue then Lamont would not have had to raise VAT-rates....
And today I feel the pain of Toby Young, Louise Mensch and certain other commentators who so clearly wanted to be able to spark a Twitter and blog war yesterday about how awful the left is because of its rejoicing over Mrs T's death. But it did not happen.
You speak as if the PB tories have given up. They have not. It's what they live for. ;^)
Amazingly, there are still people who think that taxing everyone the same amount regardless of their income/wealth is fair.
Council Tax, Residents' Parking Fees or car permits; Car Park Fees in hospitals, metered street parking, multi-story car parks, television licences, road tax, fuel duties, beer, wine spirits and tobacco duties...
Leaving aside council tax - which is based on house values as a proxy for ability to pay, and therefore not a flat rate - all of the others are voluntary fees for services, and therefore people do not have to pay.
The poll tax was a tax, it was compulsory, and people went to jail for non-payment. If the poll tax had been non-compulsory it would be different, but people use council services (such as street lighting) in a way that you can't make optional. There's no way to have them turn off when someone who has decided not to pay the charge for the service walks along.
Consequently, a charge for local services has to be compulsory, which makes it a tax, which means that a flat rate is not fair.
Things like the BBC licence fee are optional - I choose not to pay, and so I don't receive live broadcasts of TV services. Consequently a flat rate charge is perfectly fair.
Most of the population can instinctively grasp this distinction, which is why the poll tax was so unpopular, but the BBC licence fee is resented only by a small minority of extreme rightwingers.
You have to pay the licence fee if you have a TV whether you watch the bbc or not, so it's hardly a matter of real choice, especially when the cost of technology to charge differently is at an all time low.
I certainly wouldn't argue with you about it being a country of which you know little.
I believe the reference is to President Lee of Singapore's comment from "The World in 1988' [The Economist] (or was it 1989). But an informed man like you would know that, no...?
And today I feel the pain of Toby Young, Louise Mensch and certain other commentators who so clearly wanted to be able to spark a Twitter and blog war yesterday about how awful the left is because of its rejoicing over Mrs T's death. But it did not happen. Rather than mass dancing in the streets what we got was a sober assessment of her legacy and a few pockets of crusty of SWPers trying and failing to grab attention for themselves. Poor old Toby, poor old Louise. Never mind.
There are Muppets of this in every political grouping. Sadly, it's a sign of these twittery times.
Having said that, there were dancing and celebrations of Maggies death, by mindless lefty mobs in London, Bristol, and other places up north.
A degree of sophistry re compulsion and voluntary nature of taxes.
Residents' car permits compulsory if you own a car.
If you buy alcohol - you have to pay duty. If you buy tobacco you have to pay duty. If you buy diesel or petrol - you have to pay duty. If you use a car park - you have to pay the fee. The Council tax is compulsory - it bears no relation to earnings or income.
Council Tax, Residents' Parking Fees or car permits; Car Park Fees in hospitals, metered street parking, multi-story car parks, television licences, road tax, fuel duties, beer, wine spirits and tobacco duties...
Leaving aside council tax - which is based on house values as a proxy for ability to pay, and therefore not a flat rate - all of the others are voluntary fees for services, and therefore people do not have to pay.
Most of the population can instinctively grasp this distinction, which is why the poll tax was so unpopular, but the BBC licence fee is resented only by a small minority of extreme rightwingers.
Aside from the various parking fees those are all taxes. I pay a fee for a service to Sky, I pay a tax to the BBC. There is a difference!
Other definitions of fair are possible. If I use the same level of local council resources as my neighbour why shouldn't I pay the same as him? Why should a pensioner living on her own in a large house pay more than the family of 6 in the next street?
All changes to taxes produce winners and losers - the problem for the Poll tax was that the winners tended to be less vocal (and less prone to riot) than the losers
You have to pay the licence fee if you have a TV whether you watch the bbc or not, so it's hardly a matter of real choice, especially when the cost of technology to charge differently is at an all time low.
You only need a TV licence if you want to watch live broadcasts of TV.
I have a TV which I use to watch videos and DVDs that I have decided to purchase, or borrow from a service such as Lovefilm. I do not need a TV licence.
It is not compulsory. You have a choice that you do not have with a tax.
And today I feel the pain of Toby Young, Louise Mensch and certain other commentators who so clearly wanted to be able to spark a Twitter and blog war yesterday about how awful the left is because of its rejoicing over Mrs T's death. But it did not happen. Rather than mass dancing in the streets what we got was a sober assessment of her legacy and a few pockets of crusty of SWPers trying and failing to grab attention for themselves. Poor old Toby, poor old Louise. Never mind.
There are Muppets of this in every political grouping. Sadly, it's a sign of these twittery times.
Having said that, there were dancing and celebrations of Maggies death, by mindless lefty mobs in London, Bristol, and other places up north.
Mobs? Seriously? From what I saw there were more photographers than celebrants at most of these get togethers.
"At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made."
So what would you have done differently, and have you considered the side effects of your policies?
Besides, the time to help those communities was before the mines closed, when it was obvious that many of them would be closing. Communities where there is only one major employer, and that employer dominates the local economy, need diversifying. That should have been done in the 1960s and 1970s. And it should be looked at today, as well.
One of Thatcher's greatest legacies is the diversification of the economy that you seem to be calling for. The 1980s were just too late for the communities effected - it should have been done before. But the Conservative and Labour governments that went before did nothing.
You have to pay the licence fee if you have a TV whether you watch the bbc or not, so it's hardly a matter of real choice, especially when the cost of technology to charge differently is at an all time low.
You only need a TV licence if you want to watch live broadcasts of TV.
I have a TV which I use to watch videos and DVDs that I have decided to purchase, or borrow from a service such as Lovefilm. I do not need a TV licence.
It is not compulsory. You have a choice that you do not have with a tax.
yeah I know all of that but it's just nerdy bullshit. If you buy a TV and want to watch it you have to buy a TV licence. You don't have a real choice to say watch the other 100 odd non BBC channels without paying the BBC some danegeld. Nor indeed does the BBC offer you the choice of menu style services to cut out the stuff you don't use. It's all or nothing and the law's against you. It's increasingly an archaic way to fund a consumer service and it will eventually go.
"At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made."
So what would you have done differently, and have you considered the side effects of your policies?
Besides, the time to help those communities was before the mines closed, when it was obvious that many of them would be closing. Communities where there is only one major employer, and that employer dominates the local economy, need diversifying. That should have been done in the 1960s and 1970s. And it should be looked at today, as well.
One of Thatcher's greatest legacies is the diversification of the economy that you seem to be calling for. The 1980s were just too late for the communities effected - it should have been done before. But the Conservative and Labour governments that went before did nothing.
The miners that lost their jobs prior to the 1980s generally found other ones, so the communities concerned did not break up. The difference in the 80s and 90s was that there were no jobs to go to. As I say, the problem was not the end of heavy industry, it was the lack of planning for the consequences of that. We are still living with the results today. The economy did not diversify in the 1980s, it became much more focused on services. That worked very well in the south of England, but tended not to be so successful in parts of the country where there were not enough people looking for services to buy.
I've listened to about 10 mins of R5 and its unbearable twaddle - they've just gone live to a spokesbod from mining pressure group - this was over two decades ago and they're still nursing a grievance.
No wonder they aren't moving on, nor other businesses want to move in and employ those with a chip on both shoulders.
Mr CurryStar noted that he didn't employ ex-nuclear plant people as they'd grown a grievance mindset - I've done the same myself when *YouMustFeelSorryForMe* infected a workforce.
It's terribly damaging spoilt brat labour thinking = no one wants them bar Pity Party members.
Do what the French did and retrain miners to work in the nuclear power stations we should have built.
Sadly the left and the right screwed that one up
Yes I can see that working with middle class lefties. Most of the time they've opposed Sellafield and want it shut down irrespective of the locals saying it's the only work round here. This in turn got contorted to the "rich" imposing dangerous technologies on impoverished communities as part of capitalist irresponsibility. Still never tooo late. Let's stick some new plants up and create jobs. Birkenhead anyone?
Do what the French did and retrain miners to work in the nuclear power stations we should have built.
Unemployment in the Nord Pas de Calais region was 14% in 1984. Presumably Maggie must have wrecked whole communities there too, although I've never quite understood how she managed to have this effect in foreign countries.
The decline of mining and the resulting unemployment was much the same all over Europe.
"Jowell: Anti-Thatcher violence 'completely out of order'
The former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, who is MP for the neighbouring constituency of Dulwich, has condemned the anti-Thatcher celebrations in Brixton and elsewhere in the UK as "disrepectful.
Democracy must always embrace legitimate dissent but the action in Brixton and elsewhere is disrespectful and completely out of order."
@JosiaJessop. Do what the French did and retrain miners to work in the nuclear power stations we should have built.
Sadly the left and the right screwed that one up
You have no idea about numbers and locations, do you? The Welsh Valleys and Nottinghamshire are not exactly well known for their nuclear reactors, for obvious reasons. And we are talking about trying to keep communities together and providing them with alternative industries. Many people were, and still are, unwilling to move from their home areas.
Thatcher tried this, with the garden festivals, new car factories and other strategies. She could have done more, but she did a darned sight more than her predecessors.
Do you have a source for your claim that French miners were retrained (presumably in large numbers) to work on the French nuclear plants?
Sometimes The Daily Mash reports are a mirror image of reality.
People with no idea who Thatcher was 'ecstatic' that she's dead 08-04-13 THOUSANDS of people under 35 are rejoicing at the demise of a woman they once read about.
Rot in hell, generic old lady
Following Lady Thatcher’s death, people who want to look impressively ‘political’ are acting like they remember Thatcher as something other than a vague abstract concept of evil.
Do what the French did and retrain miners to work in the nuclear power stations we should have built.
Sadly the left and the right screwed that one up
Yes I can see that working with middle class lefties. Most of the time they've opposed Sellafield and want it shut down irrespective of the locals saying it's the only work round here. This in turn got contorted to the "rich" imposing dangerous technologies on impoverished communities as part of capitalist irresponsibility. Still never tooo late. Let's stick some new plants up and create jobs. Birkenhead anyone?<
/blockquote>
Come, come Mr Brooke, we do not only find NIMBYs on the left. Look at the furore over wind farms or HS2 and then imagine what would happen to a proposal to build a power station in some part of our green and pleasant land.
Do what the French did and retrain miners to work in the nuclear power stations we should have built.
Sadly the left and the right screwed that one up
Yes I can see that working with middle class lefties. Most of the time they've opposed Sellafield and want it shut down irrespective of the locals saying it's the only work round here. This in turn got contorted to the "rich" imposing dangerous technologies on impoverished communities as part of capitalist irresponsibility. Still never tooo late. Let's stick some new plants up and create jobs. Birkenhead anyone?<
/blockquote>
Come, come Mr Brooke, we do not only find NIMBYs on the left. Look at the furore over wind farms or HS2 and then imagine what would happen to a proposal to build a power station in some part of our green and pleasant land.
totally agree SO I was merely pointing out to tim that the people who complain there are no jobs are same ones who'd complain that the jobs that did turn up were somehow wrong.
@JosiaJessop. Do what the French did and retrain miners to work in the nuclear power stations we should have built.
Sadly the left and the right screwed that one up
You have no idea about numbers and locations, do you? The Welsh Valleys and Nottinghamshire are not exactly well known for their nuclear reactors, for obvious reasons. And we are talking about trying to keep communities together and providing them with alternative industries. Many people were, and still are, unwilling to move from their home areas.
Thatcher tried this, with the garden festivals, new car factories and other strategies. She could have done more, but she did a darned sight more than her predecessors.
Do you have a source for your claim that French miners were retrained (presumably in large numbers) to work on the French nuclear plants?
Why is it, do you think, that there is such a correlation between areas of significant social and economic deprivation now, and those parts of the country which saw heavy industry depart in the 80s and 90s?
If I was to pick one single legacy of Mrs T for which we should be grateful it would be the private sector trade unions. From the complete insanity of Red Robbo in the 1970s destroying BL to the truly excellent work done by trade unions in our car factories of 2008-10 working with their employers, protecting jobs, showing flexability and focussed on investment and a long term future the difference could not be more stark. The private sector unions of today are her monument.
Thinking about her yesterday I was trying to recall the last significant private sector strike. Maybe BA over pensions and differentials nearly 3 years ago?
So the militant unionism of the 1970s today only exists in the public sector who still seem to believe they have an employer who can't go bust. It is quite touching really.
Why is it, do you think, that there is such a correlation between areas of significant social and economic deprivation now, and those parts of the country which saw heavy industry depart in the 80s and 90s?
A situation exacerbated by those with drive and talent leaving deprived areas to pursue jobs and a better life elsewhere. I'm fairly right-wing, but recognise that the state has a big role in arresting the decline of those areas and [at least attempting to] reverse it.
It's a hard, uphill slog though, especially when decades of self-selection has left a very poor and disinterested workforce behind.
"The miners that lost their jobs prior to the 1980s generally found other ones, so the communities concerned did not break up. The difference in the 80s and 90s was that there were no jobs to go to. As I say, the problem was not the end of heavy industry, it was the lack of planning for the consequences of that. We are still living with the results today. The economy did not diversify in the 1980s, it became much more focused on services. That worked very well in the south of England, but tended not to be so successful in parts of the country where there were not enough people looking for services to buy."
As I have said before, Thatcher reaped the problems that had occurred years and decades before. Mines would close, but there were often other mines in the area in which to work, especially as many of the mine closures were down to consolidation. And there would still be a mine at the heart of the community.
The problems in the 1980s were often caused because it was the *last* mine closing in an area, and there was nowhere else for the men to go. And when the last mine closed, the local support industries also disappeared. Yet all the blame seems to go on Thatcher, absolving the previous governments of any blame.
What could Thatcher's governments do about that? You cannot just introduce new industries overnight - it took Nissan, with all their vast resources, a couple of years to open their factory for which there was a need.
Saying that there has been no diversification because the services grew is ridiculous - services is a massively diverse industrial sector, unlike coal mining or steel.
(I have much greater problems with Thatcher on steelwork and especially shipbuilding. Both were missed opportunities).
Thinking about her yesterday I was trying to recall the last significant private sector strike. Maybe BA over pensions and differentials nearly 3 years ago?
Called by the trade union which also happens to be the biggest trade union in the car industry whose actions you praised. And which also happens to have significant public sector membership who participated in the biggest strike in recent times on 30 November 2011.
'The decline of mining and the resulting unemployment was much the same all over Europe.'
According to The Coalfields Research Programme,the decline was at its peak in the 1960's when large numbers of mines were closed and 400,000 miners left the industry.
The Decline of King Coal - Cardiff University www.cardiff.ac.uk/.../The%20decline%20of%20king%20coal%20-%...
@JosiaJessop. Do what the French did and retrain miners to work in the nuclear power stations we should have built.
Sadly the left and the right screwed that one up
You have no idea about numbers and locations, do you? The Welsh Valleys and Nottinghamshire are not exactly well known for their nuclear reactors, for obvious reasons. And we are talking about trying to keep communities together and providing them with alternative industries. Many people were, and still are, unwilling to move from their home areas.
Thatcher tried this, with the garden festivals, new car factories and other strategies. She could have done more, but she did a darned sight more than her predecessors.
Do you have a source for your claim that French miners were retrained (presumably in large numbers) to work on the French nuclear plants?
Why is it, do you think, that there is such a correlation between areas of significant social and economic deprivation now, and those parts of the country which saw heavy industry depart in the 80s and 90s?
There will be many factors. 13 years of New Labour didn't help. But education is an important factor - I have known several ex-miners from the Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire coalfields. One did very well after the mine closed because he had some very relevant skills (he was a plant fitter). Another told me - and I have no reason to doubt him - that he was educated poorly, the teachers expecting him to go straight into the mine. He believed the teachers thought that he did not need educating beyond being able to read and write. That served him very poorly later in life.
In other cases, the village / town around the mines may not be a very good location for any largescale industries, which demand many things, including good transport links and a skilled workforce.
They are difficult problems, and needed addressing in advance, not at the time of closure.
"The miners that lost their jobs prior to the 1980s generally found other ones, so the communities concerned did not break up. The difference in the 80s and 90s was that there were no jobs to go to. As I say, the problem was not the end of heavy industry, it was the lack of planning for the consequences of that. We are still living with the results today. The economy did not diversify in the 1980s, it became much more focused on services. That worked very well in the south of England, but tended not to be so successful in parts of the country where there were not enough people looking for services to buy."
As I have said before, Thatcher reaped the problems that had occurred years and decades before. Mines would close, but there were often other mines in the area in which to work, especially as many of the mine closures were down to consolidation. And there would still be a mine at the heart of the community.
The problems in the 1980s were often caused because it was the *last* mine closing in an area, and there was nowhere else for the men to go. And when the last mine closed, the local support industries also disappeared. Yet all the blame seems to go on Thatcher, absolving the previous governments of any blame.
What could Thatcher's governments do about that? You cannot just introduce new industries overnight - it took Nissan, with all their vast resources, a couple of years to open their factory for which there was a need.
Saying that there has been no diversification because the services grew is ridiculous - services is a massively diverse industrial sector, unlike coal mining or steel.
(I have much greater problems with Thatcher on steelwork and especially shipbuilding. Both were missed opportunities).
I am not just talking about the mines, I am talkling about heavy industry in particular. The UK is not a diversified economy when compared to most of our main rivals - we are far too reliant on services. That's not Mrs T's fault, but the process began during her time in office. We were too reliant on heavy industry, we quickly became too reliant on services.
The decline of heavy industry was not something that came out of the blue and it did niot begin under the Thatcher government. But what did happen under her rule which was unique was wholesale and across the board collapse. A range of heavy industries all pretty much disappeared or significantly downsized at the same time, and the social and economic consequences for the communities affected were dire and long-lasting. It could have been planned for much better in my view. And the money raised by North Sea oil, privatisation and the City boom years could have been more wisely spent.
As for previous governments, I agree - they were pretty much uniformly useless; as were the unions and almost the entire management of almost every business we had. The UK was a joke on just about every level imaginable.
But today, we are talking about Mrs T's legacy. For me personally, it was a very good one. I owe her a lot. But I also recognise that there are a lot of people who feel (I believe rightly) that she did not care enough about them or their communities. And I think that as a result the entire country continues to pay a price.
Like David Cameron Margaret Thatcher inherited a country on the edge of ruin. Unlike him she had a particular problem and an opportunity. The problem was inflation which needed to be squeezed out of the system by tighter monetary policies. This had been a problem more than 10 years in the making under predecessors of both persuasions but was getting critical by 1979.
Squeezing inflation meant tight monetary policies and high interest rates. This put upward pressure on the pound which received an even more significant boost from her opportunity which was north sea oil as the pound became a petro-currency.
Unfortunately a major part of British industry was seriously uncompetitive. They had had a managed decline based on an ever depreciating currency for a long time. The decline was driven by poor investment, terrible management, terrible unions, class conflict and an arrogance based on goodness knows what.
It was inevitable that much of that heavy industry would disappear as the pound rose and borrowing became more expensive. Could the government of the day have done more? Maybe, but it was not an easy problem to solve.
What was critical for the future is that the population as a whole appreciated that the market ruled and we were subject to it. If you want future employment produce what the market wants at the price the market is prepared to pay and invest to develop your products. If you want a good standard of living earn it. Mrs T hammered home that message. Sometimes, in doing so she sounded brutal but it was the truth.
In the Brown era people once again stopped believing this. So it was claimed our balance of payments did not matter and that there were acceptable levels of government borrowing to subsidise consumption now. Having not fully understood her message we are condemned to relive some of the consequences.
"The miners that lost their jobs prior to the 1980s generally found other ones, so the communities concerned did not break up. The difference in the 80s and 90s was that there were no jobs to go to. As I say, the problem was not the end of heavy industry, it was the lack of planning for the consequences of that. We are still living with the results today. The economy did not diversify in the 1980s, it became much more focused on services. That worked very well in the south of England, but tended not to be so successful in parts of the country where there were not enough people looking for services to buy."
As I have said before, Thatcher reaped the problems that had occurred years and decades before. Mines would close, but there were often other mines in the area in which to work, especially as many of the mine closures were down to consolidation. And there would still be a mine at the heart of the community.
The problems in the 1980s were often caused because it was the *last* mine closing in an area, and there was nowhere else for the men to go. And when the last mine closed, the local support industries also disappeared. Yet all the blame seems to go on Thatcher, absolving the previous governments of any blame.
What could Thatcher's governments do about that? You cannot just introduce new industries overnight - it took Nissan, with all their vast resources, a couple of years to open their factory for which there was a need.
Saying that there has been no diversification because the services grew is ridiculous - services is a massively diverse industrial sector, unlike coal mining or steel.
(I have much greater problems with Thatcher on steelwork and especially shipbuilding. Both were missed opportunities).
I am not just talking about the mines, I am talkling about heavy industry in particular. The UK is not a diversified economy when compared to most of our main rivals - we are far too reliant on services. That's not Mrs T's fault, but the process began during her time in office. We were too reliant on heavy industry, we quickly became too reliant on services.
The decline of heavy industry was not something that came out of the blue and it did niot begin under the Thatcher government. But what did happen under her rule which was unique was wholesale and across the board collapse. A range of heavy industries all pretty much disappeared or significantly downsized at the same time, and the social and economic consequences for the communities affected were dire and long-lasting. It could have been planned for much better in my view. And the money raised by North Sea oil, privatisation and the City boom years could have been more wisely spent.
As for previous governments, I agree - they were pretty much uniformly useless; as were the unions and almost the entire management of almost every business we had. The UK was a joke on just about every level imaginable.
But today, we are talking about Mrs T's legacy. For me personally, it was a very good one. I owe her a lot. But I also recognise that there are a lot of people who feel (I believe rightly) that she did not care enough about them or their communities. And I think that as a result the entire country continues to pay a price.
We had heavy industry, it was just utterly s*** and uncompetitive.
@JosiasJessop (I have much greater problems with Thatcher on steelwork and especially shipbuilding. Both were missed opportunities).
I agree with you on this. In mitigation for Maggie, she did have to fight a load of back stabbing weak tory wets in her cabinet, that precluded her from doing what she really wished to do.
Given that 60% of your comments on here since the new commenting system was introduced are related to something I posted,I'd say I'm providing you with an excellent outlet. Whether that is good or bad is debatable
Much higher than 60% I would say... you are the most stimulating poster here and provide humour, intrigue and outrage in equal measures. Just occasionally you say things that one can't resist responding to. A bit repetitive recently, but I put that down to the coalition being marginally less incompetent than it was last year, thus denying you new material to work with.
@Rexel56 Given that 60% of your comments on here since the new commenting system was introduced are related to something I posted,I'd say I'm providing you with an excellent outlet.
Much higher than 60% I would say... you are the most stimulating poster here and provide humour, intrigue and outrage in equal measures. Just occasionally you say things that one can't resist responding to.
I am not sure I get your point. The BA dispute was frankly hopeless from the trade union point of view but anyone and everyone could understand the grievance of the staff. I got the distinct impression at the time that the union was trying very hard and failing to manage the expectations of the membership who seemed to expect miracles and refused to accept that the market applied to them too.
It is perhaps no coincidence that it occurred in a former publically owned company and reflected practices that went back to that time. But I really would not blame the union leadership. I think they got it even if the staff didn't.
"The decline of heavy industry was not something that came out of the blue and it did niot begin under the Thatcher government. But what did happen under her rule which was unique was wholesale and across the board collapse."
And what, in your mind, should she have done differently? Should she have kept pumping money into those industries? And surely the person who is at the end of a managed (or unmanaged) decline should not get the majority of the blame for that decline?
The blame should be mostly split between previous governments, incompetent management at nationalised and private industries, stupid union actions, an unmotivated workforce, changing world markets, poor investment decisions, and a general lack of investment. (The latter is still a problem).
Thatcher's very low on the list, and there was only so much she could so about the above problems.
It'd be good to know what you think the answer was with hindsight. Because aside from keeping those industries going, I see little she could have done except allow many of those industries to close.
So again I ask, what would you have done differently to help those communities?
That strikes, in themselves, arent proof of the failure of trade unions. It takes two to disagree. Obviously it is best for all concerned to avoid strikes but when one happens it isnt always because the trade union is being irresponsible.
The civil service and public sector management inc is on the decline, belongs to a previous age and needs modernising - all whilst the country is skint.
Uk leading the way in clearing out the stables - again.
I see the US Navy has deployed an inferior version of the solar death ray. Their own laser technology is exorbitantly expensive as well as far less sustainable than my own solar death ray.
"The decline of heavy industry was not something that came out of the blue and it did niot begin under the Thatcher government. But what did happen under her rule which was unique was wholesale and across the board collapse."
And what, in your mind, should she have done differently? Should she have kept pumping money into those industries? And surely the person who is at the end of a managed (or unmanaged) decline should not get the majority of the blame for that decline?
The blame should be mostly split between previous governments, incompetent management at nationalised and private industries, stupid union actions, an unmotivated workforce, changing world markets, poor investment decisions, and a general lack of investment. (The latter is still a problem).
Thatcher's very low on the list, and there was only so much she could so about the above problems.
It'd be good to know what you think the answer was with hindsight. Because aside from keeping those industries going, I see little she could have done except allow many of those industries to close.
So again I ask, what would you have done differently to help those communities?
There was certainly a case for gradualised closures, so that they did not all happen at the same time. I think there could easily have been much greater attention to retraining and much greater infrastructure investment. There could also have been government help for businesses to re-engineer towards producing higher quality products where basic price was not the selling point - the German approach. The state generally could have been more effectively decentralised. And so on. Becase of North Sea oil and to a lesser extent the privatisations the money was available ina way that it had not been for previous governments, but it went on other things.
My figures for total number of candidates by party standing in May as follows . England only so excludes Anglesey . May be a couple of minor errors . Con 2,249 Lab 2,165 LDem 1,760 UKIP 1,727 Green 877 BNP 100 TUSC 116 Liberal 11 Meb K 25 Ind/Others 782
@JosiasJessop (I have much greater problems with Thatcher on steelwork and especially shipbuilding. Both were missed opportunities).
I agree with you on this. In mitigation for Maggie, she did have to fight a load of back stabbing weak tory wets in her cabinet, that precluded her from doing what she really wished to do.
I would love to read a scholarly tome on the decline of shipbuilding. I've read around the subject a fair bit of the years, and still cannot get my head around why Britain does not have a world-beating shipbuilding industry any more. The industry was changing towards modular construction, and some facilities were poorly situated (e.g. the Woolston yard in Southampton, where the river is too narrow to launch many ships).
But we should have been able to do it. We had the workforce, we had the knowledge, and we had the prestige. Yet we hardly have any shipbuilding industry left, at a time when shipbuilding globally has exploded.
Was it just a lack of will to invest in new / updated facilities, or was it a lack of central control (we *will* build a new state of the art shipyard *here*)? Then again, given the controversy over the Able shipbreaking endeavours in Hartlepool, perhaps we could never have done it...
I am not sure I get your point. The BA dispute was frankly hopeless from the trade union point of view but anyone and everyone could understand the grievance of the staff. I got the distinct impression at the time that the union was trying very hard and failing to manage the expectations of the membership who seemed to expect miracles and refused to accept that the market applied to them too.
It is perhaps no coincidence that it occurred in a former publically owned company and reflected practices that went back to that time. But I really would not blame the union leadership. I think they got it even if the staff didn't.
I have to say that in terms of professionalism and competence BA cabin crew are head and shoulders above any other that I come across - even the Asian airlines. The product is not as good in a number of cases, but the service and attention to detail is fantastic. If you put, say, BA crew in Emirates biz class, you would have one hell of a product. I do thnk they are a selling point, given the economies BA has made in what it gives its customers. They are a reason to come back (especially as the miles scheme is so crap).
I see the US Navy has deployed an inferior version of the solar death ray. Their own laser technology is exorbitantly expensive as well as far less sustainable than my own solar death ray.
@JosiasJessop - a documentary I once saw laid the blame at the doors of both management (who liked divisions of labour so they could lay off workers in groups as work on the ship progressed) and Unions who responded by fighting over the "differentials" this created. After WWII the British shipbuilding industry had fat order books with little incentive to modernise - by the time they thinned out the Japanese and others had modernised and left us standing..
"There was certainly a case for gradualised closures, so that they did not all happen at the same time. I think there could easily have been much greater attention to retraining and much greater infrastructure investment. There could also have been government help for businesses to re-engineer towards producing higher quality products where basic price was not the selling point - the German approach. The state generally could have been more effectively decentralised. And so on. Becase of North Sea oil and to a lesser extent the privatisations the money was available ina way that it had not been for previous governments, but it went on other things."
I can see the sense in many of these, but:
Gradualised closures: a massive cost, and the political problems are kicked down the road. It's also pointless keeping a mine open if geological conditions disallow mining, or producing steel if there is no market. That does no-one any good.
Retraining. Indeed. ISTR there were some schemes, but again that is something that should have been done in the 1970s as well. And there have to be jobs to retrain to.
Re-engineering for higher-quality products. Again true, and some industries did try this. But there is often a much more limited market for the high-end than there is for the low-end. It also requires very large amounts of investment and a change of mindset on the part of management, unions and workforce.
Decentralisation of the state was exactly what many of Thatcher's opponents were afraid of, and fought against.
I think my biggest problem with your argument is the idea that the North Sea money was somehow wasted. I'm not sure that was the case (I can almost hear the howls from some on here). The sums coming in from oil and privatisation were useful, but small compared to the size of the economy and the problems it faced.
That strikes, in themselves, arent proof of the failure of trade unions. It takes two to disagree. Obviously it is best for all concerned to avoid strikes but when one happens it isnt always because the trade union is being irresponsible.
It really only takes one to disagree if that one is intent on being intransigent. The only alternative then is for the other to continually cave in which becomes unsustainable quite quickly.
My figures for total number of candidates by party standing in May as follows . England only so excludes Anglesey . May be a couple of minor errors . Con 2,249 Lab 2,165 LDem 1,760 UKIP 1,727 Green 877 BNP 100 TUSC 116 Liberal 11 Meb K 25 Ind/Others 782
That's really helpful - thanks Mark. UKIP certainly out there big time, and the Greens well up too. In my patch in Notts, the BNP who stood in most places last time have retreated to a single division, but UKIP are everywhere and the Greens in a few. It makes targeting quite difficult - some divisions appear to be quite safe Tory, but if UKIP eats even a quarter of their votes they could lose nearly all of them.
"By the late 1950s foreign shipyards (as in Korea and Japan) were more competitive than Scottish shipyards, because of huge subsidies, new construction methods and modular designs. The mid-1960s was an era of poor industrial relations and frequent strikes, making many Clydeside yards increasingly uneconomic. Harland & Wolff’s Linthouse yard closed, while Fairfield’s of Govan faced bankruptcy."
I think at this time we were still arguing about who does what in the shipyards and still banging in rivets when we should have been welding plates and using new construction methods.
Interesting that France, Finland & Germany still have commercial shipyards as they were not strike-bound by intransigent unions and timid management.
Comments
Who sanctioned this and then incentivised STH/PCTs to push the elderly/expensive down it to *hit a target* and *save money* ?
It's just revolting and makes quips about Tories eating babies pale into nothing.
Thatcher was probably the second most important politician of the 20th century. She's going to polarise opinions.
For me, I've mixed feelings about her. My formative years were in the 80s, and even though I was born and raised in a fairly poor working class family, life didn't seem too bad, even though I had friends and relatives in East Midlands mining communities, who really did struggle. The traditional jobs in my area were in the hosiery and knitwear trade, and those industries did wither and die during my youth, but was Thatcher to blame? I dunno.
The opposite extremes of support we are getting really amuse me. Grave dancing or canonisation both seem to be over reaction to me, but then, I guess I never bought shares in British Gas, or had my mine closed down.
Well said.
In any case, there was nothing wrong in shutting the mines - they were uneconomical, the job was dangerous and it cut short lives. The problem was in not preparing for the consequences of shutdown. It is no coincidence that some of the most God forsaken parts of these islands are those where heavy industry suddenly and quickly moved away. Once those jobs had gone there was nothing left and the community breakdown that followed has not yet been put right. At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made.
For balance, there's a very good article in the Times by none other than George Osborne.
"I've just got my polling card and will be voting Tory - I've had a gut full of the LDs duplicity and lefty authoritarianism masquerading as liberals both in HMG and on PB. When Chris_G00 and Richard Tyndall leave, it says a lot as both were highly respected posters.
There are a few exceptions but they're not at all what I believed them to be. The Tories are very far from perfect - but the best of bad job."
No UKIP in your area then? LOL
Perfect!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/margaret-thatcher-debate-state-funeral
The whole period from an industrial viewpoint was a period of change. Industry changed / evolved and our society moved at the same time. Regardless of Mrs Thatcher, a lot of this change would have come about over the next few years, if we were to be a remotely competitive economy. One of the drawbacks of change is that it creates winner and losers. The management of the losers left a lot to be desired.
The poll tax was a tax, it was compulsory, and people went to jail for non-payment. If the poll tax had been non-compulsory it would be different, but people use council services (such as street lighting) in a way that you can't make optional. There's no way to have them turn off when someone who has decided not to pay the charge for the service walks along.
Consequently, a charge for local services has to be compulsory, which makes it a tax, which means that a flat rate is not fair.
Things like the BBC licence fee are optional - I choose not to pay, and so I don't receive live broadcasts of TV services. Consequently a flat rate charge is perfectly fair.
Most of the population can instinctively grasp this distinction, which is why the poll tax was so unpopular, but the BBC licence fee is resented only by a small minority of extreme rightwingers.
:muppet-watch:
Having said that, there were dancing and celebrations of Maggies death, by mindless lefty mobs in London, Bristol, and other places up north.
'Quite a legacy'
Must be why New Labour embraced most of her policies.
A degree of sophistry re compulsion and voluntary nature of taxes.
Residents' car permits compulsory if you own a car.
If you buy alcohol - you have to pay duty.
If you buy tobacco you have to pay duty.
If you buy diesel or petrol - you have to pay duty.
If you use a car park - you have to pay the fee.
The Council tax is compulsory - it bears no relation to earnings or income.
Most of the population can instinctively grasp this distinction, which is why the poll tax was so unpopular, but the BBC licence fee is resented only by a small minority of extreme rightwingers.
Aside from the various parking fees those are all taxes. I pay a fee for a service to Sky, I pay a tax to the BBC. There is a difference!
Other definitions of fair are possible. If I use the same level of local council resources as my neighbour why shouldn't I pay the same as him? Why should a pensioner living on her own in a large house pay more than the family of 6 in the next street?
All changes to taxes produce winners and losers - the problem for the Poll tax was that the winners tended to be less vocal (and less prone to riot) than the losers
I have a TV which I use to watch videos and DVDs that I have decided to purchase, or borrow from a service such as Lovefilm. I do not need a TV licence.
It is not compulsory. You have a choice that you do not have with a tax.
RT @Selkie: Someone celebrated Thatcher's death by breaking the window of a charity shop in Brixton. Why?
and
Margaret Thatcher: "Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals."
and much so
Her Majesty the Queen expected to attend Baroness Thatcher's funeral next Wednesday. Monarch does not normally attend funerals #thatcher
"At a time when North Sea oil was gushing into the Treasury's coffers, privatisation was raising billions and the City had exploded, there were choices to be made about how the money should have been spent. And I'd argue that in many cases the wrong ones were made."
So what would you have done differently, and have you considered the side effects of your policies?
Besides, the time to help those communities was before the mines closed, when it was obvious that many of them would be closing. Communities where there is only one major employer, and that employer dominates the local economy, need diversifying. That should have been done in the 1960s and 1970s. And it should be looked at today, as well.
One of Thatcher's greatest legacies is the diversification of the economy that you seem to be calling for. The 1980s were just too late for the communities effected - it should have been done before. But the Conservative and Labour governments that went before did nothing.
No wonder they aren't moving on, nor other businesses want to move in and employ those with a chip on both shoulders.
Mr CurryStar noted that he didn't employ ex-nuclear plant people as they'd grown a grievance mindset - I've done the same myself when *YouMustFeelSorryForMe* infected a workforce.
It's terribly damaging spoilt brat labour thinking = no one wants them bar Pity Party members.
The decline of mining and the resulting unemployment was much the same all over Europe.
The former culture secretary Tessa Jowell, who is MP for the neighbouring constituency of Dulwich, has condemned the anti-Thatcher celebrations in Brixton and elsewhere in the UK as "disrepectful.
Democracy must always embrace legitimate dissent but the action in Brixton and elsewhere is disrespectful and completely out of order."
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-04-09/brixton-margaret-thatcher-protests/
£3 a week for unlimited whining
I've listened to about 10 mins of R5 and its unbearable twaddle
Thatcher tried this, with the garden festivals, new car factories and other strategies. She could have done more, but she did a darned sight more than her predecessors.
Do you have a source for your claim that French miners were retrained (presumably in large numbers) to work on the French nuclear plants?
Sometimes The Daily Mash reports are a mirror image of reality.
People with no idea who Thatcher was 'ecstatic' that she's dead
08-04-13
THOUSANDS of people under 35 are rejoicing at the demise of a woman they once read about.
Rot in hell, generic old lady
Following Lady Thatcher’s death, people who want to look impressively ‘political’ are acting like they remember Thatcher as something other than a vague abstract concept of evil.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/people-with-no-idea-who-thatcher-was-ecstatic-that-shes-dead-2013040865066
Today they investigate the Health and Safety aspects of 15,000,000 grave dancers.
Thinking about her yesterday I was trying to recall the last significant private sector strike. Maybe BA over pensions and differentials nearly 3 years ago?
We are now at the point where more than 90% of strike days lost are in the public sector: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9049505/Days-lost-to-strikes-hit-20-year-high.html
So the militant unionism of the 1970s today only exists in the public sector who still seem to believe they have an employer who can't go bust. It is quite touching really.
What about the employment blackspots in the Midlands around Staffordshire after the mines had shut down there?
It's a hard, uphill slog though, especially when decades of self-selection has left a very poor and disinterested workforce behind.
"The miners that lost their jobs prior to the 1980s generally found other ones, so the communities concerned did not break up. The difference in the 80s and 90s was that there were no jobs to go to. As I say, the problem was not the end of heavy industry, it was the lack of planning for the consequences of that. We are still living with the results today. The economy did not diversify in the 1980s, it became much more focused on services. That worked very well in the south of England, but tended not to be so successful in parts of the country where there were not enough people looking for services to buy."
As I have said before, Thatcher reaped the problems that had occurred years and decades before. Mines would close, but there were often other mines in the area in which to work, especially as many of the mine closures were down to consolidation. And there would still be a mine at the heart of the community.
The problems in the 1980s were often caused because it was the *last* mine closing in an area, and there was nowhere else for the men to go. And when the last mine closed, the local support industries also disappeared. Yet all the blame seems to go on Thatcher, absolving the previous governments of any blame.
What could Thatcher's governments do about that? You cannot just introduce new industries overnight - it took Nissan, with all their vast resources, a couple of years to open their factory for which there was a need.
Saying that there has been no diversification because the services grew is ridiculous - services is a massively diverse industrial sector, unlike coal mining or steel.
(I have much greater problems with Thatcher on steelwork and especially shipbuilding. Both were missed opportunities).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22064433 !
'The decline of mining and the resulting unemployment was much the same all over Europe.'
According to The Coalfields Research Programme,the decline was at its peak in the 1960's when large numbers of mines were closed and 400,000 miners left the industry.
The Decline of King Coal - Cardiff University
www.cardiff.ac.uk/.../The%20decline%20of%20king%20coal%20-%...
In other cases, the village / town around the mines may not be a very good location for any largescale industries, which demand many things, including good transport links and a skilled workforce.
They are difficult problems, and needed addressing in advance, not at the time of closure.
The decline of heavy industry was not something that came out of the blue and it did niot begin under the Thatcher government. But what did happen under her rule which was unique was wholesale and across the board collapse. A range of heavy industries all pretty much disappeared or significantly downsized at the same time, and the social and economic consequences for the communities affected were dire and long-lasting. It could have been planned for much better in my view. And the money raised by North Sea oil, privatisation and the City boom years could have been more wisely spent.
As for previous governments, I agree - they were pretty much uniformly useless; as were the unions and almost the entire management of almost every business we had. The UK was a joke on just about every level imaginable.
But today, we are talking about Mrs T's legacy. For me personally, it was a very good one. I owe her a lot. But I also recognise that there are a lot of people who feel (I believe rightly) that she did not care enough about them or their communities. And I think that as a result the entire country continues to pay a price.
Squeezing inflation meant tight monetary policies and high interest rates. This put upward pressure on the pound which received an even more significant boost from her opportunity which was north sea oil as the pound became a petro-currency.
Unfortunately a major part of British industry was seriously uncompetitive. They had had a managed decline based on an ever depreciating currency for a long time. The decline was driven by poor investment, terrible management, terrible unions, class conflict and an arrogance based on goodness knows what.
It was inevitable that much of that heavy industry would disappear as the pound rose and borrowing became more expensive. Could the government of the day have done more? Maybe, but it was not an easy problem to solve.
What was critical for the future is that the population as a whole appreciated that the market ruled and we were subject to it. If you want future employment produce what the market wants at the price the market is prepared to pay and invest to develop your products. If you want a good standard of living earn it. Mrs T hammered home that message. Sometimes, in doing so she sounded brutal but it was the truth.
In the Brown era people once again stopped believing this. So it was claimed our balance of payments did not matter and that there were acceptable levels of government borrowing to subsidise consumption now. Having not fully understood her message we are condemned to relive some of the consequences.
(I have much greater problems with Thatcher on steelwork and especially shipbuilding. Both were missed opportunities).
I agree with you on this. In mitigation for Maggie, she did have to fight a load of back stabbing weak tory wets in her cabinet, that precluded her from doing what she really wished to do.
I am not sure I get your point. The BA dispute was frankly hopeless from the trade union point of view but anyone and everyone could understand the grievance of the staff. I got the distinct impression at the time that the union was trying very hard and failing to manage the expectations of the membership who seemed to expect miracles and refused to accept that the market applied to them too.
It is perhaps no coincidence that it occurred in a former publically owned company and reflected practices that went back to that time. But I really would not blame the union leadership. I think they got it even if the staff didn't.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/london-met-visa-ban-lifted/2003073.article
"The decline of heavy industry was not something that came out of the blue and it did niot begin under the Thatcher government. But what did happen under her rule which was unique was wholesale and across the board collapse."
And what, in your mind, should she have done differently? Should she have kept pumping money into those industries? And surely the person who is at the end of a managed (or unmanaged) decline should not get the majority of the blame for that decline?
The blame should be mostly split between previous governments, incompetent management at nationalised and private industries, stupid union actions, an unmotivated workforce, changing world markets, poor investment decisions, and a general lack of investment. (The latter is still a problem).
Thatcher's very low on the list, and there was only so much she could so about the above problems.
It'd be good to know what you think the answer was with hindsight. Because aside from keeping those industries going, I see little she could have done except allow many of those industries to close.
So again I ask, what would you have done differently to help those communities?
The civil service and public sector management inc is on the decline, belongs to a previous age and needs modernising - all whilst the country is skint.
Uk leading the way in clearing out the stables - again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9981057/Manufacturing-rebound-calms-triple-dip-fears.html
I see the US Navy has deployed an inferior version of the solar death ray. Their own laser technology is exorbitantly expensive as well as far less sustainable than my own solar death ray.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306000/Science-fiction-reality-U-S-Navy-showcases-laser-weapons-capable-destroying-drones-seconds-use-early-2014.html
This could turn into the mother of all pyramid schemes.
Con 2,249
Lab 2,165
LDem 1,760
UKIP 1,727
Green 877
BNP 100
TUSC 116
Liberal 11
Meb K 25
Ind/Others 782
But we should have been able to do it. We had the workforce, we had the knowledge, and we had the prestige. Yet we hardly have any shipbuilding industry left, at a time when shipbuilding globally has exploded.
Was it just a lack of will to invest in new / updated facilities, or was it a lack of central control (we *will* build a new state of the art shipyard *here*)? Then again, given the controversy over the Able shipbreaking endeavours in Hartlepool, perhaps we could never have done it...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100211335/ed-miliband-needs-to-be-told-that-hes-not-margaret-thatcher/
I can see the sense in many of these, but:
- Gradualised closures: a massive cost, and the political problems are kicked down the road. It's also pointless keeping a mine open if geological conditions disallow mining, or producing steel if there is no market. That does no-one any good.
- Retraining. Indeed. ISTR there were some schemes, but again that is something that should have been done in the 1970s as well. And there have to be jobs to retrain to.
- Re-engineering for higher-quality products. Again true, and some industries did try this. But there is often a much more limited market for the high-end than there is for the low-end. It also requires very large amounts of investment and a change of mindset on the part of management, unions and workforce.
- Decentralisation of the state was exactly what many of Thatcher's opponents were afraid of, and fought against.
I think my biggest problem with your argument is the idea that the North Sea money was somehow wasted. I'm not sure that was the case (I can almost hear the howls from some on here). The sums coming in from oil and privatisation were useful, but small compared to the size of the economy and the problems it faced.I wonder whether bold, itallic, blink and
headers
work?If the above have, I hope droptable and the other evils are parsed out of user input...
The BNP voters I know are motivated much more by frustration with the main Parties than by racism. If UKIP allows them a voice, how bad is that?
Decline of the shipyards
"By the late 1950s foreign shipyards (as in Korea and Japan) were more competitive than Scottish shipyards, because of huge subsidies, new construction methods and modular designs. The mid-1960s was an era of poor industrial relations and frequent strikes, making many Clydeside yards increasingly uneconomic. Harland & Wolff’s Linthouse yard closed, while Fairfield’s of Govan faced bankruptcy."
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/20thand21stcenturies/shipyards/index.asp
I think at this time we were still arguing about who does what in the shipyards and still banging in rivets when we should have been welding plates and using new construction methods.
Interesting that France, Finland & Germany still have commercial shipyards as they were not strike-bound by intransigent unions and timid management.
Is anyone running unopposed?
This is a strikethrough test