Labour’s fifty year and counting woman problem – politicalbetting.com
Today is the fiftieth anniversary of Margaret Thatcher becoming Tory leader and she has been a trailblazer for women the Tory party has gone to have three further women leaders yet Labour haven’t yet elected their first woman leader in those fifty years.
Comments
-
Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.4
-
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
2 -
TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.5 -
"..., but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender."Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
Why is Labour in a position where a woman has never been the best candidate? What has traditionally stopped women from reaching the top of the party? Why can the Conservatives repeatedly manage it, but Labour can not, especially given that Labour usually has more female MPs.
The problem might not be at the top, but lower down in the hierarchy.
Besides, Truss (and to a lesser extent May) were brilliant for equality: they showed a female leader could be just as bad as a male one.
1 -
Badenoch to follow soon too.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
3 failures and one with a mixed legacy that caused most of the structural economic problems of our rimes.1 -
So, slightly better than the men then?Foxy said:
Badenoch to follow soon too.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
3 failures and one with a mixed legacy that caused most of the structural economic problems of our rimes.2 -
The analogy is when the sainted Dave kept on appointing recent PPE graduate OEs to be SPADs. Were there really no bright, working class people from Worksop who fit the bill.
Same with Lab in this instance, as @JosiasJessop has pointed out, it's absurd to say "if only Lab had had a woman as the best candidate..."
Are we really saying that in the history of the Labour Party there has never been an instance of a woman being competent enough to take part in a leadership election and win. That's pretty damning.0 -
Theresa May came first and had enough MPs to be in Downing Street after Parliament resumed.Chris said:
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
Not the case for Brown.
I did not like her, but she won the election, even if she didn't get a majority, just like in almost every PR election winner ever on the planet.2 -
To be fair, there has rarely if ever been a Labour woman candidate who was the best prospect. Cooper was the obvious one to follow on from Milliband but she blew it in the campaign by having absolutely nothing to say.
The Tories have elected several women, sure, but most of them, bar Thatcher, were desperately poor picks.0 -
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.5 -
All political careers end in failure, but some end with a bang and some with a whimper.DavidL said:
So, slightly better than the men then?Foxy said:
Badenoch to follow soon too.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
3 failures and one with a mixed legacy that caused most of the structural economic problems of our rimes.
I think the Tory craving for a cos-play Maggie is why they are stuck with such a bad run of leaders. Usually cheered on by those who fail to understand what Thatcher did in the first place.DavidL said:
So, slightly better than the men then?Foxy said:
Badenoch to follow soon too.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
3 failures and one with a mixed legacy that caused most of the structural economic problems of our rimes.4 -
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.4 -
As is her role in our housing crisis.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
40 years on we have BTL landlords rather than Social Housing.3 -
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.2 -
Your comment makes it very clear that it's a matter of definition whether she lost it or not.BartholomewRoberts said:
Theresa May came first and had enough MPs to be in Downing Street after Parliament resumed.Chris said:
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
Not the case for Brown.
I did not like her, but she won the election, even if she didn't get a majority, just like in almost every PR election winner ever on the planet.
0 -
If you ask it to list her negatives, sure.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
You can do the same for her achievements.
It's a mixed legacy, neither golden nor disastrous. And successor governments are hardly free of responsibility for their own efforts.0 -
TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.4 -
Rayner certainly fancies her chances to be the first female Labour leader and PM2
-
40 years on we have BTL landlords rather than entrepreneurs and productive investment.Foxy said:
As is her role in our housing crisis.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
40 years on we have BTL landlords rather than Social Housing.6 -
It's not inconceivable that she could topple Starmer, particularly if he becomes unpopular among Lab MPs.HYUFD said:Rayner certainly fancies her chances to be the first female Labour leader and PM
But what I think people forget about Starmer is he is pretty ruthless and has worked to become PM specifically. I doubt he will give that up lightly.0 -
What does AI think they were?Nigelb said:
If you ask it to list her negatives, sure.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
You can do the same for her achievements.
It's a mixed legacy, neither golden nor disastrous. And successor governments are hardly free of responsibility for their own efforts.
Margaret Thatcher, the first female British Prime Minister, achieved numerous successes during her tenure from 1979 to 1990. Her accomplishments include:
1. Economic reforms: Thatcher implemented sweeping economic changes, including privatization of state-owned industries, reducing inflation, and promoting entrepreneurship[1][3]. These reforms helped shift Britain's economy towards a more market-oriented approach.
2. Political longevity: She served three consecutive terms as Prime Minister, a unique achievement in 20th-century British politics[1][2]. Thatcher held office for eleven and a half years, making her the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century[3].
3. Foreign policy: Thatcher played a significant role in ending the Cold War, working closely with US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev[1][3]. She was instrumental in negotiating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987[3].
4. Falklands War: Her leadership during the Falklands War in 1982 was widely seen as a success, contributing to her re-election in 1983[1].
5. Housing policy: The "Right to Buy" scheme, which allowed council tenants to purchase their homes at discounted rates, was one of her most successful policies[3].
6. International standing: Thatcher became the first British politician since Churchill to achieve significant international standing[1].
7. Leadership style: She rehabilitated the idea of strong political leadership in Britain, discarding the notion that the country had become "ungovernable"[1].
8. Conservative Party success: Under her leadership, the Conservative Party won landslide re-elections in 1983 and 1987[3].
9. Counterterrorism: Thatcher's decisive handling of the 1980 Iranian Embassy siege in London demonstrated her resolve in facing political violence[3].
10. Legacy: Thatcher's policies and approach to governance, often referred to as "Thatcherism," continued to influence British politics for nearly two decades after her premiership[4].
0 -
Thatcher did preside over a feel-good boom. People not only were better off but had shiny new stuff to prove it. Of course the Tories want to go back there.
To summarise the problem with Thatcherism, its profit today don't care about tomorrow. There was no plan of any kind beyond profits now. I credit that having smashed industry they at least had the decency to set up development corporations to redevelop the wastelands left behind - though that was also done for profit and many of these are now left without purpose. At least its more than successor governments did.
Point 4 on that list is massive. We stopped investing. In people, infrastructure, skills, technology. Why spend a decade investing for future gain when you can sell it now? This is at the heart of today's glaring crumbling decline of the UK - our infrastructure is crap, our civic framework is crap, our public services both cost a fortune and are crap, worker productivity is crap, industrial output is crap and the metric on all of these is to get worse not better.
We're spending money mopping up the expensive mess this creates and need to redirect that money onto primary functions (hire doctors) rather than the mess (hire agency locums and bought in care from the private sector). And we need to invest - heavily - in the long term.
Thatcher's most toxic legacy? We abandoned capitalism. Borrow. Invest. Gain a return on that investment. Reinvest. Government could do this today. Invest in fixing all these crap things which will deliver a return on that investment. But we can't politically, because its considered "subsidy" where "who pays" is the question, rather than "who profits"2 -
On the leadership of Labour thing, am I really the only person to have noticed that despite its performative equality guff the Labour party and the wider labour movement is at heart patrician?1
-
Starmer will follow Wilson and retire early imo.rkrkrk said:
It's not inconceivable that she could topple Starmer, particularly if he becomes unpopular among Lab MPs.HYUFD said:Rayner certainly fancies her chances to be the first female Labour leader and PM
But what I think people forget about Starmer is he is pretty ruthless and has worked to become PM specifically. I doubt he will give that up lightly.
On the last thread, I posted a Spectator TV video about politics and voice coaches. In the last five minutes or so, they discuss Angela Rayner, Wes Streeting and Nigel Farage.
Britain's best and worst political speeches – with Michael Gove & his speech coach Graham Davies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6flBtjW4btc
Feel free to skip to the end because much of it is quite dull.0 -
Her 'apology' over her 'scum' comment shows that she is *far* from being a canny political operator. Or, at least, she was not back then.Foxy said:
Yes, I think her moment will come in 2028. She is a very canny political operator,HYUFD said:Rayner certainly fancies her chances to be the first female Labour leader and PM
I think the current 13.5 on her is good value on BFX.
She firstly doubled down on the comment with a pathetic 'excuse'. Then she only apologised a month later, *after* a fellow MP was murdered.
It's a great example of a reluctant, forced apology. Not a genuine or heartfelt one.
Has she improved since then?
0 -
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.1 -
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.2 -
"I am a socialist not because I love the poor, but because I hate them."RochdalePioneers said:On the leadership of Labour thing, am I really the only person to have noticed that despite its performative equality guff the Labour party and the wider labour movement is at heart patrician?
1 -
If I’ve learned one thing in my long and storied life, from Greenland to Patagonia, from New York to the Northern Territory, from Easter Island to Madagascar, it is this: when ordering the yellow crab curry from Invite wine-cafe on soi 6, never have it “extra spicy”
1 -
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.0 -
So clearly, from your own comments, it was not our entry to the SM that caused 'the loss of 20% of our industrial base' but the wider mismanagement of the economy that surrounded it.DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM didn't trash the industrial base of Germany, France, Italy,...0 -
Conversely, do rapid, unconditional apologies signify 'a canny political operator'? I'm not so sure.JosiasJessop said:
Her 'apology' over her 'scum' comment shows that she is *far* from being a canny political operator. Or, at least, she was not back then.Foxy said:
Yes, I think her moment will come in 2028. She is a very canny political operator,HYUFD said:Rayner certainly fancies her chances to be the first female Labour leader and PM
I think the current 13.5 on her is good value on BFX.
She firstly doubled down on the comment with a pathetic 'excuse'. Then she only apologised a month later, *after* a fellow MP was murdered.
It's a great example of a reluctant, forced apology. Not a genuine or heartfelt one.
Has she improved since then?0 -
She won enough MPs to be Prime Minister.Chris said:
Your comment makes it very clear that it's a matter of definition whether she lost it or not.BartholomewRoberts said:
Theresa May came first and had enough MPs to be in Downing Street after Parliament resumed.Chris said:
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
Not the case for Brown.
I did not like her, but she won the election, even if she didn't get a majority, just like in almost every PR election winner ever on the planet.
She did not "lose" the election. Preposterous to suggest she did.1 -
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.JosiasJessop said:
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden".
It really was not.4 -
I don't think there's a rich world economy in which industrial output, as a share of overall GDP, and industrial employment, as a share of overall employment, has not declined markedly, since the 1970's.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.3 -
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.1 -
Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.2 -
A SM is a discipline. It means that you are open to much wider competition and face potential failure. It requires a set of policies that enable your economy to thrive when subject to such discipline. So, you need to encourage investment and training and keep a tight grip on consumption, as Germany did. You need to ensure that you enter the market at the right exchange rate, as Italy did, so that your businesses are competitive. You sometimes need to bend the rules, as France did, to encourage investment in your own country.Benpointer said:
So clearly, from your own comments, it was not our entry to the SM that caused 'the loss of 20% of our industrial base' but the wider mismanagement of the economy that surrounded it.DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM didn't trash the industrial base of Germany, France, Italy,...
By focusing on the SM as a good thing, in Ricardian terms, rather than the policies needed to make it work for us, we did a lot of damage. And politicians today have still not learned these lessons. We assume that a SM results in additional growth for us. That would only be the case if we accept the discipline that it imposes but normally politicians demand free trade with no regard to the consequences.
I have said this many times. The SM is not a bad thing in itself, it should, all other things being equal, be a good thing. But it is only a good thing for us if we have the right set of policies. And we still don't.3 -
Except in the South East.RochdalePioneers said:Thatcher did preside over a feel-good boom. People not only were better off but had shiny new stuff to prove it. Of course the Tories want to go back there.
To summarise the problem with Thatcherism, its profit today don't care about tomorrow. There was no plan of any kind beyond profits now. I credit that having smashed industry they at least had the decency to set up development corporations to redevelop the wastelands left behind - though that was also done for profit and many of these are now left without purpose. At least its more than successor governments did.
Point 4 on that list is massive. We stopped investing. In people, infrastructure, skills, technology...
0 -
Somewhat related - a young colleague of mine is going on an adventure to Hong Kong for a week or so, then on to backpack around Vietnam for a week. She's vegetarian. She's been to Hong Kong before as a child, but never Vietnam. Any off the top of your head recommendations I could give her? She has no particular plans made so far.Leon said:If I’ve learned one thing in my long and storied life, from Greenland to Patagonia, from New York to the Northern Territory, from Easter Island to Madagascar, it is this: when ordering the yellow crab curry from Invite wine-cafe on soi 6, never have it “extra spicy”
0 -
Right to buy completely screwed up social housing - but ignoring the impact it's had on housing benefit it's the lack of building relative to population / household growth that is the biggest issue.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
Also worth saying that household growth has been even more rapid than population growth thanks to divorces and similar..1 -
All leaders are either sacked or resign - losing an election doesn't in itself lose them the job - and you could include Johnson and IDS as examples of leaders who went away from an election. Whereas May left not long after their catastrophic performance in the 2019 Euro elections.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
0 -
and the strangling of local government. Selling the family silver, frittering away the receipts of North Sea oil, stoking the housing market, opening us up to dodgy foreign money, etc.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.1 -
Also and more importantly due to our ageing population.eek said:
Right to buy completely screwed up social housing - but ignoring the impact it's had on housing benefit it's the lack of building relative to population / household growth that is the biggest issue.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
Also worth saying that household growth has been even more rapid than population growth thanks to divorces and similar..
We have far more sept oct and and nonagenarians alive today living in a house either as a couple or as lone surviving partner, without any kids or grandkids etc living with them.0 -
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.2 -
When did you last have a ‘stable’ population?BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-of-england-millennium0 -
I suppose 'give up the vegetarianism' would not be an appreciated recommendation?ohnotnow said:
Somewhat related - a young colleague of mine is going on an adventure to Hong Kong for a week or so, then on to backpack around Vietnam for a week. She's vegetarian. She's been to Hong Kong before as a child, but never Vietnam. Any off the top of your head recommendations I could give her? She has no particular plans made so far.Leon said:If I’ve learned one thing in my long and storied life, from Greenland to Patagonia, from New York to the Northern Territory, from Easter Island to Madagascar, it is this: when ordering the yellow crab curry from Invite wine-cafe on soi 6, never have it “extra spicy”
1 -
Being vegetarian is fairly easy in Vietnam, as many Bhuddists are. Vegan is easy too as Vietnamese is not a dairy country.ohnotnow said:
Somewhat related - a young colleague of mine is going on an adventure to Hong Kong for a week or so, then on to backpack around Vietnam for a week. She's vegetarian. She's been to Hong Kong before as a child, but never Vietnam. Any off the top of your head recommendations I could give her? She has no particular plans made so far.Leon said:If I’ve learned one thing in my long and storied life, from Greenland to Patagonia, from New York to the Northern Territory, from Easter Island to Madagascar, it is this: when ordering the yellow crab curry from Invite wine-cafe on soi 6, never have it “extra spicy”
Hong Kong a bit more of a challenge.0 -
With only a week she’s a bit pushedohnotnow said:
Somewhat related - a young colleague of mine is going on an adventure to Hong Kong for a week or so, then on to backpack around Vietnam for a week. She's vegetarian. She's been to Hong Kong before as a child, but never Vietnam. Any off the top of your head recommendations I could give her? She has no particular plans made so far.Leon said:If I’ve learned one thing in my long and storied life, from Greenland to Patagonia, from New York to the Northern Territory, from Easter Island to Madagascar, it is this: when ordering the yellow crab curry from Invite wine-cafe on soi 6, never have it “extra spicy”
Definitely Hanoi - it might be drizzly and grey this time of year but it’s a wonderful city. Food is superb (even some veggie stuff)
If she wants coast Halong Bay is beautiful but touristy and also likely to be a bit cool and grey right now. Maybe Nha Trang?
Hoi An is lovely
Then Dalat in the hills in the south and Saigon for sizzling tropical buzz
It’s a lot to do in a week tho
0 -
In the 70s and early 80s.Theuniondivvie said:
When did you last have a ‘stable’ population?BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-of-england-millennium
Try changing the timescale to see it.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-of-england-millennium?time=1945..latest0 -
Benpointer said:
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.
1 -
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.Nigelb said:
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.JosiasJessop said:
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden".
It really was not.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.0 -
Good morning everyone.
It's nice to see some Union Flags the right way up.0 -
It absolutely does reflect the data.Eabhal said:
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.
The best time for housing construction and improvements consistently was the 1930s, pre Attlee's devastating reforms. And that was done privately.
There's a reason those like you who seek to entrench the system he bequeathed dodgily only use postwar data.0 -
Perhaps not, but they're tons better than insincere, forced and belated ones.Benpointer said:
Conversely, do rapid, unconditional apologies signify 'a canny political operator'? I'm not so sure.JosiasJessop said:
Her 'apology' over her 'scum' comment shows that she is *far* from being a canny political operator. Or, at least, she was not back then.Foxy said:
Yes, I think her moment will come in 2028. She is a very canny political operator,HYUFD said:Rayner certainly fancies her chances to be the first female Labour leader and PM
I think the current 13.5 on her is good value on BFX.
She firstly doubled down on the comment with a pathetic 'excuse'. Then she only apologised a month later, *after* a fellow MP was murdered.
It's a great example of a reluctant, forced apology. Not a genuine or heartfelt one.
Has she improved since then?0 -
The centralisation of government at the expense of local authorities is a good example of one which simply wasn't.JosiasJessop said:
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.Nigelb said:
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.JosiasJessop said:
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden".
It really was not.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
That was done for nakedly party political reasons.3 -
The destruction of British manufacturing was largely down to the overly tight monetarily of the early Eighties and overvalued exchange rate. The Single Market was 5 years later.DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.1 -
Wasn’t that the dreadful lefty-ruled decade only cured by the anointment of Saint Margaret?BartholomewRoberts said:
In the 70s and early 80s.Theuniondivvie said:
When did you last have a ‘stable’ population?BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-of-england-millennium
Try changing the timescale to see it.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-of-england-millennium?time=1945..latest
Obviously the introduction of right to buy in the early 80s had nothing to do with population increase and housing issues from the early 80s.0 -
Which taking a wider view, is why Labour can't (or would have to summon a great deal of political capital and drive if it wanted to) restore local government to the status and impact it used to enjoy, and still does in most of Europe. Great pillars of what British local government used to manage - housing, schools, transport - has been stripped away.Eabhal said:
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.1 -
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.JosiasJessop said:
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.Nigelb said:
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.JosiasJessop said:
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden".
It really was not.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.1 -
Possibly it did have a small one in that people are more likely to have kids if they are secure and in their own home and more were after the reforms.Theuniondivvie said:
Wasn’t that the dreadful lefty-ruled decade only cured by the anointment of Saint Margaret?BartholomewRoberts said:
In the 70s and early 80s.Theuniondivvie said:
When did you last have a ‘stable’ population?BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-of-england-millennium
Try changing the timescale to see it.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/population-of-england-millennium?time=1945..latest
Obviously the introduction of right to buy in the early 80s had nothing to do with population increase and housing issues from the early 80s.
Fertility rate cratered in the 70s and rose in the early 80s.
Either way though it's construction that is needed not worrying about who owns the housing. Construction that occurred privately in the 30s pre Attlee and at a time we were not rebuilding homes destroyed by wartime bombings.0 -
I'm quite impressed at the nerve of coming onto PB and spouting such easily disproven bollocks. Atlee was in government from 1945 to 1951, and put in place the legislation that allowed housebuilding in England & Wales to kick off again. Thatcher, on the other hand...BartholomewRoberts said:
It absolutely does reflect the data.Eabhal said:
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.
The best time for housing construction and improvements consistently was the 1930s, pre Attlee's devastating reforms. And that was done privately.
There's a reason those like you who seek to entrench the system he bequeathed dodgily only use postwar data.
2 -
It definitely did for France and Italy.Benpointer said:
So clearly, from your own comments, it was not our entry to the SM that caused 'the loss of 20% of our industrial base' but the wider mismanagement of the economy that surrounded it.DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM didn't trash the industrial base of Germany, France, Italy,...0 -
You can argue about whether monetary policy was "overly tight", we certainly had a chronic problem with inflation throughout the 1970s, a lot worse than most other comparable countries. I agree about the over priced exchange rate. But we needed to do so much more to encourage investment, discourage consumption (in fairness the hike in VAT was partly focused on that), improve training, especially of managers, and ensure that capital was available for the businesses with the capacity to grow. And we still do.Foxy said:
The destruction of British manufacturing was largely down to the overly tight monetarily of the early Eighties and overvalued exchange rate. The Single Market was 5 years later.DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.1 -
Can you name a government that has *not*, at some point, implemented a policy for nakedly party political reasons?Nigelb said:
The centralisation of government at the expense of local authorities is a good example of one which simply wasn't.JosiasJessop said:
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.Nigelb said:
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.JosiasJessop said:
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden".
It really was not.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
That was done for nakedly party political reasons.0 -
I think they did try. Regeneration was a big word in Thatcher's time.IanB2 said:
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.JosiasJessop said:
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.Nigelb said:
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.JosiasJessop said:
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden".
It really was not.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
It's just that the malaise was so deep, and the problems so complex, that it was not something that could be done overnight.0 -
Kick off again? Your own chart quite literally shows that post war construction was a decline on pre war.Eabhal said:
I'm quite impressed at the nerve of coming onto PB and spouting such easily disproven bollocks. Atlee was in government from 1945 to 1951, and put in place the legislation that allowed housebuilding in England & Wales to kick off again. Thatcher, on the other hand...BartholomewRoberts said:
It absolutely does reflect the data.Eabhal said:
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.
The best time for housing construction and improvements consistently was the 1930s, pre Attlee's devastating reforms. And that was done privately.
There's a reason those like you who seek to entrench the system he bequeathed dodgily only use postwar data.
Which is extremely problematic as ceteris paribus you'd need far more construction post war to just stand still as we had to replace bombed buildings.
Attlee's reforms were an unmitigated disaster. Unless you are for some reason using wartime construction as your baseline, not prewar.1 -
… but she wasn’t in a PR election, which makes that comparison not so useful.BartholomewRoberts said:
Theresa May came first and had enough MPs to be in Downing Street after Parliament resumed.Chris said:
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
Not the case for Brown.
I did not like her, but she won the election, even if she didn't get a majority, just like in almost every PR election winner ever on the planet.0 -
This morning I'm quite enjoying the name of a Bluesky acquaintance who does not like Nonny Nonny Nigel, and uses Eulalia as their account name.
Very Woosteresque.
Almost far enough back in the past the reach the time when a lot of British Popular Newspapers and Highbrow Magazines were still dribbling all over Mussolini.
0 -
What is even the point of Starmer and Labour anymore?
They run the same cruel and spectacle oriented refugee policy as the previous government, the same red lines towards the EU as the previous government, the same Trump arse kissing policy as the tories and reform, basically blue politics from a labour platform.
Seriously, labour are running the biggest advertising campaign for the conservatives and reform. But if you want those policies why vote for a knock off like Labour when you can get the real deal?
Labour need to understand that doing populist blue policies will not keep reform out - those voters will hate labour no matter what they do. It doesn't come down to a rational calculation of policy benefit among individual voters - it is purely an identity issue. Populist voters largely support a party in the same way a football fan supports their team - through thick and thin. It is about belonging, not results. You can't buy those voters with blue politics.
Labour needs to get its own voters onside instead [insert gag reflex]. Seriously man, there isn't even polling data to show that the broad electorate want those things... on a topic by topic break down they want the opposite.
Labour just seem to be bad a doing politics.... what a bloody shit show they are offering up. It seems like they are soooo scared of power and won't believe in anything.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/angela-eagle-minister-government-yvette-cooper-english-channel-b2695339.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/02/uk-trade-eu-customs-union-yvette-cooper-keir-starmer
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk-eu-donald-trump-tariffs-steel-imports-trade-war-united-states/
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/blue-labour-v-reform-proworker-antiwoke-plan-beat-nigel-farage2 -
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.DavidL said:Benpointer said:
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.0 -
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.Sean_F said:
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.1 -
Except for Jo Swinson. Losing the election in her seat lost her her leader job as she was instantly disqualified from the role.IanB2 said:
All leaders are either sacked or resign - losing an election doesn't in itself lose them the job - and you could include Johnson and IDS as examples of leaders who went away from an election. Whereas May left not long after their catastrophic performance in the 2019 Euro elections.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
0 -
You do know that manufacturing is about 25% of UK GDP right?RochdalePioneers said:
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.Sean_F said:
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have
multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.1 -
And, back in the day, utilities.IanB2 said:
Which taking a wider view, is why Labour can't (or would have to summon a great deal of political capital and drive if it wanted to) restore local government to the status and impact it used to enjoy, and still does in most of Europe. Great pillars of what British local government used to manage - housing, schools, transport - has been stripped away.Eabhal said:
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.1 -
These *are* Labour voters. An awful lot of red wall voters utterly sick of migration and with some valid reasons. And regardless of your politics, we can't continue the Tory open door policy. So I get it. It's unpleasant but it's politically sound from a Labour perspective.Cleitophon said:What is even the point of Starmer and Labour anymore?
They run the same cruel and spectacle oriented refugee policy as the previous government, the same red lines towards the EU as the previous government, the same Trump arse kissing policy as the tories and reform, basically blue politics from a labour platform.
Seriously, labour are running the biggest advertising campaign for the conservatives and reform. But if you want those policies why vote for a knock off like Labour when you can get the real deal?
Labour need to understand that doing populist blue policies will not keep reform out - those voters will hate labour no matter what they do. It doesn't come down to a rational calculation of policy benefit among individual voters - it is purely an identity issue. Populist voters largely support a party in the same way a football fan supports their team - through thick and thin. It is about belonging, not results. You can't buy those voters with blue politics.
Labour needs to get its own voters onside instead [insert gag reflex]. Seriously man, there isn't even polling data to show that the broad electorate want those things... on a topic by topic break down they want the opposite.
Labour just seem to be bad a doing politics.... what a bloody shit show they are offering up.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/angela-eagle-minister-government-yvette-cooper-english-channel-b2695339.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/02/uk-trade-eu-customs-union-yvette-cooper-keir-starmer
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk-eu-donald-trump-tariffs-steel-imports-trade-war-united-states/
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/blue-labour-v-reform-proworker-antiwoke-plan-beat-nigel-farage
Far worse is the Kendall war on the disabled.0 -
I think you have the chronology wrong. Industrial production, e.g. car manufacturing, went up under Thatcher. The call centre economy was Blair's legacy.RochdalePioneers said:
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.Sean_F said:
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.1 -
Didn’t more centrist parties aping Freedom Party soundbites in The Netherlands actually encourage voters to back the FP in the last election?Cleitophon said:What is even the point of Starmer and Labour anymore?
They run the same cruel and spectacle oriented refugee policy as the previous government, the same red lines towards the EU as the previous government, the same Trump arse kissing policy as the tories and reform, basically blue politics from a labour platform.
Seriously, labour are running the biggest advertising campaign for the conservatives and reform. But if you want those policies why vote for a knock off like Labour when you can get the real deal?
Labour need to understand that doing populist blue policies will not keep reform out - those voters will hate labour no matter what they do. It doesn't come down to a rational calculation of policy benefit among individual voters - it is purely an identity issue. Populist voters largely support a party in the same way a football fan supports their team - through thick and thin. It is about belonging, not results. You can't buy those voters with blue politics.
Labour needs to get its own voters onside instead [insert gag reflex]. Seriously man, there isn't even polling data to show that the broad electorate want those things... on a topic by topic break down they want the opposite.
Labour just seem to be bad a doing politics.... what a bloody shit show they are offering up.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/angela-eagle-minister-government-yvette-cooper-english-channel-b2695339.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/02/uk-trade-eu-customs-union-yvette-cooper-keir-starmer
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/uk-eu-donald-trump-tariffs-steel-imports-trade-war-united-states/
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/blue-labour-v-reform-proworker-antiwoke-plan-beat-nigel-farage1 -
I agree. So did Nissan. But it did not offset the indigenous industrial losses by much.Gardenwalker said:
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.DavidL said:Benpointer said:
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.0 -
That graph shows that Thatcher inherited a plummeting rate of housebuilding and turned it around.Eabhal said:
I'm quite impressed at the nerve of coming onto PB and spouting such easily disproven bollocks. Atlee was in government from 1945 to 1951, and put in place the legislation that allowed housebuilding in England & Wales to kick off again. Thatcher, on the other hand...BartholomewRoberts said:
It absolutely does reflect the data.Eabhal said:
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.
The best time for housing construction and improvements consistently was the 1930s, pre Attlee's devastating reforms. And that was done privately.
There's a reason those like you who seek to entrench the system he bequeathed dodgily only use postwar data.0 -
I think that supports both your points - the UK should be quick to embrace new industries as it has been previously demonstrated that disruption and innovation can lead to massive gains in GDP per capita, and manufacturing is still a major and highly productive chunk of our economy despite the end of heavy industry.StillWaters said:
You do know that manufacturing is about 25% of UK GDP right?RochdalePioneers said:
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.Sean_F said:
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have
multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.
That's why all this prevarication around renewables, clinging onto a fossil fuel economy that is on the way out anyway, is so frustrating. Thatcher would have recognised that nearly limitless domestic energy generation could transform our economy in ways that none of us can anticipate.
The key is providing some sort of economic (rather than welfare-based) safety net that softens the blow for those industries that are killed off. That might be infrastructure spending based on the inverse of regional real wages, or nodal energy pricing, or lower tax rates in those parts of the country. There should now be massive incentives to invest and move to Aberdeen, Hull, Teesside etc etc.0 -
@williamglenn seems to disagreeDavidL said:
I agree. So did Nissan. But it did not offset the indigenous industrial losses by much.Gardenwalker said:
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.DavidL said:Benpointer said:
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.0 -
“creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy”RochdalePioneers said:
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.Sean_F said:
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.
All doomed by incoming tech, I fear0 -
Looks more like replacing activity i.e. building with financial engineering i.e. driving asset prices/land up in value and substantially increasing debt.williamglenn said:
That graph shows that Thatcher inherited a plummeting rate of housebuilding and turned it around.Eabhal said:
I'm quite impressed at the nerve of coming onto PB and spouting such easily disproven bollocks. Atlee was in government from 1945 to 1951, and put in place the legislation that allowed housebuilding in England & Wales to kick off again. Thatcher, on the other hand...BartholomewRoberts said:
It absolutely does reflect the data.Eabhal said:
That doesn't reflect the data at all.BartholomewRoberts said:Right to buy had bugger all to do with subsequent housing issues.
Housing issues are caused by the fact that housing construction has been a small fraction of what is needed. Due to the planning rules passed by Attlee and as subsequently amended, not due to Thatcher.
Rules which didn't matter too much when we had a stable population but are totally unfit for purpose for a growing one.
In 1968, post-Attlee and pre-Thatcher, there were 350,000 houses built in England, 150,000 of which were council houses.
By 1990, this had dropped to 150,000, almost none of which were council houses. Private developers seek to maximise profits, not the number of homes built, and the number has been consistently low for decades regardless of the planning environment or government policy.
The best time for housing construction and improvements consistently was the 1930s, pre Attlee's devastating reforms. And that was done privately.
There's a reason those like you who seek to entrench the system he bequeathed dodgily only use postwar data.0 -
0
-
There's an interesting article on the subject here:Gallowgate said:
@williamglenn seems to disagreeDavidL said:
I agree. So did Nissan. But it did not offset the indigenous industrial losses by much.Gardenwalker said:
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.DavidL said:Benpointer said:
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7617/economics/economic-growth-during-great-moderation/
1 -
But not quite Woosteresque - which was Eulalie with an e. Probably just as well else one might be looking for a coded meaning!MattW said:This morning I'm quite enjoying the name of a Bluesky acquaintance who does not like Nonny Nonny Nigel, and uses Eulalia as their account name.
Very Woosteresque.
Almost far enough back in the past the reach the time when a lot of British Popular Newspapers and Highbrow Magazines were still dribbling all over Mussolini.1 -
How did Theresa May lose? She was still PM in 2017.Chris said:
If Theresa May didn't lose an election, nor did Ted Heath or Gordon Brown.stodge said:Yet none of Thatcher, May and Truss lost a General Election - they were all sacked by their own party and especially by the Parliamentary Party which I suspect was overwhelmingly male.
0 -
Police need to get on with it in Sheffield, fanyning around0
-
8.8%StillWaters said:
You do know that manufacturing is about 25% of UK GDP right?RochdalePioneers said:
Those new jobs often were created in the redeveloped areas. I've already given her credit for actually doing that. But look at the jobs - we replaced heavy industry with warehousing and call centres. You say those industries were dying and unhealthy - and yet they are still very much alive in the countries who didn't trash them for ideological reasons.Sean_F said:
As against which, real per capita income was 43% higher in 1997 than in 1979; rates of home ownership rose strongly; and millions of new jobs were created to replace those in dying (and extremely unhealthy) industries.Battlebus said:
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies, while aimed at revitalizing the British economy, resulted in several significant mistakes and negative consequences:Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
1. Severe recession and unemployment: Thatcher's strict monetarist policies, including high interest rates and taxes, led to an unnecessarily deep recession in 1981. This caused unemployment to rise to 3 million, particularly affecting the manufacturing sector[6].
2. Increased inequality: Thatcherite policies resulted in a dramatic upswing in inequality between the richest and poorest 10%. By 1991, the gap between the richest and poorest had hit a record high, with incomes soaring for the wealthiest and falling for the poorest[1][4].
3. Deindustrialization: Thatcher's policies wiped out 15% of the UK's industrial base in just a few years, leading to the loss of stable jobs in mining, manufacturing, and steel. This disproportionately affected regions like Scotland, which lost 20% of its workforce in Thatcher's first two years[4].
4. Underinvestment in infrastructure and skills: Thatcherism left the UK failing to properly think about long-run investment, especially in infrastructure and workforce skills. Over the past 40 years, Britain's record of investment in infrastructure and R&D has been among the weakest of any major economy[1][5].
5. Financial deregulation: Excessive deregulation of financial services, starting with the Big Bang in 1986, contributed to the 2007 financial crisis[1].
6. Privatization issues: The privatization of utilities did not maintain investment in national infrastructure as expected[5].
7. Weakening of trade unions: Thatcher's policies significantly undermined trade unions, making it harder for workers to strike and limiting their ability to negotiate for better working conditions. This led to a decrease in workers covered by collective agreements from 82% in 1979 to 35% by 1996[4].
8. Housing crisis: The Right to Buy scheme, while providing a short-term financial boost, ultimately dried up the government's supply of social housing, contributing to long-term housing accessibility issues[4].
9. Regional disparities: Thatcher's policies led to the devastation of swathes of the old industrial economy, bringing wide regional disparities that persist to this day[5].
10. Boom and bust cycle: The economic boom of the late 1980s under Thatcher and her chancellor Nigel Lawson was unsustainable, leading to high inflation and the recession of 1991[6].
These policy mistakes had long-lasting effects on the UK economy and society, contributing to increased inequality, regional economic disparities, and underinvestment in crucial areas of the economy.
AI thinks she's to blame for everything. Must be a socialist.
We can't go back to heavy manufacturing, but we can do light manufacturing. We have
multiple industries we can excel at - creative arts, finance, technological innovation and energy. Combine the two and we should be developing the next waves of tech to harness power from light, wind and waves, building the kit here and exporting.
Instead we're arguing about how green energy is a lie, and installing wind turbines built elsewhere. Our lack of strategic vision is shocking.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05206/
New Labour were just as bad as Thatcher for manufacturing. If not worse. Fig 4 on the below.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/output/articles/changesintheeconomysincethe1970s/2019-09-020 -
TBF 100 years ago we had BTL landlords and industrial investment. Though the former nearly caused a Red revolution and the latter wasn't nearly enough.DecrepiterJohnL said:
40 years on we have BTL landlords rather than entrepreneurs and productive investment.Foxy said:
As is her role in our housing crisis.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
40 years on we have BTL landlords rather than Social Housing.1 -
A piece about delays in fitting adaptations to homes for disabled or elderly - it's a scheme that has been around forever which can cover quite extensive alterations, but the waiting period is now just under a year.
(Following up a coincidental short note I posted last night about a pensioner T couple in there 70s who want to think about fitting a walk-in shower, but need to think about the pros and cons vs a big storage cupboard in their hall when I renovated I fitted with a desk, hanging, shelves and space for a tumble dryer.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2jvpjr7dro
(For my money, for rented properties this should probably have a portion of LL copay for larger grants over say £10k, if it could be made to stick.)1 -
That sounds suitably coded with a one letter substitution !Carnyx said:
But not quite Woosteresque - which was Eulalie with an e. Probably just as well else one might be looking for a coded meaning!MattW said:This morning I'm quite enjoying the name of a Bluesky acquaintance who does not like Nonny Nonny Nigel, and uses Eulalia as their account name.
Very Woosteresque.
Almost far enough back in the past the reach the time when a lot of British Popular Newspapers and Highbrow Magazines were still dribbling all over Mussolini.1 -
.
I agree with this. Being opposed to assisted dying in principle is a perfectly valid moral position to take. But if you see assisted dying as a mercy in at least some cases, making it very difficult and costly to obtain is to deny that mercy. It becomes like divorce in the 19th century- only the wealthy and extremely well organised can obtain it.BartholomewRoberts said:
With all due respect, Cyclefree has a very vested (and not hidden) ideological vested interest in seeing this Bill killed and has made no bones to hide that. Not an impartial review of the Bills safeguards at all.ydoethur said:
Cyclefree has been sounding the alarm over the lack of safeguards already. Plus the lack of proper scrutiny. Now the major safeguard is being undermined if not removed and the scrutiny process restricted further.Taz said:
A ‘panel of experts’. How disconcertingly vague.MattW said:Assisted Dying Bill.
Sponsors want to remove need for High Court approval.
Assisted dying cases would no longer have to be signed off by the High Court under changes suggested by the bill's supporters.
The proposed law currently says a High Court judge must check each person is eligible and has not been coerced into making the decision to die.
But BBC News has been told Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the bill, will suggest replacing this with a panel of experts who would oversee applications.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2egl17pvldo
Presumably signed off by Mr H Shipman, who would probably strongly approve of this bill.
Whether you’re pro or anti assisted dying this is an absolute train crash. It’s like watching a civil servant at the DfE trying to explain their obsession with phonics.
Anyone suggesting a lack of safeguards is not serious, there are so many it was ridiculous and impractical. Having fewer but done well would be smarter.
There's a general belief in this country that costly, long drawn out and difficult to obtain decisions are the best decisions, whether it applies to planning, visas, and now assisted dying. But actually they are just barriers.6 -
As someone who was in the north for a chunk of this period, it was particularly the not caring about the consequences that upset a lot of people. Others in the government (notably Heseltine) could see the impact and did care, but had to fight hard to get support/agreement from Thatcher to do anything about it.IanB2 said:
Failure to anticipate, perceive, care about, or do anything to mitigate the adverse consequences of her major changes, is the major black mark in her report.JosiasJessop said:
Yes: but not doing the policies might also have had negative consequences, as was pointed out at the time. Continuing on as we had been in the 80s was not really a good option. And that's what Labour under Foot was offering.Nigelb said:
They also had direct negative effects which were pointed out at the time.JosiasJessop said:
All policies have side-effects, many of which are not known at the time. Mrs T's policies were themselves reactions to problems and effects thrown up by policies and decisions her predecessors had made.Nigelb said:
Many of our current problems are the result of the uncritical perpetuation of a number of Thatcher's policy mistakes.Fishing said:TMay didn't lose an election, but she came damn close against Jeremy Fu**ing Corbyn. Liz Truss didn't lose an election, but her Premiership was a total catastrophe by virtually every other metric.
I'm not one to stick up for the Labour Party, but this only matters if Labour has ever had a leadership election where a woman was the best candidate but was voted down because of her gender.
Anything else is just meaningless tokenism.
The real story today is how this country has trashed Margaret's golden economic legacy in 35 years of lazy centrist quasi-socialism. And then is somehow surprised when it ends up with despairing politics and no growth.
See, for example, this nearly decade old article, which remains largely true.
https://tomforth.co.uk/imagination1/
The impoverishment of the regions was a direct result of Mrs T's policies.
If Thatcher's policies had side-effects that still cause problems, the blame goes as much to her successors who did little, or nothing, to address those side-effects, either by fettling or getting rid of the policies. She resigned 35 years ago.
As with, for example, government confiscation of the right to buy proceeds, and the negatives of having privately owned monopoly utilities like the water companies - which were loudly protested for the same reasons they are judged today.
I don't absolve her successors from blame, far from it. But my criticism was directed at those who label her legacy "golden".
It really was not.
I wouldn't say Thatcher's legacy was 'golden'; it was mixed. But IMO many of the changes she made were sadly necessary.
The contrast between the North East and London in say 1986 was very stark.3 -
Thatcher put a lot of effort into attracting the foreign car firms.Gardenwalker said:
Toyota came to some extent because of the single market.DavidL said:Benpointer said:
Inept management + over-powerful union barons, both exhibiting a total refusal to adapt = inevitable decline.JosiasJessop said:
Britain's mass manufacturing industry was surely in a downwards trend from long before the SM? Industrial policy decisions made in the sixties and seventies, if not before, along with changing technologies?DavidL said:
And the link between the SM and the loss of 20% of our industrial base in a few years is not obvious to you? We went into the SM with an overpriced sterling, mainly thanks to peak oil output but augmented by the tight monetary policy which made Sterling attractive. The result was the annihilation of an uncompetitive industrial base which had been starved of investment by higher interest rates and was left with no protection whatsoever.Foxy said:TSE is right to highlight Thatchers greatest achievement, the Single Market and Single European Act.
She did get some things right.
Like most of Thatcher's policies it was very good for the City of London which was highly competitive and proceeded to take a very large chunk of the financial services market for the whole of the EU but there was a price to pay and it was terrible.
The SM may not have helped, but the trend was already well set in.
The British motorcycle industry is a classic example.
Indeed. Thatcher smashed the power of Trade Unions but did nothing about the inept and incompetent management. It was only with the implant of the Toyota plants in 1992 that we saw it did not have to be this way and even then we were incredibly slow to learn the lessons.
There was a book written by someone in the industry - forgotten the author & title - which describes the bizarre feeling of management and workforce working together. All he’d known was conflict.
And many of the faces were the same on both sides. Yet with a different company culture…0 -
Appreciated - thanks! I'll pass along and she can factor it in as her plans come together.Leon said:
With only a week she’s a bit pushedohnotnow said:
Somewhat related - a young colleague of mine is going on an adventure to Hong Kong for a week or so, then on to backpack around Vietnam for a week. She's vegetarian. She's been to Hong Kong before as a child, but never Vietnam. Any off the top of your head recommendations I could give her? She has no particular plans made so far.Leon said:If I’ve learned one thing in my long and storied life, from Greenland to Patagonia, from New York to the Northern Territory, from Easter Island to Madagascar, it is this: when ordering the yellow crab curry from Invite wine-cafe on soi 6, never have it “extra spicy”
Definitely Hanoi - it might be drizzly and grey this time of year but it’s a wonderful city. Food is superb (even some veggie stuff)
If she wants coast Halong Bay is beautiful but touristy and also likely to be a bit cool and grey right now. Maybe Nha Trang?
Hoi An is lovely
Then Dalat in the hills in the south and Saigon for sizzling tropical buzz
It’s a lot to do in a week tho0 -
TBF Eulalia was the original Roman spelling - it's a saint's name. Several possible allusions there. Though I assume not the polychaete worm (ragworm)!MattW said:
That sounds suitably coded with a one letter substitution !Carnyx said:
But not quite Woosteresque - which was Eulalie with an e. Probably just as well else one might be looking for a coded meaning!MattW said:This morning I'm quite enjoying the name of a Bluesky acquaintance who does not like Nonny Nonny Nigel, and uses Eulalia as their account name.
Very Woosteresque.
Almost far enough back in the past the reach the time when a lot of British Popular Newspapers and Highbrow Magazines were still dribbling all over Mussolini.1 -
https://bsky.app/profile/credacreda.bsky.social/post/3lhtzbrcjnk2vCarnyx said:
TBF Eulalia was the original Roman spelling - it's a saint's name. Several possible allusions there. Though I assume not the polychaete worm (ragworm)!MattW said:
That sounds suitably coded with a one letter substitution !Carnyx said:
But not quite Woosteresque - which was Eulalie with an e. Probably just as well else one might be looking for a coded meaning!MattW said:This morning I'm quite enjoying the name of a Bluesky acquaintance who does not like Nonny Nonny Nigel, and uses Eulalia as their account name.
Very Woosteresque.
Almost far enough back in the past the reach the time when a lot of British Popular Newspapers and Highbrow Magazines were still dribbling all over Mussolini.0
