Maggie Thatcher has died

[scotty]

The main reason the coal mines were closed was not to get rid of the unions but as the product they produced was more expensive than the foreign imports. It must have been a convenient excuse to take on the (especially as she had seen previous governments paralysed by the miners in previous years) but If the the industry was profitable it would still be thriving and there would not have been reason to take them on.

Before people get on their high horses, I suspect everyday we make decisions that may cost jobs at home as we chose the cheaper foreign import. I do my best to buy British made products above the foreign item but in the main the price differential is normally to far adrift.if it is close I try to buy the British made item but.......

 

Thats really not the case. The mines were closed mainly because the unions had got out of hand and she wanted them crippled. Now that we're almost entirely dependent on imported energy, we are reaping what she sowed and paying through the nose for it. By God, could we use some of the coal we're sitting on now.

[Barry Sanchez]

I really question people intelligence on here, she sold everything that needed subsidising like most other intelligent Nations do. Anything of value she sold and in the process made some people very very rich, this will never happen again as all our silverware has gone, we have been sold what is already ours in the first place, a classic example is the railways as they were sold and now cost more than 5.2 times to run than they did before and the shareholders clap themselves on the back for the bit of new rolling stock.

[OldNick]

Oh you mean cheap smoking Polish coal? Yes very good that, our coal is very very good and how we wish we still has access to it, the gas we sold to the Texans is running out quicker than we thought, at least its of the books though and one less thing to pay for.

 

What do the Germans do? Lets copy their economy, they seem to be better at it than we are and they support their Nations workers.

yep they buy their own goods, much like the French. I don't know the ins and outs of Polish coal to our own, but I cannot believe that the power companies were happy to use the Polish coal if it worked out more expensive than our own. Ok you believe Maggie wanted to destroy the coal industry at all costs but the power industry and industry as a whole were all not in the conspiracy. When you go out shopping please just buy UK produced items only, as you will be costing your British co workers jobs by not doing so, it would be hypocritical not to of course.

We're you around in the 70' s ? It was not Britains finest hour, where the major industries were constantly striking for the minutest reason.we had the Union barons playing politics, they weren't looking after their comrades as much as trying to bring governments down.

[stug76]

RIP.

 

It's a shame that some people can't show a bit more respect.

 

PAP are you a scouser or something?? Boy can you moan.

[badgerx16]

The main reason the coal mines were closed was not to get rid of the unions but as the product they produced was more expensive than the foreign imports.

 

But it was far better quality than the cheap crap we brought in from places such as Poland - less heat and more pollution produced. If we followed your logic BMW wouldn't sell any cars, we'd all be driving round in Dacias.

[OldNick]

I really question people intelligence on here, she sold everything that needed subsidising like most other intelligent Nations do. Anything of value she sold and in the process made some people very very rich, this will never happen again as all our silverware has gone, we have been sold what is already ours in the first place, a classic example is the railways as they were sold and now cost more than 5.2 times to run than they did before and the shareholders clap themselves on the back for the bit of new rolling stock.

 

The train service is far better now than it was in the 70's -80's it is clean safe and not the unpleasant experience it was then. I am surprised that private companies pay 5 more to run the railways, there has to be a reason to be so, as it was a shambles when the state ran it.

[Barry Sanchez]

yep they buy their own goods, much like the French. I don't know the ins and outs of Polish coal to our own, but I cannot believe that the power companies were happy to use the Polish coal if it worked out more expensive than our own. Ok you believe Maggie wanted to destroy the coal industry at all costs but the power industry and industry as a whole were all not in the conspiracy. When you go out shopping please just buy UK produced items only, as you will be costing your British co workers jobs by not doing so, it would be hypocritical not to of course.

We're you around in the 70' s ? It was not Britains finest hour, where the major industries were constantly striking for the minutest reason.we had the Union barons playing politics, they weren't looking after their comrades as much as trying to bring governments down.

 

 

No I am saying copy the French and German models, support your own workers by subsidy and invest in the youth, high taxations high earnings and dont sell all your silverware to a few and dont let the markers run the Country as it obviously does not work. More Government policing and less California goldrush.

 

Its very simple, judge a Nation on their intellect not on a house price.

[Barry Sanchez]

The train service is far better now than it was in the 70's -80's it is clean safe and not the unpleasant experience it was then. I am surprised that private companies pay 5 more to run the railways, there has to be a reason to be so, as it was a shambles when the state ran it.

No the taxpayer pays 5.2 times more to run a train service they already own.

[Barry Sanchez]

I seriously question whether a tory thinks.

[Hockey_saint]

I do so love people that quote Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill, ancestor to the Duke of Marlborough (a distant cousin of Princess Diana and the Spencer family) concerning socialism....I mean, surely that's like asking Lord Astor (ironically David Cameron's father-in-law) about the poor.....seriously, what the heck do you think he ever knew?

 

I do agree with someone I know however, when someone said to them that "well....she was a mother herself" they replied with "yeah, and her kids appeared to really love her!!....besides, tell that to the mothers of all the coal miners who's lives they ruined".

I've said before that we should never celebrate her dying but we do need to remember her without rose-tinted glasses.

 

I myself am thankful for her educational cost-saving measures otherwise I wouldn't have been able to go to mainstream school but from a historical point of view (and a history of Africa one) she was the complex person there too....she seemingly stitched up Ian Douglas Smith in Rhodesia as he'd expected that she would lend them the swupport of which she later did to the South African Apartheid government.

[Barry Sanchez]

Right off to play a game of football, enjoy guys.

[badgerx16]

 

Its very simple, judge a Nation on their intellect not on a house price.

 

France and Germany have lower home ownership rates than the UK. Compare the owenership stats on this map with the perceived relative economic strength :

 

[pap]

We can fine tooth comb everything Thatcher did for another 50 pages and we'd still be where we started: half the country will say she was predominantly good for the country and half will say she wasn't.

 

I don't think everything she did was right in the execution but the general underlying philosophies were right IMO.

 

I do wrestle with the human impact of some of these 'necessary' changes the country faced and, yes, I often ponder whether sowing the seeds for the eventual collapse of the financial markets was the right thing to do for 'mankind' but I also equally ponder on how things would have turned out if we had gone down a less capitalist path.

 

At the end of the day I'm not 'academic' enough to analyse the social/economic effects of every political decision so your average man in the street typically goes with their gut feel.

 

On balance, I think Thatcher did more good than bad for the country. That's my gut feel based on my life experiences, not someone else's. other people have different life experiences and will therefore come to different conclusions.

 

No one is right or wrong.

 

You're right.

 

We can go through each of Thatcher's big decisions. We probably should. The devil is in the details, as they say. You speak about the major philosophies being right. I really can't agree.

 

What philosophies are we talking about, exactly? Private ownership of previously nationalised industries? Pickfords? Fine. Telecoms? Fine. Everything else, not really. Utility companies that hike their rates and generate profits for foreign sovereign states. Train companies that post above-inflation fare rises every year, yet aren't that interested in the non-profitable upkeep part.

 

Perhaps you're not talking about private ownership, and are referring to the freedom of opportunity offered during the Thatcher years. That only really worked in the South. The North didn't do so well, and speaking as someone who arrived up here in '94, the difference in all the towns and cities here is incredible.

 

Maybe it's the right to buy your own council house. I've written at length about how that was a bad deal for almost everyone in this country (except the lucky few that got the free money and the lucky landlords who now rent slums out).

 

Perhaps it's individual freedom, not entirely attributable to MT but very much something that she promoted. Look where that's got us, in the "don't know your neighbours" / culture of entitlement 21st century.

 

She did far more wrong than she did right, imo - and set in motion policies that have gotten worse over the years. Many people who were much older than I said we needed a tough Prime Minister at the time to deal with the Unions. That may have been true, but if she was truly as great a leader as people are making out, she'd have contrived a way to save the country without destroying half of it in the short-term, with the rest to follow in due course.

 

I'm not just having a pop at MT; as you and others have pointed out, no subsequent PM has tried to rescind many of her policies - they've just made most of them worse. They all bear collective culpability for the cumulative sh!te this country found itself in, but it was Thatcher who started the asset-stripping. The f**kers have been at it ever since.

Edited 9 April, 2013 by pap

[OldNick]

But it was far better quality than the cheap crap we brought in from places such as Poland - less heat and more pollution produced. If we followed your logic BMW wouldn't sell any cars, we'd all be driving round in (quote) BMW is British is it? It was a case that our workforce were producing Austin ALlegro's that you needed the AA on call when you were first driving it out of the showrooms whilst BMW Merc etc were building quality with workforces who had pride in their products.

I would be delighted if we produced our own coal but I thought the Greens were trying to get the power stations away from coal and so the long term future of coal was under threat when the decisions were made in the late 80s

[Barry Sanchez]

France and Germany have lower home ownership rates than the UK. Compare the owenership stats on this map with the perceived relative economic strength :

 

I understand that and thats why I put that in there, we put far too much emphasis on home onwershop and inturn the cost of housing rises even further, solid social housing for all and in turn housing that can not be sold, why is rental scorned upon in thsi Country? I fpeoiple can afford to buy fine but why should people be emotionally blackmailed into debt by banks?

[Barry Sanchez]

But it was far better quality than the cheap crap we brought in from places such as Poland - less heat and more pollution produced. If we followed your logic BMW wouldn't sell any cars, we'd all be driving round in (quote) BMW is British is it? It was a case that our workforce were producing Austin ALlegro's that you needed the AA on call when you were first driving it out of the showrooms whilst BMW Merc etc were building quality with workforces who had pride in their products.

I would be delighted if we produced our own coal but I thought the Greens were trying to get the power stations away from coal and so the long term future of coal was under threat when the decisions were made in the late 80s

 

The greens are far more powersul in Germany than they are here, right off I go, oh and pap check your inbox.

[trousers]

No the taxpayer pays 5.2 times more to run a train service they already own.

 

Source?

[solentstars]

 

HTH

great war time leader but the soldiers who returned from fighting fascism in 1945 did not want to go back to pre war Briton and voted in clement attlee one of our greatest pms ever.

[solentstars]

Not the most scientific of things, and yes it is a journo on Twitter, but he seems quite respectable. Quite surprising if true.

 

Janan Ganesh ‏@JananGanesh

ICM poll finds 50% think Thatcher was good for Britain. 34% say not. Sorry, but in electoral terms that is called a landslide.

wonder why they will not have a minutes silence at football matchs for her.

[Dr Who?]

35 years to late

[Dr Who?]

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/margaret-thatcher-war-on-rave-acid-house-boys-own

 

I also remember her uttering something about banning football. Hmmm

[pap]

PAP are you a scouser or something?? Boy can you moan.

 

Super stuff, stug76.

 

I'm sure it's a just a matter of time before someone picks this up and turns it into a screenplay.

[trousers]

Many people who were much older than I said we needed a tough Prime Minister at the time to deal with the Unions. That may have been true, but if she was truly as great a leader as people are making out, she'd have contrived a way to save the country without destroying half of it in the short-term

 

I don't think you'll find many people to disagree with that.

 

But maybe there simply wasn't a "one size fits all" solution to the problem?

 

Not on the same scale, obviously, but look at how many people Cortese has upset and trampled upon to reach his goal.

 

As Thatcher said herself: "If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing"

 

If there was a way of fixing the country in the late 70s / early 80s without affecting any sections of society would any sane politician have spurned such an opportunity?

 

(Ok, so maybe Thatcher wasn't 100% sane....)

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

No I am saying copy the French and German models, support your own workers by subsidy and invest in the youth, high taxations high earnings and dont sell all your silverware to a few and dont let the markers run the Country as it obviously does not work. More Government policing and less California goldrush.

 

Its very simple, judge a Nation on their intellect not on a house price.

 

Your enthusiasm for the failed and defeated Britain of the 1970's can only be explained by the fact you're too young to have actually experienced that grim place at first hand. As for the desirability of the long term state subsidy of industry, I must ask you again; where is the money coming from and why do you imagine that government is especially skilled in running business's anyway?

 

It is surely the business of government to create a environment where business is free to flourish. There are some exceptions, but propping up failing concerns that should probably be left to sink or swim on merit has be shown time and time again to be the height of folly. Better surly to concentrate our efforts on encouraging the new industries that any dynamic economy must constantly create rather than keeping the moribund old ones in a near death state via a public money cash drip.

 

Re the railways, you seem to be simultaneously arguing both for and against state subsidy, and in any case those old enough to have experienced the days of BR will confirm that it was a rotten second rate service that had become little more than a national joke. Yes a mix of public/private money is now pouring into the railways - but unlike the past it is today largely being used to invest in the infrastructure of the system rather than giving a militant and heavily unionized workforce a 15% pay rise every year. As for the motor industry, well the record shows that we actually produce rather more (and massively better) cars now than we did back in the dark days of the 1970's. This is due in large part to the fact that MT actively encouraged the main Japanese motor manufacturers to set up plants here.

 

You call for us to follow the German/French economic model as if both where identical when two more different business cultures it would be hard to imagine. While the French do follow a state subsidy model I presume you approve of - and are currently paying the price for that - the Germans on the other hand hardly need to directly subsidize BMW, Mercedes Benz, or Audi anymore because these business are massively successful of course. A success built on foundations of a educated workforce, engineering excellence, free enterprise, and good industrial relations - ie everything 1970's Britain was not about.

 

A unrealistic sense of nostalgia for the past is fault more commonly associated with the old, but judging from your contributions to this thread it seems the condition is in danger of spreading down the age spectrum.

[View From The Top]

The sheer ignorance shown regarding mining and energy security is truly stunning.

 

They was cheap coal so we shut our mines, they then put the price up and the coal became expensive but what could we do, we'd shut our mines.

 

The other side of Cannock Chase from me is Rugeley power station. Next to it used to be Hem Heath colliery, one of the profitable super collieries. The coal would go straight to the power station.

 

The privitised generation companies decided they'd import cheaper coal & the colliery, losing its market overnight, was closed. That "cheap" coal, is now expensive coal so instead of British coal, dug from rich seams, next to the power station, we import expensive coal from around the world and wonder why our bills keep going up whilst these private companies make so much profit.

 

We decided on North Sea gas, we were told it was very cheap and would last centuries and had, very handily, just be sold to private business. 25 years later we are told it's running out & we are importing gas from Russia and Nigeria which is hugely expensive.

 

It was short sighted and based on political dogma instead of common sense but she didn't give a fu.ck as mining areas would never vote for her anyway.

[trousers]

Was just watching the BBC news channel and they were reporting from the Yorkshire coal field 'heartland'. They interviewed a "working class" woman who had benefitted from the 'right to buy' scheme that Thatcher introduced and she said that there was almost a sense of intimidation at the time from those that lived around her that made her feel compelled to support the more militant contingent of the striking miners in order to feel part of the community. She said many others felt the same.

 

The interviewer asked her if, in hindsight, she would have liked to have been more overtly praiseworthy of Thatcher's policies and she said she wished she could have been as Thatcher had changed her family's life for the better.

 

Now, I'm not holding this up as a "there you go, the miners families were on the wrong wavelength" argument - I accept there were winners and losers in what happened - but I thought it was refreshing for the BBC to highlight that not all "working class" families in Yorkshire (and one assumes other parts of "the north") were anti-Thatcher.

 

I think this simply highlights that everyone has different experiences of the Thatcher era and that we should have both empathy for those that suffered but equally respect for the views of those who had a more positive experience of "Thatcherism".

Edited 9 April, 2013 by trousers

[shurlock]

Your enthusiasm for the failed and defeated Britain of the 1970's can only be explained by the fact you're too young to have actually experienced that grim place at first hand. As for the desirability of the long term state subsidy of industry, I must ask you again; where is the money coming from and why do you imagine that government is especially skilled in running business's anyway?

 

It is surely the business of government to create a environment where business is free to flourish. There are some exceptions, but propping up failing concerns that should probably be left to sink or swim on merit has be shown time and time again to be the height of folly. Better surly to concentrate our efforts on encouraging the new industries that any dynamic economy must constantly create rather than keeping the moribund old ones in a near death state via a public money cash drip.

 

Re the railways, you seem to be simultaneously arguing both for and against state subsidy, and in any case those old enough to have experienced the days of BR will confirm that it was a rotten second rate service that had become little more than a national joke. Yes a mix of public/private money is now pouring into the railways - but unlike the past it is today largely being used to invest in the infrastructure of the system rather than giving a militant and heavily unionized workforce a 15% pay rise every year. As for the motor industry, well the record shows that we actually produce rather more (and massively better) cars now than we did back in the dark days of the 1970's. This is due in large part to the fact that MT actively encouraged the main Japanese motor manufacturers to set up plants here.

 

You call for us to follow the German/French economic model as if both where identical when two more different business cultures it would be hard to imagine. While the French do follow a state subsidy model I presume you approve of - and are currently paying the price for that - the Germans on the other hand hardly need to directly subsidize BMW, Mercedes Benz, or Audi anymore because these business are massively successful of course. A success built on foundations of a educated workforce, engineering excellence, free enterprise, and good industrial relations - ie everything 1970's Britain was not about.

 

A unrealistic sense of nostalgia for the past is fault more commonly associated with the old, but judging from your contributions to this thread it seems the condition is in danger of spreading down the age spectrum.

 

And everything 1980s and 1980s Britain was not about either - hence the popularity (and slight wishful thinking) of books like the state we're in etc.

Edited 9 April, 2013 by shurlock

[trousers]

those old enough to have experienced the days of BR will confirm that it was a rotten second rate service that had become little more than a national joke. .

 

Having spent the best part of 30 years commuting into London I can vouch for that. Except when Verbal is posting whereby I have to admit that I'm talking a load of old nonsense

[LGTL]

Blimey, if the current nonsense of a rail network is better than BR, what the hell was BR like? We still have the worst train network in pretty much the whole of western europe.

[JackFrost]

Thats really not the case. The mines were closed mainly because the unions had got out of hand and she wanted them crippled. Now that we're almost entirely dependent on imported energy, we are reaping what she sowed and paying through the nose for it. By God, could we use some of the coal we're sitting on now.

 

Sorry but that's absolute rubbish, I'm afraid it really was the case.

 

Coal Mines were closing all over the place as early as the 1960s, the last coal mine closed in the Black Country (one of the most industrialised parts of the country) in 1968, 11 years before Thatcher came to power. The heavy industries had been losing a lot of money for decades before Thatcher came in and were very inefficient, partly due to the strikes that crippled the country in the 70s hence why Maggie had to wage war against them.

[trousers]

Blimey, if the current nonsense of a rail network is better than BR, what the hell was BR like?

 

Bad.

 

How often are your trains delayed on average these days? Mine are probably on time c.95% of the time. That figure would have been nearer 75% in "the old days" (anecdotal memory rather than statistical)

[View From The Top]

Was just watching the BBC news channel and they were reporting from the Yorkshire coal field 'heartland'. They interviewed a "working class" woman who had benefitted from the 'right to buy' scheme that Thatcher introduced and she said that there was almost a sense of intimidation at the time from those that lived around her that made her feel compelled to support the more militant contingent of the striking miners in order to feel part of the community. She said many others felt the same.

 

The interviewer asked her if, in hindsight, she would have liked to have been more overtly praiseworthy of Thatcher's policies and she said she wished she could have been as Thatcher had changed her family's life for the better.

 

Now, I'm not holding this up as a "there you go, the miners families were on the wrong wavelength" argument - I accept there were winners and losers in what happened - but I thought it was refreshing for the BBC to highlight that not all "working class" families in Yorkshire (and one assumes other parts of "the north") were anti-Thatcher.

 

I think this simply highlights that everyone has different experiences of the Thatcher era and that we should have both empathy for those that suffered but equally respect for the views of those who had a more positive experience of "Thatcherism".

 

The huge fu.ck up with right to buy was that councils weren't allowed to re-invest they money raised in new housing stock, but to reduce how much rates/poll tax they charged.

 

The acute lack of housing stock now, the criminally high prices landlords charge in rent and this nations obsession with houses as investments instead of home, can be traced directly to that decision.

 

It could have been a fantastic program but like so much that she did, it was short term to create more tory voters.

[trousers]

Sorry but that's absolute rubbish, I'm afraid it really was the case.

 

Coal Mines were closing all over the place as early as the 1960s, the last coal mine closed in the Black Country (one of the most industrialised parts of the country) in 1968, 11 years before Thatcher came to power. The heavy industries had been losing a lot of money for decades before Thatcher came in and were very inefficient, partly due to the strikes that crippled the country in the 70s hence why Maggie had to wage war against them.

 

Yep. Wilson closed c.3x more mines than Thatcher (for example)

[View From The Top]

Sorry but that's absolute rubbish, I'm afraid it really was the case.

 

Coal Mines were closing all over the place as early as the 1960s, the last coal mine closed in the Black Country (one of the most industrialised parts of the country) in 1968, 11 years before Thatcher came to power. The heavy industries had been losing a lot of money for decades before Thatcher came in and were very inefficient, partly due to the strikes that crippled the country in the 70s hence why Maggie had to wage war against them.

 

There were collieries in Staffordshire, on the same coal seam, but more accessible coal, until the power generating companies went overseas for their coal.

[View From The Top]

Yep. Wilson closed c.3x more mines than Thatcher (for example)

 

It's not about closing inefficient pits, it's about closing pits for political reasons as opposed to economic and that shortsightedness is costing us all now.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Sorry but that's absolute rubbish, I'm afraid it really was the case.

 

Coal Mines were closing all over the place as early as the 1960s, the last coal mine closed in the Black Country (one of the most industrialised parts of the country) in 1968, 11 years before Thatcher came to power. The heavy industries had been losing a lot of money for decades before Thatcher came in and were very inefficient, partly due to the strikes that crippled the country in the 70s hence why Maggie had to wage war against them.

 

As ever the critique of Thatcher is superficial. There's little doubt that Thatcher wanted a set piece battle against the Unions and Scargill was arrogant and stupid enough to give her one despite the Govt getting well prepared for it. Coal mining was a declining industry but the Tories took a short sighted view of the value or lack thereof of the industry in the 80s and that was both motivated by their view of economics AND their desire to crush the unions. What the Tories didn't care to factor in was the social impact of wiping out employment for communities across the country, the economic cost of sticking 1000s permanently onto welfare and the future ever increasing cost of making the UK power industry reliant on imported Gas.

[trousers]

The huge fu.ck up with right to buy was that councils weren't allowed to re-invest they money raised in new housing stock, but to reduce how much rates/poll tax they charged.

 

The acute lack of housing stock now, the criminally high prices landlords charge in rent and this nations obsession with houses as investments instead of home, can be traced directly to that decision.

 

It could have been a fantastic program but like so much that she did, it was short term to create more tory voters.

 

Fair points. I just highlighted this 'ordinary northern woman' interview because she said Thatcher made her life better and was still feeling that some 30 years later.

 

Yes, no doubt for every 1 'ordinary northern' person the BBC unearth that benefitted from Thatcher someone else can find another 10 (or whatever ) that didn't, but I think it's 'fair' to dispel the myth that Thatcher destroyed ALL working class families in 'the north'.

 

As I say, I've no idea how representative this woman was of the 'silent minority' - she could well be an optimistic needle in a pessimistic haystack for all I know - but felt it was worth mentioning.

[CB Saint]

Blimey, if the current nonsense of a rail network is better than BR, what the hell was BR like? We still have the worst train network in pretty much the whole of western europe.

 

The rolling stock used in the eighties (when I used he trains regularly) was terrible. The current stock in comparison is light years better

[trousers]

It's not about closing inefficient pits, it's about closing pits for political reasons as opposed to economic and that shortsightedness is costing us all now.

 

How many of the pits that Thatcher closed were inefficient and how many were closed out of pure political spite? Genuine question as I've no idea what the stats are.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Bad.

 

How often are your trains delayed on average these days? Mine are probably on time c.95% of the time. That figure would have been nearer 75% in "the old days" (anecdotal memory rather than statistical)

 

At what cost? Over-crowding on commuter trains is the norm and prices have gone up by huge amounts. And yet we still support the industry with public subsidies. Let's not forget that BR suffered from massive under-investment prior to privatisation. The whole privatisation scheme was flawed. We'd have been much better off following similar model to Germany where the state retained a significant % of ownership of a national company but sold off enough shares to raise capital for investment and promote a more efficient operation.

[solentstars]

Not feeling very well , I think I will book myself in to The Ritz until i feel better ! Unfortunately our house does not have a lift, nor does my other one in Belgravia . I will have to ask work for a pay rise to help pay the bill because a 5 star suite costs between £2000 to £4000 a night , oh and there is the extra cost of hiring a couple of strangers to look after me , because my kids don't want to know. What the hell it's only money , but in these times of austerity I should be more prudent and maybe seen if the NHS could have helped me out! Never mind we are all in this together , aren't we ! If I do take a turn for the worse please do not spend more than £10 million on burying me because like so many others who pass away I am just an ordinary working class man

[JackFrost]

As ever the critique of Thatcher is superficial. There's little doubt that Thatcher wanted a set piece battle against the Unions and Scargill was arrogant and stupid enough to give her one despite the Govt getting well prepared for it. Coal mining was a declining industry but the Tories took a short sighted view of the value or lack thereof of the industry in the 80s and that was both motivated by their view of economics AND their desire to crush the unions. What the Tories didn't care to factor in was the social impact of wiping out employment for communities across the country, the economic cost of sticking 1000s permanently onto welfare and the future ever increasing cost of making the UK power industry reliant on imported Gas.

 

And to be honest I actually agree with the vast majority of your post, although I'd replace the word "declining" with "unsustainable".

 

Personally I think Thatcher did more good for this country than bad although I'm more than happy to acknowledge she made some awful decisions during her premiership that ruined many lives, and this was down to her "once she's on a mission there's no stopping her" attitude. If only she didn't have a hatred of compromising and she could have been incredibly popular in so many more people's eyes.

 

But I do tend to find that it's the "Thatcher is the devil's daughter" brigade that are the most prone to rewriting history and having a very selective memory when it comes to the reasons why she made decisions she did at the time. I've heard a lot of people in my lifetime spout hatred about Thatcher, yet hardly any come up with alternative policies or suggestions about what they'd have done with the issues faced at the time eg. whether they'd continue to pump money into failing industries that had been losing money for 20 years in the middle of a recession.

 

I think barring the Poll Tax (which was a complete disaster) I actually agreed with the idea of a lot of her policies but there were some she executed in truly appalling ways.

 

Ruthless determination can be so great at times and so yet awful at other times.

[trousers]

There's little doubt that Thatcher wanted a set piece battle against the Unions

 

The 1979 and 1983 Tory manifestos pledged to remove various powers from the unions. Ergo the Tories were given a democratic mandate to carry this out by virtue of winning these elections.

 

Thatcher resisted a "set piece battle" for best part of 5 years and it was only the act of Scargill calling a national strike without a national ballot that set miner against miner and miner against the government.

 

Are people suggesting that Thatcher shouldn't have carried out the mandate she was handed by the electorate?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

 

Re the railways, you seem to be simultaneously arguing both for and against state subsidy, and in any case those old enough to have experienced the days of BR will confirm that it was a rotten second rate service that had become little more than a national joke. Yes a mix of public/private money is now pouring into the railways - but unlike the past it is today largely being used to invest in the infrastructure of the system rather than giving a militant and heavily unionized workforce a 15% pay rise every year.

 

You call for us to follow the German/French economic model as if both where identical when two more different business cultures it would be hard to imagine. While the French do follow a state subsidy model I presume you approve of - and are currently paying the price for that - the Germans on the other hand hardly need to directly subsidize BMW, Mercedes Benz, or Audi anymore because these business are massively successful of course. A success built on foundations of a educated workforce, engineering excellence, free enterprise, and good industrial relations - ie everything 1970's Britain was not about.

 

 

The railways - you forget to mention that the recent massive investment in infrastructure has only really come about sinced Railtrack was effectively nationalised, they were an absolute joke of a company that continued to under-invest and made big profits for shareholders by simply selling off its property porfolio.

 

Car industry comment - The UK care industry in the 70s was a joke and the Unions take a big part of the blame but Thatcher hardly encouraged the good industral relations you talk about in Germany. You also fail to mention the German state's role in positively shaping that industry - Lower Saxony still own around 50% of VW.

[trousers]

I think barring the Poll Tax (which was a complete disaster) I actually agreed with the idea of a lot of her policies

 

The Community Charge (aka Poll Tax) wasn't actually one of Thatcher's ideas. She initially didn't want to replace Rates with another local tax at all. Instead she wanted to fund local services from central taxation.

 

She was convinced to change her mind by a William Waldegrave and Kenneth Baker green paper.

 

Of course, Thatcher's subsequent downfall was that, having been convinced to go with the concept of the Community Charge , she did it with her usual dogmatic gusto. Her singlemindedness often stood her in good stead but it didn't with the Community Charge, but, for once, she wasn't the architect of it even though people assume she was.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The 1979 and 1983 Tory manifestos pledged to remove various powers from the unions. Ergo the Tories were given a democratic mandate to carry this out by virtue of winning these elections.

 

Thatcher resisted a "set piece battle" for best part of 5 years and it was only the act of Scargill calling a national strike without a national ballot that set miner against miner and miner against the government.

 

Are people suggesting that Thatcher shouldn't have carried out the mandate she was handed by the electorate?

 

The govt quietly stock piled coal for years in preparation and many in the party wanted revenge for the turmoil created for Heath's administration in the early 70s by striking miners. Much of the country did want reduce power of the Unions but it's not fair to say they wanted a whole industry crushed in the manner it was. The miners strike was good old fashioned class warfare from the leaders of both sides.

[trousers]

The govt quietly stock piled coal for years in preparation and many in the party wanted revenge for the turmoil created for Heath's administration in the early 70s by striking miners. Much of the country did want reduce power of the Unions but it's not fair to say they wanted a whole industry crushed in the manner it was. The miners strike was good old fashioned class warfare from the leaders of both sides.

 

I don't know enough about the figures to contest that (I.e . How many 'sustainable' mines were closed by Thatcher unnecessarily?). Any links to the stats appreciated - cheers

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The Community Charge (aka Poll Tax) wasn't actually one of Thatcher's ideas. She initially didn't want to replace Rates with another local tax at all. Instead she wanted to fund local services from central taxation.

 

She was convinced to change her mind by a William Waldegrave and Kenneth Baker green paper.

 

Of course, Thatcher's subsequent downfall was that, having been convinced to go with the concept of the Community Charge , she did it with her usual dogmatic gusto. Her singlemindedness often stood her in good stead but it didn't with the Community Charge, but, for once, she wasn't the architect of it even though people assume she was.

 

Yep, as is often the case someone's greatest strengths can also be their undoing. You could argue that her single mindedness was needed in spades early on to shake up the establishment and quash the unions but later she should have built more consensus and operated with less dogma and more pragmatism.

Edited 9 April, 2013 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[trousers]

Yep, as is often the case someone's greatest strengths can also be their undoing. You could argue that her single mindedness was needed in spades early on to shake up the establishment and quash the unions but later she should have built more consensus and operated with less dogma and more pragmatism.

 

Yep, agree with that

[Tom8558]

Mrs T arrived in Heaven at the pearly gates yesterday and asked to be let in.

'You're not coming in here' said St Peter. 'It's the other place for you. Down you go.'

Some time later St Peter phoned down to find out how she was getting on.

'Not well' said a demon. 'She has closed down four pits and three furnaces already'.