Oh I dunno housing benefit, moving the economy into areas it could actually compete, changing the whole model of social services to a person not service centred model, keeping the UK out of several wars, getting us a comparatively good deal in the EU.
And dragging our economy out of the horrendous mess it was in, in the 1970s
Quote: Timbo @ December 21 2011, 9:49 AM GMTI understand that cope with expected demand, the undertakers for lady Thatcher's funeral have been in touch with these people: hire
It's interesting that the Tories are consistently labelled as "the nasty Party", when most of the bile and genuinely inhumane hate and vitriol seems to mostly stem from the Left.
Looking forward to, or celebrating the death of, anyone diminishes not the hated, but the hater. Why some on the Left speak about savouring Thatcher's demise, as though she were some former dictator in a brutal communist country, is beyond me. She was a centre-Right politician in a progressive democracy, who was consistently voted for in free and fair elections. If you don't like her, blame the millions who voted for her.
(Don't mean to imply that Timbo is any part of this, btw.)
Well she sold all the council housing, and took milk of kids for a start, she came undone with the unfair 'poll tax', decided to war against Argentina, otherwise suppose she was OK.
Quote: dellas @ December 21 2011, 10:48 AM GMT
"all"? And the right-to-buy policy with council houses is a policy which was continued under successive governments. It also helped many aspirational working class people onto the housing ladder. The problem was that not enough new council houses were built subsequently to replace those sold off - and chronically there's been a lack of cheap, affordable housing in this country (Labour did f**k all about it in 13 years).
Quote: dellas @ December 21 2011, 10:48 AM GMTand took milk of kids for a start
She didn't do that as Prime Minister, that was when she was Minister for Education, under Heath, in 1970. And it wasn't a universal ban on free school milk. According to documents released years later...
'Responding to the demands to end free school milk, Mrs Thatcher said: "I think that the complete withdrawal of free milk for our school children would be too drastic a step and would arouse more widespread public antagonism than the saving justifies."
She proposed the compromise, later accepted, that milk would only be available to pupils in nursery and primary schools.
She told the Treasury that this would reduce the proposed cuts by £20m over the four-year life of the government and would free up cash for a new primary school building programme.
I was a milk monitor at my infant/primary school in the mid-to-late 70s and it was still there - horrible, luke-warm bottles of full-fat milk - I wish she had scrapped it.
Quote: dellas @ December 21 2011, 10:48 AM GMTshe came undone with the unfair 'poll tax'
True. And, instead, we have the incredibly fair council tax - which has many of the same faults.
Quote: dellas @ December 21 2011, 10:48 AM GMTdecided to war against Argentina
Er... are you serious? They'd invaded the bloody Falkland Islands and taken British citizens hostage! What diplomatic resolution to that situation would you have suggested?
Defending British territories is hardly as controversial as, ooh, I don't know, invading Iraq and Afghanistan on the premise of "preventing terror threats against Britain" and using faked/false intelligence to help justify it.
Miners.
She sold council stock thus enabling thousands to actually own a meaningful investment. Not to mention most of the housing stock was in a sorry state and was hugely improved by the new owners.
New housing has been needed for new decades neither side has done much about it. Neither labour nor the conservatives seem convinced people either want to pay for it, or live as a tenant of the state.
The poletax was a mistake and it cost her, her job.
And yup Argentina invaded a sovereign people who asked for the UK's help. Ignoring thise would have been an appalling act of cowardice.
Quote: rwayne @ December 21 2011, 11:05 AM GMTMiners.
The relationship between government and the unions was f**ked-up before Thatcher took over. Indeed, an event like the 'Winter of Discontent' was one of the reasons she was elected. Taking on the unions, who were ideologically opposed to virtually any reforms - was inevitable. Britain could no longer compete in many areas - notably manufacturing, due to union-led restrictive practices and the emergence of competitive labour/manufacturing in developing countries in Europe and the rest of the world.
The miners' strike was tragic on a personal level (and, indeed, at a local community level), but the truth is that mining was essentially a loss-making industry. Why did Labour in 1997 not re-open the mines and invest in a wholesale attempt to start a "new" British mining industry? Fact is, it was economically non-viable and they knew it.
It was a very tough time, the early 80s, but things had to be reformed, or else most of us wouldn't have enjoyed the prosperity of the 90s and 00s.
(The massively pompous, selfish and self-interested) Arthur Scargill viewed the strike as an ideological battle, not as simply representing the best interests of his members. Many of the worst aspects of the fall-out from that strike were due to his self-interest being put ahead of concern for the prospects of ordinary miners and their families. The miners were sold-out by their own leaders, who put their politics and egos before the well-being of ordinary people.
(And, btw, I speak as someone who voted for Labour in '97. Seemed like a good idea at the time.)
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 21 2011, 10:36 AM GMTLooking forward to, or celebrating the death of, anyone diminishes not the hated, but the hater.
This. Regardless of your political leanings.
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 21 2011, 11:15 AM GMTThe relationship between government and the unions was f**ked-up before Thatcher took over. Indeed, an event like the 'Winter of Discontent' was one of the reasons she was elected. Taking on the unions, who were ideologically opposed to virtually any reforms - was inevitable. Britain could no longer compete in many areas - notably manufacturing, due to union-led restrictive practices and the emergence of competitive labour/manufacturing in developing countries in Europe and the rest of the world.
The miners' strike was tragic on a personal level (and, indeed, at a local community level), but the truth is that mining was essentially a loss-making industry. Why did Labour in 1997 not re-open the mines and invest in a wholesale attempt to start a "new" British mining industry? Fact is, it was economically non-viable and they knew it.
It was a very tough time, the early 80s, but things had to be reformed, or else most of us wouldn't have enjoyed the prosperity of the 90s and 00s.
(The massively pompous, selfish and self-interested) Arthur Scargill viewed the strike as an ideological battle, not as simply representing the best interests of his members. Many of the worst aspects of the fall-out from that strike were due to his self-interest ahead of concern for the prospects of ordinary miners and their families.
To say it was a loss making industry is not entirely true...if you take into account the loss of those jobs and the reduction of those wages in those communities and that the subsequent buying of coal from other sources was MUCH more expensive.
I also believe it's true that once a mine is closed, flooded, that mine cannot be reopened. It was never about the 'economics' of the mining industry.
Scargill was a ridiculous figure who didn't even have the consent of his unions members for his actions. And cheaper foreign coal could never be competed with.
Quote: sootyj @ December 21 2011, 10:33 AM GMTmoving the economy into areas it could actually compete ... And dragging our economy out of the horrendous mess it was in, in the 1970s
Thatcher' s monetarist polices actually put the economy into a tailspin; she was rescued by a firesale of national assets and the coming onto tap of North Sea oil. I think we will see over the next decade or so just how sustainable the free-trade, service based economic model inaugurated under Thatcher and maintained under subsequent governments actually is. With all our capital allowed to move offshore and no manufacturing base, our apparent prosperity is based upon the redundant anachronism of the City and a mountain of personal debt underpinned by unsustainable property prices and financed by the savings of the Chinese factory labourers manufacturing consumer goods for us.
But I do not loathe her anymore than I do Blair. Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Major and Brown were also pretty awful but at least possessed qualities capable of invoking some human sympathy. What singles out Thatcher and Blair is that wild-eyed faith in their own infallibility; such people if left unchecked can do immense damage.
Tim is right though; ultimately the blame lies with the electorate.
Quote: rwayne @ December 21 2011, 11:22 AM GMTTo say it was a loss making industry is not entirely true...if you take into account the loss of those jobs and the reduction of those wages in those communities and that the subsequent buying of coal from other sources was MUCH more expensive.
Britain was already buying coal from "other sources" long, long before the strike. And the overall economics of this did not make it "MUCH more expensive". Like a huge amount of British industry at the time, mining was a subsidised and unsustainable industry. Partly due to the logistics of coal extraction in this island and partly because of restrictive union practices, the British mining industry became uncompetitive.
If we had continued to prop up failing British industries and not taken on the unions then you and I would be living in a very different country - and not in a good way.
I've immense sympathy for those miners, their families and the mining communities who suffered at the time. And there was a lot of wrong done on both sides (especially some of the police tactics). But if it hadn't all come to an end with a bang in '85, then it would have been with a whimper within a few short years. Britain had to get competitive and many ordinary people in many industries suffered. But unlike some countries in the rest of the world, at least we still had a welfare state and schools and free health care. Point is, it wasn't a good time, but compared to the struggles in the rest of the world, it was relatively benign.
That certainly is true people usually get the governments they deserve.
And North Sea Oil didn't make so much money.
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 21 2011, 11:15 AM GMTThe relationship between government and the unions was f**ked-up before Thatcher took over. Indeed, an event like the 'Winter of Discontent' was one of the reasons she was elected. Taking on the unions, who were ideologically opposed to virtually any reforms - was inevitable. Britain could no longer compete in many areas - notably manufacturing, due to union-led restrictive practices and the emergence of competitive labour/manufacturing in developing countries in Europe and the rest of the world.
As someone who has always been a union member I think a lot of what you say is correct. I recently read an argument that Britian unionised much earlier and there was a culture of craft and guild associations that protected their skills and trade with great verve. Admirable the skills of the typewriter making guild might be they weren't much good to the late 20th century.
But that was then, unions at car factories in the UK are in some of the most succesful plants in Europe. Pity it took the Japanese and Germans to remind us how to do it.
Quote: sootyj @ December 21 2011, 11:28 AM GMTScargill was a ridiculous figure who didn't even have the consent of his unions members for his actions. And cheaper foreign coal could never be competed with.
Closing down mines does mean that remaining coal essentially becomes irretreviable; from the point of view of energy security it was always unwise to give so little support to the industry, and may appear more so in the looming energy crises. Much of the coal that flooded into Britain in the 80s was highly polluting low energy content lignite from Eastern Europe, and under procurement rules public sector clients were obliged to buy it.
The victory over the miners was always more about ideology than economics, though in fairness Scargill was the living embodiement of all that was wrong with trade unionism (as is Bob Crow now).