Margaret Thatcher has died

Again, you're trotting out cliches without seeming to have given it it much actual thought.

There will always be a need for a certain amount of social housing, for those who through special need aren't able to work or to afford a house of their own.

There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the desire to turn us into a nation of homeowners, but it requires high levels of employment, decent wages plus affordable homes being available. As long as all of those conditions aren't in place, we'll continue to need a lot of social housing.
 
There was economic growth in that period and many people benefited. This cannot be ignored or glossed over. I just felt it worth mentioning because of what was said. Our economy was not "crushed" in the Eighties, it grew and the countries finances improved overall. There was a recession in the early eighties (1980-1982), after that the economy grew.

Although we had a bit of bubble in housing (as well as the stock market), overall house prices have continued steadily upwards since.

As for our industry, I prefer to think that if there really was anything worthy of saving for the long term it would have been. I just don't think there was at the time, sometimes it makes sense to move on.

The problems with banking can't be all thrown at Thatcher, the real problems there stems from successive governments not applying sensible rules and regulations on them.
 
At the time the country needed a fix, so to speak. There may have been people on waiting lists, but if there is no money for new social housing, it makes no difference to sell off part of what you have to the occupiers. Those homes are already taken up.

Money was generated, people who bought benefited. That was a fix, you can see it as short term. But, there are still people today who are still grateful for that opportunity. Lots' of people got on the property ladder who otherwise may have not.

You shouldn't underestimate the difference this has made to many people finances over the course of their lifetime.

I apologize for the cliché, But I'm pointing to the different ideological approach that is the fundamental difference here. It shapes everything from top down. If you share the ideology from the 'top' ie. the principles that make up the ideology then we can find common ground further down.

I agree that some level of social housing is needed, but most people who bought their council houses were not in special need or unable to afford it. So we are talking about different groups of people essentially.
 
Well we have fallen down on the affordable homes being available . But that doesn't mean the decision taken years ago to get the ball rolling was the wrong one. We just didn't achieve one of these ideal conditions (yet). That can be as much the fault of successive governments as the one that took the initiative.
 
There was economic growth on paper, but really it was just 'bling'. All sparkle and no real substance.

Selling off council houses and cutting taxes resulted in a round of property speculation which drove up property prices and both domestic and commercial rents.

Selling off the public utilities cheaply made a lot of money for stockbrokers and the like, but the only real effect for the average punter is higher bills.

Relying heavily on financial services rather than manufacturing has made us more vulnerable to global boom-and-bust cycles.

I know that successive governments haven't cleaned up the mess that Thatcher made, but that doesn't make her any less guilty of creating it in the first place!
 
Even if I were to agree with you (I would need to research more on that point of it being just 'bling'), we're still quite far from describing it as "crushed", which is what I was replying to at the time.



Again we could debate whether this in of itself is a good or bad thing. You may see this as bad, but I don't see the problem, other than what we have already agreed on. That supply wasn't kept up with demand.



It's a bit more than that. It's the taxpayer who ultimately supports a poorly performing state owned industry. We may have paid cheaper bills, but at what cost to the taxpayer/ state funds?

Should it be the states place or role to own and run large industries? Personally I think not. The government is at cross purposes in that situation, because it's role is not to be in business to turn a profit, it's role is to do the best by the people it's put in place to serve. It can't serve the best interest of both the people which are also the industries customer/ end user and the industry alike.

Profit may be a dirty word to some, but what it does is make things efficient. Profits create growth. If we had left these industries in Government hands at the time. Who is to say they would have left us down in terms of overall net gain; in terms of jobs and pay. This is possible because of profit driven by market forces.

History shows us that large industries and business perform better in the private sector than in the Public sector. This boosts the economy through jobs and pay and in turn has a knock on effect in the economy.

I would have to say if you basically disagree about that on principle/ ideology then we're just not going to agree about it and it's probably best to agree to disagree at this point.


Not at all, boom and bust cycles will always come and go. Our manufacturing base was uncompetitive, and global forces meant we couldn't suddenly be competitive. Take the Japanese car industry at the time. Our car industry had no chance really, because basically it was shoddy in comparison. Maybe it's not a bad idea to support something you can get to the top at like the financial sector, rather than focus time and money on things that may be less worthwhile and cost effective down the line.

There are seldom easy choices. I mean imagine how could we have really competed with China and even Eastern Europe in terms of manufacturing today ? I actually work in manufacturing in the clothing business and we make our products in Eastern Europe. This major transition in the UK fashion industry happened in the mid nineties and continues today.



I know I'm coming across as playing Devils Advocate somewhat now. But hey, someone kinda had to on this thread.. But hey, how about an opportunity was created at the time rather than a mess. And it was subsequently missed? I'm not suggesting Thatcher and her regime couldn't have done more or that they got everything right. far from it, they made their fair share of Gaffs. The Poll Tax was a total disaster for example, and I would also take the point that the Falklands was in hindsight handled a bit carelessly.
 
I get so tired of this being thrown out as if was some sort of fact. Things run by government run poorly, things run by businesses run well.

What a crock.

I have worked IT in a variety of state and private businesses and to be honest I see very little difference. I am amazed that any company manages to turn a profit.

The things that pass for ideas, planning, research, heck any of it is amazingly poor. There are often pockets of high performance but to be honest these are the exceptions and are often targeted by other managers as threats rather than examples to follow.

I have worked with Sr Managers who design reports and data flows to track performance and then come back several months later and ask me to explain to them what their report means.


BTW, the whole system is set up to keep the rich, well, rich. Everything else is secondary.
 
I'd like to see this historical evidence of the private sector always being more efficient.

Judging everything on the bottom line ends up with ridiculous situations, like a quarter of the UK's water supply being lost through leakage, because water is cheaper than repairs and so gives a better return to shareholders - http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/07/water-companies-cut-leaks-2015-drought

I'll say this for her; I don't know of anyone one else that can cause an argument so easilly.
 
Just jumping in with my own side point here but, even leaving aside the state v private sector debate, I have a problem with essential utilities being dropped to private companies. Paying such a high price for something is fundamental aswater is ridiculous to me. Gas prices and whatnot I can understand a bit better considering the whole fossil fuel thing but even then in my naiive mind I'd rather the state took control of that and broke even rather than it be controlled by a private company that keep upping their prices, when we can barely afford it anyway mind you, and make huge profits.

I'll admit to not knowing anything about utilities really,but th other thing is I can name maybe...4 major energy supply companies all with pretty similiar pricing. The whole point of the private sector being efficient point stems from competition. If I can't afford to shop for food at Waitrose I have a myriad of other options to avoid starving. If I can't afford gas I freeze and end up washing from a kettle. Assuming I can afford my electricity bill.

If I'm wrong on any of that I'm happy to be told. I'm still lucky enough to live with my parents so I don't have to deal with this stuff personally but that's the impression of utility prices I've got from them and from the news.
 
^ one word. corruption (oh how we love the efficiency of the private utility sector).
 
OH HAHA!

I see what you did there! Such cunning, such wit ...you sir are a real fox.
You know I meant the Conservative party members, not specificaly the mp's.....= =

Raz
 
just like the states, the economy during this time was crushed, if you didn't happen to be in the top tax brackets. everyone else was left behind. all you need to do is look at unemployment, inflation, housing prices, inequality, manufacturing, union membership during this time.

sure, the gdp numbers grew (somewhat), just like they've grown here since 1980. but that doesn't really tell the whole story does it? just like the states, thatcher turned your country into a financial services country, where much less stuff is made and more stuff is speculated on. sure some people felt the profit, only because they've been successful at pushing paper around. the average working bloke? they get less and less of the pie in the name of progress.

the big lie that more money to the top tax brackets will lift the whole economy has been proven to be a big lie, over and over. and with every bubble that's burst, the non-already-rich lose ground.

edit...

you can all look up the number for yourself and make your own determinations. but i'll just share this one...poverty percentage in britain.

1977    11.3 1978    12.9 1979    13.4 1980    15.2 1981    13.6 1982    12.1 1983    12.7 1984    12.8 1985    14 1986    15.8 1987    17.8 1988    20.9 1989    21.5 1990    22.2 1991    21.2 1992    21.9 1993    19.9 1994-95    18.8 1995-96    17.9 1996-97    19.4 1997-98    19.6 1998-99    19.3 1999-00    19.2 2000-01    18.4 2001-02    18.4 2002-03    18.1 2003-04    17.8 2004-05    17 2005-06    17.6 2006-07    18 2007-08    18.3 2008-09    18.1 2009-10    17.1
 
I don't want to paint the picture of all Public run services being second class to the private sector. But I still believe in the principles of free market economics and competition as being the more efficient model on the whole. There will always be exceptions and special cases.

In the mean time I will see if I can find any studies that support that position, if I do I will post them.
 
It's funny then that the people can afford more expensive houses and bigger mortgages in a "crushed economy". Where are they getting the money to fuel a housing boom?

So many people are still sitting on massive equity built up through the last 20-30 years through the housing market. Again if the average person was so financially crushed; how did it happen then ? And don't forget that unlike the USA we haven't had the housing crash seen elsewhere.

Truth is the average tradesmen here in the UK did great during the 80's. We even had a comedy caricature by Harry Enfield called 'loadsamoney'. I think that captured what happened in the Eighties quite well. The average working man and the middle classes did pretty well.

I believe if they weren't doing ok, they wouldn't have voted her in three times in a row. Maybe you can explain that one too ?

Harry Enfield - Loadsamoney - I've Got Piles - YouTube
 
The mining union (not all the unions) were asking for a pay rise in line with inflation caused by government policies. Heath introduced the 3 day week not the unions.
 
I agree to a point.

However I don't want my healthcare based on someone else making a profit.

I don't want environmental standards be determined on someone else making a profit.

I don't want my children's education being based on someone else making a profit.

I sure as heck don't want my retirement income tied up in a company where it is based on someone else making a profit with my money. Especially when they aren't taking any of the risks.
 
instead of anecdotal evidence and caricatures, maybe actual data would help you--see table below from http://www.measuringworth.com/ukearncpi/#. sure earnings went up, but when you adjust for inflation, doesn't paint so rosy a picture now does it, especially when you look at how prices also went up. couple with exploding inequality during this time, are you sure you still want to make the case that the average bloke did well during the 80's? sorry, my cut/paste chart didn't come out so well. i took a picture and attached instead. but you can go to the site and make the same search.
 
when i figure out how we voted reagan in twice, bush i, and bush ii in twice, then i'll have the answer you seek.
 
Back
Top