Margaret Thatcher: Thirty years on

It's all very well to say that once Scotland's industry has been crippled and the wealth sucked down to the south of England... the north can join us if they want.

Some people are considering a state funeral. Most, however, are wondering if she actually has to be dead before we bury her.

yeah, i have heard that joke before, and i laughed then too, but i still hold that nastiness of the view reflects badly on the teller.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It's all very well to say that once Scotland's industry has been crippled and the wealth sucked down to the south of England... the north can join us if they want.

Your primary industries were shipbuilding and steelworks.

Given that we have no ore under the hills (and when we did it wasn't much good), and British ships were basically crap by this point there wasn't any other way for it to go.

Scottish industry wasn't making money, and it was allowed to fail. Same thing happened EVERYWHERE. The shipyards down here either went bust or shrivelled up and stopped taking on new men.

England suffered less because overall it had a more varried economy, more universities, more oppertunities. Everybody suffered somewhat under Thatcher, and likely everyone will suffer under Cameron as well.

Thing is, neither Dave nor Maggie can be held responsible for the excesses of a Labour government.

If you want to longe an intelligent compalint, you might want to start with the miss-management of the fallout, but that wouldn't change the weapon needed to save the economy.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It's all very well to say that once Scotland's industry has been crippled and the wealth sucked down to the south of England... the north can join us if they want.

The EU has Structural Funds. These have two aims: to 'cushion' economic transition. That is, investments into preserving the social fabric of regions that undergo economic transition. And two, to stimulate this economic transition form underdevelopment or obsolecence into a viable economy.

Scotland was left ravaged by the Thatcherite reforms. Whether these reforms were necessary is open to debate. I for one think they were. Even so, with breathtaking heartlessness, with an abruptness that borders on the brutal, Scotland was abandoned by London during the Thatcher era.

Scottish shipyards build an Empire. Empire gone, Scotland got the boot.

The European Union, however, will not abandon an entire region to poverty. Access to the world's largest market, and investments in economic infrastructure, have done for Scotland what London refused to do:

In Scotland, Structural Funds are the significant source of European Union funding for economic development in Scotland. Programmes run over a seven year period. From 2000-2006 Structural Funds spending provided over £1.1 billion of support for Scotland, supporting the Scottish Government's aims of boosting economic growth and improving productivity in Scotland while reducing economic and social disparities.

Europe has never believed that Scotland or Ireland should be abandoned to perennial backwardness. Unlike Margaret 'I want my money back' Thatcher, Europe did believe that all those regions in the British Isles that were relegated by history and London into destitution could be propelled into viable economies through central investment.

Originally Posted by Banquo

Modern Britain (and it might be argued, much of the world) has been fundamentally changed by her legacy.

Britain under Thatcher made an abrupt transition from a socialized welfare state into a neo-liberal economy. This, I think, was not so much owing to Thatcher as to Britain's economic history. No other country in Europe was this economically outdated. No other country was this socialized. This combination made the UK into one of Europe's poorest countries. For decades, with the exception of Ireland, the whole of democratic Europe enjoyed a higher standard of living than Britons. Britain was only slightly ahead of the wealthiest communist countries.

A change was inevitable. Two options were possible: a gradual, 'social' transition. Or an abrupt, heartless transition. Only this was the choice for Britain, not change itself. As such, as so often, the exceptional individual did not create history, history created the exceptional individual. A Thatcher would've happened anyway. One does not need to admire Thatcher for Britain's economic recovery in the 1980's anymore than one should admire a politician elected in February for bringing about spring and summer.

The only choice was heartless or social transition. Was Thatcher's choice of heartlessness right? I'll throw all the Thatcherites a bone. Within Europe's 'core', there are two other contemporaneous examples of transitions of regions who have similar outdated traditional industries combined with socialized welfare. These are Wallonia and Eastern Germany. Both chose the 'gradual, social' path to economic transition. Both failed, fail to this day. Despite continuous heavy support from the functioning part of the economy of their countries - Flanders in Belgium and the West in Germany - the transition is simply not coming about. This would suggest that going cold turkey is the viable option. Alas.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The only choice was heartless or social transition. Was Thatcher's choice of heartlessness right? I'll throw all the Thatcherites a bone. Within Europe's 'core', there are two other contemporaneous examples of transitions of regions who have similar outdated traditional industries combined with socialized welfare. These are Wallonia and Eastern Germany. Both chose the 'gradual, social' path to economic transition. Both failed, fail to this day. Despite continuous heavy support from the functioning part of the economy of their countries - Flanders in Belgium and the West in Germany - the transition is simply not coming about. This would suggest that going cold turkey is the viable option. Alas.

^ first sensible thing you've said on the issue, congrats ^

God... I guess it has been 30 years. I remember the Thatcher-Reagan-Kohl "team" as though they were last month.

From a US perspective (at the time): hard money times were upon us; we had a behemoth bent on our destruction to contend with, and militarily, we were all still finding our way in a post-colonial, post WWI/WWII (and for the US, a postVN) age. Previous regimes, pursuing a simultaneous "guns and butter" paradigm, had spent us into almost unfathomable debt and unemployment. Somebody had to make the hard decisions. They did.

I was not a fan of them at the time - I thought their policies picked on the already poor too hard. Looking back, though, I can see that events seem to control them and their decisions, more than vice-versa. Any so-called 'ideology' didn't actually exist beforehand, except rhetorically, but was rather contructed after the fact: "We've done this, and this, and that, therefore, we must believe this."

I still remember the muppetization of the 3 on TV; what a crack-up. :)

If you're looking for perfect governance keep looking. The Regan/Thatcher/His Hatness victory against the Soviets leaves me with a good impression of the era.

It's also interesting to see how people are lining up on this. So many people are following stereotypical patterns.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The only choice was heartless or social transition. Was Thatcher's choice of heartlessness right? I'll throw all the Thatcherites a bone. Within Europe's 'core', there are two other contemporaneous examples of transitions of regions who have similar outdated traditional industries combined with socialized welfare. These are Wallonia and Eastern Germany. Both chose the 'gradual, social' path to economic transition. Both failed, fail to this day. Despite continuous heavy support from the functioning part of the economy of their countries - Flanders in Belgium and the West in Germany - the transition is simply not coming about. This would suggest that going cold turkey is the viable option. Alas.

You're forgetting that we've taken the gradual choice successfully here in Scandinavia.

I hope this is countries aside from Norway, which since it floats on oil barely needs a financial model. The odd threat to Middle East supply is enough.

Gradual change might have worked. I'm sure what was done was not 100% efficient.

D-Day landings worked. I've heard it said that 30% of allied casualties were caused by allied bombs and shells.

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I hope this is countries aside from Norway, which since it floats on oil barely needs a financial model. The odd threat to Middle East supply is enough.

Screw Norway, look at Sweden instead.

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Screw Norway, look at Sweden instead.

I imagine that if we'd started to drift this way in the early 1950's the transition might have been relatively painless. I think we were still rebuilding parts of the country then of course post WW2.

I was around at that time and I still have vivid memories of it. They say the past is another country and when I look back it couldn't be more true. The unions had the country in a headlock and were squeezing the life out of the economy.

I remember getting my first job. The first day at work I was approached by a harriden of a shop steward who asked me if I was in the union. When I told her that I wasn't, I was told in no uncertain terms that if I wanted to keep my job, (I'd only been there five minutes), then I'd have to join the union. "It's a closed shop see, we won't have any blacklegs working here, so join or go!"

Needless to say I joined. Then I found out that even though I was too young to vote, a significant part of my union subs was being paid to the Labour party due to the levy. At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask when he was robbing you.

Then there was the public sector. In those days if you wanted a telephone there was only one kid on the block. Post Office Telecommunications. You go to see them about having a phone installed. Yes you can have one but it's going to take six months to install the line. Don't like it? Then do without. Oh I nearly forgot you got a choice of 'phone. They were all indentical except one was red, one was white, one was bottle green and the last one was a fetching grey two tone. They all looked like something out of a WWII movie.

The winter of discontent did for the labour Party for a generation. You had to live through it to truly appreciate the horror of the time. Buses, on strike. Gravediggers, on strike. Binmen, on strike. Hauliers, on strike. I had to go on strike in sympathy with some blokes down the road who'd gone on strike. Were we asked? Not bloody likely. No vote, no discussion, just do as your told or risk becoming a blackleg. Nice. Don't you just love socialism in practice.

Thatcher was elected to clear out the Augean Stables of the Labour/Union alliance. By and large she suceeded. Thank god.

Let us forget the economic side for a second, because to a certain degree even though she did an inumerable amount of harm and disgusting acts - there were some good by products, such as getting rid of industries which would have been destroyed sooner or later by globalisation. The manner in which she did nothing for the lives of the people she turfed out of these industries is possibly her most damning act.

But as I said, forget her whole economic persuasion and look at the social legacy she has left the country. It could very well be said that the significant social problems we have now in modern Britain are directly caused by her disasterous social policy. The greed and me, me, me society she fostered, coupeld with the enabling of sink estates and gated communities. The selling off of council, community housing, destroying the ability of councils to house the most vulnerable. The dependence culture she fostered - it is alright to yell at people and get rid of most of their benefits and insist they get a job, but if there is a) no job to go to and b) no help in gaining skills for a job or better ways of gaining employment - then people give up and sink further and further into the mire, taking generations with them.

It is the social legacy she has left, especially in inner cities which may never get fixed. The Labour govt has tried to tinker around the edges and it has helped a little bit, but the problem is now that it is such an epidemic, it will only continue to get worse. That is her legacy. Millions of people in this country will never have a chance at social justice and social mobility no matter who is in govt, because of her time in power and the philosophy she infected onto our politics and Rory, to say those who don't like her and think she was not good for this country are "selfish", is the ultimate insult.

The really horrible tower blocks were built before her. The idealistic thoughts that these would become vertical communities not crime ridden dens.

I am sure you are aware of the phrase she took the unemployed off the factory floor. This could / should have been done 10 or even 20 years previously. This failure to try to curtail the Union's power made things as bad as they were.

There was not enough retraining, but the other problem was that for many manual workers there is no job that could sustain them at the level they thought they deserved. East Asia was prepared to do as good or better job for less.

Some could be retrained, but in to what? The salaries would be low in the new industries due to supply and demand. This doesn't alter the fact that these measures wern't even tried in the majority of cases. Whether the coseted union members would have been able to "demean" themselves to this is another matter.

Y'know, if there are no jobs you can create them. It's called the Private Sector. You provide a service that people want which is better in some way than others. Seeing as how job protection and failure to innovate was so endemic I imagine that this concept was barely thought of by the vast mass of people.

I would argue that the benefits was the thing that allowed people to descend into an unemployed rut. In many places in the world you work or you starve - so you look for work, you find something to do and you get on with life. Not in the UK. You blame others, take the dole, wish for the days when your rights were wall to wall and blame everything for what happened to your life on others and are to ill informed to see how unsunstainable things were.

In America people are happy for success, and hope to get there themselves some day. Here we tear into anyone that achieves, trying to drown them in mediocrity, health and safety and red tape.

Jag putting oneself in front of the country is selfish.

Originally Posted by JAG

But as I said, forget her whole economic persuasion and look at the social legacy she has left the country. It could very well be said that the significant social problems we have now in modern Britain are directly caused by her disasterous social policy. The greed and me, me, me society she fostered, coupeld with the enabling of sink estates and gated communities. The selling off of council, community housing, destroying the ability of councils to house the most vulnerable. The dependence culture she fostered - it is alright to yell at people and get rid of most of their benefits and insist they get a job, but if there is a) no job to go to and b) no help in gaining skills for a job or better ways of gaining employment - then people give up and sink further and further into the mire, taking generations with them.

It is the social legacy she has left, especially in inner cities which may never get fixed. The Labour govt has tried to tinker around the edges and it has helped a little bit, but the problem is now that it is such an epidemic, it will only continue to get worse. That is her legacy. Millions of people in this country will never have a chance at social justice and social mobility no matter who is in govt, because of her time in power and the philosophy she infected onto our politics and Rory, to say those who don't like her and think she was not good for this country are "selfish", is the ultimate insult.

there are lots of working class people who have voted tory ever since thatcher in thanks for being able to own their own home, the prosperity is created changed their lives.

dependancy culture arises when you tax heavily from the poor then give a portion of that money back back to the poor, its called the client state, it was 'perfected by nu-labour, and its disgusting.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Access to the world's largest market, and investments in economic infrastructure, have done for Scotland what London refused to do

you keep stating that free-market trading is some great bountiful gift of the EU, and not the natural state of civilised affairs, which i find bizarre. it isn't.