Thatcher, a necessary evil?

Lorin Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 08:40:56 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

After watching repeats of Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain I have come to a conclusion that some of Thatcher's reforms were necessary.




Before everyone starts shouting at me and calling me a tory let me explain.
I hate the vast majority of Thatcher's policies, but some of her economic reforms and anti union laws were necessary for the functioning of the country. In my opinion it was the trade unions that made Thatcher popular, our economy was in a dire state, Idi Amin was offering us bananas as humanitarian aid, the rubbish mountain in Leicester Square and the country was going no where.
Thatcher also made some necessary market liberalisations.
I was against the privatisation of the railways, and am against any further privatisation of the NHS, most of the privatisations were succesfull for example: BA, British Gas, BT and any other establishments where there was a place for competition.
I wanted to know what you thought of this.



tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Thatcher, a necessary evil? | 69 comments (69 topical)

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#1)

by Angiem on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 09:17:11 PM GMT

I am just a fraction too young to remember much about what life was like before she come to power. My earliest political memories are of around that time. I do remember the winter of discount but was a little young to have a full grasp as to what it was about. while growing up I was horrified by the Thatcher government and still am to this day. I hated both the civil unrest and the privatisation. Although I admire Margaret Thatcher's strength of character and the fact she made it as our first women Prime Minister, I see her a person full of hate and resentment for anyone not like herself and for anyone who disagreed with her.


On balance I must confess that I sometimes wonder what view I would have taken if I were born a few years earlier. Although my family are all Labour voters I live in a very conservative area amongst many people who like Margret Thatcher. I have also met Tories who don't.


Although I think an interest in politics is part of my nature I do think that the turmoil of the 1980s developed that interest. I therefore think I may owe her something for that. I have noticed that there are few people younger than me noticeably interested in politics and fewer still are active.


While I still feel a very strong disagreement with her. I have set myself the goal of attempting to be more objective about her. I think you you have done a good job of that from your own personal standpoint. For that I thank you for proving to me that it can be done. All these years on we do need to understand what she did and where it took us. Also of the part others played in the Thatcher brand.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#66)

by SimonHH on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 04:48:00 PM GMT

I see this one quite simply. There is a serious debate about whether the Thatcher 'reforms' were necessary. That debate is being had on this thread. In a democratic and free society, people will take different positions in that debate. If you find yourself arguing *for* Thatcher there is an organisation which exists for people like you. It is a little down in the dumps at the moment, and could do with some support. It is called the Conservative Party.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#2)

by sgthowie on Mon Aug 27, 2007 at 10:06:25 PM GMT

No, no, no, no, no....


Lets look at the record in 1979 compared to the Thatcher years.


1)  Unemployment from 1 million in 1979 to 3 million in 1981/1993.


2)  Child poverty around 10% rising to 33% under the Tories.


3)  Pensioner poverty around 15% rising to over 30% under Thatcher.


If this is running a successful economy I wonder what running a bad one is!!  Surely its is the outcomes of the economic system in which working people suffer which counts.

There was also the attack on trade unionists and a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich.  I rememember the 1998 budget in which the top 1% received a tax cut of over 3000 pounds a week and Nigel Lawson says 'we have balanced the budget!!!'.


Look at Sweden during the 80's and 90's.  Majority of the time there was left wing rule and not half the problem of unemployment and social division that we suffered.  There is an alternative to Thatcherism, get out of the eighties man.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#3)

by Lorin on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 12:24:17 AM GMT

I never said Thatcher was good, I said that I disagree with the vast majority of her policies but under Thatcher we didn't have another winter of discontent. Some of the reforms were necessary and would have been carried out by Wilson and Castle. Lets face it we lost because the unions disrupted life for the majority of people and they booed Wilson and Callaghan and disrupted party conferences. Also Scargill had the chance to bring Thatcher down, but he didn't hold a vote and many people some of whom I know supported him at the beggining and would have voted for a strike, but after a year had nothing left and wanted to go back to work. And I don't think working miners walked around Doncaster in the 80s. 
Never claimed there was no alternative to thatcherism thats why I was disapointed with old Anthony, for having a chance to create a social democracy and blowing it in the persuit of middle england and the press. I was just saying that without some of Thatcher's reforms we would have accepted Idi Amin's banana's.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#8)

by Mozzer1989 on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:29:56 PM GMT

Scargill did not call the strike. The miners in Cortonwood walked out.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#4)

by NorthernMonkey on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 02:21:11 AM GMT

Fair points there AWB. Yes, some of the reforms were necessary. The UK economy did need to be liberalised and it was in a desperate state in 1979.


However, even though she made necessary reforms - this country was still a complete mess throughout her premiership (and afterwards when Major took over too). As has been said before: unemployment, inflation and interest rates all sky-rocketed under Thatcher and she basically created civil war in this country through the miners' strike. She seemed to take pleasure in kicking down the poor, rather than actually finding solutions to their problems after the mines closed.


Our inner-cities turned into ghost towns and ghettos. Schools and the NHS were in a dreadful state. An 'underclass' developed when so many were unemployed. Scotland and Wales turned into scrapheaps. Northern Ireland was getting blown apart since Thatcher had no idea how to solve the problems in the way that Blair did. The North of England was left to rot as she seemed to think the world stopped at the Watford Gap.


Thatcher was also a vile authoritarian. Whilst she was economically liberal, as far as social values were concerned she was anything but. She hated gays, encouraged censorship (from anything from pornography to TV to speeches made by Gerry Adams) and presided over a severe decline in race relations (with large race riots in 1981). Her stance towards South Africa under Apartheid was appauling.


At the end of the day though, the ones who have benefited most from Thatcher is the Labour party. Without her, this party would never have reformed and become electable. Whilst we have adopted many of her reforms, we are moderate, caring and compassionate - something which the Tories will never be. The Tories have never quite recovered from the ousting of Thatcher by her own party and it's no surprise there is so much division in the Tories today.


Her legacy is such that the British public will never accept a PM who's as right-wing as her again. Many of her reforms were necessary and we can't shy away from that fact. But for the vast majority in this country, her premiership was a time of suffering, misery, authoritarianism, poverty and injustice. She crippled this country like she has crippled the Conservative party and it was up to Labour to pick up the pieces after the mess she and Major created under 18 years of mis-rule.


Was she necessary? Unfortunately yes.


Was she evil? Undoubtedly yes.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#5)

by Ian on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 09:26:39 AM GMT

I disagree.


Her economic reforms and anti TU laws were neccessary for employers only. They got richer and continue to do so.

I believe her market liberalisation caused chaos. Rail privatisation being one of them. Gas and Electricity privatisation was a cynical ploy to finance vote winning tax reductions. A race to the bottom in workers wages and conditions took place in the both gas and electricity companies. BA speaks for itself.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#6)

by Radford Mann on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 11:08:16 AM GMT

Being the right, or should that be the wrong age (?), I find it utterly impossible to consider that woman in a disinterested manner. For me she was and is pure evil. I think we should deport her to Argentina to face charges related to her sinking the Belgrano. And, when she finally dies, under NO circumstances should she be given a state funeral or any other public symbol that she was anything other than completely and utterly awful.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#7)

by newsnight on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 01:08:56 PM GMT

You lunatics who think for 1 nanosecond that Thatcher, and/or any of her policies, were anything other than pure evil, are so (sadly) far removed from reality, that you probably think that it was ok for Stalin to kill 5 million people, because at the end of the day, his agricultural policy was a success. 

As for the author of the post, despite protestations of 'hating some of thatchers policies' he or she clearly supports the old crow. However, perhaps it should come as no surprise, given the poster's slavish support of a more recent prime minister who was as equally evil, committed far more crimes against humanity than her, is an as culpaple war criminal as her, and ended up being hated and deposed by their parliamentary colleagues and party.


  


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#10)

by Lorin on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:59:35 PM GMT

The author of the post would like to ask newsnight to take back his/her comments about me supporting Thatcher. You can read quite clearly I said I disagree with the vast majority of her policies and the title clearly says necessary evil. People here with a memory can remember that I have critisised the "more recent prime minister" a lot and even said in one of his posts on this topic "he had the chance to create a social democracy and blew it in the persuit of middle england and the media". I wouldn't call him a war criminal though I was very much opposed to the Iraq war I don't beleive Blair can be compared to Milosevic and Pinochet and be called a war criminal. And (unfortunatly) the majority of the PLP voted for the war are they all war criminals? The fact is that the Unions were too powerful and they misused their power and brought the country and the labour party to a stand still. Again all I'm saying is that without a tiny minority of Thatcher's policies we would have accepted Idi Amins bannanas, would have had 20 winters of discontent and wouldn't have advanced. As for the Labour party, as NorthernMonkey pointed out we wouldn't have modernised and would have stayed in opposition. I personally think that Blair "modernised" the party too far and moved it too far towards the center ground and I beleive that in the 97 election Smith/Kinnock/Hattersley/Gould or someone else would have won us the elections without "selling out" too much to Merdoch. But we couldn't stay the same party as we were in 83.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#9)

by CitizenAndreas on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 04:13:19 PM GMT

I disagree, there is a tendancy to suggest that Thatcher was a necessary evil, that her economic reforms were what the country needed. I believe that the Labour party as a whole should stop making this concession to Thatcher.


Thatcher's market liberalisations had the effect of increasing the value of the pound causing serious damage to British manufacturing. Not since 1982 has Britain had a trade surplus, this is despite the rise of North Sea Oil and the contribution it made to our balance of payments.


Additionally, those who advocated these liberalisation policies would have argued that they were for the long term benefit of the country. The north of England, the area took most of the pain from this deindustrialisation is still quite heavily dependent on the public sector for it's economy, it still has large numbers of long term unemployed. To me, at least it looks like these long term benefits are still not forthcoming.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#11)

by doctordunc on Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 07:04:19 PM GMT

I completely disagree that there was anything necessary about Thatcher's reforms.  She actually continued and accelerated a policy direction from the late '70s of public spending cuts, monetarism, etc. and - far from preventing 'another Winter of Discontent' those policies (that she transformed from a flawed concept of crisis management into a religion of selfishness) precipitated both the winter of discontent and the great amount of social unrest that characterised her period in office and the first few years after she had gone.  She transformed Britian into a country where structural unemployment was considered another necessary evil (the likes of Digby Jones still believe that); a country which had less labour rights than many dictatorships (which we are very slowly clawing back); a country that measures the price of everything and the value of nothing.


It was the horrors of the reality of Thatcher and Thatcherism that made me a socialist and conceeding ground to her evil ideology has been the historic mistake of 'New' Labour.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#12)

by swatantra on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:18:02 AM GMT

It was precisely the fact that industrial relations were in such absolute chaos that put Thatcher in in 1979. If anyone's to blame for Thatcherism, then blame it on the unions. The country rebelled en bloc and put  Thatcher in to sort out the unions because Labour didn't have the guts to do it. So in a sense Thatcherism was a necessary evil; but once they'd smelt blood, the utracons and the architects of Thatcherism introduced even extremer measures and the bribe to sell off council houses to keep themselves in power. And of course the Falkland's War.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#14)

by doctordunc on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:49:59 PM GMT

That's an extraordinary analysis.  Examine industrial relations in the UK through the 1970s and try to account for the sorry state of affairs of winter '78/'79 - to ignore the context of public sector cuts is extraordinary.  Successive governments precipitated the confrontational industrial relations of the late '70s and '80s: if we are labour, surely we're on labour's side?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#16)

by swatantra on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:51:51 PM GMT

Labour yes, but disruptive 'labour' no.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#17)

by swatantra on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 06:58:39 PM GMT

Make that 'destructive labour' no


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#18)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 08:00:04 PM GMT

You're right swatantra.

The bottom line is that the British public at the time were fed up with the unions and disruptive industrial relations. They voted Thatcher in to sort it out and they knew Labour were incapable of carrying out the reforms.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#32)

by doctordunc on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 12:56:41 PM GMT

This is frankly terrifying!  So you're saying we needed Thatcher to reform the unions?  I hope nobody on ConservativeHome spots this thread!!


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#34)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:12:04 PM GMT

We certainly didn't Thatcher and the country would have been far better off without her!

But we did need some of the reforms that she carried through to improve the economy and that's why the Labour government have kept many of the reforms.

I wouldn't worry about ConservativeHome - the people who post on there are the biggest rag of mis-fits I've ever seen! They are truly deluded in what they think the people of this country actually want. It's no surprise conservatism in this country is in such a state when you see what kind of people advocate it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#35)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:14:04 PM GMT

* ...certainly didn't need Thatcher.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#48)

by MacArthur on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 03:21:12 PM GMT

Callaghan's poor timing didn't help either.

Hundreds of thousands of ordinary working class families are far better off thanks to her council house sales.   My parents paid for theirs from my dad's proceeds from his share save and profit share policies.

Blair seized on that and built on it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#13)

by jkitleft on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 03:12:42 PM GMT

Was she necessary- sort of.


I think if Callaghan had gone for an Autumn election, he would have won the election after, and in this time frame, industrial relations reform would have had to be taken on by Labour, and Callaghan would have probably made a more compassionate reform of the unions. A more co-operative reform would have probably taken place. A 'Socialisation' method could have been a likely reform of ending the nationalisation of the utilities, and transport services. Labour would have probably been able to achieve this, much easier than we may think. The Left would never have gained the stronghold in the eighties that they had, and Callaghan would have been under pressure from the SDP faction of Labour, the public etc. but facing less pressure from the not as powerful faction of Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill, Eric Heffer, Margaret Beckett etc. The point of this, is to say that industrial relations would have had to be taken on by anyone who was Prime Minister after 78/79


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#15)

by doctordunc on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 05:51:19 PM GMT

Why do you imagine any government would have had to end the nationalisation of the utilities? 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#27)

by jkitleft on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 11:44:36 AM GMT

I don't think a government would have had to end the nationalisation of the utilities, but I'm saying it is a probable option, in continuing with a co-operative reform of industrial relations


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#19)

by JM on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:35:56 PM GMT

History of the 80s: 

Thatcher conducted a neccessary liberalisation of the British economy in a disgracefully authoritarian and cold-hearted way.

History of the 90s: 

The public agreed with her ideas on a liberal economy but turned on her when they sensed that they could have that without the authoritarianism or cold-hearedness, resulting in Major then Blair and Brown.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#20)

by JM on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 09:37:39 PM GMT

So, to answer the question, the liberalisation was neccessary and not evil, but her methods of implementing it were unneccessary and wrong.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#25)

by CitizenAndreas on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:32:36 AM GMT

I would contest the idea that the liberalisation was necessary, or even a good thing. The liberalisation of the British economy has left it something of a one card trick, an economy fuelled on debt with the city as the only major source of economic prosperity.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#26)

by JM on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:56:54 AM GMT

Is the 'one card trick' you're referring to, the lack of manufacturing in our economy (relative to times past)?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#28)

by CitizenAndreas on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:01:11 PM GMT

Yes


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#29)

by JM on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 01:08:49 PM GMT

And why do you believe that manufacturing has declined?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#30)

by CitizenAndreas on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:30:17 AM GMT

Well, there are the constant reports of weak growth in British manufacturing,  there is also the problem of Britains ever increasing trade defecit.

Where exactly is this discussion going?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#31)

by JM on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 11:42:25 AM GMT

Sorry, I meant what do you think the causes of that decline are?

I'm simply going to say that manufacturing has declined because it is cheaper to manufacture in other countries. The only way to stop this is through trade barriers and protectionism - which, I believe, cause more problems than that that simply allowing low-tech manufacturing to decline.

The type of manufacturing that the UK can compete on is high-tech manufacturing that needs highly educated workforces not found in the low-wage foreign economies that low-tech manufacturing is moving to. That's why education and life-long learning is so important.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#33)

by doctordunc on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:00:22 PM GMT

Well the collapse of manufacturing required an economic solution; the Thatcherite one was mass unemployment.  It was quite successful, but I'd have thought most people on a Labour website would have found the human cost unacceptable.

If education and life-long learning is so important, why has the trend in recent years been to stop funding adult education (except basic literacy and numeracy) and to try and frame the debate about investment in higher education as being entirely a debate about personal, individual enrichment?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#36)

by JM on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 01:18:14 PM GMT

"Well the collapse of manufacturing required an economic solution; the Thatcherite one was mass unemployment."

I think we might be talking about two seperate things. Are you talking about a pre-Thatcher collapse in manufacturing?

"It was quite successful, but I'd have thought most people on a Labour website would have found the human cost unacceptable."

Don't do that. I though this site have gotten away from this kind of thing over the last couple of months. The subtext of that sentence is clearly to imply that I don't care about the people who suffered under Thatcher, that I don't care about the horrific consequences of Thatcherism and that my committment to the values of the Labour Party are questionable. All of which is an attempt to slur rather than to debate.

"If education and life-long learning is so important, why has the trend in recent years been to stop funding adult education (except basic literacy and numeracy)"
 
If the government isn't putting enough money into lifelong learning, it should put more in. You seem to be confusing what the government is doing with what I believe to be the right course of action. The two things are close, but not the same.

"and to try and frame the debate about investment in higher education as being entirely a debate about personal, individual enrichment?"

I don't care how they frame it. High-tech manufacturing is the only type of manufacturing open to Britain which is economically feasable. I see nothing wrong with sending more people to university to learn about high-tech. Especially since, according to the last set of figures, applications from the bottom half of socio-economic spectrum are rising faster than the top half.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#37)

by doctordunc on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:12:29 PM GMT

Don't do that.

Sorry but you've misinterepreted my intention.  I was not trying to slur anybody, I was merely trying to point out what I believe to be a weakness in your argument: that is, that the 'necessary reforms' of the Thatcher era led to horrific human consequences and deliberately and inevitably so.  Whatever you consider to be the benefits of such reforms, I was reminding you of the negative consequences.

As to the first point, the problem with the UK's manufacturing base was a fundamental aspect of the economic downturn in the 1970s, and many of the important economic decisions that sowed the seeds of Thatcherism were taken by Healey.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#38)

by doctordunc on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:13:42 PM GMT


Sorry - just to make the point as clear as possible: I was not implying that you didn't care about human suffering, I was assuming that you DID care.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#39)

by JM on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 02:36:30 PM GMT

Ok, I'll take you at you're word, but the past tense of "I'd have thought most people on a Labour website would have found the human cost unacceptable" implies that my post has either changed your mind that most people on a Labour website have would find the human cost unacceptable or that it has, as least given you pause for thought. And that implies that my post (and therefore my opinions) demonstrate something to the contrary i.e. that I am an example of someone who doesn't find the human cost unacceptable.

My original point was that we are where we are. Manufacturing must either compete in a global economy - which requires a different approach from the past - or the UK government can protect UK manufacturing financially. I think that the former is the only reasonable course of action and the latter is bad for the UK economy and consumer in the short and long-term and bad for the company and it's employees in the long-term.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#40)

by doctordunc on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:05:32 PM GMT


"I'd have thought" is just a turn of phrase like 'I would imagine' or "I'd like to think", but anyway - moving on.  I agree in part with what you say about the global economy (although of course we choose to protect all sorts of industries: agriculture, nuclear energy, weapons, etc. and so it is partly an issue to do with political will).  But the choices in the late '70s - the Thatcherite approach that was taken, and the Alternative Economic Strategy which was not - were both crisis management proposals, and the reification of either approach into a sustainable economic theory is an historic error.  Personally I'd have gone for the protectionist alternative because it is less destructive, but it would have been as a crisis-management stop-gap, not as a long-term plan.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#41)

by JM on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:21:34 PM GMT

To clear up - I'm against protectionism/subsidies for the agriculture, nuclear energy and weapons industries too.

I think there's a great deal of confusion when talking about Thatchersism and liberal economics. Thatcherism was a method of implementing liberal economics - not a branch of liberal economics. I think confusion about that is why this thread is so all over the place.

I believe that liberal economies, despite various flaws, work best. However, I don't believe that makes me a Thatcherite. The reasons for this are twofold.

The first reason is that, as I mentioned above, Thatcherism was a particularly horrific way to institute liberal reforms in the UK economy. For instance, overnight withdrawl of subsidies from from subsidised industries leaving people unemployed with no other employers in the local area is a terrible approach that led to huge suffering - especially since non of the money was used to support the set up of new industries in that area. Various regions still haven't recovered.

The second reason is that, as a person of the left, I believe we can and should use some of the increased wealth generated by having a liberal economy to mitigate some of the system's downsides, create more equality and opportunity and create a more cohesive society.  I also believe that this spending can have a positive impact on the economy (for instance, the investment in education we touched on above). I believe that distinguishes these things distinguish me from Thatcherism or Libertarianism.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#42)

by doctordunc on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:34:02 PM GMT


There may be some confusion of that sort - I don't share it; I simply happen to oppose liberal economics, whether imposed by Thatcherite or 'one nation' or 'third way' means.  The effects end up being very similar.  I am glad (though unsurprised of course!) to hear that you support using wealth to mitigate the downsides of a liberal market system, but such investment - of course - interferes with the market and leads us to an important philosophical consideration: if you're prepared to tolerate regulation, investment (and the political decisions involved in investment necessarily and definitively involve state planning), straightforward 'protectionism' in the labour market (through minimum wages, progressive labour laws, trade unionism, etc.) what does 'liberalising' an economy really mean and what does it achieve?  If it is really just a question of ownership, then that accrues no economic benefits for individuals in and of itself, and is of course actually considerably less democratic and accountable than a number of alternative forms of common ownership.




[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#43)

by donpaskini on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 03:47:10 PM GMT

One thing which makes it really hard for manufacturing to compete in the global economy is Britain's position as a world leader in the financial services industry.  Policies which would help our manufacturers compete are ones which would harm the City.  For example, the high value of the pound makes it very hard for manufacturers to compete on high tech high skill products.

It has been a conscious decision of successive governments over the last thirty years to pursue policies which favour financial services over manufacturing.  I have absolutely no idea whether this has been good for the UK economy overall (it has certainly been good for the City), but it is worth bearing in mind that making UK industry more globally competitive is about more than lifelong learning and involves trade-offs elsewhere in our economy.  Germany, for example, has made different choices and as a result has a much stronger high tech high skill industrial base, but gets much less of the share of financial services.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#44)

by Angiem on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:04:49 PM GMT


3 million unemployed was not a price worth paying. It's one of the things I can not forgive her for.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#45)

by CitizenAndreas on Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 09:20:49 PM GMT

Your point about high tech vs low tech manufacturing is taken, it is not realistic for Britain to compete with the likes of China or India in terms of low tech manufacturing. That said however, a more realistic comparison is often made with Germany and Japan. Both these nations have solid manufacturing industries and a comparable standard of living to the UK. It's only recently that Germany stopped being the world's largest exporter.

The reasons for the decline in British manufacturing I would put down to the following. Firstly, British Industry has traditionally had lower levels of inward investment in comparison to it's neighbours. British companies tended to pay out more of their profit in share dividends, leaving less to be reinvested in the company. Foreign rivals gained a competetive advantage by investing in new equipment and technology.

Thatcher's free market policies during the 80's opened up British business to more foreign competition. They also had the effect of driving up the value of the pound, this made it far harder for British manufacturing to compete with foreign rivals sending may British manufacturing companies out of business.

Since then, both the Conservatives and Labour have stuck to many of the neo-liberal economic polices that began with Thatcher. Manufacturing has largely been abandoned in favour of the services industry.

What I would put to you is that there are clearly some parts of manufacturing that could have been saved with government intervention and eventually returned to sustainable business models. I don't think that we should just give up on manufacturing.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#46)

by JM on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 12:45:00 PM GMT

I take your point about German and Japan, the economic trouble that both countries have been in for years doesn't really vindicate their approach. They're going to have to move their economic models towards UK-style liberalisation. In fact, Germany's recent upturn is generally taken to be a result of them implementing liberalisation policies such as more flexible labour markets.

Ultimately, whatever policies a moden, western country implements, it will always be cheaper to manufacture somewhere else. The only way to avoid that is to offer government subsidies. Unfortunately, the only way to pay for those is through higher taxes - which adds costs to other industries, dragging down their international competitiveness too.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#58)

by CitizenAndreas on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:44:02 PM GMT

Sorry for the absolutely gigantic delay in posting this but...

Last time I checked, the economy of Japan looked pretty sound. As for Germany, it's malaise could be explained by a number of factors.

Firstly, the process of reunification meant that it had to absorb the East German economy, an economy that was far behind that of it's Western counterpart. Millions of workers with outdated skills, factories full of obselete equipment. Reunification was a severe drag on the German economy.

Secondly, the adoption of the euro meant that a good deal of economic control was abandoned to the ECB. Certain economic levers no longer became available, this measure, essentially one of liberalisation could be considered to have caused Germany's unemployment.

There is a need to be selective in what liberalisation policies we consider good or bad. My personal opinion is that much of the free market doctrine advocating free movement of capital, elimination of tarriffs and subsidies don't really deliver much in the way of tangible benefits to anyone except big business.

Liberalisation measures such as increased labour market flexbility are something of a separate issue since they deliver benefits to all businesses, not just the multinationals. These benefits, however, occur at the expense of workers rights and are generally implemented due to pressure that results from the adoption of the previous set of liberalisation measures.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#21)

by otware on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:20:09 PM GMT

But thatcherism is already entrenched into the common ideology of the so-called 'centre ground'. The Labour Party must shun thatcherism once and for all, not openly embrace it.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#22)

by JM on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 10:29:32 PM GMT

I think the government has, over the last 10 years, done quite a good job of moving the government leftwards.

The public are suspicious of tax-cuts, have no problem with equality/equal-rights legislation, supportive of public spending.

Not every government is 'lucky' enough to arrive in power when the country is so unhappy with what's gone before (as in 1945 & 1979) that they they want a wholesale change of direction. The rest of the time, the best thing you can do is slowly change things over three or four terms - not have four years of 'radical glory', get kicked out after one term and watch your opponents dismantle everything you've done.

That said, I suspect that Otware and I would disagree on the change of direction even if we were given a free-ride. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#23)

by sgthowie on Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 11:14:36 PM GMT

This acceptance of Mrs T is absolutely barmy on a Labour Party website. 


There is also an acceptance of what the right wing press wrote about the trade union movement.  Derek Jamieson said that in the late 70s the Daily Express did everything they could to bring down the Callaghan government.


Yes there where a few strikes but the miners strike was not exactly an example of consensual relations between the elected government of the time and trade unions.  Most trade unionists in the late 70's like now where trying to avoid a strike and bring about a negotiated settlement.  However, at a time of spending cuts and hyper inflation they have a duty to promote the interests of their members and some would have thought industrial action was the way to do it. 


Yes, I do think the unions should have held back until after the election but I am not going to condemn them for looking after their members. 


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#24)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 02:31:38 AM GMT

It's not an acceptance of Thatcher herself I think, it's an acceptance of some of the reforms which were necessary for the country to succeed.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#47)

by libbysd on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 06:40:29 PM GMT

Thatcher gave the middle classes order and that is why she is popular with them or thought of as neccessary especially in areas like the one you live in where people were not dependant on industry for a job. Her economic benefits for the country as a whole are often quite overrated and even Milton Friedman, its keenest advocate, would describe Monetarism now as a failure.

Look at the facts, although inflation was reduced (as it would have anyway due to lower oil prices) real economic growth varied very little between the 80s and 70s.

Were some of the things that happened during the 80s neccessary? yes but British industry was already dying and would have suffered without Thatcher and as a result unionism would have suffered too but without the overbearing harshness of Thatcher.

Was Thatcher neccessary? no, Britain was not particularly successful as a result of Thatcher in the 80s (unless you were very wealthy or happened to be one of the people who benefitted from privatisation (usually the board members of the privatisation committees ended up owning newly privatised industries)) Most of the changes that happened during the 80s (the significant ones to Britains economy at least) happened because they were going to happen anyway. The rise in communications and the start of globalisation that led to the Big Bang in the city and the decline of British industry being notable. If you want an objective and well thought out view of the affects of Thatcher forget the middle class consensus that 'Thatcher was neccessary' and look at the work of John Kay, an economist you can easily find on the web.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#49)

by ktlro on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 10:10:38 PM GMT

I can't believe some of the comments on here, thought it was meant to be a Labour website.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#50)

by JM on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 09:26:08 AM GMT

why?


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#52)

by swatantra on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 07:59:00 PM GMT

It is, and unless we enter the real world and not cloud cockoo land, we might be in for the return of Tory rule. None of us want to see that.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#53)

by doctordunc on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:13:42 PM GMT

And embracing Thatcherism is living in the real world, is it?  Give me strength!


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#54)

by Lorin on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:31:42 PM GMT

Please stop going on about that dunc, we aren't accepting her, we are saying that some of her economic reforms were necessary though we hate her and would never have her for tea, and if we did we would have ordered some polonium from Comerade Putin. "Necessary evil" 


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#55)

by doctordunc on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 08:33:56 PM GMT

Although I fundamentally disagree with your thesis (I don't think Thatcher's reforms were necessary AT ALL - evil or not) it is not the initial post that I am criticising but some of the later posts that quite openly embrace the economic side of Thatcherism (if not the social side).


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#56)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Sep 16, 2007 at 10:53:29 PM GMT

Some of her economic reforms were necessary. The economy wouldn't have succeeded in the past 10 years if it hadn't have been liberalised earlier.

However, nobody is saying she got it all correct when it came to the economy - as said before, there was sky-high unemployment, inflation and interest rates under Thatcher's reign of terror.

But we must be realistic here.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#57)

by doctordunc on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 05:28:44 PM GMT

The sky-high unemployment was a direct result of the 'liberalisation'.  Take it or leave it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#59)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Sep 17, 2007 at 07:54:32 PM GMT

Leave it. If that was the case, we'd have sky-high unemployment now.

The reforms were bound to create some pain as they tore up the previous quest for 'full employment' where the government basically paid workers in nationalised industries for doing next to nothing.

Thatcher's problem was that she encouraged little investment into high unemployment areas, didn't invest in education and didn't believe in high spending in the public sector (like the NHS) which would have provided more jobs. Not to mention the fact that she followed the wrong version of monetarism where by the supply of money was directly used to control inflation, rather than using interest rates.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#60)

by doctordunc on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 08:24:08 PM GMT

Workers in nationalised industries were being paid to do nothing?  This is just absurd.  Governments since the eighties have been literally pouring money into black holes that used to be national assets (e.g. the railways) - it was the most short-sighted bit of cheap pawning you can imagine, and a crime against future generations.

All the things you list in your second paragraph (investment in high unemployment areas, high public spending, etc.) are ways in which we HAVEN'T followed a 'liberal' economic model, but instead have been socially democratic.  I agree that such moves have helped immeasurably, and further examples of social democracy (such as scrapping faux markets and bringing in various forms of public ownership) would help further.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#61)

by NorthernMonkey on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 08:59:05 PM GMT

Well I agree with social democracy Dunc! I said it was good that the economy was liberalised in the 1980's, but I never said I believe in a pure liberal economy. Social democratic policies that this government has put into place have worked very well in comparision to the bad days under Thatcher.


Don't really agree with greater public ownership however.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#62)

by doctordunc on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 06:03:01 PM GMT

I realise that.  My point is that 'liberalising' the economy in the '80s caused those dark days and that there were social democratic alternatives (that have been very successful elsewhere, such as in Scandinavia).


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#63)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:37:10 PM GMT

Well reform causes pain, yes. But in the long-term it's done us good. And I'd say we have social-democratic policies now anyway, although obviously Scandanavia are more social-democratic than Britain is at the moment.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#51)

by redrover on Fri Sep 14, 2007 at 08:12:51 AM GMT

Thatcher when it came to labour relations took 'In Place of Strife' and implemented it because we couldn't.  It was 10 years too late, in that wasted decade, British Leyland became a laughing stock, the shipyards were mutinous, steel was inefficient and poor quality.  It all started coming apart at the seams long before Thatcher arrived.


Most people knew British industry was rotten but the decline was pretty spectacular and surprised everyone once the subsidies stopped.  As shock therapy went, it was not very pleasant.


As for why we don't have much indigenous industry left, the answer is simple, no-one wanted to buy what we made, not even at home.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#64)

by disenchanted on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 09:43:15 PM GMT

Having read many of the foregoing comments I think that this is almost certainly going to be my first and last contribution to this forum.  I have been a  socialist all my adult life, and have always voted Labour, even after Bliar took us into Iraq, though I resigned from the party because of it. I am also old enough to remember the misery Thatcher's policies caused to millions of poorer people in this country while she lined the pockets of the rich and reconfigured the City to make it easier for anarcho-capitalism to thrive.  As part of this she systematically squashed any possibility of protest, labelling British working people the enemy within for being rash enough to disagree with her.  To argue about whether the unions needed reforming is simply beside the point - she didnt want reform, but to destroy them and with them the last vestiges of organised protest.  So ex-colleagues, for noone is a comrade now it seems, Hi and Bye, from one incredibly disenchanted - and effectively disenfranchised - socialist.


Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#65)

by swatantra on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:49:44 AM GMT

Sorry you feel that way, but you've missed the point: the unions did need reforming; anyone who knew the abuse of power in the 60's and 70's and the closed shops they operated, the intimidation on the shop floor, will know that for a fact. Labour tried reform but failed to carry through. Unfortunately the British people put Thatcher in to do the job. The almost total anihilation of the unions under her regime was largely the fault of the unions themselves; instead of accepting the need for change and reform they engaged in a struggle to the death.. and lost.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#67)

by doctordunc on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 10:30:21 AM GMT

I think it's you who's missed the point.

Quite staggering.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#68)

by swatantra on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:31:53 PM GMT

Your thoughts on the current postal dispute; how 1400 'Spanish' practices can be cut down to about 50 in 5 years? Agreed, that basic pay of a postal worker at
£17 000 is unsatisfactory.


[ Parent ]

Re: Thatcher, a necessary evil? (#69)

by themanwithaplan on Tue Oct 23, 2007 at 10:12:29 PM GMT

I haven't read every post on this thread. At my great age I have to consider my blood pressure! However, let me say this;
 
Thatcher came to power on the back of the slogan "Britain isn't working" when there were 1m unemployed under Labour. They soon increased this to 5m!
 
Then there were interest rates which topped 15%. Does anyone remember how difficult it was to juggle finances in those days?
 
And let's not forget the Poll tax which pushed even more low-paid citizens into penury.
 
The Falklands "war"? We almost lost that because of the military cut-backs.
 
She sold the family jewels for pennies and we can no longer travel the length and breadth of the UK on one rail ticket!
 
She decimated our industries, including the coalmines, so that we are little more than a nut and bolt provider for foreign companies now.
 
I could go on, but I am getting upset simply thinking about that woman.....
 


Thatcher, a necessary evil? | 69 comments (69 topical)