Dammit!
Umm, it was so good it was worth saying twice?
Billy Bragg totally nails it for me:
And you see the problem here is that many people like Billy talk of activism, but no one actually does it. There’s too much ‘Meh, what can I do about it’ attitude in the UK and it’s infuriating.
I see activism every day. I can believe there is less or little in small town UK but in cities activism is everywhere.
I’ve been surprised by the level of anti-thatcher sentiment here.
For many years during and after Thatcher’s term, I did see her as promoting the needs of the rich over the poor, and obviously to call the poll tax a mistake would be the understatement of the year.
But the more I learn about economics the more I feel that what thatcher did was absolutely necessary for the UK. Stodgy labour markets, state-run monopolies and protectionism are not the road to prosperity.
Things are bad right now but I’d much rather be in the position of the UK than many other european countries. Let’s not forget that in the seventies the UK was the “sick man of europe” nicely on course to be where Italy is now, or worse.
She was not well loved, suffice to say. Remember that “the majority of South Africans” and “ANC supporters” was synonymous at the time. So these were the people being called “A typical terrorist organisation”(her exact words) - not freedom fighters or resistance fighters, but typical terrorists.
“Constructive engagement” was obviously bullshit at the time - fear of Reds overrode humanitarian concerns and we haven’t ever forgotten that here. Thatcher and Reagan were on the wrong side of history, but we didn’t need apartheid to end to see that. Yet neither apologized - which tells us all we need to know, really.
Cite that the ANC did these things, please, or retract.
We didn’t go to school quite willingly, thanks very much.
School boycotts (especially against mandatory Afrikaans lessons) are terror attacks, now?
As per The Guardian Editorial I quoted in post #64 of this thread, few deny the need for transformation.
What was wrong (and unnecessary) was the vindictive destruction of communities, ways of life, of creating a culture and society where greed dominates and which led to the point where country won’t make cold weather payments to pensioners in the coldest March for 50 years .. because deregulation of financial markets means the poor and middle classes will spend two generations repaying the debts of indemnified gamblers.
Contrast with, say, France and more particularly Germany which also underwent transformation and have avoided economic decline and the domination of greed culture.
It absultely did not need to be* this *way.
France is in trouble with a state that takes 57% of GDP, rigid labour and market regulation contributing to very high unemployment and one of the highest deficits in the euro zone.
Germany gets used as an example a lot but it’s really quite exceptional as a wealthy country primarily doing high-end manufacturing. You can’t look at where Britain was and think if only we’d propped up the motor industry or coal-mining we’d be where Germany is. It would have required far bigger changes even than thatcher embarked on.
A better example of a competitive country with little social inequality might be Scandinavian countries like Sweden. Of course, they pay much higher taxes across the board, so it comes down to whether the Brits would be willing to pay that price. Past elections imply not.
It has nothing to do with taxation. Your point was about the need to transform economies in the late 70s and 80s.
All economies transformed. The problem for the UK is that it led us here - with £1 trillion of debt and climbing (becasue of a kind of adoration of free markets). Plus the culture of greed and self-interest above all else, and a mocking/under valueing of those in public service.
Again: It did not have to be* this *way, as demonstrated elsewhere across northern Europe.
I think there are two reasonable ways to look at Britain’s debt problem, neither of which can be blamed on Thatcher. Either, it’s something that has ballooned out of control since the 90s, or it’s part of a decades-long trend of governments spending more than they take in, which was under way well before Thatcher. The solutions have always been borrowing, or inflation. The ultimate blame is with us, the voters, for demanding high spending and low taxes, which is an impossibility.
From personal experience is was once given a 3k grant . “development grant” because i was starting a SERVICE business, manufacturing was expressly excluded,they really thought we could all make a living cutting each others lawns…I gained £100k from buying our council flat (cost me £12k ad sold for £120!) and i still hate Thatcherism…She and her merry crew were corrupt to the core.
The idea that a country needs a large manufacturing sector is a crock. Manufacturing goes where labour is cheap. Service industries are vital to the the world economy, and are more resistant to being transferred elsewhere. I’m glad that that’s mostly what we have here. I have worked in factories, and it sucks. People in services industries have nicer jobs and earn more.
In the 80s, Britain needed to take its medicine. Now, if we’re saying that MT added lemon juice to that medicine and then rammed it down our throats, I’d agree with that.
But I don’t agree with many of the specifics that you’re adding.
You can’t imply that britain could have just as much social care and equality as the northern european countries, but then say that “it has nothing to do with taxation”. It has everything to do with taxation. Brits aren’t willing to pay that kind of price for that kind of country.
And similarly, you can’t blame the free market for the state’s profligacy. It’s especially odd to lay blame for this with MT, who massively brought down government spending.
Nonsense. You think German labour is cheap?
I know that VW, Audi etc. make a lot of their cars in Poland, Hungary, India etc. As for German labour costs, one of the groups of people who haven’t benefited much from Germany lording it over the eurozone is the actual workers. Wages stayed relatively stagnant while the exporters prospered.
Quite. There were big problems. Big problems faced by most large european nations at the time. Her solution was to use North Sea oil revenues to fund her use of deliberately created mass unemployment to destroy the unions. And at the same time destroy entire regions of the country and bank everything on unregulated financial gambling with the shattering results we are now living with.
Other nations found better solutions.
This is as far as I got. I have no idea what “medicine” is in the context of a late 70s mixed economy, and there never was an “our”; it’s a classic and bogus Tory strategy to talk in terms of collective sacrifice, like it’s some WW2 battle.
Successful models of adaption are all around the UK. The UK is as close as it’s possible to get to a free market basket case without being in the financial mad house. This is her legacy.
Blaming her for things other people screwed up a decade (or two) after she left office is, well, is exactly what it sounds like: searching for something to blame on her than actual sense. The hatred for Thatcher is so strong it seems to override basic human decency and even a modicum of intelligence.
Thatcher didn’t destroy anyone or anything; she forced the country to face facts. What it did afterward is not something she could or did control. The communities she “destroyed” were already dead; she simply forced everyone to accept that played-out mines couldn’t support people, and there wasn’t much point in slowly killing off Britons in horrible conditions while losing money on the bargain. Unions may have been proud and noble and every other good thing - but they were wrecking the economy and making like impossible for ordinary people. The previous government had let inflation go wild, then tried to stop it by fiat which made things worse. Thatcher stopped it.
You can argue over whether she should have been nicer about it, but that’s weak sauce whining. At the end of the day, she forced the british into a much more successful mold. People forget that at the time, Britain was barely a world power. Growth was minimal and opportunity nonexistent; Italy was wealthier ever on a per-capita basis despite still being in the “government falls daily” mode*. And I’d much rather like in Britain today even with its problems than in Italy; britain’s problems aren’t because it invested heavily in finance, but because it just went a little too far in that direction.
*Exaggeration for effect.
Why is there a record-breaking number of French people living and working in London, then? Maybe they came for the food, or the weather.