mrs thatcher and conservative government

katywilkatywil Posts: 1,245
Forum Member
✭✭✭
im interested to know what people think this country would be like now, if conservatives had never won an election and if mrs thatcher had never been prime minister for three terms. would the miners still be digging? would the unions still be in charge?
«1345

Comments

  • PrestonAlPrestonAl Posts: 10,342
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well I know the unions had pretty much destroyed our heavy industry by that point. So whoever took over had to do something severe to get the country on its feet.

    Just so happens she went too far in the end, but then our country because very competitive because of her.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Great question OP, I suspect the tread will soon derail as those belong to the church of the blessed Margeret do battle with those who believe she is the spawn of satan. Would be nice if that didn't happen as this could be a great debate.

    Popcorn anyone ?
  • kerrminatorkerrminator Posts: 618
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I reckon Maggie would do a better job nowadays than she did back then. But then again the current lot would make my hamsters penpals brothers teapot look good in number 10
  • apaulapaul Posts: 9,846
    Forum Member
    I doubt there would have been much of a British deep mining industry left Thatcher or no Thatcher. Most of the coal mines have closed in other Western European countries as well. However, the two economic recessions that Thatcher presided over did also take out a lot of manufacturing which might have had a good future but for crude monetarism and a vastly overvalued pound.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mining was a dying industry since the early 50's, no government was going to change that. The environmental lobby was the last straw. Manufacturing and the general economy needed reform after decades of decline and there are certainly questions about every decision taken but nobody else was prepared to act so not much alternative.
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I remember the early 70's being driven around in my dad's British Leyland car and thinking "what a bucket of crap this is."

    That pretty much summed up what things were like in the lead up to the Thatcher era. Was it the sick or the poor man of Europe we were known as at the time?

    I was into motorbikes back then. I bought my very first bike when I was 17 (1977). It wasn't a Triumph or a Norton.... it was a Kawasaki. I used to buy the odd bike magazine back then. You'd see reports showing some drop dead gorgeous designs for British bikes but we simply couldn't turn those designs into reality at that time. Why?

    All I could assume was that this country must have sat on its laurels basking in the post war glory for thirty years (or something) and totally took it's eye off the competition. We'd gotten too unionised, too jobsworthy, too.... up ourselves basically and we were getting left behind.

    Thatcher kicked our asses. If she hadn't somebody would have had to or we'd probably look exactly like Greece does at the moment, ie stuffed.

    There's no point harping on about the way she did it and the rights and wrongs of her methods. What's done is done. But at the time in the little bit of the country I lived in (Gloucestershire)and through the eyes of a teenager about to turn twenty it struck me that nearly everything I was into, gadget and vehicle wise was foreign made. What did the now Lord Alan Sugar give us as an alternative? ****ing Amstrad!! The biggest pile of Delboy Trotter's, market stall, cheap, poorly made, imported and rebadged/branded sh!te going.

    It was embarrassing - I didn't see much of a future here - I very nearly emigrated. It was only emotional ties to family and friends that stopped me tbh.

    People still blame Thatcher for all the greed and selfishness thats out there. She may have opened the road, but nobody forced anyone to drive it. People seem to forget that. She had her failings but she's now just a convenient scapegoat to blame for those less appealing aspects of human nature,
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 459
    Forum Member
    Thank God for Mrs T. If she didn't have the guts to turn the country around after Labour and the Trade Unions ruined the country we would be left in the same mess if G Brown won the 2010 election. I don't really think Callaghan (who I liked) could have done anything to 'stop the rot'- the Labour Party were as barking then- as they are now. The coalition are a pale imitation of the Thatcher mould and are as good as a 'Heath-lite' government. I blame the electorate, as much as the politicians- 'oi wont a foreign oliday- which oi will pot on credit'. The Government,the Trade Unions, the Banks, the Electorate, the Markets, the Opposition are all complicit in the mess where we are today. If Mrs T was around today, she'd have a BIGGER job I suspect than when she came to power in 1979.
  • gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Unions became to powerful in the 1970's but IMO the main reason for her fight against the unions was to pave the way for privatisation.

    IMO manufacturing needed reforming but not in the way Mrs Thatcher went about it.

    During her Premiership millions of people lost their jobs because of factories and mines closing down and her Government did nothing to replace the jobs that were lost.
    That they sat back and did nothing to get people back into work is IMO the root cause of the long term unemployment we are still seeing today.
  • CMCM Posts: 33,235
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    katywil wrote: »
    im interested to know what people think this country would be like now, if conservatives had never won an election and if mrs thatcher had never been prime minister for three terms. would the miners still be digging? would the unions still be in charge?

    Had Maggie never been Prime minister UK would be even worse of than it is now at least she broke the unions who were destroying country. :cool:
  • sensoriasensoria Posts: 4,682
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Unions became to powerful in the 1970's but IMO the main reason for her fight against the unions was to pave the way for privatisation.

    IMO manufacturing needed reforming but not in the way Mrs Thatcher went about it.

    During her Premiership millions of people lost their jobs because of factories and mines closing down and her Government did nothing to replace the jobs that were lost.
    That they sat back and did nothing to get people back into work is IMO the root cause of the long term unemployment we are still seeing today.

    You are so right, the whole benifts culture can be traced back to Thatcher. They took away the jobs and the incentive to work.

    Thatcher used a sledghammer to crack a nut and the damage the sledghammer did still has not been repaired.
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    CM wrote: »
    Had Maggie never been Prime minister UK would be even worse of than it is now at least she broke the unions who were destroying country. :cool:

    Funny how the unions didn't destroy Germany or France who still have strong unions AND heavy industry.
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MizManiac wrote: »
    Thank God for Mrs T. If she didn't have the guts to turn the country around after Labour and the Trade Unions ruined the country we would be left in the same mess if G Brown won the 2010 election. I don't really think Callaghan (who I liked) could have done anything to 'stop the rot'- the Labour Party were as barking then- as they are now. The coalition are a pale imitation of the Thatcher mould and are as good as a 'Heath-lite' government. I blame the electorate, as much as the politicians- 'oi wont a foreign oliday- which oi will pot on credit'. The Government,the Trade Unions, the Banks, the Electorate, the Markets, the Opposition are all complicit in the mess where we are today. If Mrs T was around today, she'd have a BIGGER job I suspect than when she came to power in 1979.

    So everyone's to blame for today's mess EXCEPT the person who created the casino banks without which, if they'd not been created, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

    And, unlike the speculation in your post, I can point to Canada as an example of somewhere where the banks weren't deregulated in the manner of Thatcher's "big bang" and so weren't able to throw away the billions our banks did.
  • tysonstormtysonstorm Posts: 24,609
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Unions became to powerful in the 1970's but IMO the main reason for her fight against the unions was to pave the way for privatisation.

    IMO manufacturing needed reforming but not in the way Mrs Thatcher went about it.

    During her Premiership millions of people lost their jobs because of factories and mines closing down and her Government did nothing to replace the jobs that were lost.
    That they sat back and did nothing to get people back into work is IMO the root cause of the long term unemployment we are still seeing today.

    Totally agree.

    The damage done by her scorched earth policies is still being felt today.
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sensoria wrote: »
    You are so right, the whole benifts culture can be traced back to Thatcher. They took away the jobs and the incentive to work.

    Thatcher used a sledghammer to crack a nut and the damage the sledghammer did still has not been repaired.

    You could easily argue that localised benefit dependancy can be traced back to Thatcher, but what caused it to spread its wings out of those mining villages and into the wider community?
  • andyknandykn Posts: 66,849
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    rusty123 wrote: »
    You could easily argue that localised benefit dependancy can be traced back to Thatcher, but what caused it to spread its wings out of those mining villages and into the wider community?

    The mass long term unemployment and welfare dependency that grew up under Thatcher; she didn't limit the damage to mining villages.
  • gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rusty123 wrote: »
    You could easily argue that localised benefit dependancy can be traced back to Thatcher, but what caused it to spread its wings out of those mining villages and into the wider community?

    Well because other manufacturing industries and mills were closing down at the same time the pits were closing I imagine it was the lack of alternative employment for the millions of people who were made redundant.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Why do people blame the unions when it was post war lack of investment and weak management that caused the problems. Unions fought to keep profitable industries from closing (e.g. Glasgow ship yards) but political dogma was more imprtant to some. Yes, the unions became powerful, but if it wasn't for abject management then industry would have been much more in balance.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    andykn wrote: »
    So everyone's to blame for today's mess EXCEPT the person who created the casino banks without which, if they'd not been created, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

    Good rant - unfortunately it doesn't fit with the facts. No UK bank failed due to Casino practices, Northern Rock, Alliance and Leicester, Bradford and Bignley and HBOS all got into difficulties in traditional mortgage lending and High Street banking. RBS simply took over too many bad businesses.

    But dont let the facts get in the way of a good rant.. :D
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do people blame the unions when it was post war lack of investment and weak management that caused the problems.

    Why would you invest in a business with the Unions running amok and weak management? - recipe for losing your shirt no?
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well because other manufacturing industries and mills were closing down at the same time the pits were closing I imagine it was the lack of alternative employment for the millions of people who were made redundant.

    And why were they closing down? It wasn't for the sake of it. It was because they were uncompetitive. We weren't buying their goods, we were buying someone elses.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    The unions weren't "running amok" until the 1970s, so your point fails. In the couple of decades after the war there was a complacency in industry and the management failed to modernise or invest in new euipment so were soon overtaken by other countries where they had invested for obvious reasons (e.g. Japan and Germany). The complacency led to management,politicians and unions leaders looking for the easy way out and it was often easier for poor management to agree to closed shops rather than look for the best long term solution for the business. If the management were allowed to cream off the profits, why was it wrong for the workers to want a share in them?
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do people blame the unions when it was post war lack of investment and weak management that caused the problems.

    As per usual the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Arguably by the time Thatcher came along we were already beyond rescuing the situation. Those markets were pretty much lost.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The unions weren't "running amok" until the 1970s, so your point fails.

    Do leave off - the closed shop and all the spanish practices were firmly embedded by the 70's but they started decades earlier.

    If the management were allowed to cream off the profits, why was it wrong for the workers to want a share in them?

    I have no objection to that - but especially in the cae of the nationalised industries (but also many private ones), there were no profits. :(
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 14,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The big change which dictated all other changes was the switch to a service economy from a base manufacturing one with finance being the main driver. We could sell everything off and get other people to make or provide what we needed; that we would be held hostage by other countries for our needs and dependent on them for income didn't occur to them whilst they were raking in the proceeds, or maybe it did and they just didn't care?
  • rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WindWalker wrote: »
    The big change which dictated all other changes was the switch to a service economy from a base manufacturing one with finance being the main driver.

    Isn't it fair to say we'd basically lost those traditional manufacturing markets so had no choice but to persue other avenues?
Sign In or Register to comment.