What Did Thatcher Ever Do For Us?

grizzly1911

StevieJ wrote: »

You obviously didn't earn enough

Like 95%+ of the population then.

kabayiri

Personally I think the biggest change under the Thatcher era was the Big Bang and opening up the credit markets.

This undoubtedly helped reinforce London as one of the world's economic powerhouses.

I also think it helped kick off a global credit boom which peaked with the GFC.

One can hardly blame Mrs Thatcher for the way people used this additonal credit though.

purch

Mrs Thatcher gets far too much credit for changes that occurred during the 1980's and similarly far too much of the blame too.

Much of what happened was inevitable. If the Unions had allowed Wilson to reform them in the way the Labour party wanted to do a decade earlier, then much of the pain may have been averted.

kabayiri

purch wrote: »

Mrs Thatcher gets far too much credit for changes that occurred during the 1980's and similarly far too much of the blame too.
...
.

The global revolution was going to happen regardless I agree. Corporations were obviously going to spot the cost savings this would bring.

Maybe we should be talking more about the legacy of a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs or Eric !!!!!!!?

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

If the ideas are any good they should be cheap in terms of political capital.

It isn't nearly as simple as that. Opposition parties will often obstruct good ideas as vigorously, or more so, than bad ideas; they don't want the government to look good.

Virtually all 'good' ideas are bad from certain perspectives. No one would suggest that people should ever be better off not working than if they did, but the devil is in the detail. Finding a policy that ensures this without massive cost (a bad idea to many conservatives) or big welfare cuts for some (a bad idea for many of the liberals and labour) may not be plausible.

Kennyboy66

purch wrote: »

Mrs Thatcher gets far too much credit for changes that occurred during the 1980's and similarly far too much of the blame too.

Much of what happened was inevitable. If the Unions had allowed Wilson to reform them in the way the Labour party wanted to do a decade earlier, then much of the pain may have been averted.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e0c032dc-a066-11e2-88b6-00144feabdc0.html#slide0

You may like Martin Wolf in the FT today.

In summary

A great leader came to power in 1979 and ushered in free market reforms that had dramatic consequences all over the world for billions of people.

His name was Deng Xiaoping


A nice balanced view of the Thatch

Jennifer_Jane

purch wrote: »

Mrs Thatcher gets far too much credit for changes that occurred during the 1980's and similarly far too much of the blame too.

Much of what happened was inevitable. If the Unions had allowed Wilson to reform them in the way the Labour party wanted to do a decade earlier, then much of the pain may have been averted.

Agree - have just seen a comment on my FB page that Harold Wilson closed 93 mines, against Thatcher's 22. That was in reply to this comment:

"Harold Wilson came to power with a coal industry employing 590,00 and making huge losses and producing not enough coal for our needs at the time. He was closing a pit a week at one point...

Thatcher inherited an industry employing just under 200,000 which was making huge losses and not producing the amount of coal we required. She closed 22 pits. The industry was already dead."

I'd be interested to hear if this is so, and if so, why has she received the blame for closing all the mines?

I left Britain in 1969/70 so missed the "Winter of discontent" when the Unions purposely and cynically went on strike during the coldest part of the year to bring maximum hardship to society.

I do remember that working in the advertising industry abroad, we used to laugh in shock at the UK unions who wouldn't allow one person to do another's job, and had such ridiculous power that Britain was the laughing stock. At least Thatcher changed that viewpoint overseas.

In my view, it was the Unions who were destroying Britain, the car industry was awful with the worst cars in the world made by British Leyland (I'm talking overseas reputation here, I don't know about local). Labour couldn't win against the Unions, Thatcher said "Vote for me and I'll sort them out", and she certainly did so. She was the right person at the right time.

It's also interesting that when I left Britain there were Exchange Controls. You could only take out £50 and it was marked on your passport. I wonder when that changed?

Jennifer_Jane

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Reduced taxation apparently?

She came to power as I started work and I can't recall ever payer less tax overall it has only gone up. My economics lecturer was right on that score, I will no doubt die a some point too.

So you can't recall the tax rate being 19s 6d in the Pound?

I don't know who reduced the tax rate, but it's certainly come down enormously since then! And no tax credits or other rebates. I expect (but don't know) that the personal allowance was much lower than it is today, too. The effect of this high tax rate was the "Brain Drain".

kabayiri

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

...
In my view, it was the Unions who were destroying Britain, the car industry was awful with the worst cars in the world made by British Leyland (I'm talking overseas reputation here, I don't know about local). Labour couldn't win against the Unions, Thatcher said "Vote for me and I'll sort them out", and she certainly did so. She was the right person at the right time.
...

It's far too simplistic to blame unions for poor car production.

Machine-based CNC had yet to come into mass use, and tolerances on components were 'generous' (being polite).

Also, certain car companies used to leave untreated body parts like car wings out in the open. I don't need to tell you how the Great British weather can aid rust production on untreated metal parts!

These weren't union related issues. Cost savings and rush jobs to get cars into production before they were properly designed were management decisions.

It was the arrival of relatively reliable Far Eastern motors in the late 70s/80s which forced the hand of UK car companies. They had no choice but to adopt best practise.

Unions were part of the problem, but only part.

PaulF81

kabayiri wrote: »

It's far too simplistic to blame unions for poor car production.

Machine-based CNC had yet to come into mass use, and tolerances on components were 'generous' (being polite).

Also, certain car companies used to leave untreated body parts like car wings out in the open. I don't need to tell you how the Great British weather can aid rust production on untreated metal parts!

These weren't union related issues. Cost savings and rush jobs to get cars into production before they were properly designed were management decisions.

It was the arrival of relatively reliable Far Eastern motors in the late 70s/80s which forced the hand of UK car companies. They had no choice but to adopt best practise.

Unions were part of the problem, but only part.

If the money had been spent on R+D instead of 30%+ pay rises for the 'comrades' we would have had a decent car industry.

The union vote was more important. Much the same today with labour voters and benefits.