Thatcher Legacy

[ruffrecords]

There are, or course, two sides to every story. I got married and started work in 1973, 6 years before Thatcher became PM so I think I am qualified to comment. Before Thatcher we had endured years of depressing labour government, the highest tax band was 95% which consequently lost us our best talent in the 'brain drain', Wilson  and Brown between them had devalued the pound and gone cap in hand to the IMF for funds to prop up his profligate spending. Taking money out of the country was strictly controlled - if you went abroad on holiday you could only take 50 or 100GBP with you (I forget which). In the interim came Ted Heath (a Tory) who allowed the miners to hold the country to ransom with its strike, followed again by Wilson and lastly Brown engineers of the social contract with the unions which effectively put them in government and allowed them to systematically destroy UK manufacturing industry by making it completely uncompetitive with practices like the closed shop. We had the winter of discontent, strikes were commonplace and the UK was known as the sick man of Europe. There were even sit coms on TV about it - 'The Rag Trade' for one where every episode the union rep would blow a whistle and shout 'everyone out'.

Were we fed up with up with high taxes, profligate spending, strikes and the unions destroying the country.? You bet we were, so when Thatcher came to power and broke the union's stranglehold on the economy a lot of people were grateful. The economy she inherited was in as bad a shape as the one the current government inherited from the last labour government so it was no easy task.

She was of course not perfect. The privatisation of government assets was badly handled and the poll tax, whilst an inherently fairer system, was political suicide.

Detractors forget that they had two opportunities to vote her out of office but didn't.

Cheers

Ian

 

[SSLtech]

Doug, Some former associates of mine from Liverpool are behind that one. -I can't say that I back them, and I WON'T be downloading the tune.

-They were also behind the Christmas number one, and if you watch the video you'll see the rooms that I built when I was chief engineer at Parr Street, since it's the place with biggest studios in the city. -They did the orchestra in the smaller of the downstairs room. -Paul McCartney and everyone came together, and ALL time (including the members of one of the only two orchestras in the world with a royal charter) and work was donated.

I backed them on that one, and it gave me pleasure to support the sentiment... One of people coming together to HELP one another. -Even the words to the tune affirm that sentiment.

-For them to stoop to grave-dancing Schadenfreude, well, in my eyes that demeans their earlier good works, I feel.

Chatted to a couple of people last night. -The principal players in many of the finest British brass bands were miners... Were. The bitterness is palpable and barely concealed.

Less than a month ago, I recall a large number of people were pleased to learn that Hugo Chavez had finally died a painful death... While not so many of them were talking of performing a jig in his tomb, there was a definite sentiment of 'good riddance'. -Certainly, if that's an acceptable attitude, then i would be churlish to scold Brits for adopting a similar 'good riddance' view.

I've not really studied Chavez's life, but my impression is that the worst things he did were to run down the country's economy, and shower the poor with windfall petro-dollars. -I think the three most egregious offenses in the eyes of the US were adopting a position of mocking the US, cementing a friendship with Cuba (further mocking the US, who still maintains it's long-ago-descended-into-futility trade embargo with the Castro regime) and seizing the local assets and facilities of a few US oil companies.

Thatcher is painted a little to simplistically, but I still believe that -in her heart- she knew full well what the social results of her policies would be, and refused to consider sensible moderate alternatives, and once set upon a course, the lady was -famously- "NOT for turning". It's that specific aspect which has now become the sole obsession of many people, which I'm not sure is entirely fair... but then again, I am still stunned that she could display such resolute heartlessness in so many things. -I don't think she'll EVER be forgiven for Hillsborough.

 

[thermionic]

Much as I find the idea of throwing a party somewhat ghoulish, I have to agree with the sentiment expressed in the quote below which I just read at another forum:

if you're so hated by millions of people that they have parties when you die (despite the usual "respect the dead" conventions) then perhaps there's a *slight* possibility that you got things wrong on a human level.

 

[MagnetoSound]

Were we fed up with up with high taxes, profligate spending, strikes and the unions destroying the country.? You bet we were, so when Thatcher came to power and broke the union's stranglehold on the economy a lot of people were grateful.

The problem is, though, that greed is greed - she replaced the unions' stranglehold with the City's stranglehold, and look where we are now.

In direct consequence of unrestrained private speculation, we now have unaffordable housing, unaffordable utilities and road fuel, permanent job insecurity and widespread disaffection and depression among the young.

We have still, thirty years on, yet to find any reasonable middle-ground approach to running the system that is NOT based on greed.

... the poll tax, whilst an inherently fairer system, was political suicide.

In fact most people felt that it wasn't fairer, which is precisely why it was political suicide.

 

[emrr]

I'm not downloading either, but I have to admit I giggled a bit.  Feels like old style USA punk rock, Ronnie Ray-gun, and all that.  OF course it's not that simple. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Much as I find the idea of throwing a party somewhat ghoulish, I have to agree with the sentiment expressed in the quote below which I just read at another forum:

if you're so hated by millions of people that they have parties when you die (despite the usual "respect the dead" conventions) then perhaps there's a *slight* possibility that you got things wrong on a human level.

The job of governance is providing leadership not being popular. Shifting power away from narrow interests and privatizing government owned industry caused economic dislocations and many enemies.

There is an old saying about coaching, if everybody on the team is happy, you aren't doing the job correctly. This does not mean you need to gratuitously anger people, but true leadership is not about being liked, but doing what the country needs for the good of the "entire" country, maybe for the betterment of the entire world.

Again I don't want to lecture about another country's history to it's residents so I won't, but from listening to the posts so far there seem to be several different areas of criticism.  I believe in free speech so if people want to dance on her grave, this is their opportunity to celebrate outliving her. What I do object to is re-writing history to harden partisan divides and argue different current agendas. While some of her policies seem timely today (Isn't that the OP's question?)

Some would consider even a passing comparison to Chavez inappropriate. Chavez was like an anti-Thatcher, instead of promoting free markets, free speech, free elections, freedom in general, he worked to do the exact opposite. He frittered away Venezuela's substantial oil wealth that he appropriated illegally by nationalizing private company assets. Thatcher privatized government assets. Chavez used this 'stolen" oil wealth to buy his popularity while decimating the local private economy. He even used his oil wealth to prop up Castro when the Soviets were no longer funding that island "paradise".  Chavez has also reached out to Iran giving visible support to a regime that the free world is actively sanctioning.  Without giving the full history Chavez has locked down newspapers and TV to prevent any viable political opposition from having a voice. He has actively supported anti-democratice forces in the region. He has dissipated his oil industry infrastructure due to mismanagement. We are all waiting to see if his hand picked successor will be better or worse, I will not lose any sleep over a strong arm opponent to democratic reform in that region drawing his last breath. Good riddance.  Thatcher even if you don't like her deserves acknowledgment for what she accomplished in difficult times and circumstances.

JR

PS  I liked the iron lady before learning that her maiden name was Roberts.  8) The more I learn about her actual history the more to like, but opinions vary so flog away. I don't thing we're related but who knows?  ;D

 

[living sounds]

The job of governance is providing leadership not being popular. Shifting power away from narrow interests and privatizing government owned industry caused economic dislocations and many enemies.

Unfortunately privatizing very often is just that: Shifting power TO narrow interests. Selling public assets at rediculously low prices so priviliged private interests can use it to make a fortune without improving services, working conditions, not even efficiency,... Or have private industry perform government duties (like all the war profiteering by contractors during the Iraq occupation).
It's called rent-seeking, and there's been an epidemic of it since the early 80s.

 

[thermionic]

The job of governance is providing leadership not being popular

As did Thatcher, today's Thatcherite government realises there's a demographic within society which will never, ever vote for them (for example: people in blue collar towns ravaged by their policies and those on low incomes); therefore, it doesn't matter how appalling the deal they get. 'Popularity' doesn't come into it. It's a game of numbers. You pay for pandering to those whose circumstances might be suited to your 'policies' by taking from those who don't. The system's better than, say, the one they have in China; but it's far from truly democratic and really needs an overhaul. We live in an elected dictatorship.

 

[thermionic]

BTW - Let's not forget that Thatcher made gay people's lives infinitely more uncomfortable by introducing Section 28. I listened to a programme yesterday where they interviewed people who were permanently scarred by it. Homophobia. Not nice.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The job of governance is providing leadership not being popular. Shifting power away from narrow interests and privatizing government owned industry caused economic dislocations and many enemies.

Unfortunately privatizing very often is just that: Shifting power TO narrow interests. Selling public assets at rediculously low prices so priviliged private interests can use it to make a fortune without improving services, working conditions, not even efficiency,... Or have private industry perform government duties (like all the war profiteering by contractors during the Iraq occupation).
It's called rent-seeking, and there's been an epidemic of it since the early 80s.

Again not to teach history, but to address the economic aspects. There is key fundamental argument about private vs government ownership of wealth. It has been well demonstrated that free markets are more efficient at allocating assets for maximum return on that value. Government run industries routinely under perform private companies due to mismanagement and other than profit motives (like gaining influence, rewarding special interests, etc).

"Rent seeking" refers to monopoly control awarded over some industry. Not to shift into actual history, when Thatcher privatized some large public industries, she actually restricted the successor management from bidding on open contracts until after several rounds of open bidding, to give smaller companies the first shot at jobs and competition. So there was active effort to mitigate the natural monopoly the outsized private industry inherited.

We only need look at the oligarchs in Russia to see how state and private business co-operation can lead to abuses. It is inevitable for government intervention into private sector matters to lead to cronyism as lobbyists earn their keep.

JR

PS: This thread seems to be releasing some pent up anger unrelated to Thatcher specifically. But flog away free speech is a lubricant for exchange of ideas.

 

[SSLtech]

Section 28 is another example of Margaret seeming to view her 'purpose' as a moral crusade... 'moral rectitude'. -I'll come back to that.

Chavez could indeed be regarded as the anti-thatcher. -Certainly, when the razor of decision is 'private enterprise', it's hard to see them as remotely similar.

However, when viewed differently, they were 'so far away from each other they met up again round the back'.

Margaret Thatcher's actions regarding press and broadcast freedom meant enabling Rupert Murdoch to an alarming degree; and not in any coincidental manner either. -The Sun was practically her mouthpiece... yet even THEY 'reversed' on things even when Thatcher wouldn't, end even when shown to be appallingly 'wrong'. -The sinking of the General Belgrano leaps to mind.

While the Sun hastily retracted this headline...

...Margaret to her dying day never once conceded that there was the slightest possibility that there was anything questionable about sinking a vessel in international waters, sailing AWAY from the exclusion zone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O184yGKknSQ

Under international law, since this was outside the declared exclusion zone, and getting further away I would have expected that this would NOT be a legitimate target. -Certainly had such a thing happened to a British ship, it would have been labeled an illegal act  -I don't recall any remorse for the hundreds of dead, or the many casualties, and certainly never any concession that it may have been a rash move.

The Sun however was a staunch backer of Thatcher's policies, as were Murdoch's other media 'news' ventures. -No great surprise though, when you consider the considerable financial benefits that came their owner's way.

Remember also that the Sun was used as a weapon in the despicable Hillsborough affair.

I don't count myself as a 'lefty'... I expect others do, but group-commonalities of political view aside, make no mistake of this:

Margaret Thatcher was a stubborn and callous woman, who never showed any hint of remorse, largely because she seemed to always claim absolute moral rectitude.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Chavez could indeed be regarded as the anti-thatcher. -Certainly, when the razor of decision is 'private enterprise', it's hard to see them as remotely similar.

My comparison  between them included free enterprise as only one of the several freedoms he trampled.

However, when viewed differently, they were 'so far away from each other they met up again round the back'.

Margaret Thatcher's actions regarding press and broadcast freedom meant enabling Rupert Murdoch to an alarming degree; and not in any coincidental manner either. -The Sun was practically her mouthpiece... yet even THEY 'reversed' on things even when Thatcher wouldn't, end even when shown to be appallingly 'wrong'. -The sinking of the General Belgrano leaps to mind.

While the Sun hastily retracted this headline...

I can't comment intelligently about the British press, back then. Recently it turned out to be even more of a circus side show with phone tapping and other clearly illegal behavior. Our press is far from the critical arms length, protected objective observer empowered  to keep our politicians honest.  In Venezuela opposition newspaper publishers were imprisoned or worse. Television access for opposition politicians was limited to minutes a day, while Hugo enjoyed 24x7 access to disseminate his propaganda messages and used the media to his advantage

JR

Margaret Thatcher was a stubborn and callous woman, who never showed any hint of remorse, largely because she seemed to always claim absolute moral rectitude.

 

[SSLtech]

Re the press, and being an advocate of 'freedom' in general:

The recent scandals regarding blatantly illegal activity were -assuming I recall correctly- centered around the 'News of the World' and the Sun. -Both strong Thatcher-backers, both owned by Murdoch. Honestly, these things may be termed 'press' or even 'media', but never accurately 'newspapers', even though they're sold as such.

But regarding 'freedom', I recall her supporting apartheid. Reinforced by calling Mandela a 'terrorist' (now of course, he was a 'freedom fighter'). She backed Pinochet, eventually -in a surreal arrangement- setting him up with a house in a semi-detatched suburban street in...  -Yorkshire? -Somewhere bizarre like Pontefract, or some such place. (I always pictured some Monty Python sketch; 'Have you met the new neighbor, Dierdre? -General Pinochet. -Oh, didn't you know? -he moved in at number seventeen, between that nice mister Gadhafi and -well, you know, that odd fellow mister Mobutu Sese Seko. -You know, I had a premonition that Idi Amin wouldn't last long at number seventeen... -I mean... those curtains! -I wrote to the council about it... I mean who hangs zebra-pattern in the front parlour...?')

I certainly feel that if she ended up on the 'right' side of a 'freedom' battle, it was more likely coincidental. -She didn't bring down the soviet union... neither did Reagan, actually. -The regime more likely collapsed because of political infighting after years -decades- of money being diverted to the space race, the military, and failing crops, forcing change from within, rather than because an accomplished actor stood in front of some cameras and suggested a wall be demolished.

 

[living sounds]

"Rent seeking" refers to monopoly control awarded over some industry.

No, it applies in a much larger context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

Nobel price laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz gives a good rundown in his latest book.

 

[JohnRoberts]

"Rent seeking" refers to monopoly control awarded over some industry.

No, it applies in a much larger context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

Nobel price laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz gives a good rundown in his latest book.

I guess i need to brush up on my modern vernacular. I googled it but apparently found a weak definition.

Rent seeking is trying to extract economic rent from existing wealth, instead of creating new wealth.  Privatizing national industries is not trying to extract economic rent from that old wealth but instead to unleash new wealth creation from the superior private business execution and management of those same resources. 

Thanks for the link, economic rent seeking describes a lot of activity I see when government expands into the private sector. They sure are not creating new wealth.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

I certainly feel that if she ended up on the 'right' side of a 'freedom' battle, it was more likely coincidental. -She didn't bring down the soviet union... neither did Reagan, actually. -The regime more likely collapsed because of political infighting after years -decades- of money being diverted to the space race, the military, and failing crops, forcing change from within, rather than because an accomplished actor stood in front of some cameras and suggested a wall be demolished.

I thought the cold war history was pretty clear but apparently not.  My impression and apparently opinions vary about this, the cold war arms race was more a test or competition of economic strength than military strength. The Soviets pedaled as fast as they could to keep up with the west, but their economic system was just incapable of keeping up, even with all that masterful central planning. Their infighting was between internal groups refusing to accept even smaller fractions of the pie to support the all consuming military. A problem that North Korea seems to manage with re-education camps for too selfish citizens.

These days we see a rising military presence in the pacific from India and China as the US economically declines and withdraws. There is a blurring between economic power and military power in the real world. China is a little more scary as they have a hybrid between strict central planning and their variant form of capitalism they copied from Hong Kong. Still a work in process, but not as flawed as old soviet economic systems.

I also see more challenges to the dollar as reserve currency. China just negotiated a deal to exchange Chinese currency back and forth directly with Ozzie currency. Previously they both had to step through a peg to the US dollar. A direct peg to other national currencies will improve liquidity of Chinese currency and perhaps weaken the USD as a reserve currency. We need to be very careful about our profligate ways, if we lose this reserve status, we could see the dollar really hurt. While the immediate short term consequence would be to improve exports, our imports would become more expensive.  Not a bad time to be finding oil and gas under every rock. 

Sorry if I am rambling... looking at the big picture requires taking a step back.

JR

 

[Timothytitus88]

Hey Keith, do you keep your inbox full?...... I wanted to send you a way off topic "band" message.

Cheers,

Tim

 

[SSLtech]

Hey Tim, you can reach me at ssltech at bellsouth dot net.

John I think we agree as to how the Soviets were struggling to catch up and eventually failed. Sensing an impending collapse it's always worth staging some ser-pieces for the cameras; it makes claiming some credit 'reasonable'.

 

[Pip]

NEVER! The people are any countries sole responsibility and greatest asset. Right now what is hurting most of the world is that both social responsibility and economic growth are at a total standstill.

 

[MartyMart]

Fantastic posts here from Keith / Ian / Lucas et all.

I come from the same town as Keith and I think we are a similar age ? so I spent my formative years
under "Thatcher" rule.
I won't repeat what Keith has so eloquently written, save to say that I agree with pretty much 100% of it.

I watched from a different perspective though, as I moved "down south" to London at the tender age of 18 ( 1980 )

I voted against her at my first chance and again when she gained a third term ( unbelievable but a "War" will almost always
guarantee that - not in Churchill's case though IIRC from history )

There are two sides for sure but for me, the negatives from the "Thatcher years" far outweigh any positives.

Interesting read - thanks to all for that.

Marty.