Margaret Thatchers influence on the industry

[NHammann]

Hello,
I have seen that there are two polls regarding Margaret Thatcher, but I hope that my question is different enough to be discussed separately.

I´m from Germany for school I would like to ask what opinion you have on Margaret Thatchers industry politics, the privatization and close downs.
- Are you for or against them and what was the time for you or how were you affected by Thatchers industry politics.
Even if you were born after her premiership I appreciate every opinion.

Please add if i´m allowed to quote you.

Thank you very much.

Hammann

[kynaston]

Hello,
I have seen that there are two polls regarding Margaret Thatcher, but I hope that my question is different enough to be discussed separately.

I´m from Germany for school I would like to ask what opinion you have on Margaret Thatchers industry politics, the privatization and close downs.
- Are you for or against them and what was the time for you or how were you affected by Thatchers industry politics.
Even if you were born after her premiership I appreciate every opinion.

Please add if i´m allowed to quote you.

Thank you very much.

Hammann

Mrs Thatcher set out to destroy trades unionism and all working-class political power at any cost to the UK economy. I was living on the Nottinghamshire/Derbyshire border at the time she attacked the miners, and it was a real police-state there. Many strikers were under what was in effect house arrest, the police were gleefully smashing windscreens on the motorway and - incidentally - spending ages on cross-questioning my (often female) students. It was a hateful time. I am glad her mind has gone: it was too foul to be worth having. Quote me all you please.

[Albion 69]

Mrs Thatcher inherited a country and economy in a terrible mess , we were characterised as the sick man of Europe .. rightly so. She broke the power of the Unions who had helped bring down the two previous governments . She transformed Britain's stagnating economy into a dynamic free market powerhouse where entrepreneurs could prosper free from the shackles of state intervention. Average incomes rose , inflation was brought under control but of course the successes did not come without costs/mistakes. Unemployment , social divisions , a shift from manufacturing to service industries and some ill managed privatisations to name but a few . But the over all economic legacy placed UKPLC in a good position which has held us in good stead until relatively recently

Feel free to quote me

[NHammann]

Thank you very much for the reply s on the topic.

[LA]

Mrs Thatcher is a British Saint.

She inherited the mess caused by the Labour Party. One of her policies; as stated above, was to tackle the power of the trade unions.

As the Labour Party was created by trade unions it is obvious of their influence, however, thoughout premierships of Labour Prime Ministers, the Trade Unions grappled power which they exercised over those whom they were meant to protect and represent.

Mrs Thatcher saw this abuse and tackled it.

Mrs Thatcher also implemented her privatisation policies which were to remove businesses from the dead hand of the state to the efficient and profit-making private sector. Her reasoning was competitiveness, economic development, higher pay for workers and better quality of goods and services.

[kynaston]

Mrs Thatcher is a British Saint.

She inherited the mess caused by the Labour Party. One of her policies; as stated above, was to tackle the power of the trade unions.

She was the saint, apparently, of those wild-eyed American-controlled extreme-right-wingers who had taken control of the tory party and decided to turn the country into an equivalent of Chile, or Cuba before its Revolution (they are not very holy - whorehouses are more their mark). The Trade Unions represented far more people than the nasty little gang of entrists who took over the tories, obviously. She was lucky enough, though deeply and almost universally hated, to seize the opportunity presented by the Falklands War to win a key election. Thereafter, the extreme-right, and sometimes foreign, control of the media saw her through as she destroyed everything that even the one-nation tories had ever believed in and replaced it with the tedious right-liberal nastiness so often represented here. UGH! The squalid movement she represented has caused the current crisis of capitalism, as even the mad marketeers are begining to realize.

As the Labour Party was created by trade unions it is obvious of their influence, however, thoughout premierships of Labour Prime Ministers, the Trade Unions grappled power which they exercised over those whom they were meant to protect and represent..

The Labour Movement was created by the working people of Britain, through their unions and socialist organisations, to work for THEM but they were betrayed by the squalid parliamentary careerists who wanted money and power without ever having to answer to anyone. The most squalid of these, thatcherites calling themselves social democrats, deliberately sabotaged even the right wing 'Labour Party'and the grovelling fantasist Blair carried on the work. As a result, we are now facing what is probably a worse slump than the one that happened in the thirties. Thatcher and Reagan are directly responsible, together with the posturing clowns who see these lower animals as 'saints'.

[JAMC]

Hello,
I have seen that there are two polls regarding Margaret Thatcher, but I hope that my question is different enough to be discussed separately.

I´m from Germany for school I would like to ask what opinion you have on Margaret Thatchers industry politics, the privatization and close downs.
- Are you for or against them and what was the time for you or how were you affected by Thatchers industry politics.
Even if you were born after her premiership I appreciate every opinion.

Please add if i´m allowed to quote you.

Thank you very much.

Hammann

Ok, here's my opinion;

Britain in the 1970s was in a state of economic unrest. Trade unions had used their muscle to force the government's hand over certain issues - in effect undermining the authority of the government over the economy. The real struggle going on at this time wasn't just between the unions and the government though, it was between two irreconcilable political ideologies. On one hand the unions and thier members represented collectivism, and on the other hand the Conservatives and the private sector represented the free market.
Collectivism had been the dominant political force in the UK since the end of WW2, and historians will tell you that the problems of the 70's were a result of 3 decades of collectivism undermining the incentive that drives the free market to grow and evolve. I don't accept that personally, it's too simplistic - but I do agree that the nationalised industries (in particular) had become inefficient and employed too many people for the output they offered.
I'm sure you know the story of what Thatcher did - identified areas of government owned industry that weren't profitable and either privatised them, or in some cases (mining) totally obliterated them. She also threw money into the furnaces in an attempt to reduce the amount of currency in circulation, believing that the less money there was, the harder people would have to fight for it.
The long term effect of these policies hasn't been great - the end result is that we've gone full circle. In the same way that the dominance of collectivism during the 70's allowed the country (which was still a capitalist country) to become too dependent on state intervention, Thatcher's legacy has left us utterly dependent on the fortunes of the free market, and as the entire world slides into a recession that leaves us once again in the position Albion 69 mentioned earlier - the sick man of Europe.
Even during the boom years of the 90's when Thatcher's economic policies were considered sacred, the privatisations were ideologically, rather than practically driven. The railways, for example, was a complete farce. Not to mention the areas targeted by Thatcher during her reign that have never recovered. A huge number of productive people were simply discarded from society by the policies she adhered to, the same process is happening now within the private sector.

and yes you can quote me if you want.

[CAGAN]

Ok, here's my opinion;

Britain in the 1970s was in a state of economic unrest. Trade unions had used their muscle to force the government's hand over certain issues - in effect undermining the authority of the government over the economy. The real struggle going on at this time wasn't just between the unions and the government though, it was between two irreconcilable political ideologies. On one hand the unions and thier members represented collectivism, and on the other hand the Conservatives and the private sector represented the free market.
Collectivism had been the dominant political force in the UK since the end of WW2, and historians will tell you that the problems of the 70's were a result of 3 decades of collectivism undermining the incentive that drives the free market to grow and evolve. I don't accept that personally, it's too simplistic - but I do agree that the nationalised industries (in particular) had become inefficient and employed too many people for the output they offered.
I'm sure you know the story of what Thatcher did - identified areas of government owned industry that weren't profitable and either privatised them, or in some cases (mining) totally obliterated them. She also threw money into the furnaces in an attempt to reduce the amount of currency in circulation, believing that the less money there was, the harder people would have to fight for it.
The long term effect of these policies hasn't been great - the end result is that we've gone full circle. In the same way that the dominance of collectivism during the 70's allowed the country (which was still a capitalist country) to become too dependent on state intervention, Thatcher's legacy has left us utterly dependent on the fortunes of the free market, and as the entire world slides into a recession that leaves us once again in the position Albion 69 mentioned earlier - the sick man of Europe.
Even during the boom years of the 90's when Thatcher's economic policies were considered sacred, the privatisations were ideologically, rather than practically driven. The railways, for example, was a complete farce. Not to mention the areas targeted by Thatcher during her reign that have never recovered. A huge number of productive people were simply discarded from society by the policies she adhered to, the same process is happening now within the private sector.

and yes you can quote me if you want.

I loved Maggie, but at the same time she was responsible for possibly the biggest cock up of all time that has in turn created endless problems. To reduce unemployment figures she convinced teenagers that the only way forward was further education. This meant that poor old mum and dad had to fork out a wack of money and the teenager in question would get themselves in a mass of debt. The result being that most uni students would leave education with a pointless degree, no job and a £20,000 loan. Kids now believe there are two options, further education or benefits. How many kids leave school and go straight into work, not many. In turn we have been forced to let in Eastern Europeans by the millions to do jobs school leavers won't. It was a short term answer that has caused a long term problem. The government is now keen on re-introducing apprenticeships, however businesses bye and large only want to employ people that can hit the ground running.

[LA]

But that is a continued message. Further education is the only way forward.

[CAGAN]

But that is a continued message. Further education is the only way forward.

Your wrong, further education is an option, but not the only one. I believe that any young person that is prepared to work hard, has a head on his shoulders and is prepared to accept responsibility will eventually do well. Further education is great if utilised properly and the person in question has a plan. Unfortunately people of a generation or two younger than mine don't see it like that. My sons girlfriend has a degree in marine biology, it sounds really impressive but will it ever get her a job ?

[JAMC]

I loved Maggie, but at the same time she was responsible for possibly the biggest cock up of all time that has in turn created endless problems. To reduce unemployment figures she convinced teenagers that the only way forward was further education. This meant that poor old mum and dad had to fork out a wack of money and the teenager in question would get themselves in a mass of debt. The result being that most uni students would leave education with a pointless degree, no job and a £20,000 loan. Kids now believe there are two options, further education or benefits. How many kids leave school and go straight into work, not many. In turn we have been forced to let in Eastern Europeans by the millions to do jobs school leavers won't. It was a short term answer that has caused a long term problem. The government is now keen on re-introducing apprenticeships, however businesses bye and large only want to employ people that can hit the ground running.

While I would agree that the current target of 50% of all school leavers going on to university is utterly crazy (it should be something like 20% in my opinion), the marketization of higher education - by which I mean the introduction of tuition fees and the emphasis on students meeting cost based on future earnings as opposed to society meeting the cost through a need for future specialists - was dreamed up during the Major years and implemented by the early Blair administration.

I actually belong to that group you allude to. I left school at 18 with some A levels and didn't go to university (primarily because of the cost). I think this group is more numerous than you perhaps imagine - although it's very much a non-entity in terms of media coverage, the stabbin' chavs very much taking the limelight.

[JAMC]

But that is a continued message. Further education is the only way forward.

The only way forward? Dare I ask to what destination?

[JAMC]

Your wrong, further education is an option, but not the only one. I believe that any young person that is prepared to work hard, has a head on his shoulders and is prepared to accept responsibility will eventually do well. Further education is great if utilised properly and the person in question has a plan. Unfortunately people of a generation or two younger than mine don't see it like that. My sons girlfriend has a degree in marine biology, it sounds really impressive but will it ever get her a job ?

The other thing that really needs to be stomped on is employers advertising for "degree level" applicants, when the position itself does not require a degree.

Some occupations, sure, you need a degree - doctor would be a prime example. But I've seen "Project manager" (read "Glorified administrator") advertised this way.

[LA]

Your wrong, further education is an option, but not the only one. I believe that any young person that is prepared to work hard, has a head on his shoulders and is prepared to accept responsibility will eventually do well. Further education is great if utilised properly and the person in question has a plan. Unfortunately people of a generation or two younger than mine don't see it like that. My sons girlfriend has a degree in marine biology, it sounds really impressive but will it ever get her a job ?

YOu misunderstood me.

I said "Further education is the only way forward" is still the message given.

I did not say I believe that.

[JAMC]

YOu misunderstood me.

I said "Further education is the only way forward" is still the message given.

I did not say I believe that.

Fair enough, apologies.

[Midas]

The other thing that really needs to be stomped on is employers advertising for "degree level" applicants, when the position itself does not require a degree.

Some occupations, sure, you need a degree - doctor would be a prime example. But I've seen "Project manager" (read "Glorified administrator") advertised this way.

That I would totally agree with. We've had a number of discussions at the IoD about this very subject, and the majority consensus, although not by much I have to say, is that practical on the job experience is worth more to a potential employer than a whole handful of degrees - except in some more specialised jobs that is. I would also qualify that by saying 'given an equal level of intelligence' though. My HR Director here is of the other view though, thinking that a degree, even though it might not strictly be relevant, does demonstrate an aptitude for learning and a better ability to apply theory to practice.

I guess like most things it's one of those situations where there are so many variables it's difficult to come down definitively on one side or the other and each case has to be treated on its merits. But you certainly shouldn't be too prescriptive about it otherwise you end up valuing theory over practice.

[kynaston]

I think it is important to point out that the purpose of education is not to produce machine minders and salesmen for bosses but to develop human beings who can think and feel like such.

[JAMC]

That I would totally agree with. We've had a number of discussions at the IoD about this very subject, and the majority consensus, although not by much I have to say, is that practical on the job experience is worth more to a potential employer than a whole handful of degrees - except in some more specialised jobs that is. I would also qualify that by saying 'given an equal level of intelligence' though.

IoD = institute of directors?

I think part of the problem is that lazy employers make the assumption that degree = high intellect, and conversely that no degree = low(er) intellect. Once upon a time this might have been an acceptable rule of thumb when univerisity admissions were grant based and aptitude based. However I don't think this holds true any longer - tuition fees introduces a prohibitive cost element that deters those with the intellect but not the wealthy parents (of which I am one) - while permits those with moderate intellect to attain qualifications based primarily on the institutions needing to fund the courses by ensuring high enrollment.

My HR Director here is of the other view though, thinking that a degree, even though it might not strictly be relevant, does demonstrate an aptitude for learning and a better ability to apply theory to practice.

As above, I don't condone this point of view.

I guess like most things it's one of those situations where there are so many variables it's difficult to come down definitively on one side or the other and each case has to be treated on its merits. But you certainly shouldn't be too prescriptive about it otherwise you end up valuing theory over practice.

Agreed.

[Marxist Nutter]

While I would agree that the current target of 50% of all school leavers going on to university is utterly crazy (it should be something like 20% in my opinion), the marketization of higher education - by which I mean the introduction of tuition fees and the emphasis on students meeting cost based on future earnings as opposed to society meeting the cost through a need for future specialists - was dreamed up during the Major years and implemented by the early Blair administration.

I actually belong to that group you allude to. I left school at 18 with some A levels and didn't go to university (primarily because of the cost). I think this group is more numerous than you perhaps imagine - although it's very much a non-entity in terms of media coverage, the stabbin' chavs very much taking the limelight.

What is worse but related to the marketisation of the uni is the idea of quantifiable assessment of research. So a piece of work is now 'measured' by a computer program (not a person who actually reads it) that counts how many times it was referenced and other things and this determines how good your research is.

I.e No longer do we care about the depth of knowledge or knowledge for the sake of it. The idea is if the research is not useful (especially to industry) then it is not worth having. This is problematic for many reasons. The main one is obviously it stains the university with a perverse capitalist logic which it is the job o universities (in a healthy society) to challenge and not be part of. The second big issue is the idea that many theories tend to be invented long before a use is ever discovered. I mean complex number theory - people used to think what the hell is the point in this and now (so I am told) it is really useful in computer programing

[Midas]

IoD = institute of directors?

I think part of the problem is that lazy employers make the assumption that degree = high intellect, and conversely that no degree = low(er) intellect. Once upon a time this might have been an acceptable rule of thumb when univerisity admissions were grant based and aptitude based. However I don't think this holds true any longer - tuition fees introduces a prohibitive cost element that deters those with the intellect but not the wealthy parents (of which I am one) - while permits those with moderate intellect to attain qualifications based primarily on the institutions needing to fund the courses by ensuring high enrollment.

Yes, Institute of Directors.

You are quite right, it is generally the more lazy directors who subscribe to the view that a degree automatically qualifies someone as having a high intellect, and vice versa. As an unquantified observation I'd say these tend to be people from the older generation. In reality, which is the view I subscribe to, the situation is quite often that whilst some graduates might be wonderful in their theory of 'how things work', but when it comes to the practicalities of actually doing those 'things', they come a poor second to people with practical experience.

I'm convinced that part of the problem here is that this government in particular has placed too high an emphasis on people 'getting a qualification' as if that's the be all and end all of it. It might make their statistics look good if more people 'get trained', however as someone said to me, what's the use of us employing someone who's got a wonderful bricklaying certificate if he doesn't know what a brick is in the first place!

... No longer do we care about the depth of knowledge or knowledge for the sake of it. The idea is if the research is not useful (especially to industry) then it is not worth having...

I would tend to agree with you on this particular point, however in defence of the universities at the moment, money is very tight and they are being forced to adopt shorter term solutions to getting cash into the economy. This does lead them to find 'people solutions' which are going to be useful to the economy next year or the year after rather than being very useful five or ten years down the line.

As I see it this is all tied in with the way that government as a whole functions; all it's interested in is self-perpetuation at the next election. Consequently nearly everything which is derived from government adopts the same stance regardless of the benefits or otherwise.

[Marxist Nutter]

I would tend to agree with you on this particular point, however in defence of the universities at the moment, money is very tight and they are being forced to adopt shorter term solutions to getting cash into the economy. This does lead them to find 'people solutions' which are going to be useful to the economy next year or the year after rather than being very useful five or ten years down the line.

As I see it this is all tied in with the way that government as a whole functions; all it's interested in is self-perpetuation at the next election. Consequently nearly everything which is derived from government adopts the same stance regardless of the benefits or otherwise.

Yes, I see; but I also think (regarding social science in particular) that the job of the university is to question dominant discourses in our society. It is a major part of our job and vital (in my view) for a healthy democracy. The problem is criticizing these practices (of capitalism) is obviously not profitable economically even if it is (as I think it is) of enormous social value.

[Marxist Nutter]

Mrs Thatcher is a British Saint.

She inherited the mess caused by the Labour Party. One of her policies; as stated above, was to tackle the power of the trade unions.

As the Labour Party was created by trade unions it is obvious of their influence, however, thoughout premierships of Labour Prime Ministers, the Trade Unions grappled power which they exercised over those whom they were meant to protect and represent.

Mrs Thatcher saw this abuse and tackled it.

Mrs Thatcher also implemented her privatisation policies which were to remove businesses from the dead hand of the state to the efficient and profit-making private sector. Her reasoning was competitiveness, economic development, higher pay for workers and better quality of goods and services.

Out of interest is this from out of a book or from your personal experience of living under Thatcher? Are you old enough to remember the repossessions, the brixton riots, and what was before privatization?

[LA]

Out of interest is this from out of a book or from your personal experience of living under Thatcher? Are you old enough to remember the repossessions, the brixton riots, and what was before privatization?

Everything I know about Thatcher is from books and the experiences of others who were alive during that period.

[Marxist Nutter]

Everything I know about Thatcher is from books and the experiences of others who were alive during that period.

Well here's one more you can add. I remember being a scared little child when the bailiffs came to my door to collect on the debts of my parent's small business after Maggie's bust nearly forced me to live on the streets, as there was no protection for small children, in those days.

Just be careful about this as it was not a long ago and many people you will debate with will remember the horror of Thatcher's Britain

[LA]

Well here's one more you can add. I remember being a scared little child when the bailiffs came to my door to collect on the debts of my parent's small business after Maggie's bust nearly forced me to live on the streets, as there was no protection for small children, in those days.

Just be careful about this as it was not a long ago and many people you will debate with will remember the horror of Thatcher's Britain

and many people I will debate with will by like my family, will remember how fantastic Thatcher's Britain was.

[Marxist Nutter]

and many people I will debate with will by like my family, will remember how fantastic Thatcher's Britain was.

True, she divides opinon all right, I give her that much!

[Opinionated]

and many people I will debate with will by like my family, will remember how fantastic Thatcher's Britain was.

Riddle me this LA, is a PM great because their policies improve the lives of the majority (which should in theory be who voted for them) or because they improve the lives of a minority you happen to be a part of? I wonder can you be specific as to which of her policies improved the lives of those like your family's and from what to what and we will see if those same policies were detremental to more than they benefited. It seems to me many of those who admire her (particularly as age-wise you cannot have been aware at the time), admire her charisma and oratory (through rose-tinted glasses IMO) and have not actually considered the everyday effects her premiership had on people's lives (even her fervent supporters, as just one example, were disgusted by her failure to address problems with the treatment of wounded soldiers returning from the Falklands) and not just miners or traditional Labour supporters either, but pensioners, children, the sick etc.

[LA]

Riddle me this LA, is a PM great because their policies improve the lives of the majority (which should in theory be who voted for them) or because they improve the lives of a minority you happen to be a part of?

I wonder can you be specific as to which of her policies improved the lives of those like your family's and from what to what and we will see if those same policies were detremental to more than they benefited. It seems to me many of those who admire her (particularly as age-wise you cannot have been aware at the time), admire her charisma and oratory (through rose-tinted glasses IMO) and have not actually considered the everyday effects her premiership had on people's lives (even her fervent supporters, as just one example, were disgusted by her failure to address problems with the treatment of wounded soldiers returning from the Falklands) and not just miners or traditional Labour supporters either, but pensioners, children, the sick etc.

Firstly, A lot of Thatchers policies were designed to help the poor.

* She gave tenants the right to buy their council houses
* She reduced the powers of the trades unions
* She encouraged business investment which created jobs
* Under her reign the proportion of tax revenues that came from the rich minority increased dramatically, relieving the poor of the tax burden.

It is worth noting that my parents were not directly helped or hindered by Thatcher. However, it was under Thatcher my parents got "richer". By richer, I do not mean my family is rich, but rather we own our own houses, cars etc.

I am not saying Thatcher is perfect, I am however saying Thatchers attitude was perfect.

By attitude I do not refer to policies or anything of the sort. Rather I refer to her ability to dominate foriegn nations, her courage, her charimsa and other personal traits.

[Midas]

It is worth noting that my parents were not directly helped or hindered by Thatcher. However, it was under Thatcher my parents got "richer". By richer, I do not mean my family is rich, but rather we own our own houses, cars etc.

As someone who lived right through the Thatcher era, it benefited my parents and me, in particular my business, immensely. I can't recall any point in time subsequent to her handing over to John Major when the overall economic conditions in the UK have been better. I know as well as anyone that she made so big mistakes and her reading of the social unrest some of her policies were creating (unjustly in some ways I believe) was naive, however on the whole I firmly agree that she put the UK on a far better footing than it had been for a long time before, or has been subsequently.

I am not saying Thatcher is perfect, I am however saying Thatchers attitude was perfect.

By attitude I do not refer to policies or anything of the sort. Rather I refer to her ability to dominate foriegn nations, her courage, her charimsa and other personal traits.

Be careful here LA, otherwise you'll find yourself qualifying everything you say down to nothing

[Grimble Gromble]

Hi Hammann,

I have to tell you that Margaret Thatcher had massive respect of other nations and certainly put UK back on the economic map.

She showed resolute stealy leadership during the Falklands war, which of course instills pride. Furthermore I remember one report when she was meeting with President Bush to discuss the first Gulf war, (when Iraq invaded Kuwait) She seemed to be the one pulling all the strings, not Bush

Here's the but....

You would have read below about some of what she did to the working classes and the Unions. Also, you will have read about her idea of shrinking our manufacturing base and pushing the UK into a service industry run economy.

Now to be topical.....

According to the stats from the IMF, the UK are going to be longer and deeper in recession than most other leading economies. One of the overiding reasons to this is that we do not have a substantial manufacturing base to pull us out of it compared to other nations.

Gordon Brown and Tony Blair took power in 1997, around about the time China was beggining to be recognised as the place to buy from. So our boat had already sailed on trying to recoup our once massive manufacturing industry.

[LA]

I think it is also worth noting, the Boom period we experienced under the Labour Government was actually thanks to the Conservative Governments before them.

As I am sure some of you understand, economic changes take years to take effect. As such the policies Thatcher brought in, took many years to take effect, as such we experienced an unprecedented boom period.

[Opinionated]

I think it is also worth noting, the Boom period we experienced under the Labour Government was actually thanks to the Conservative Governments before them.

As I am sure some of you understand, economic changes take years to take effect. As such the policies Thatcher brought in, took many years to take effect, as such we experienced an unprecedented boom period.

So I can blame her for the current mess, thanks!

[LA]

So I can blame her for the current mess, thanks!

The current mess is Labour's fault. They came in power 12 years ago, and mismanaged the economy.

You really need to study economics.

[Marxist Nutter]

I think it is also worth noting, the Boom period we experienced under the Labour Government was actually thanks to the Conservative Governments before them.

So the tory boom of the 1980s was thanks to Harold Wilson???

My word you have some strange ideas, LA

Ever heard of the 'economic cycle'?

[LA]

So the tory boom of the 1980s was thanks to Harold Wilson???

My word you have some strange ideas, LA

Ever heard of the 'economic cycle'?

Not necessarily.

There are of course other factors such as did they actually do anything to get out of the recession, did their idea work, or did the cycle as you mention come through.

MT clearly is partially responsible for the huge boom period under Labour when they got into power because it lasted a few years longer than the economic cycle stated. (obviously the prediction made by the cycle is an average of past years and when a recession hit).

[JAMC]

The current mess is Labour's fault. They came in power 12 years ago, and mismanaged the economy.

You really need to study economics.

When people fervently point out that "communism has failed everywhere it's been tried", generally speaking they don't blame the implementors or caretakers (the Castros and Titos of the world) - they blame either the ideology itself or the originators of the ideology (Marx/Engels).

Same is happening here. Yes, Labour were a different political party than the originators of the ideological creed (Thatcher et al), but they certainly believed it and implemented it with the enthusiasm that Castro implemented Marx.

You could argue that Labour are essentially incompetent (who would disagree with that? ) - but picture this....

A man dreams up a way of diving to the bottom of the sea by building a submarine. He writes down how this would be done, and later a second man comes along and thinks "wow, look at this, we can dive to the bottom of the sea!!". The second man is a bit slapdash in his approach, and when he takes the submarine out for it's maiden voyage, he drowns. Who is more at fault? The man who cut a few corners but basically followed the design? Or the man who originally suggested making a submarine out of cardboard?

[LA]

When people fervently point out that "communism has failed everywhere it's been tried", generally speaking they don't blame the implementors or caretakers (the Castros and Titos of the world) - they blame either the ideology itself or the originators of the ideology (Marx/Engels).

Same is happening here. Yes, Labour were a different political party than the originators of the ideological creed (Thatcher et al), but they certainly believed it and implemented it with the enthusiasm that Castro implemented Marx.

You could argue that Labour are essentially incompetent (who would disagree with that? ) - but picture this....

A man dreams up a way of diving to the bottom of the sea by building a submarine. He writes down how this would be done, and later a second man comes along and thinks "wow, look at this, we can dive to the bottom of the sea!!". The second man is a bit slapdash in his approach, and when he takes the submarine out for it's maiden voyage, he drowns. Who is more at fault? The man who cut a few corners but basically followed the design? Or the man who originally suggested making a submarine out of cardboard?

In your example, it is the man who built the submarine. However, I am sure some socialist would argue that the first man shouldnt have tempted him.

But this is different, you aren't building a submarine and risking your life, you are controlling a country and risking the well being of millions of people.

Labour failed.

[Opinionated]

In your example, it is the man who built the submarine. However, I am sure some socialist would argue that the first man shouldnt have tempted him.

I think perhaps you missed the significance that the original plan for the submerine was out of cardboard, hence even without the second man deviating from the plan it was doomed to failure! Can you blame either person for wanting to see the ocean bed?

But this is different, you aren't building a submarine and risking your life, you are controlling a country and risking the well being of millions of people.

Labour failed.

Or capitalism inevitably floundered under their watch. We are all quick to judge and as the buck stops with him Brown is responsible and should go, but I am not hearing any retrospective solutions that would have prevented the mess in the first place - and any suggestion of tight banking regulation etc, most definately would never have been implimented by a Conservative government. If we are going to judge Brown it should be on how he handles re stabilising the economy and how long it takes etc., not pointless arguments about he should have seen it coming when he was chancellor, no shadow chancellor did either.

[Marxist Nutter]

I think perhaps you missed the significance that the original plan for the submerine was out of cardboard, hence even without the second man deviating from the plan it was doomed to failure! Can you blame either person for wanting to see the ocean bed?
Or capitalism inevitably floundered under their watch. We are all quick to judge and as the buck stops with him Brown is responsible and should go, but I am not hearing any retrospective solutions that would have prevented the mess in the first place - and any suggestion of tight banking regulation etc, most definately would never have been implimented by a Conservative government. If we are going to judge Brown it should be on how he handles re stabilising the economy and how long it takes etc., not pointless arguments about he should have seen it coming when he was chancellor, no shadow chancellor did either.

To be fair to the Lib Dems, i think Vince Cable did warn about this crisis quite early on.

The Conservatives, of course, were clueless as always.

[LA]

Clueless...
The Conservatives brought up the issue that we were spending to much and borrowing too much years ago.

[JAMC]

In your example, it is the man who built the submarine. However, I am sure some socialist would argue that the first man shouldnt have tempted him.

But this is different, you aren't building a submarine and risking your life, you are controlling a country and risking the well being of millions of people.

Labour failed.

Congrats. With this post you have degraded yourself to the level of a partisan hack.

[JAMC]

Clueless...
The Conservatives brought up the issue that we were spending to much and borrowing too much years ago.

All they would have done was cut taxes and reduced spending. The net result of this would have been to inflate the bubble even further, and on the flip side we'd have less in the war chest to bail out the essential industries when the house of cards inevitably fell over.

[LA]

Firstly, what you have just said is speculation.
Secondly, Like I said, the Conservative Party had warned against this ages ago.
That fact does not change just because you speculate about their policy.

[JAMC]

Firstly, what you have just said is speculation.

...based on a) past behaviour and b) long-held ideological viewpoints. It's not 'groundless'.

Secondly, Like I said, the Conservative Party had warned against this ages ago. That fact does not change just because you speculate about their policy.

Anyone with enough intellect to dress themselves unaided can grasp the principles of boom and bust. In my book you don't get a gold star for being able to point out the blindingly obvious.

[KeiranMac]

For what its worth, Thatcher, in my view, like many other post-war PMs, was a terrible influence on society.

Thatcher did some good things for the economy, e.g. curbing the power of the unions. To be honest that was a simple reaction to the times, as Britain had come through the winter of discontent and public feeling against the unions was strong. Nevertheless, it needed to be done and Thatcher was the one that did it.

But Thatcher didn't do anything good for society, which of course, she didn't even believe in. She thought having a 'natural' level of unemployment was the best way to scare people off benefits, and that we shouldn't worry about that group of people who were unemployed - even allowing unemployment to reach shocking rates.

She also put us in a very very bad position to handle any kind of economic crisis. She assumed that services was always going to be the only place worth having an industry and moved to rid us of our 'structurally' declining manufacturing industry. Of course, we're now ruing the fact that we don't have a more mixed economy, and will probably pay for our style of service-reliant industry more than our European counterparts. We had so much of our profitability and economic drive from our services and financial sector that we are the most vulnerable to this kind of economic relapse. See the recent IMF reports and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The worst thing Thatcher did was to force us ever more into a monetarist economy, and it is her legacy here which makes our society that much closer to America's than any other European counterpart. We might in some periods gain economically from this, but we are and will pay psychologically and sociologically for many years to come.

The only other advanced european nation that is as depressed as us Brits is France. So we're on a par with them. The French are in this state for their own peculiar reasons, but our reasons are manifest.

Thatcher's biggest flaw, like most modern politicians, was short-termism. In general, she went about accruing short term economic gain to win elections. But in so doing, she did more lasting harm than most.