C*Nts Corner

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Oct. 22 2004,14:35)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Oct. 22 2004,14:28)]She bankrupted communities !

Or do you think that was just market forces in a global economy at force?

Yes Yes i do.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Well this has been amusing, I lived my formative years through Thatcherism being 9 when she came to power and was 20 when she left power. Also I have half my family who live in Newcastle and County Durham who were miners at the time.

And from my recollection, the country was in a bad way financially and that it was only a matter of time before we went into meltdown. The continous strikes being called, Electricity being shut down and having to deal with the blackouts, rubbish piling up on the street.All because the Unions had the previous Governments by the short and curlies. Unions are great ideas but when you get them trying to dictate the policies of a country that is wrong. Unions should be there to protect the workers not run countries.

Anyway with everything in life there is good and bad and Mrs T was no exception. Her policy of high interests rates in the beginning of her reign helped stem the inflation rate which was at 27% (basically inflation rate meant that this year you would £1 for a beer but next year you would pay £1.27) however this policy caused a lot of companies to make large job cuts. She also decided that the mining industry needed to be streamlined and made cost effective which meant mines were shutdown if they were not cost effective. This caused the famous miners' strike, however I do feel that the strike may have caused more mines to be shut either out of spite or the fact it proved imported coal was actually cheaper then home produced. Arthur Scargill is know in the North as the Yorkshire Ripper, which must be for some reason. i guess maybe the fact he was still being paid a wage whilst the poor miners were not, did not do him any favours especially with the women of the North who were forced to find work so the family could live some sort of life. But would the same left wingers who were up in arms about this strike be up in arms now about the pollution fossil fuels cause. May be Maggie really was a revolutionary Greenie.

Also the Poll Tax I feel had the right idea when you compare it to the old rates system. However the poll tax was implemented wrongly, I personally feel that it should have been more in line with Income Tax in that it be tiered on according how much you earn, rather than one fat fee for everyone. Why should a household of 4 adults pay the same tax has a neighbour who is a single parent or an old lady living on her own (see I am using traditional political stereotypes to back up my argument).

Anyway love her or loathe her, she did do some good for this country and laid down a lot policies that has helped the country get back on it's feet stronger than any time since WWII.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Oct. 22 2004,15:35)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Oct. 22 2004,14:28)]She bankrupted communities !

Or do you think that was just market forces in a global economy at force?

Maybe, maybe not.

The Thatcherite model was driven by the reduction of tax. She slashed the top rate of tax (from 58% to 43%, I think?), thereby prompting a consumer and housing-led boom in the South, where the big earners suddenly found themselves with a lot more dosh, and thus a lot more money to spend. That's why Harry Enfield's "Loadsamoney" character is such a classic 80's southern icon.

The quid (pardon the pun) pro quo was that there was no longer any government money to subsidise the traditional industries in the north.

That was Thatcher's choice. She chose a consumer-led, service industry boom in the south; and she chose to stop underwriting the industries we had in the north (ctr. France - where the government still subsidises the car industry... which is why they still have a car industry).

Where her model failed was that, when inflation rose dramatically, the consumer spending and property booms dried up. At a time when industry would have benefited from the value of sterling dropping through the floor (which it did at the same time) in terms of British exports... we had nothing to export.

Which was why the nation was so royally rodgered in the early 90's. And once the Tories had lost control of the economy... well, there's not much else to love about them, is there?

Tony Blair is, in so many ways, Thatcher's product...

Matt

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 22 2004,15:04)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Oct. 22 2004,15:35)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Oct. 22 2004,14:28)]She bankrupted communities !

Or do you think that was just market forces in a global economy at force?

Maybe, maybe not.

The Thatcherite model was driven by the reduction of tax.  She slashed the top rate of tax (from 58% to 43%, I think?), thereby prompting a consumer and housing-led boom in the South, where the big earners suddenly found themselves with a lot more dosh, and thus a lot more money to spend.  That's why Harry Enfield's "Loadsamoney" character is such a classic 80's southern icon.

The quid (pardon the pun) pro quo was that there was no longer any government money to subsidise the traditional industries in the north.

That was Thatcher's choice.  She chose a consumer-led, service industry boom in the south; and she chose to stop underwriting the industries we had in the north (ctr. France - where the government still subsidises the car industry... which is why they still have a car industry).

Where her model failed was that, when inflation rose dramatically, the consumer spending and property booms dried up.  At a time when industry would have benefited from the value of sterling dropping through the floor (which it did at the same time) in terms of British exports... we had nothing to export.

Which was why the nation was so royally rodgered in the early 90's.  And once the Tories had lost control of the economy... well, there's not much else to love about them, is there?

Tony Blair is, in so many ways, Thatcher's product...

Matt

I thought the Thatcherite model was less government spending, slash the deficit and keep inflation reigned in- that was the real killer. Less taxes came later, I think.

Inflation was kept in check by keeping money supply stable relative to money demand (price of money equals inflation), as opposed to government spending. This however was problematic- who knows what we could have achieved if it was workable?

Anyway- not just France but also USA used protectionist policies to fund their own industries and help employment. Maybe we could have done the same, but if the coal was due to run out anyway, what's the point? Is the level of employment really a false one if it's keeping someone in a job with no real end reward? Yes, jobs were lost in the Thatcher years, but I fail to see that it wouldn't have happened in the long run, and then who do people blame?

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Maybe she decided that policy because the subsidised industries where dinosaurs who would reluctantly accept change and was wasting thousands of tax payers money. I think it would have been better to have got rid of the chaf and force these industries to modernise and become competitive otherwise subsidies would be removed.

 

[overseas shrimper]

Once upon a time, this thread was fun.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Oct. 22 2004,16:16)]Is the level of employment really a false one if it's keeping someone in a job with no real end reward? Yes, jobs were lost in the Thatcher years, but I fail to see that it wouldn't have happened in the long run, and then who do people blame?

Is keeping someone in a job through subsidy in order to keep them off the unemployment tables any different from encouraging them all to go to university instead to learn basket-weaving?

After all, isn't that one reason why our unemployment tables are so low? We've probably got 1 million+ more students than we had in the 80s...

Matt

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ Oct. 22 2004,16:22)]Maybe she decided that policy because the subsidised industries where dinosaurs who would reluctantly accept change and was wasting thousands of tax payers money. I think it would have been better to have got rid of the chaf and force these industries to modernise and become competitive otherwise subsidies would be removed.

Yep, agree with that.

OS... cheer up, mate...

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Oct. 22 2004,15:27)]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Oct. 22 2004,16:16)]Is the level of employment really a false one if it's keeping someone in a job with no real end reward? Yes, jobs were lost in the Thatcher years, but I fail to see that it wouldn't have happened in the long run, and then who do people blame?

Is keeping someone in a job through subsidy in order to keep them off the unemployment tables any different from encouraging them all to go to university instead to learn basket-weaving?

After all, isn't that one reason why our unemployment tables are so low?  We've probably got 1 million+ more students than we had in the 80s...

Matt

an excellent point.

But then, are we not training up people, almost like old-style apprentices, to be leaders in our new service-oriented economy?

Maybe. Oh, and we don't really know how many people are unemployed- isn't it people able to work and claiming benefits? And isn't that seasonally adusted?

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ Oct. 22 2004,15:22)]Maybe she decided that policy because the subsidised industries where dinosaurs who would reluctantly accept change and was wasting thousands of tax payers money. I think it would have been better to have got rid of the chaf and force these industries to modernise and become competitive otherwise subsidies would be removed.

Absolutely. But then I think for some industries modernisation would have been too late.