Thatcher On Job Creation

[council dweller]

Can you put a quote or source to that statement or figure?

.

You are right not everyone wants to invent and create and luckily there are normaly enough who do that "workers" are required to help them to service the market's requirements.

But... with respect I still don't know what your point is. Should Thatcher have created an economic environment that was difficult for new business and just got everyone to "hew wood"? How would that help?

.

I'm not of course arguing that she was 100% sucessful in these aspirations or that there might not have been downside consequences I just wondered what the alternative is?

.

ST

As I said; perhaps 20%. Thatcher certainly never gave the impression that she was talking about a tiny percentage.

The point is that the 'enough who do' are actually NOT enough! She over-estimated the British population.

Thatcher should have made it easier to created new businesses but what she did was to try destroy traditional industries, thinking that the vacuum created would be filled by some wonderful Dragons Den type culture.

The alternative? A mixed economy....and yes, with 'some' workers working for the state and some workers working in the traditional industries she tried to destroy. Human beings ain't perfect and neither are the solutions to their problems.

[Flat Bear]

I understand what you're saying but she believed that a sizeable entrepreneurial culture would develop and that this would perhaps make up 20% of the population. This elite would then form the powerhouse of the economy and provide employment/exports. The reality is that 99.9% of British people are really only fit to draw water and hew wood (myself included!) During the Victorian period, how many Wedgewoods were there? How many Brunels?

Sorry if I misunderstand your points but concentrating on your last few words

During the Victorian period, how many Wedgewoods were there? How many Brunels?

you have a great point.

As you say the Victorian period was a fantastic and unsurpassed period of entreprenial activity in the UK and encompassed all areas of live. We can only look back in awe at the construction and development of the London underground and sewage systems which are still in use today to the many failed attempts at producing a cream to prevent wrinkles. There was so much drive and energy from so many people.

To answer your question, 100s and 100s of 1000s, in fact the whole population seems to have been involved in the new industrial age.

But what did they do that was so right?

Sending children up chimneys or using them openly for prostitution wasnt the answer. Did the existance of debtors prison help moral hazzard? it didnt seem to stiffle business did it.

If only we could work out why they were so successful and had such great attitudes to business we could repeat it and hey presto.

So why are only .01% of the current population able to create anything when 120 years ago at least 20% were more than capable?

This really is an important question and I really would like to know.

[KingBingo]

but what she did was to try destroy traditional industries, .

Do you actually believe that. Really?

Its an absurd statement. She didn't use government money to prop up industries that had been deserted by customers, but why would you. Its customers that decide which businesses survive, not government.

A case can be argued for the Banks, but beyond that your on very shaky ground.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/busines...k-200812021434/

[Lone_Twin]

As I said; perhaps 20%. Thatcher certainly never gave the impression that she was talking about a tiny percentage.

The point is that the 'enough who do' are actually NOT enough! She over-estimated the British population.

Thatcher should have made it easier to created new businesses but what she did was to try destroy traditional industries, thinking that the vacuum created would be filled by some wonderful Dragons Den type culture.

The alternative? A mixed economy....and yes, with 'some' workers working for the state and some workers working in the traditional industries she tried to destroy. Human beings ain't perfect and neither are the solutions to their problems.

Yes you said she thought perhaps 20%, where did you pull this figure from? It's just made up.

.

What specific laws did she change or policies did she persue which destroyed existing industries?

Can you back up the claim that she destroyed them in order to create an economic vacuum?

.

What traditional industries would you like brought back? Should we make steel or build ships more expensively than other parts of the world. Who should we sell them too that would not rather buy them more cheaply elsewhere?

I don't know why you think the government can make goods and services better and more cheaply than anyone else, if the UK was a great place for performing these "traditional industries" why is no one doing it?

.

How traditional do you want? before the entrepreneurs of the latter part of the industrial revolution these industries didnt exist. I don't see anyone clamouring for the right to go and plough fields with oxen or pick stones.

.

ST

[Agentimmo]

Sorry if I misunderstand your points but concentrating on your last few words

During the Victorian period, how many Wedgewoods were there? How many Brunels?

you have a great point.

As you say the Victorian period was a fantastic and unsurpassed period of entreprenial activity in the UK and encompassed all areas of live. We can only look back in awe at the construction and development of the London underground and sewage systems which are still in use today to the many failed attempts at producing a cream to prevent wrinkles. There was so much drive and energy from so many people.

To answer your question, 100s and 100s of 1000s, in fact the whole population seems to have been involved in the new industrial age.

But what did they do that was so right?

Sending children up chimneys or using them openly for prostitution wasnt the answer. Did the existance of debtors prison help moral hazzard? it didnt seem to stiffle business did it.

If only we could work out why they were so successful and had such great attitudes to business we could repeat it and hey presto.

So why are only .01% of the current population able to create anything when 120 years ago at least 20% were more than capable?

This really is an important question and I really would like to know.

Any industrialist who had a problem with disruptive workers fired them on the spot. If a strike took place, the Army were called upon to crush it. Industrial feudalism was the norm. Whole families worked for one liveable wage, much like in Africa today. Holidays? Hardly ever. And paid holidays...you are having a laff.

Don't get me wrong, the Industrial Revolution was great and it's thank to the great people at that time that we have prospered since. But don't let's get too glassy eyed and hark back for the good old days, which were pretty grim for 95% of the population.

I think your comments are spot on re. construction etc. We have forgotten that to progress, a country neess to invest and build its infrastructure. We have seen govts cut back on this since the 70s. The last great project ended with the Motorways. We should be traveling from Edinburgh to London in 3hrs by train. Every major city should have an undeground to be proud of. Schools should have playgrounds and gym facilities to keep kids active and healthy. We should have bike lanes everywhere - including national bike-ways, much like m-ways. Unfortunately, property speculation seems to have superseded all this

[Injin]

As we seem to be in the middle of a second winter of discontent, it's interesting to look back at some of these old clips.

Here Thatcher is asked if she hates slackers:

If only she acted on any of what she said!

[huw]

She had no idea about what kind of new jobs might be created other than pocket televisions and service jobs.....she probably believed that people left to their own devices we would turn into a nation of Alan Sugars. Instead we turned into nation of property speculators.

Not being a fan of central planning, she didn't need one.

[Injin]

Not being a fan of central planning, she didn't need one.

She was an enormous fan of central planning - the self responsibility talk was just that - a way of getting votes in while she and her buddies ripped everyone off.

Just another thief, with lies that you happen to like.

[huw]

As we're interested in houses on this site, I think it's wise to remember that Thatcher and her Con. govt had the biggest housing giveaway ever seen when they started selling off council houses to tenants for peanuts. Within 5 years, the tenants sitting in good stock had the equvalent of a Lotto win. Paying , in some cases , 5-10% of the market value of their property.

Non council house tenants and private homeowners, earning the same, where effectively shafted. No pay out for them , for having been thrifty, savers, prone to good housekeeping etc (all lovely soundbites spouted by Thatcher, but which were very hollow if you were in this group).

It might be argued that this policy was the start of the British public's love-in with property where the average Joe saw that you could get more money from bricks and mortar than you could make in a year working. Why, your parents and grand parents must have been mad....living from hand to mouth every month. Saving (hey, that's a dirty word....) up for years for a deposit on a house ? Now, in the 80s, property was given to those who hadn't saved or didn't earn enough to save or who were just downright feckless.....to the detriment of everyone else.

Of course, the giveaway had the desired effect of buying these voters. No way would these "working class" voters defect to Labour, as they were threatening to remove this law and take back some of the giveaway. Dame Shirley tried something more crude in Westminster council at the time, but was prosecuted. Thatcher got a gong.

Her biggest failing IMO. It was more than an electoral bribe (though it certainly was one); it was also an ideological act to reduce the size (and debt) of the state. Hence the refusal to allow councils to use sales receipts to build more housing stock ... they had to use the money to pay down debt.

All that aside, the fact that they were virtually given away was a disgrace.

[huw]

She was an enormous fan of central planning - the self responsibility talk was just that - a way of getting votes in while she and her buddies ripped everyone off.

Just another thief, with lies that you happen to like.

Nothing wrong with a woman whose lies you happen to like

[council dweller]

Not being a fan of central planning, she didn't need one.

That's right, she believed (sorry no link) that things would happen 'as if by magic.'

[Lone_Twin]

That's right, she believed (sorry no link) that things would happen 'as if by magic.'

Did the government set up the original "traditional industries" that you like?

What industries has the government created since?

What industries should the government create?

.

With respect I don't think you've thought about this very much, you haven't answered any of my questions.

.

ST

[dissident junk]

As we're interested in houses on this site, I think it's wise to remember that Thatcher and her Con. govt had the biggest housing giveaway ever seen when they started selling off council houses to tenants for peanuts. Within 5 years, the tenants sitting in good stock had the equvalent of a Lotto win. Paying , in some cases , 5-10% of the market value of their property.

Non council house tenants and private homeowners, earning the same, where effectively shafted. No pay out for them , for having been thrifty, savers, prone to good housekeeping etc (all lovely soundbites spouted by Thatcher, but which were very hollow if you were in this group).

It might be argued that this policy was the start of the British public's love-in with property where the average Joe saw that you could get more money from bricks and mortar than you could make in a year working. Why, your parents and grand parents must have been mad....living from hand to mouth every month. Saving (hey, that's a dirty word....) up for years for a deposit on a house ? Now, in the 80s, property was given to those who hadn't saved or didn't earn enough to save or who were just downright feckless.....to the detriment of everyone else.

Of course, the giveaway had the desired effect of buying these voters. No way would these "working class" voters defect to Labour, as they were threatening to remove this law and take back some of the giveaway. Dame Shirley tried something more crude in Westminster council at the time, but was prosecuted. Thatcher got a gong.

I don't know if I agree with this -- thought I accept it is the common perception of RTB.

We are talking about two million homes between 1980 and 1998 -- in many cases, and at the time of sale, the ex-LA status was and is always priced in. These houses were and are always significantly cheaper, regardless of the market, than comparably sized non-ex-LA houses in the area -- and offers given by the Thatcher government was to allow percentage offers of property that was undesirable to most owner occupiers anyway, plus many of these people had also paid years of rental to the council as that was a time before mass HB and when many council tenants worked.

People forget that prior to the 80s, many council tenants were proper working class -- ie. they worked.

Again, in the North, RTB was offered and taken up on 1950s council homes that were inadequately built and could not apply for normal building insurance. This meant that folk that had RTBed could not sell their homes onto people who needed mortgages as the bank could not get insurance on the asset. I know one estate where RTBers had to sell back to the council because of this at a personal loss.

Again, in the North, many RTBers still live in those very homes they RTBed back in the 80s. The side argument that RTB took homes out of the 'council pool' is a bit of a misnomer. If those RTBers hadn't bought their homes, many would still be living in them as council tenants.

The bonus of RTB, to my mind, was that it removed upkeep expenses for those properties from the local council. You RTB'ed your council house and all of a sudden, you were financially responsible for the boiler, the windows, the carpets, the plumbing, a new kitchen. In some cases, this situation for RTB occupiers has been a millstone -- it is not uncommon in mixed estates for the council to decide work needs doing and to charge RTBers ridiculous sums for council-agreed contracted work at over the odds tenders.

As regards, the decline of industry, well I can only talk about textiles as that is my family's experience. The big textile industry in the UK was on its last legs by the mid 70s. It just could not compete on price or quality or speed. That is why cheap labour was encouraged into the UK (recognise this scenerio?) in the form of immigration from the Subcontinent during the 70s in order to protect what little profit margins firms had. These tended to be Pakistani nationals who would work night shifts for low pay and 'hot bed' in cramped conditions to save on accomodation in return for citizenship.

Of course, this situation could not continue, so many mills finally closed in the early to mid 80s. The blame was laid at Thatcher's door for this, and we ended up with a situation where the industry to employ the immigrants we had encouraged to come here disappeared. This is largely the reason, to my mind, for the economic disaster and high levels of unemployment among certain communities in areas such as Bradford and Dewsbury -- a situation which allowed for severe disaffection to breed and finally, a few years ago, had an impact on the entire country.

I am no Thatcher fan, but the last ten years have forced me to rethink my attitude to her premiership, and I now see that she wasn't, in essence, doing anything dramatically different to what Healey and Callaghan had tried to do but failed.

[KingBingo]

That's right, she believed (sorry no link) that things would happen 'as if by magic.'

Not in the slightest.

She just did not think that if government did it the result would be better than private enterprise.

Btw, that was covered in the quote you did not read/understand as well.

[SMAC67]

Fair enough dosn't look like I'll be missing much.

.

Crashing Isles, Thanks very much for the transcript. Its an interesting interview.

As a child of the 80s I have huge amounts of ingrained predjudice against Thatcher which it is taking a while to shake free from but the more I see and read the closer I think she was to my natural way of thinking than are labour.

.

I wonder if this is a change from a more socialist outlook as a child to a more liberal world view as an adult that is common and that the events in my life have just happened to fit the pattern. or if I have been entirely shaped by the environment of my nearly 3 decades on earth.

.

ST

What she said and what she did were complete opposites, that was the problem. She hated small businesses as they offer competition and like all statists and power lovers she wanted only large monopolies. This is what she achieved and NuLabour are simply continuing the policies. The problem is, people who want power do so in order to gain more. They do not relinquish it, despite what they preach about small government. No government ever wants to be small.

Edited February 3, 2009 by SMAC67

[huw]

I don't know if I agree with this -- thought I accept it is the common perception of RTB.

We are talking about two million homes between 1980 and 1998 -- in many cases, and at the time of sale, the ex-LA status was and is always priced in.

This cannot be true, as the discount scaled with length of tenancy. Either recent tenants were being offered a terrible deal, or long-standing tenants were being offered a fantastic one.

I bought an ex-LA house in 1994, from the (ex) tenants. When I got the deeds I could see how much they'd paid. Now, I don't recall the year they bought but I do recall that they paid 30k, this for a house that cost me 75k in 1994, which was the bottom of the market in that area.

I think they (and many other ex-LA tenants) made out like bandits.

[KingBingo]

She hated small businesses as they offer competition and like all statists and power lovers she wanted only large monopolies.

I suspect I know the answer to this question already, but.........

Can you back up that baseless accusation?

[SMAC67]

awesome!!!!!!!

maggie rules.

you can tell she understood what she was talking about as well

brown is a retard in comparison

I cannot see any difference between them, they are both dogmatic, bullying, statists, who have no understanding of what consitutes real wealth. The ONLY reason the UK didn't implode under Maggie was the production of North Sea Oil. Without it, we would have been in real trouble.

The only reason the UK has not imploded under Brown is the continuing production of North Sea Oil, and latterly Gas. Without which we will find ourselves in deep trouble, without any pocket televisions!

Edited February 3, 2009 by SMAC67

[SMAC67]

I suspect I know the answer to this question already, but.........

Can you back up that baseless accusation?

My father ran a small business for many years. He believed Thatcher when she said she supported entrepreneurs, but the reality was somewhat different. Increased taxes, legislation, red tape, paperwork, year after year they would increase stangling the life out of any small enterprise. The Tories did everything in their power to prevent small business success.

[bogbrush]

Thatcher was imperfect, obviously, but what she believed in was choice; in the sense, if you wanted to succeed or fail she'd let you. She never wanted to destroy old industries, but she wasn't going to engineer their survival if the management and staff weren't inclined to do what was needed. The mines couldn't/wouldn't produce coal at the right price, so there you go etc.

I remember John Humphreys about 10 years ago telling a small group of people including myself of an funny interview he had with her. He had prepared for this interview on the grounds that she was a Christian and since he reckoned that meant "Love" he would ask her what the essence of Christianity was, she would reply "Gods love" and he would then nail her on the misery caused by the recession. All went well as he laid his trap and then he sprung the question "What is the essence of Gods offer to Man, Mrs Thatcher?", to switch she instantly replied "Choice, Mr Humphreys!".

He said he never again prepared his questions for her based on assumptions of her answers, because he was stuffed. He realised also what this meant to her; in her opinion God gave Man a choice whether to believe and follow teachings and go to Heaven, or not. She was into choices and consequences, Mrs T, and while I am a devout Atheist I'm with her all the way on that.

[bogbrush]

My father ran a small business for many years. He believed Thatcher when she said she supported entrepreneurs, but the reality was somewhat different. Increased taxes, legislation, red tape, paperwork, year after year they would increase stangling the life out of any small enterprise. The Tories did everything in their power to prevent small business success.

How old are you? Do you really remember what life was like through the 70's?

[Injin]

Thatcher was imperfect, obviously, but what she believed in was choice; in the sense, if you wanted to succeed or fail she'd let you. She never wanted to destroy old industries, but she wasn't going to engineer their survival if the management and staff weren't inclined to do what was needed. The mines couldn't/wouldn't produce coal at the right price, so there you go etc.

I remember John Humphreys about 10 years ago telling a small group of people including myself of an funny interview he had with her. He had prepared for this interview on the grounds that she was a Christian and since he reckoned that meant "Love" he would ask her what the essence of Christianity was, she would reply "Gods love" and he would then nail her on the misery caused by the recession. All went well as he laid his trap and then he sprung the question "What is the essence of Gods offer to Man, Mrs Thatcher?", to switch she instantly replied "Choice, Mr Humphreys!".

He said he never again prepared his questions for her based on assumptions of her answers, because he was stuffed. He realised also what this meant to her; in her opinion God gave Man a choice whether to believe and follow teachings and go to Heaven, or not. She was into choices and consequences, Mrs T, and while I am a devout Atheist I'm with her all the way on that.

She was into using violence to make you do things her way.

You could choose to do what she wanted or you could choose to get hit over the head and put in prison.

She was a vile, evil hypocrite, a thief and a mass murderer.

Seriously, stop listening to what they say and watch what they do.

[bogbrush]

That's right, she believed (sorry no link) that things would happen 'as if by magic.'

No, she believed it would happen "by market". If it doesn't that's our own fault, not Nannys.

[Injin]

No, she believed it would happen "by market". If it doesn't that's our own fault, not Nannys.

She knew it would happen by giving her mates preferential back handers and contracts, while annihilating anyone who didn't want to suck the central banksters dick, by force if needed.

[bogbrush]

She was into using violence to make you do things her way.

You could choose to do what she wanted or you could choose to get hit over the head and put in prison.

She was a vile, evil hypocrite, a thief and a mass murderer.

Seriously, stop listening to what they say and watch what they do.

I don't say she was a paragon, but I'm old enough to remember what it was like before her. I started my working life in Liverpool as she started he premiership. I know what the place was like under the old regime.

Be specific about the violence. If you mean the Miners, don't make me laugh - did you know anything about the culture in the NUM at the time? Do you have any actual personal experience of what it meant to contend with the organised labour movement in any of the great Socialist enclaves of the late 70's? It was gangsterism.

You must mean something else, but please say what.

And stop pinching my philosophy of listening to what they do, not what they say.