This week sees the 40th anniversary of Mrs Thatchers May 1979 election win.
So what do you think, has it meant wins across the board, been a poison chalice or a curate's egg?
That the opposition party essentially adopted most of it speaks volumes about the benefits.
It's definitely been a curate's egg, whatever that is.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 09, 2019, 09:35:12 PM
It's definitely been a curate's egg, whatever that is.
+1
Quote from: Monoriu on May 09, 2019, 07:56:21 PM
That the opposition party essentially adopted most of it speaks volumes about the benefits.
For whom?
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2019, 09:43:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 09, 2019, 07:56:21 PM
That the opposition party essentially adopted most of it speaks volumes about the benefits.
For whom?
For the country.
I am waiting for Tyr's elaborate answer. :)
Poison chalice leading to the financialization of the economy, the atomization of society, and the immiseration of the Britons.
There are some nice restaurants now.
It reminds me of the story of Esau; we have lost so much for our bowl of pottage.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 09, 2019, 09:43:42 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on May 09, 2019, 07:56:21 PM
That the opposition party essentially adopted most of it speaks volumes about the benefits.
For whom?
Tamas.
The UK was the 5th biggest economy until the referendum and despite what people with their heads still up the Empire's arse might think that doesn't come as default to any country.
What she seems to be blamed for, ie de-industrialisation and the decline of no-skill jobs has happened everywhere around the world, so thinking that without her things would be like the 60s just with today's standards of living is silly.
Now I don't know if she could had handled the disadvantaged regions better. But to me it seems quite clear she left a stronger Britain than what she took over.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 09, 2019, 09:36:44 PM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 09, 2019, 09:35:12 PM
It's definitely been a curate's egg, whatever that is.
+1
Odd, first google result says "A curate's egg is an idiom that is not well-known outside of Britain."
I'd wrongly assumed most Americans would have heard of it. :bowler:
For those not in the know:
A curate is an Anglican priest, and the egg is a golden egg--normally the most valuable item in an English village. Curates would hide their eggs where no one could find them, but if someone ever did find them then he would become the new priest and the curate would become the village dungmaker, living with the sows. Hence, a curate's egg is something transformative and valuable.
So an apt analogy for Thatcher's legacy. Obviously transformative but not beneficial for all involved.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 10, 2019, 07:58:08 AM
So an apt analogy for Thatcher's legacy. Obviously transformative but not beneficial for all involved.
How is the English North different from the fate of the US regions which relied on industry that stopped being feasible to maintain there? I don't know the details so I am not saying everything was handled well but once again, it always seemed to me like what Thatcher got blamed for was accepting global realities and tapping into them instead of tilting at them like if they were windmills.
Deregulation
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 10, 2019, 06:56:52 AM
For those not in the know:
A curate is an Anglican priest, and the egg is a golden egg--normally the most valuable item in an English village. Curates would hide their eggs where no one could find them, but if someone ever did find them then he would become the new priest and the curate would become the village dungmaker, living with the sows. Hence, a curate's egg is something transformative and valuable.
WTF?
Germany kept its manufacturing base somehow. It may be the case that the US and UK saw a similar pattern of deindustrialization/financialization/movement toward a service economy because they were governed by roughly the same ideology during the same time period.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2019, 08:20:24 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 10, 2019, 06:56:52 AM
For those not in the know:
A curate is an Anglican priest, and the egg is a golden egg--normally the most valuable item in an English village. Curates would hide their eggs where no one could find them, but if someone ever did find them then he would become the new priest and the curate would become the village dungmaker, living with the sows. Hence, a curate's egg is something transformative and valuable.
WTF?
:lol:
For the non-English:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curate%27s_egg
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 10, 2019, 08:26:46 AM
Germany kept its manufacturing base somehow. It may be the case that the US and UK saw a similar pattern of deindustrialization/financialization/movement toward a service economy because they were governed by roughly the same ideology during the same time period.
Or Germany is the exception due to its size, strengths, and location.
It is not just about the loss of manufacturing industries though; which I agree was fairly inevitable.
Thatcher also sold off large quantities of social housing; the remaining council housing becoming largely a ghetto for the poor. Meanwhile rents and house prices went on a 40-year rampage. I lived in comfortable 2-bedroom flats when I was a factory worker in London back in the 1970s and 80s; compare that to the situation now.
She also gutted local government; not only was this bad in itself but it put a stop to a system which saw local councillors become national politicians if they had the interest and aptitude. We see the consequences of this in the lacklustre politicians of today.
There were other things; turning state education into a training scheme for capitalist employers for example.......though that has been mainstream so it may be unfair to blame her for that.
Fair enough.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 10, 2019, 09:15:10 AM
I lived in comfortable 2-bedroom flats when I was a factory worker in London back in the 1970s and 80s; compare that to the situation now.
But that's also something that can be said of most major cities (that people want to live in :P). Close to my own personal experience, rent has also skyrocketed in SF and NYC.
Housing has gone crazy in the rest of the west too, hell i'll never be able to afford a house in Toronto. Gutting local government I agree was a stupid thing to do.
Housing price madness was several years late in Hungary, I think because they were also late in plummetting interest rates totally to the ground. Then they introduced "help" for families to pay for property and the steady rise turned into an explosion.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2019, 09:41:54 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 10, 2019, 09:15:10 AM
I lived in comfortable 2-bedroom flats when I was a factory worker in London back in the 1970s and 80s; compare that to the situation now.
But that's also something that can be said of most major cities (that people want to live in :P). Close to my own personal experience, rent has also skyrocketed in SF and NYC.
That is a good point.
It is a bit of a "what if" situation. After WW2 there was a dreadful housing shortage in the UK; despite the difficulties of the immediate post-war economy the state enabled local authorities to build large quantities of council housing https://blog.shelter.org.uk/2013/03/let-councils-build-and-borrow/ . If we had kept this up the UK would have 4m extra houses; but as you can see from the graph in the link government moved out of building houses during the Thatcher years........and has never returned.
On the flipside, I think social housing would need to be radically re-designed. At least in what I've seen inside and out in London and Manchester, council housing/former council housing feels a bit soulless and oppressive*. Not that it isn't better to have a home than not but many of the buildings seem they weren't designed with how people actually want to live vs. more how councils/architects aspired for people to want to live.
*and unsafe when you consider some of those ones that had scores of 'skywalks'
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2019, 10:10:34 AM
On the flipside, I think social housing would need to be radically re-designed. At least in what I've seen inside and out in London and Manchester, council housing/former council housing feels a bit soulless and oppressive*. Not that it isn't better to have a home than not but many of the buildings seem they weren't designed with how people actually want to live vs. more how councils/architects aspired for people to want to live.
*and unsafe when you consider some of those ones that had scores of 'skywalks'
Agreed. Design is important. One of the things the City of Vancouver is doing is requiring developers to incorporate social housing into their development plans so that the people living in the social housing units within the larger development will enjoy the same amenities as those who purchase the market rate units. The trade off is the developer needs to sell the market units at a higher price to make a profit, but over the last 10 years that has not been a problem.
Disclaimer: I don't know a lot about her or her policies.
That said, my impression is that while she may have done a lot of necessary and beneficial things for Britain's economy as a whole, she did harm British society. Her ideological standpoint did not allow for policy measures that would have helped to alleviate the harm done by the structural changes in industry so that this harm was worse than it could have been with a less ideological politician. She excarbated the harmful effects on the former industrial area by austerity, reducing local political power and no positive industrial policy that could have fostered replacement industries in the harmed areas.
She did however push for the Single European Market and a lot of liberalization (e.g. airline market) that we take for granted these days are founded in her market liberal policies. As I consider the common market one of the great achievements of European integration, that's a definitive plus for her in my book.
A personal note as a German: It is known that she was actively resisting German reunification, which of course taints her in my view, as I consider the peaceful German reunification one of the greatest success stories in international relations of the postwar period.
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2019, 10:10:34 AM
On the flipside, I think social housing would need to be radically re-designed. At least in what I've seen inside and out in London and Manchester, council housing/former council housing feels a bit soulless and oppressive*. Not that it isn't better to have a home than not but many of the buildings seem they weren't designed with how people actually want to live vs. more how councils/architects aspired for people to want to live.
*and unsafe when you consider some of those ones that had scores of 'skywalks'
It was built on the cheap and often shows that; but we are a far richer country now so theoretically should be able to produce 200k good quality council houses per annum.
There was also the problem with the "streets in the sky" movement that you refer to; any future push for increased housing has to allow for the fact that British people like houses rather than flats , in the past this has been treated as almost a moral failing.
For a fair assessment I think you have to consider what the alternatives were. 1980s Labour for instance wouldn't have been great for the material wellbeing of the UK, is my impression.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 09, 2019, 11:54:17 PM
Poison chalice leading to the financialization of the economy, the atomization of society, and the immiseration of the Britons.
how is that different than any other democracy, more to the left, or more to the right?
The US had Reagan, ok, it was, maybe, similar.
Canada had Trudeau and Mulroney for the same time, and only at the beginning of the 90s did fighting deficits became a priority.
Most of Europe underwent some pretty big changes, without going all Thatcher, and yet, they have economic situation very similar to the UK right now. Except for having a bunch of affiliated semi-autonomous fiscal paradise, maybe.
My thoughts on the bitch are known. I hope someone kicks over her tombstone today.
Though she does have a clear challenger now in the worst PM of modern history contest.
But then the whole current mess can ultimately be traced back to Thatcher so....
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 10, 2019, 12:01:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 10, 2019, 10:10:34 AM
On the flipside, I think social housing would need to be radically re-designed. At least in what I've seen inside and out in London and Manchester, council housing/former council housing feels a bit soulless and oppressive*. Not that it isn't better to have a home than not but many of the buildings seem they weren't designed with how people actually want to live vs. more how councils/architects aspired for people to want to live.
*and unsafe when you consider some of those ones that had scores of 'skywalks'
It was built on the cheap and often shows that; but we are a far richer country now so theoretically should be able to produce 200k good quality council houses per annum.
There was also the problem with the "streets in the sky" movement that you refer to; any future push for increased housing has to allow for the fact that British people like houses rather than flats , in the past this has been treated as almost a moral failing.
The trouble there is they went in for mega constructions that put cars first and completely lost touch with people actually having to live in them.
High rise tower blocks as built in the 60s don't actually have much different density to the low rise buildings they replaced due to the large grassy areas around the blocks.
What they should do instead is build medium rise as you see across much of Europe.
Indeed you do see a lot of privately built flats increasingly following this pattern. It is flats that we have a shortage of I'd say. Build more of those and get more single people moving out of shared houses and flats in converted houses, thus freeing those up for families.
Problem is most of the construction at the moment is led by shifty private companies with very dodgy leaseholds around them.
QuoteBut that's also something that can be said of most major cities (that people want to live in :P). Close to my own personal experience, rent has also skyrocketed in SF and NYC.
In the UK however its not just a London thing. You see it similarly, though not quite so pronounced, all across the country. In the UK you just generally don't find people in their 20s who can afford to live alone.
QuoteThe UK was the 5th biggest economy until the referendum and despite what people with their heads still up the Empire's arse might think that doesn't come as default to any country.
What she seems to be blamed for, ie de-industrialisation and the decline of no-skill jobs has happened everywhere around the world, so thinking that without her things would be like the 60s just with today's standards of living is silly.
Nobody with half an ounce of sense thinks that. We all know it has been a global problem too.
However, compare the UK to Germany for example. They have handled the shift away from traditional heavy industry in a far smarter way than Thatcher's ideologically driven "Kill it as quickly as possible" approach.
Germany has traditionally been more focused on higher value-added, technically advanced production, as opposed to commodified production characteristic of rust belt industries.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2019, 03:52:56 PM
Germany has traditionally been more focused on higher value-added, technically advanced production, as opposed to commodified production characteristic of rust belt industries.
The Ruhr area will disagree with you there.
Heavy industry is pretty much Germany's (traditional) defining thing. Remember the origins of the EU?
Quote from: Tamas on May 10, 2019, 09:05:02 AM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 10, 2019, 08:26:46 AM
Germany kept its manufacturing base somehow. It may be the case that the US and UK saw a similar pattern of deindustrialization/financialization/movement toward a service economy because they were governed by roughly the same ideology during the same time period.
Or Germany is the exception due to its size, strengths, and location.
Or Germany had the benefit of much of its industrial base being relatively new, having been rebuilt by the US via the Marshall Plan.
It also may not be a coincidence that Britain, where the industrial base is the oldest, seems to have had more problems relating to deindustrialization than the US (at least that's my perception, which may be incorrect).
Britain got more than twice as much help as West Germany from the Marshall Plan, so I doubt that this is a major factor in explaining the industrial structures of both countries 30-70 years after the fact.
Quote from: Zanza on May 12, 2019, 11:23:00 AM
Britain got more than twice as much help as West Germany from the Marshall Plan, so I doubt that this is a major factor in explaining the industrial structures of both countries 30-70 years after the fact.
Germany spent its Marshall Plan money on rebuilding its industry.
Britain wasted its Marshall Plan money trying to save the empire.
I'd also dismiss the fact (well, I assume it's a fact!) that Germany is bigger and has more natural resources than Empire-less GB.
Germany also has a much healthier relationship between labor and ownership than the UK (or the US).
As far as I know, Germany has much more state intervention and redistribution of wealth than Britain. That's a policy choice that can be partially attributed to Thatcherism and also Blair's Third Way compared to Germany's more statist Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. German conservatives, with some exceptions, are not radically market liberal and see a role for the state in the economy.
To give an example: Germany put so much money into Eastern Germany that it is now richer than the poorest parts of France or the UK, despite the decades of communism. Germany also put massive amounts of state subsidies into its own rust belt areas, even if cities in the Ruhr and Saar area are still depressed due to the end of the coal and steel industry there, but it helped to alleviate the effects of deindustrialisation there.