This is possibly one of the most complex topics on this forum. Undoubtedly, the Unions in the 70's were massively powerful and able to bring their industries to thier knees - governance of the country was not really in the hands of the elected politicians but in the gift of the Union Leaders. In that respect, the Unions needed to look at the greater good, not just to the benefit of their members, although some may argue that that would be beyond their remit. In the absence of this kind of pragmatic self-interested holistic view, with the Unions willing to come out for any and every reason, it was inevitable that someone would have to take them on. However, Thatcher delighted in taking them on and not only reducing their powers, but destroying them. Having removed the only real counterwieght, she was able to flog the family silver - the nationalised service industries - Gas, Electric, Water, Rail, selling off the council house stocks without replacement and deregulate the previously highly regulated financial services industry. In the short term, this generated a large glut of money for reducing taxes for their mates - witness the reduction of the top rate of tax from 85% to 40% for example - and produced a false sense of wealth for the working classes, who owned their homes for the first time. The appreciation of the prices of shares in the now-privatised utilities proved beyond doubt that they were sold off at way below the correct market price, and the Tories' mates made the most of this. Even the working classes appreciated the mirage profit from the rise in thier ex-council house's valuation. But now we are reaping the whirlwind. The prices of energy is spirilling, the big utilites companies making in excess of £1bn annually each DURING A RECESSION with the government unable to effect them; a lack of any affordable housing for starters for a number of reasons, from the artificially inflated house prices due to a lack of actual stock available, no rentable council housing because no new stock was built after the old was sold off, large deposits needed due to the collapse in the mortgage sector on the back of the stupid 125% mortgages and fraudulent gained (and arguably conspired by bank staff on commissions) mortgages; huge expansion of Welfare State on the back of having to pay inflated utilites and rent payments (see the first two above) - and now even working people have to claim 'benefits' to make ends meet but still stigmatised as 'Parasites' and 'Spongers' by the likes of the Daily Mail, who link the behaviour of a psychopath like Philpott with claiming benefits. Had Thatcher not sold off the Utilites, Council Housing and Rail, we could be looking at a much lower Welfare State bill because we would still control the prices of rent and utilites. The contracts of state employees could have been modernised but not destroyed in the manner they were, and we could have retained a sense of united community and society that the Tories always hated because it got in the way of making profits by looking after each other, and not gloried in the 'Greed is Good' message which is at the heart of may social ills today - the shortcuts that, for example, drug dealers take to their wealth, looking after no1 and to hell with everyone else...
Excellent analysis with one tiny flaw - Thatcher never privatised rail, and according to Simon Jenkins of the Times she never would have. She and her advisers realised what the consequences would be and vowed never to touch it. It was Major's big idea for the 1992 manifesto (though Hestletine and Clarke were reputedly not as keen) and he only won the election on an anti-Kinnock vote. You're spot on though how that, and other privatisations, have actually cost the taxpayer threefold the amount of the original cost of the nationalised organisation, and that's without taking into account additional costs such as the effects to the welfare bill with over 80k jobs lost in the rail industry since privatisation.
IMHO, she ran out of time in office. Had Major not ousted her, and had she won the election against Kinnock in '92, she'd have privatised Rail and probably the Post Office for good measure. They were just about the only things left to sell by then. The deregulation of finance that created the 80's boom has benn nothing but disasterous for us. PPP/PFI, the mechanism first introduced by the Tories in the mid-late 90's as a way to get something for nothing up front, but pay through your japs-eye thereafter and leave you with nothing at the end of the contract - has saddled us with a whole load of debts our kids will still be paying for - what will they have for their money? A load of 30 and 40 year old schools and hospitals desperately in need of investment and with no way of paying for it. Nu-Labour loved that **** too. Said they were investing in our future, but paid nothing for any of it beyond signing uneconomic contracts to pay and pay and pay. The trick said they weren't taking on any bricks and mortar committments, and looked like they were being prudent. Truth was that they were committing us to a credit card bill we would only be able to pay if the economic boom continued forever and the world economic outlook remained unvarying. And the financial deregulation laid us open for PPI - for which I recently read that Banks have already paid out over £13bn (Yes Billions). Remember the bitches screaming over being told they'd have to pay out £5bn (according to their first estimates on the mis-selling). Again, another one for the staff selling on commission... Not that I'm bitter, but our 'leaders' ought to be held to account for these and their other decisions...
Oh, and another thing. Why are the police doing the security for this? Surely it would be more fitting for her legacy if Murdoch, the mail, the Barclay brothers and all her other supporters paid Group 4 to do all the arrangements?
Interest is because she was a famous lady.No chance she would rise from the grave,but my fear is that people could make her turn in her grave,however she said "the lady not for turning".
I'll second this motion - with G4S in charge of security, we can be guaranteed that the security cordon will look like a trawler's net rather than a shield of steel
They'd just forget to hire anyone like they did for the olympics got to love the efficiency of all things private sector eh
...Good job no-one has the cheek to pay themselves big bonuses or make a profit out of running things so badly eh StJohn
http://news.sky.com/story/1078203/big-ben-to-be-silent-for-thatcher-funeral ****ing censorship in a police state - even Big Ben can't say "Ding, dong!"....
Didn't mean to suggest I disagreed with anything you said! I was just saying it's impossible to get a 'right answer' in History because past events are subject to so much bias. No disrespect intended! ... also if we're working in the domain of integers modulo 7, then 4+4=1... I hate Maths. I didn't mean to flaunt any qualifications if that's how it came across. I was just letting Dave know that I was at least partially knowledgeable on the subject despite my age. I'm not sure that an A-level in History is even something worth flaunting considering it's now compulsory to study up until the age of 18 anyway. Not sure why that wound you up so much in all honesty.
Open Invitation There is a party at the Cheese this Wednesday. There's a buffet and the pub is staying open all night. Anyone who'd like to come is welcome
