Margaret Thatcher dies of a stroke.

[Awol]

 

 

I am sure someone could actually work out what Thatcher cost/saved the country and therefore come out what the “state” funeral would be worth.

 

One figure for the record: The rebate she won from the EU has saved the UK £75 billion pounds, so far.

 

 

I'd be interested to see how much money has been lost over the years by destroying the manufacturing industry in this country. How much have we lost out on so far?

 

Manufacturing rose 7.5% under the Thatcher Government.

[blandy]

 Not according to the link Peter put up, though to be fair, the trend is long term and it's not just her.

[bickster]

Massive bell ends for Thatcher funeral

[Awol]

 Not according to the link Peter put up, though to be fair, the trend is long term and it's not just her.

Doesn't that relate to manufacturing jobs rather than manufacturing output?

 

link

 

The decline had started long before. Harold Wilson, the Labour prime minister, closed 251 coal mines. Lady Thatcher closed 154. Despite the claim Lady Thatcher abandoned “rust-bucket industries”, Britain’s manufacturing production rose 7.5pc during her premiership.

 

Interesting statistic about the coal mines too, but probably better to ignore that in case someone has an aneurysm.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Awol

[snowychap]

Manufacturing rose 7.5% under the Thatcher Government.

I'd be interested to see the detail behind Allister Heath's claim.

I'm not saying that it isn't correct but I'm rather skeptical about things which 'nail myths' suddenly seeming to appear out of fresh air some 22 years after the end of the period being spoken about.

 

p.s. I guess what may also matter are the relative figures, proportion of the economy that manufacturing was at the start and beginning of the period in question, what counts as 'manufacturing', whether turnover of an industry is the best measure of its output and so on.

Edited April 15, 2013 by snowychap

[bickster]

the fact that a nested quote function on this website highlights posts made by others when I was making a point in refereance or relation to those points does not mean I was quoting Peter or misquoting him, if it did then why did you even bother asking your original question?

I made a point and referenced the point made by wainy as I am sure you know. Again post on poster not sure called for.

It is perfectly possible not to do that, you really shouldn't quote posts that aren't relevant to the point you are making especially when the quoted post actually says something very similar in wording but very different in meaning.

Incidentally, who has claimed this is the death of Thatcherism that they are celebrating either on here or in the general media? Not seen one thing mentioned anywhere that claims such a thing? To claim that would clearly be stupid, given the current three main parties politics

Sorry if you thought my little jokes were POP I always remember you having a sense of humour

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Who would send their kids down a mine now?

 

The worlds moved on, but the problem is successive guvmints have utterly failed in supplying jobs for generations of unskilled workers and graduates leading to the current mess of 400 people applying to work as a barista when they could be making goods to sell and earn the country money, or further up the chain according to their talents/skills.

 

But no, parts of the country were decimated, underfunded and the UK become too dependent on The City.

[peterms]

 

Manufacturing rose 7.5% under the Thatcher Government.

I'd be interested to see the detail behind Allister Heath's claim.

I'm not saying that it isn't correct but I'm rather skeptical about things which 'nail myths' suddenly seeming to appear out of fresh air some 22 years after the end of the period being spoken about.

 

p.s. I guess what may also matter are the relative figures, proportion of the economy that manufacturing was at the start and beginning of the period in question, what counts as 'manufacturing', whether turnover of an industry is the best measure of its output and so on.

 

 

The figure appears in all sorts of places: John Redwood's blog, Daily Mail, Torygraph, Adam Smith Institute...why, it's almost as if it were somehow co-ordinated.

 

I suppose it's a measure of manufacturing output by value of product, because manufacturing as a proportion of GDP unarguably reduced during that period.  But of course you would expect the amount of manufacturing or anything else to grow if the economy is growing.

 

I doubt many people will mourn a move away from heavy, dirty, dangerous types of manufacturing towards something better.  The two biggest problems for me in the Thatcher governments' approach to manufacturing are these.

 

First, some industries were undermined, unsupported, and broken not because it made sense as an industrial strategy, but as a method of class war.  The overarching theme of the time was a move away from an approach to the economy which prioritised low unemployment, to one which prioritised low inflation.  Since this transferred wealth and power from poorer people to richer people, the resistance of the unions had to be overcome.  Industries were targetted at least in part as a political strategy, rather than for economic reasons.  And because of this, there was no real effort to replace those jobs with other jobs - the point was to drive up unemployment as a means of disciplining the workforce.  It wasn't that they thought a Keynesian approach to creating jobs wouldn't work, but that their aim was about making people feel so insecure that they feared unemployment and became more docile.  It's a long tradition.

 

Second, what replaced the industry lost wasn't something better.  It wasn't lots of Dolby labs, or software houses, or sustainable energy, or research, or sustainable farming, or better food production.  It was a house price bubble, easy private credit, and a deregulated finance sector staffed by mono-nostrilled spivs and chancers.  An economy based on buying and selling, not adding value.  And creating a generation who saw that as a good thing!  Christ, it's too sad for words.  Mr Ponzi, meet Del Boy.

 

The massive legacy of North Sea oil could have been used so much more sensible than this.  Norway invested it in a national fund, which has benefitted the country enormously.  Thatcher pissed it up against the wall (I speak figuratively) on a wrong-headed and obstinate experiment with wacky economic theories which she neither understood nor could critique.

[PauloBarnesi]

The thing with manufacturing/heavy industry was that many of them had been rotting for years; railways, mining, steel making, car manufacturing, ship building.

 

Just look at this State industry wasting millions. Or look at Tinsley yard.

 

And with North Sea Oil; Norway has a population significantly smaller population. Of course it could have been better spent, or should have been spent just in Scotland or on the Islands of Scotland. But I am pretty sure it wasn’t just on Thatcher’s watch; Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, etc, etc

[peterms]

Without knowing the details of the decision to open the Rothes pit, I'd say it was not obviously daft.  Sitting on one of the most productive coalfields, in an area with lots of people skilled and experienced in the jobs required, with a demand for the product stretching as far into the future as the eye could see...we're still using coal in our power stations, today.

 

Yes, it sounds like the operational planning went wrong.  Yes, Glenrothes is a pretty ugly and dismal place, like most places built at that time (see the family connections of people like Keith "Bovis" Joseph and all the contracts placed by public authorities with them and firms like them for part of the reason why).

 

Mistakes in large capital investments tend to be costly.  BP can tell you that.  I'm not sure you can draw a wider conclusion from the Rothes example.

[villaajax]

Massive bell ends for Thatcher funeral

 

Well you would expect the Tory party to turn up for it.

[PauloBarnesi]

Without knowing the details of the decision to open the Rothes pit, I'd say it was not obviously daft.  Sitting on one of the most productive coalfields, in an area with lots of people skilled and experienced in the jobs required, with a demand for the product stretching as far into the future as the eye could see...we're still using coal in our power stations, today.

 

Yes, it sounds like the operational planning went wrong.  Yes, Glenrothes is a pretty ugly and dismal place, like most places built at that time (see the family connections of people like Keith "Bovis" Joseph and all the contracts placed by public authorities with them and firms like them for part of the reason why).

 

Mistakes in large capital investments tend to be costly.  BP can tell you that.  I'm not sure you can draw a wider conclusion from the Rothes example.

 

They were told by local mining expert not to do it... Rothes was typical of the mistakes made across nationalised and non nationalised industries, so I think it was something to say in the air (both Labour and Tory). A mixture of short termism and also the fact that time and time again we failed to make the right investment.

 

To be honest we should have had wide spread mine closures of mines that were unprofitable onwards and concentrated on more profitable mines, then we might see a mining industry that still existed. The problem one can’t get around is that our labour/management problems were appalling, and it wasn’t just the government.

[peterms]

 

Without knowing the details of the decision to open the Rothes pit, I'd say it was not obviously daft.  Sitting on one of the most productive coalfields, in an area with lots of people skilled and experienced in the jobs required, with a demand for the product stretching as far into the future as the eye could see...we're still using coal in our power stations, today.

 

Yes, it sounds like the operational planning went wrong.  Yes, Glenrothes is a pretty ugly and dismal place, like most places built at that time (see the family connections of people like Keith "Bovis" Joseph and all the contracts placed by public authorities with them and firms like them for part of the reason why).

 

Mistakes in large capital investments tend to be costly.  BP can tell you that.  I'm not sure you can draw a wider conclusion from the Rothes example.

 

They were told by local mining expert not to do it... Rothes was typical of the mistakes made across nationalised and non nationalised industries, so I think it was something to say in the air (both Labour and Tory). A mixture of short termism and also the fact that time and time again we failed to make the right investment.

 

To be honest we should have had wide spread mine closures of mines that were unprofitable onwards and concentrated on more profitable mines, then we might see a mining industry that still existed. The problem one can’t get around is that our labour/management problems were appalling, and it wasn’t just the government.

 

 

It was really interesting finding out more about it.  I now know, for example, that between 1952 and 1954, 96 young people left school in Glenrothes, of whom only 5 found employment locally.  That's astonishing, by any measure.

 

The whole issue of relocating Glasgow/West coast people to Glenrothes is fascinating (I see the miner in the clip you linked has a west coast accent).  So at the same time as young people couldn't get work and had to move, they were planning Glenrothes as one of the Glasgow overspill towns.  This is rather like planning Folkestone as overspill for the Wirral.

 

The Parliamentary debate in 1955 mentions technical problems with the mine, but clearly the whole focus in on wider regional industrial and employment strategy, down to the level of the Minister quoting a need for 708 houses for incoming miners, but only 44 families moving in, with a total of 15 employable dependants; impossible now to think that level of micro-planning could take place at Ministerial level.

 

What jumped out at me was the allegation, denied, that local industrialists had been against new employment because it would give workers more choice of employment (and therefore bargaining power).  I'm reminded that in 1980, in Stoke, when the decline of the potbanks was starting to cause real concern, the Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire advised the government that more industry was not required in the area.  The same gambit, employed then, now, and always: keep the buggers fighting for work, and they'll accept lower rates.

[Xann]

It's the over the top rejoicing about the physical death of an old lady that's unsettling.  Especially coming from the same people that criticised the American reaction to Bin Laden's death.

 

Bin Laden was in bed when he was murdered in his underpants by a squad of US special forces.

 

If Thatch had died in similar circumstances I'm pretty sure she'd have got a bit more sympathy.

 

Also it's not the 'physical death' - it's the fact that the pricks in charge want to (expensively) parade her through town as some sort of hero, when in fact she was a piece of shit.

 

I wouldn't want to take an inflatable giraffe to a respectful cortege through Grantham.

[tonyh29]

Friend of mine is staying in London tonight .. the hotel have issued an " increased security measures"   letter which amongst things like not leaving his car unattended with the engine running and the hotel having the right to search any luggage they are asked to put in storage !!  it  also said he has to prove his ID with a passport or Driving license 

 

I never carry either of those items on me in the Uk so it would have been interesting

Edited April 16, 2013 by tonyh29

[bickster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdDZuue0LT4

[drat01]

So today there was a service attended by some her "friends" which went off with all seemingly happy chappies. So why the **** are we having this whole cowing charade tomorrow if not for it to be a political funeral party on behalf of the Tory (and don't forget UKIP eh Farage?) paid for by the tax payers of the UK - ironic point considering how so many tax dodgers fund the Tory party.

[Awol]

So today there was a service attended by some her "friends" which went off with all seemingly happy chappies. So why the **** are we having this whole cowing charade tomorrow if not for it to be a political funeral party on behalf of the Tory (and don't forget UKIP eh Farage?) paid for by the tax payers of the UK - ironic point considering how so many tax dodgers fund the Tory party.

We all know you'll be watching it really - with misty eyes and a big box tissues.

[drat01]

 

So today there was a service attended by some her "friends" which went off with all seemingly happy chappies. So why the **** are we having this whole cowing charade tomorrow if not for it to be a political funeral party on behalf of the Tory (and don't forget UKIP eh Farage?) paid for by the tax payers of the UK - ironic point considering how so many tax dodgers fund the Tory party.

We all know you'll be watching it really - with misty eyes and a big box tissues.

 

 

I will be doing something a lot more interesting - getting my hair cut.

 

at least some common sense is prevailing outside the Tory heartlands of the SE with many councils refusing to fly flags at half mast etc. No doubt there will be "outrage" from some at this, don't you know she was a frail old woman ...............

[dont_do_it_doug.]

Thatcher as good as created the living on benefits culture with her policies.

And we're all paying more than necessary for our utilities thanks to her too

Evil!

Burn her with fire!

Oh... Wait...