La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Anyway I found all this talk about her being great because she stood up to unions a bit silly. If they DID have to be dealt with, big deal that it was her. It would be someone else otherwise. The Labour party would have done it, if they could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Thomas Jefferson - I find it odd that you like Thatcher yet seem to think classical liberalism is the best system and like Chomsky's politics.I didn't say I liked Thatcher. I simply recognise that what she did at the time was necessary because unions were too powerful and were holding the country hostage. I think she went too far, however, because now power is completely in the hands of employers. I'm not a fan of unions and I consider them to be self-serving and myopic in their aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Anyway I found all this talk about her being great because she stood up to unions a bit silly. If they DID have to be dealt with, big deal that it was her. It would be someone else otherwise. The Labour party would have done it, if they could.Yeh right. Next you'll tell us the Nazi Party would have ended the Holocaust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 What I am getting at is that it isn't a personality or ideology issue. The Labour party, as you know, just can't face the unions because they get money and support from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 For me the problem with the 1970s was that major industries were becoming increasingly unproductive and rather than experiencing the creative destruction of bankruptcy and restructuring they were being nationalized. The oil shock and stagflation had bankrupted previously small independent companies with flexible workforces and these were being amalgamated into state owned companies and unionized. The state owned companies didn't make money, they simply fed off subsidies and had become the fiefs of hugely powerful union bosses. It was in the interests of workers of these state-owned companies to be militant as their pay came not from the customer but from the state. The result was the quality of British Leyland and the spanish practices the unions encouraged throughout industry. Maggie said enough and pulled the plug. She wasn't going to continually subsidize loss making. She's hated for the consequences of that. For me the greater evil was the establishment of such unproductive, statist, union dominated fiefs. It couldn't carry on. It didn't carry on. Stopping the bail-out gravy train took guts, and no doubt caused huge disruption, but it had to be done. The state learnt its lesson there and stopped statist micro-managing, but it has rather expanded into socialized welfare, with similar productivity destroying consequences. What Duncan-Smith is trying to achieve is a similar transformation and the do-gooders will no doubt blame him for the disruption he causes. It is tough medicine, but the state can't keep bailing people out, and giving those who receive state handouts more say than those who pay it. On the minimum wage I'm surprised good old Liberty Jefferson is so sold on it. Milton Freeman put it well - Minimum wages are an unholy alliance between do-gooders and the unions, they rarely achieve what they wish to achieve rather push up youth unemployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Anyway I found all this talk about her being great because she stood up to unions a bit silly. If they DID have to be dealt with, big deal that it was her. It would be someone else otherwise. The Labour party would have done it, if they could.Yeh right. Next you'll tell us the Nazi Party would have ended the Holocaust... I expect LDV is more right than you are. Why was a winter of discontent? Because Labour had stood up to the Unions over pay rises. You seem to imply that Labour would not stand up to the Unions. Thatcher gets the plaudits for actually doing it but she came into power at a time when the Govt could stand up to the Unions and see large numbers out of work as a result etc as the UK was just getting the revenues from North Sea oil. Accordingly the state could pay the dole to millions out of work. Prior to that the policy of the UK was to keep everbody in work as it could not afford the benefits bill otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Lost Login - the Unions came out of the Winter of Discontent far stronger than Labour - Labour attempted to enforce wage restraint of no more than 5%. Ford agreed to this, but after the strike had to accept an 17% rise. The lorry drivers demanded and got 20%, the grave diggers 14% etc etc. The spiral of union militantism, strikes, lost productivity, inflation and demanded pay rises was destroying the economy and the Labour party had totally failed to control it. They blinked during the Winter of Discontent and the result was pay madness. Thankfully neither the electorate, nor Maggie, were taken in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prism10 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Lost Login - the Unions came out of the Winter of Discontent far stronger than Labour - Labour attempted to enforce wage restraint of no more than 5%. Ford agreed to this, but after the strike had to accept an 17% rise. The lorry drivers demanded and got 20%, the grave diggers 14% etc etc. The spiral of union militantism, strikes, lost productivity, inflation and demanded pay rises was destroying the economy and the Labour party had totally failed to control it. They blinked during the Winter of Discontent and the result was pay madness. Thankfully neither the electorate, nor Maggie, were taken in. That is big figures but what was the rate of inflation at that time? About 15-20%. The workers needed to keep up with constant price rises! Thatcher took on the unions alright. Much of the legislation just made them more democratic with leadership elections, votes before strikes. There was an end to secondary picketing etc. With the contraction of manufacturing, cutting down of traditional industries did more to harm unions. But fancy that, we will sort those unions out, we shall get rid of manufacturing! The much vaunted free market of Friedman has not necessary bought us sustained economic growth. Neo liberalism has bought the western economies to its knees. Just remember those people who blame Labour for the banks going bust seem to ignore that financial institution's in the USA went bust under Bush at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Things you may have forgotten In the In/Out European Referendum - she was one of the most prominent campaigners with Harold Wilson and co to stay full members She wanted a single European Market, along the lines originally envisaged, and SHE signed the Single Market Agreement She opposed all Commonwealth member countries, who wanted stronger sanctions against South Africa and refused to join them stating that Mandela was a terrorist and thereby helped that apartheit regime to continue longer than it should have. She sanctioned and supported Clause 28 - which probably caused misery to young people who could not talk about their sexuality She set the scene for the start of the Falklands War by agreeing to withdraw the Navy Research ship from the area and allowing her ministers to openly talk about abandoning the Falklands She was a friend of Pinochet, and supported his regime while he was systematically 'disappearing' most of his opponents. Ditto with Galtieri until the war. She gave the Police and Army their biggest pay rise ever, just before the Miner's Strike and used the Police as a thuggish force to break the strike But most of all she divided society and set up the greed culture which almost did away with socialism and left the way open for capitalism to run amok and led eventually to the Banking crisis which we are all now affected by. The greed of the Bankers, the criminality of the Bankers, the freeing up of the markets came directly from her. The bit about the Police pay rise is factually incorrect, the Police were granted the pay rise under labour, Thatcher brought it forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 The workers needed to keep up with constant price rises! And some need double the constant price rises ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 'Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead' could reach number one following Margaret Thatcher's death Lady Thatcher’s death could propel The Wizard Of Oz track "Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead to the top of the charts. Those who saw her death as a cause for celebration have prompted a download surge for the track. Within 24 hours of the former Prime Minister’s death, the song had risen to number 9 in the iTunes best-sellers chart. It reached number 2 on the Amazon singles download chart. The Indie : http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead-could-reach-number-one-following-margaret-thatchers-death-8566042.html Apparently #9 in the charts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Anyone would think her 'crimes' are on the level of Hitler or Pol Pot (or Pinochet......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 On the minimum wage I'm surprised good old Liberty Jefferson is so sold on it. Milton Freeman put it well - Minimum wages are an unholy alliance between do-gooders and the unions, they rarely achieve what they wish to achieve rather push up youth unemployment. I have read a number of studies which indicate that the evidence points in the opposite direction -- i.e. that raising the minimum wage would have the effect of increasing consumer demand and therefore increasing the need for labour. Only the other day, the Washington Post published an article on the minimum wage which suggests the same thing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-minimum-wage/2013/04/05/d89b5fa8-9c8f-11e2-9a79-eb5280c81c63_story.html I don't know enough about economics to say, but I do know about about a little thing called MORAL PRINCIPLES. Abusing people is wrong. Paying them a low amount simply because you can get away with it is wrong. Pay is not always based on skill level but also on what the employer can get away with. People are being paid a lot less today in the Isle of Man for jobs they would have been paid much more for only a couple of years ago. Why? Not because people suddenly became less skilled, but because the number of people looking for work increased, job insecurity increased, and it became an "employer's market" in which they could set the amount they'd pay, and people are so fearful right now that they just accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jefferson Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 That is big figures but what was the rate of inflation at that time? About 15-20%. The workers needed to keep up with constant price rises!Raising workers' pay also causes prices to rise. It's a catch 22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 It's a catch 22. Are you *really* sure this is catch 22? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.