|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 28, 2023 22:26:36 GMT
Thatcher did OK, - Inflation was reduced, GDP growth was increased and even manufacturing output was increased. The downside was high unemployment.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 28, 2023 22:48:58 GMT
Thatcher did OK, - Inflation was reduced, GDP growth was increased and even manufacturing output was increased. The downside was high unemployment. Fine if you choose to ignore all the damage she did, IIRC growth struggled along reaching 1% when she left office. Inflation was lower under NL than in the Thatcher years. Manufacturing may have increased due to the production of Japanese cars. The downside also included the damage she did to the NHS and Education. You can't turn her pigs ear mess into anything even remotely like a silk purse. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 28, 2023 23:38:23 GMT
We were already up shit creek by then. Our empire had collapsed and so too the protected market that kept backward industry afloat. What would you do? She came into a world where tax payers were footing the bill of the losses of these places just to avoid bad unemployment figures.
The solution was to concentrate on the service sector. The City had lost a lot of money in the empire investments so it too was up shit creak and it was wondering what to do as well. Their solution was to use the remaining places we still controlled as offshore tax havens, and this pulled in mega amounts of tax avoiders in the US. So there you have it. The City's initiative was their own doing. The Square Mile is not part of Britain and it makes its own rules.
Actually there was a model to follow which strange as it may seem occurred and was executed in about the same time over in China. They were in a similar position, but they slashed all subsidy, let many state businesses go to the wall and then it was survival of the fittest with very few regulations. The government's attitude was if you can make money and pay tax then that's great, don't let us put you off. They went into consumer manufacturing. It was hard work for a long time but it has now made them rich. I guess we were too lazy to start all over again.
Thatcher inherited a country in a mess, a water shed that allowed her a free hand to take the country in any direction she chose. She decided to split the country into those who have and those who have not. She destroyed millions of jobs and turned her back on the unemployed. She never had any intention of governing for all of the people. Millions of skilled and professional unemployed people were ignored as she chose to buy and sell. She should have been looking for and investing in innovation and and in new enterprises, encouraging entrepreneurship and new businesses. Nationalised industries needed to be trimmed according to need, and maybe streamlined or part privatised to suit requirement. Apart from other damage done, 4 million unemployed was expensive in government costs and unacceptable in terms of social damage. To give those industries any more government money was just chucking good money after bad. They failed to modernise and keep up with technology. The Japanese were already early adopters of the industrial robots in the 80s. I really can't see how your plan would have worked. You really needed a shake-out of the crud and then to rebuild with new technology and new people with fresh ideas and inventions. I'm of the opinion she got some things right, but there are things i would have done differently perhaps. She had a fight with the unions which made the job of industrial reform from what was already highly tricky to impossible. The people are to blame in this as well. The Brits always fight each other. Can't the spastics work together in a crisis? We saw the answer to that again during covid. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 29, 2023 8:11:32 GMT
Thatcher did OK, - Inflation was reduced, GDP growth was increased and even manufacturing output was increased. The downside was high unemployment. Fine if you choose to ignore all the damage she did, IIRC growth struggled along reaching 1% when she left office. Inflation was lower under NL than in the Thatcher years. Manufacturing may have increased due to the production of Japanese cars. The downside also included the damage she did to the NHS and Education. You can't turn her pigs ear mess into anything even remotely like a silk purse. I should hope inflation was lower under NL - they inherited a booming economy off the Conservatives whereas Thatcher inherited a basket case from Labour (rather like the coalition in 2010). At least (unlike NL) she left office with UK manufacturing higher than she inherited it - NL simply built an economy reliant on the financial services, house prices and consumer spending... ...and didn't that work out well..  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 29, 2023 8:46:54 GMT
Thatcher inherited a country in a mess, a water shed that allowed her a free hand to take the country in any direction she chose. She decided to split the country into those who have and those who have not. She destroyed millions of jobs and turned her back on the unemployed. She never had any intention of governing for all of the people. Millions of skilled and professional unemployed people were ignored as she chose to buy and sell. She should have been looking for and investing in innovation and and in new enterprises, encouraging entrepreneurship and new businesses. Nationalised industries needed to be trimmed according to need, and maybe streamlined or part privatised to suit requirement. Apart from other damage done, 4 million unemployed was expensive in government costs and unacceptable in terms of social damage. To give those industries any more government money was just chucking good money after bad. They failed to modernise and keep up with technology. The Japanese were already early adopters of the industrial robots in the 80s. I really can't see how your plan would have worked. You really needed a shake-out of the crud and then to rebuild with new technology and new people with fresh ideas and inventions. I'm of the opinion she got some things right, but there are things i would have done differently perhaps. She had a fight with the unions which made the job of industrial reform from what was already highly tricky to impossible. The people are to blame in this as well. The Brits always fight each other. Can't the spastics work together in a crisis? We saw the answer to that again during covid. I basically agree and I covered much of what you've posted. There was a lack of investment in new technology and a lack of direction, she left the country in a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 29, 2023 9:04:26 GMT
Fine if you choose to ignore all the damage she did, IIRC growth struggled along reaching 1% when she left office. Inflation was lower under NL than in the Thatcher years. Manufacturing may have increased due to the production of Japanese cars. The downside also included the damage she did to the NHS and Education. You can't turn her pigs ear mess into anything even remotely like a silk purse. I should hope inflation was lower under NL - they inherited a booming economy off the Conservatives whereas Thatcher inherited a basket case from Labour (rather like the coalition in 2010). At least (unlike NL) she left office with UK manufacturing higher than she inherited it - NL simply built an economy reliant on the financial services, house prices and consumer spending... ...and didn't that work out well.. An improved economy in 1997, exposing just how dopey Thatcher was. It is of course dishonest to insinuate that the mess in 2010 was all NLs fault. That is just a continuation of the dishonest propaganda used by Tories at that time. Unemployment still higher than when Thatcher came to office in 1979. With both the NHS and State education in a mess. Thatcher inherited decades of a struggling economy, it wasn't just Labour's mess, and inflation had been more than halved under Labour. The first budget under Thatcher added around 6% to inflation. "manufacturing higher than she inherited it" maybe, if so what happened to the captains of industry and the rich and powerful in the country between 1951 and 1979? Without the INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN it would have continued to work far far better than under the idiot Thatcher  obviously  |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 29, 2023 11:14:27 GMT
To give those industries any more government money was just chucking good money after bad. They failed to modernise and keep up with technology. The Japanese were already early adopters of the industrial robots in the 80s. I really can't see how your plan would have worked. You really needed a shake-out of the crud and then to rebuild with new technology and new people with fresh ideas and inventions. I'm of the opinion she got some things right, but there are things i would have done differently perhaps. She had a fight with the unions which made the job of industrial reform from what was already highly tricky to impossible. The people are to blame in this as well. The Brits always fight each other. Can't the spastics work together in a crisis? We saw the answer to that again during covid. I basically agree and I covered much of what you've posted. There was a lack of investment in new technology and a lack of direction, she left the country in a mess. The City did well though. In some markets it was ahead of New York. If it were not for that we would have been truly up shit creek. I suppose ironically it was the EU that propped us up as well. The European car manufacturers wanted to have a plant in every country, so we got included. Actually our weakest point now is education. The population are extremely stupid in the UK. I've just come off a thread where the morons do not agree that wage rises causes inflation. Democracy with a stupidity on this level is dangerous. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 29, 2023 11:24:54 GMT
I should hope inflation was lower under NL - they inherited a booming economy off the Conservatives whereas Thatcher inherited a basket case from Labour (rather like the coalition in 2010). At least (unlike NL) she left office with UK manufacturing higher than she inherited it - NL simply built an economy reliant on the financial services, house prices and consumer spending... ...and didn't that work out well.. An improved economy in 1997, exposing just how dopey Thatcher was. It is of course dishonest to insinuate that the mess in 2010 was all NLs fault. That is just a continuation of the dishonest propaganda used by Tories at that time. Unemployment still higher than when Thatcher came to office in 1979. With both the NHS and State education in a mess. Thatcher inherited decades of a struggling economy, it wasn't just Labour's mess, and inflation had been more than halved under Labour. The first budget under Thatcher added around 6% to inflation. "manufacturing higher than she inherited it" maybe, if so what happened to the captains of industry and the rich and powerful in the country between 1951 and 1979? Without the INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN it would have continued to work far far better than under the idiot Thatcher obviously Funny how Labour always leave the country more worse than they inherited it - has a Labour Government ever left office with unemployment lower than they inherited? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 29, 2023 13:21:57 GMT
An improved economy in 1997, exposing just how dopey Thatcher was. It is of course dishonest to insinuate that the mess in 2010 was all NLs fault. That is just a continuation of the dishonest propaganda used by Tories at that time. Unemployment still higher than when Thatcher came to office in 1979. With both the NHS and State education in a mess. Thatcher inherited decades of a struggling economy, it wasn't just Labour's mess, and inflation had been more than halved under Labour. The first budget under Thatcher added around 6% to inflation. "manufacturing higher than she inherited it" maybe, if so what happened to the captains of industry and the rich and powerful in the country between 1951 and 1979? Without the INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN it would have continued to work far far better than under the idiot Thatcher obviously Funny how Labour always leave the country more worse than they inherited it - has a Labour Government ever left office with unemployment lower than they inherited? Obviously not true, just another piece of often repeated Tory dishonest propaganda. The mess in 2010 was left by the 'I F Meltdown' along the cost of stopping a recession caused by the meltdown turning into a depression. That's the truth of the matter. |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 29, 2023 13:25:36 GMT
Funny how Labour always leave the country more worse than they inherited it - has a Labour Government ever left office with unemployment lower than they inherited? Obviously not true, just another piece of often repeated Tory dishonest propaganda. The mess in 2010 was left by the 'I F Meltdown' along the cost of stopping a recession caused by the meltdown turning into a depression. That's the truth of the matter. pacifico is correct. I even gave you links and graphs on the fact every labour government in uk history bar one , has left unemployment higher than what they found it. That includes your darlings in new labour last time around.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 29, 2023 13:29:58 GMT
Every Labour government in history has left unemployment higher” – A Fact Check
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 29, 2023 15:51:31 GMT
Every Labour government in history has left unemployment higher” – A Fact Check
Thanks for proving my point that the problem was the 2008 international meltdown, not NL. I don't doubt that is a little beyond you're intellectual ability to understand, but I don't care. Thanks anyway |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jan 29, 2023 16:13:41 GMT
Every Labour government in history has left unemployment higher” – A Fact Check
Thanks for proving my point that the problem was the 2008 international meltdown, not NL. I don't doubt that is a little beyond you're intellectual ability to understand, but I don't care. Thanks anyway Did you read the article? Every single labour government bar one has left unemployment higher than what they found it. Are you saying every labour government that ever took power has a gordon brown crash to blame?
Thank christ we have you to keep us all on the straight and narrow see 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 29, 2023 16:20:26 GMT
I think it is difficult to compare parties due to factors outside our control
Oil Crisis, 197Os-mid 80s -Wages inflation strikes.
Mid 80s Growth through deregulation like US banks opening in the UK. Easy credit stimulates house sector.
Mid 90s getting closer to the EU encouraged foreign car manufacturers to open up manufacturing here. Britain crashes out of EU snake and traders make a fortune short-selling the £.
2000s - War on 'Terror' - costs and personal liberty restrictions.
Mid 2000s - Japanese carry trade end, traders impacted. MBS comes to light and massive hit to financial system and national debt doubles from this time due to bail-outs.
2010s - Austerity, Irish bail-out after 2012 Euro crisis,
2020s - COV-ID Lockdowns - millions lose jobs, Ukraine war causes massive fuel increases and govt provides a £6bn subsidy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 29, 2023 17:14:21 GMT
I think it is difficult to compare parties due to factors outside our control Oil Crisis, 197Os-mid 80s -Wages inflation strikes. Mid 80s Growth through deregulation like US banks opening in the UK. Easy credit stimulates house sector. Mid 90s getting closer to the EU encouraged foreign car manufacturers to open up manufacturing here. Britain crashes out of EU snake and traders make a fortune short-selling the £. 2000s - War on 'Terror' - costs and personal liberty restrictions. Mid 2000s - Japanese carry trade end, traders impacted. MBS comes to light and massive hit to financial system and national debt doubles from this time due to bail-outs. 2010s - Austerity, Irish bail-out after 2012 Euro crisis, 2020s - COV-ID Lockdowns - millions lose jobs, Ukraine war causes massive fuel increases and govt provides a £6bn subsidy. Heating oil prices rose by 300% some 5 or 6 months before Ukraine war. |
|
obviously 
