Baroness Thatcher has died.

Status
Not open for further replies.
oulton said:
Not sure if serious. Her selling us out made us reliant on foreign imports.
Click to expand...
I am serious and her economic principles are that we should focus on what we do best. If someone abroad can make steel cheaper, let them. The point being we focus our efforts on what we do well. This is the reason for our shift away from manufacturing to services. You do also realise the reason we had so much heavy industry was because we exported so much historically? Hence by definition someone else was relying on Foreign imports. This hold was broken by developing nations building their own industrial base, with many subsidies. If we had challenged them, it would have resulted in a race to the bottom. Do you really believe we can compete against developing nation labour prices? Even if we had (EDIT the only way would have been with trade restrictions), the end result would have been trapping these countries in poverty. That’s not really in line with Socialist principles. If you want a perfect example of this in action take a look at Farming. The CAP massively subsidises farmers, preventing third world countries from developing a strong profitable agricultural base, which is recognised as one of the key routes out of poverty.

The decline of heavy industry in this country was inevitable with the rise in industrialisation of other countries. This is a fundamental part of "Creative-destruction", a key element in growth. The problem was not that we ( I use we as every successive government has done so) allowed these industries to decline, the crime is that we did not invest in training, education and other forms of development to allow those impacted to recover and use their talents elsewhere. In my opinion we spend too much time arguing over the rights and wrong of the de-industrialisation of this country and not enough on the other side of the equation.

oulton said:
Thanks soley to the North Sea.
Click to expand...
Thats not 100% true, it is merely one factor. The gas we used may have been sourced from the UK but that does not equate to cheap prices. If we did not have a free market in domestic gas supply, it would be riddled with inefficiency and price fixing, in favour of the supplier.

EDIT: There are plenty of examples were a realtively cheap product is sold at a massive premium were there is an effective distribution monopoly in place. All monopolies tend towards this. I'd certainly be interested in an example of a Monopoly that sells a product at a competitive price compared to a free market (please exclude examples that sell the product with cross monopoly subsidy, as is the case with fuel in many developing nations). State control of the Energy market, as was the case before privatisation was the Mother of all monopolies.
 
Last edited:
Robbo said:
I didn't call him a name, and I wouldn't apologise if I did, considering what he said.
Click to expand...


Sorry ..I didn't know you never knew the meaning of the word derp but here you go

"Derp is an expression associated with stupidity"

Lets keep it nice like the mods say :D
 
peter_hutson said:
Very true and this is why I have mixed feelings about her. On defeating the Unions she should have adopted a strategy of targeted closures and investment in viable mines. That would have been the "Statesmanly" thing to have done.
Click to expand...

Which was the original plan. It was the NUM who took the attitude of 'You either close all them or none" not Thatcher. That attitude had worked for the NUM with previous governments and they thought it would work again. It was less 'United we stand, divided we fall' and more 'Divided we stand, unite we'll fall'.

I'm confident that had the NUM worked with, instead of against the government then there would have been far less pit closures.

peter_hutson said:
She knew the conservatives would never win over the miners at the ballot box, so she systematically destroyed them.
Click to expand...

Not sure what ballot box (Union or National) you are talking about but in both cases I think that's wrong. Every opinion poll in the country showed the public were 'against' the miners at the time, the idea that they were supported by the public is false. In terms of union ballots, it's widley accepted the reason Scargill didn't hold one was because he knew he'd lose (many of the successful mines at the time would have voted no as would many of the miners at affected mines themselves.)
 
Suarez7 said:
It's not stupid. It's an opinion many others share of her as well and because you don't like it, it's stupid?
Click to expand...

It's stupid, how he said it is stupid as well.

People on here can do better than this. Put your views forward without looking like a tool, it's not hard.
 
estebanrey said:
I'm confident that had the NUM worked with, instead of against the government then there would have been far less pit closures.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but I guess it's impossible to prove.



estebanrey said:
Not sure what ballot box (Union or National) you are talking about but in both cases I think that's wrong. Every opinion poll in the country showed the public were 'against' the miners at the time, the idea that they were supported by the public is false. In terms of union ballots, it's widley accepted the reason Scargill didn't hold one was because he knew he'd lose (many of the successful mines at the time would have voted no as would many of the miners at affected mines themselves.)
Click to expand...

I was not very clear. I was thinking more long term. Even if Thatcher had turned around the rump of the mining industry and saved the associated jobs, those miners would never have voted for the Conservatives in future general elections (say 10 years down the line). Hence from a purely political stand point she and more importantly her party had nothing to lose by decimating the industry.
 
oulton said:
Not sure if serious. Her selling us out made us reliant on foreign imports.
Click to expand...

If its less profitable to pay a British worker to dig up coal than it is to just buy it from abroad, you buy it from abroad, especially when the taxpayer is covering the costs (when a nationalised industry/company makes a loss its the taxpayer who foots the extra).


peter_hutson said:
I tend to agree, but I guess it's impossible to prove.
Click to expand...

Actually it isn't, the original plan was to only close the pits losing money, but because Scargill (who is now retired to a big house paid for by money skimmed from the NUM ofc) turned it into a war he knew couldn't be won it resulted in the closure of all the pits.
 
Last edited:
Robbo said:
It's stupid, how he said it is stupid as well.

People on here can do better than this. Put your views forward without looking like a tool, it's not hard.
Click to expand...

No he's expressing his hate for the woman without disguising it, people like speaking their mind instead of having to tip toe around people like you.
 
Suarez7 said:
No he's expressing his hate for the woman without disguising it, people like speaking their mind instead of having to tip toe around people like you.
Click to expand...

Rules of this thread say to be respectful. You can say what you like for all I care, just expect to be mocked for it as it makes you look simple and uneducated (even if you may not be).
 
Robbo said:
Rules of this thread say to be respectful. You can say what you like for all I care, just expect to be mocked for it as it makes you look simple and uneducated (even if you may not be).
Click to expand...

Who cares what people think of you? Especially randoms on a forum. Let the mods decide whether it should be deleted instead of quoting posts saying derp. It just escalates the situation, if you're so mature about it why not just ignore it?
 
Suarez7 said:
Who cares what people think of you? Especially randoms on a forum. Let the mods decide whether it should be deleted instead of quoting posts saying derp. It just escalates the situation, if you're so mature about it why not just ignore it?
Click to expand...

I was expressing how stupid I thought it was. I wasn't alone, either.
 
ubersonic said:
Actually it isn't.
Click to expand...

But many would argue that the original plan was a smokescreen for her true intentions. Once closures had been accepted in principle and potentially the miners split, she would have gone after the remaining mines. I don't agree with this, but it does hold some merit as an arguement, hence it can't be proven.
 
estebanrey said:
Not sure what ballot box (Union or National) you are talking about but in both cases I think that's wrong. Every opinion poll in the country showed the public were 'against' the miners at the time, the idea that they were supported by the public is false. In terms of union ballots, it's widley accepted the reason Scargill didn't hold one was because he knew he'd lose (many of the successful mines at the time would have voted no as would many of the miners at affected mines themselves.)
Click to expand...

Also, the waters had been tested 3 times previously to 1984, in which no majority was reached.

January 1982 55% against.

In October 1982 61% against

In March 1983 61% against
 
BuffetSlayer said:
Whilst I think the ideal of renationalising those industries is a nice one, can we justify it in today's climate?

Workers are already taxed to the hilt and a renationalisation would reduce real-life disposable income from the the ensuing tax hikes. Unfortunately, purely from a fiscal perspective we have far too much national debt to realistically consider renationalisation (IMO anyway). With deep cuts already, and more on the way it would be fiscal suicide (imagine the cost of all the departments, systems, procedures, law, rules and just about every element that would need changing! That is before you even consider tacking the cost of investment and regeneration).

That is not to say that privatisation has worked though. Part of my current job is on a power station and the money it wastes is horrific (£25,000 for a tiny two step scaffold for instance). I have also worked on the railways as a contractor and in my experiences I have seen woeful incompetence. For example, I had to go to a job on the Birmingham main line (under the M6) but it took network rail 3 attempts to get the closure in place as well as the necessary access equipment (3 nights). There were a group of probably 20 men just stood around waiting. Every one being paid for doing essentially nothing and then being sent home. I have had a few like that, and speaking to others it would seem that it is not an isolated incident. I also work on the roads occasionally too, and to be fair, they are one of the best run out of the three.

With regards to the level of support, I cant help feeling people want the perceived benefits of renationalisation, but many perhaps don't fully appreciate that renationalisation isn't a golden ticket (pun intended :p ) to a brilliant rail service. There has been a distinct lack of investment for far too long for it to be an easy route. I think it could work, but not in the current financial climate, and if the current/previous governments are anything to go by, I can't see that position changing any time soon. I fear a vote would boil down to a red top DM style fiasco with people voting for change just to spite the government when in reality, such changes would probably do more harm than good.

On a more cynical note, perhaps part of the reason is that the government and politicians in general are at a low ebb in popularity terms. So if they did renationalise the rail services they would then be in the public firing line when the hoped changes didn't come about, or they did but at massive cost to the tax payer. I suppose the more plates you have, the harder it is to spin them. Much easier, by far, to point the finger at a company when it goes wrong and then act like the embodiment of salvation to the vote casting masses ;) (well, if you don't bungle it at least! :rolleyes: )

Yes a pole on a wider forum would be interesting. Speak for yourself though - I am a James Bond esque image of manliness! Honest :p
Click to expand...
Indeed, but while it may cost in taxes - if done well it should reduce the cost of our energy & public transportation (which are two big expenses for the average paid workers in the UK), energy bills are one of those odd things - once you earn over a certain amount you are immune the damages caused by the rising cost of living.

My wages rise faster than inflation, people much lower down on the ladder don't have the luxury & it's not wise to further stagnate the spending power of the public (through the increasing costs of things they can't afford to do without).

It's quite telling when you look at the impact on the average worker in the UK in regards to the rising cost of food, energy, transport, fuel, housing/rent, fags & alcohol - for a high paid worker this doesn't impact on your ability to participate in your local economy (which drives real growth).

I've spent a number of years working in energy trading analytics's & it gives you a good feel for the amount of money wasted on bad energy risk related purchases (due to the fact you don't know how big your portfolio is going to be in 3 years - this (significant) cost get's passed onto customers.

For the rail industry we are already paying for it (as we cover the unprofitable bit (the tracks) which a few companies make money from the nice profitable lines.

The fact we have one of the worst rail networks in the EU is a national embarrassment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom