Liz Truss Resigns as PM

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The **** has got the brass neck to pontificate about unelected officials?

 

[bluenova]

She had a real go at it, but I'd say she ended up doing a lot less damage than Thatcher.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

She had a real go at it, but I'd say she ended up doing a lot less damage than Thatcher.

I didn’t used to subscribe to this view on Thatcher, but I’ve come round to it. When you look at our public utilities and transport network it’s difficult to conclude otherwise.

 

[bluenova]

I didn’t used to subscribe to this view on Thatcher, but I’ve come round to it. When you look at our public utilities and transport network it’s difficult to conclude otherwise.

Her initial few years in power were arguably worse for the economy than Truss, but it's the absolute indifference to unemployment rates that really stands out*. After making a big show of caring that unemployment went above 1m under Labour, they were happy to see it hit 3-4 times that level, and only kept it at those figures by moving huge numbers onto sickness benefits.

Justifying high levels of unemployment as a good thing, because a ready supply of willing workers meant employers could pay low wages, was simply callous.

Whatever people think about New Labour, they managed to reset the narrative of employment and wages, so that even the recent Tory governments have been competing to increase the minimum wage, and will talk up rising wages.

*apart from the racism, sexism, and homophobia.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Her initial few years in power were arguably worse for the economy than Truss, but it's the absolute indifference to unemployment rates that really stands out*. After making a big show of caring that unemployment went above 1m under Labour, they were happy to see it hit 3-4 times that level, and only kept it at those figures by moving huge numbers onto sickness benefits.

Justifying high levels of unemployment as a good thing, because a ready supply of willing workers meant employers could pay low wages, was simply callous.

Whatever people think about New Labour, they managed to reset the narrative of employment and wages, so that even the recent Tory governments have been competing to increase the minimum wage, and will talk up rising wages.

*apart from the racism, sexism, and homophobia.

Unemployment is temporary though, as tragic as it was. I’m referring to the long term damage, but I take your point about the job market. However, people shouldn’t forget that coal mining (for example) wasn’t a pleasant way to earn a living. It’s always been tough for those at the bottom of the employment ladder, unfortunately.

 

[bluenova]

Unemployment is temporary though, as tragic as it was. I’m referring to the long term damage, but I take your point about the job market. However, people shouldn’t forget that coal mining (for example) wasn’t a pleasant way to earn a living. It’s always been tough for those at the bottom of the employment ladder, unfortunately.

I wouldn't say it was temporary. The reason why it was such a big deal that it hit 1m under Labour is that there had been a consensus for decades that employment was a good thing, and it was the job of the government to make sure people had jobs. The rate had been 2-3% for decades, but hit double figures under Thatcher, came briefly down with the short lived late 80s boom, and was nearing 10% again by the time she was ousted.

Not only had they destroyed the consensus that full employment was the norm, but long term unemployment became accepted, with nearly 50% of the unemployed having been out of work for more than a year for much of her time in power. The rise in sickness benefits masked even higher levels of unemployment, but for many who had been out of work with no hope of ever getting a job, the inactivity was debilitating.

 

[BrianW]

A certain amount of unemployment is necessary to make capitalism work and avoid excessive wage inflation.

This is why the unemployed should be treated with respect and not persecuted as useless mouths. 'They also serve who only stand and wait.'

To abolish unemployment you need a socialist state with central planning and directed labour. (As we had in WW2.) People would go shitless at the mere thought of that.

I find people do not like the reality of capitalism, although most agree it is the least worst option. Of course, it would help if people were educated on that reality and not conned.

 

[bluenova]

A certain amount of unemployment is necessary to make capitalism work and avoid excessive wage inflation.

This is why the unemployed should be treated with respect and not persecuted as useless mouths. 'They also serve who only stand and wait.'

To abolish unemployment you need a socialist state with central planning and directed labour. (As we had in WW2.) People would go shitless at the mere thought of that.

I find people do not like the reality of capitalism, although most agree it is the least worst option. Of course, it would help if people were educated on that reality and not conned.

"Full employment" isn't the abolishment of unemployment - it's always been accepted that companies will open and close, that people will move, or get sacked, or leave their job and look for a new one for various reasons.

But that's usually considered to be a level up to around 3% - and for decades before Thatcher, that was considered normal. The Tories in the 80s pushed rates up to over 10%, and not because the world was in turmoil, but for ideological reasons.

10% unemployment rates, and high levels of long term unemployed and sick, had nothing to do with making capitalism work. Someone with outdated skills, who has become sick because they've been off work for years isn't helping keep wage inflation down. That's capitalism failing.

Labour brought rates down to near 4%, and, bar the issues caused by the worldwide credit crunch in 2008, and then austerity (and even austerity was sold as a way to encourage the private sector to create more jobs than were lost in the public sector), the current Tories have aimed to bring unemployment down, and had got it under 4% by the time Covid hit.

Thatcherism was far from the 'reality of capitalism'.

 

[BrianW]

Thatcher is the 'reality of capitalism' at a certain cycle. It was scarcely unprecedented to have 3 million unemployed. It happened in the 30s, without Thatcher, to give but one example. The only difference was she actively promoted unemployment as a way of cutting wage inflation and breaking the power of unions. It worked - from her POV and that of the many who thought like her.

What we had between 1945 and 1979 was capitalism managed to minimise unemployment. That was why, for example, huge factories created to build and maintain steam locos were continued, year after year, until they became completely untenable. Because many employed 2000-3000 skilled and semi-skilled men whose training fitted them for very little else in a changed world. No one - not even the Tories of the time - relished putting these guys on the dole. In fact, for many years they shrank from it.

It was a priority by political consensus, after 1945, to maintain full employment. People were scarred by the 1930s and it believed - rightly, I think - that mass unemployment had contributed to the rise of fascism. (It certainly had in Germany.)

For a time this was not hard to achieve. There was plenty of work reconstructing the UK, and there was a natural shortage of men caused by death and disablement in WW2. This led to both immigration and a growing role for women. Inflation arising from the choice occasionally caused concern, but no one wanted to tackle it. Until, as inflation does, it began to run out of control in the 1970s.

Thatcher believed this consensus led to inefficiency, overmanning, excessive power for unions and high inflation. It's hard to deny she was at least partly right, but her 'solution' was brutal and broke the social cohesion of the UK. Arguably forever. We have never been quite the same country again, because we went down the path of kowtowing to individual greed and selfishness.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Thatcher is the 'reality of capitalism' at a certain cycle. It was scarcely unprecedented to have 3 million unemployed. It happened in the 30s, without Thatcher, to give but one example. The only difference was she actively promoted unemployment as a way of cutting wage inflation and breaking the power of unions. It worked - from her POV and that of the many who thought like her.

What we had between 1945 and 1979 was capitalism managed to minimise unemployment. That was why, for example, huge factories created to build and maintain steam locos were continued, year after year, until they became completely untenable. Because many employed 2000-3000 skilled and semi-skilled men whose training fitted them for very little else in a changed world. No one - not even the Tories of the time - relished putting these guys on the dole. In fact, for many years they shrank from it.

It was a priority by political consensus, after 1945, to maintain full employment. People were scarred by the 1930s and it believed - rightly, I think - that mass unemployment had contributed to the rise of fascism. (It certainly had in Germany.)

For a time this was not hard to achieve. There was plenty of work reconstructing the UK, and there was a natural shortage of men caused by death and disablement in WW2. This led to both immigration and a growing role for women. Inflation arising from the choice occasionally caused concern, but no one wanted to tackle it. Until, as inflation does, it began to run out of control in the 1970s.

Thatcher believed this consensus led to inefficiency, overmanning, excessive power for unions and high inflation. It's hard to deny she was at least partly right, but her 'solution' was brutal and broke the social cohesion of the UK. Arguably forever. We have never been quite the same country again, because we went down the path of kowtowing to individual greed and selfishness.

Great précis and sums up my thinking. Not sure I’m as comfortable as @bluenova at state management of unemployment, at least not in that way. All governments manage employment to some extent, but I’m not sure the way it was managed in the pre-Thatcher years was sustainable.

I don’t think Thatcher got everything wrong, but I have now concluded that she did more harm than good.