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 sone extent, but I’m not sure the way it was managed in the pre-Thatcher years was sustainable.
i did acknowledge all governments mange employment tbf.As BrianW has pointed out, Thatcher, for ideological reasons, pushed unemployment to levels that were comparable with the Great Depression of the 1930s.
If that's not state management of unemployment, I don't know what is.
The theory that a Government should try and encourage an economy where people can find a job, rather than have no choice but to claim benefits, is surely not controversial. It's probably one of the main economic ideas that would unite most of the left and right.
i did acknowledge all governments mange employment tbf.
There was a clear distinction between Thatcher’s approach and what preceded her. I’m saying I think that was a necessary change as the previous model wasn’t sustainable. The change was inevitable and necessary imo. I don’t expect you’ll agree with that.
Truss is what happens when the ventriloquist dies, and you are left with the dummyTruss is a laughing stock because she caused so much damage so quickly, and was ousted. There's a strong argument that Thatcher was much more reckless with the economy when she came into power.
Post of the bloody year.Truss is what happens when the ventriloquist dies, and you are left with the dummy
Even more so with her housing policy.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.
"There is no such thing as society" ...Thatcher, 1987.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.
Yes, seemed good upon first blush but has turned out to be a fucking disaster.Even more so with her housing policy.
She really was a bastard."There is no such thing as society" ...Thatcher, 1987.
Not quite. Full quote:"There is no such thing as society" ...Thatcher, 1987.