Liz Truss

[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.

 

[bluenova]

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.

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.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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.

 

[bluenova]

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.

Obviously economies need to change over time - I'd argue that Thatcher tried to force change quickly, using millions of people's lives as collateral, and that doing it so quickly not only ruined lives, but wasn't ideal for the economy either.

Truss 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.

 

[bigstanhibbert]

Truss 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.

Truss is what happens when the ventriloquist dies, and you are left with the dummy

 

[East Level 2]

Truss is what happens when the ventriloquist dies, and you are left with the dummy

Post of the bloody year.

 

[johnnytapia]

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.

Even more so with her housing policy.

 

[City Hobgoblin]

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.

"There is no such thing as society" ...Thatcher, 1987.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Even more so with her housing policy.

Yes, seemed good upon first blush but has turned out to be a fucking disaster.

 

[eastmanc]

"There is no such thing as society" ...Thatcher, 1987.

She really was a bastard.

 

[johnnytapia]

"There is no such thing as society" ...Thatcher, 1987.

Not quite. Full quote:

I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand ‘I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!’ or ‘I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!’ ‘I am homeless, the Government must house me!’ and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.

… [It] is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate … [t]hat was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system … when people come and say: ‘But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!’