O/T When did the right wingers....

[KerrAvon]

The 70s was a tough period in economic terms with inflation running in double figures. You cant heap the full blame on unions and workers for pay demand as their wage packet shrunk daily.

Thatcher set about tackling inflation with tough monetarist policy. The money supply squeeze had the effect of reducing inflation but economic consequence was quite devastating. The resulting recession of the early 80s saw 3m unemployed by 82 (upwards of 5m if you include youth unemployment). It saw our industrial base shrink killing off many factories, steel, coal and shipyards - from which the UK never recovered.

There are many that blame the EU for loss of our industrial base. Totally wrong in my opinion. I see it as a combination of early Thatcher monetarist policy and later the introduction of neo liberal policy.

With respect, if the level of wage demands cannot be wholly attributable to workers and their union representatives who else are you going to require to accept responsibility for them?

Of course, workers are going to want to keep up with inflation and improve their lot – who could blame them for that - but the 82% rise given to the miners over the period Feb 1974 to Feb 1975 by Labour was way beyond inflation (I have not checked your 20% figure, but is sounds about right). Surely you can’t be arguing that such a figure was reasonable and could be given without harming the economy? The cost of such increases in pay to the miners in just over one year would be felt across the economy, particularly given that we were largely reliant upon coal for electricity generation. That is why it contributed to the inflationary spiral that was so damaging to the UK with unions then demanding yet more increases in order to seek to offset the consequences of the previous ones.

Inflation served to erode the competiveness of British manufacturing – British workers priced out of world markets - which contributed directly to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the UK, particularly as it was compounded by unfettered power of the unions making the UK a bad place to seek to invest and do business or, indeed to purchase goods from without having to be concerned about whether delivery would be held up by strike action.

I see what you did there, by the way. You argue that the 1976 IMF loan was attributable to the Heath government which ended in February 1974 rather than the Labour government that was in power for two years before it happened, but argue that the rise in unemployment under Thatcher was attributable wholly to her policies (even though the rise in unemployment started prior to the 1979 – Labour wasn’t working).

Blame Mrs Thatcher monetarist policy and later the introduction of neo liberal policy if you will, but before you do so, ask how it was that British workers became so uncompetitive in World terms? The jobs didn’t just disappear – they went to workers in other countries.

[rolymiller]

Just a question for you Kerr have you ever represented workers in industrial disputes. Just wondered since you seem so anti union. Don't worry i wont throw a wobbly with your answer.

[KerrAvon]

Pensions (copy paste)

Mrs Thatcher wanted self-reliance, not reliance on the state. That was the thinking behind the launch of personal pensions in 1988.

The new plans provided a route to save for those who did not have a company scheme. But, sadly, they backfired.

The promotions and publicity got out of hand. Advisers went to town, encouraging savers to switch out of solid traditional schemes into riskier personal pensions.

Compensating the victims cost the pensions industry £11bn.

So encouraging people to have additional pension provision over and above that provided by the state was a bad thing? I am going to struggle to agree with you on that one. I would suspect that most people would.

What were people to do? Shrug their shoulders and accept the lot of the state pension?

If advisers improperly encouraged people to switch out of company schemes than that cannot be attributable to Thatcher. Such an argument would be analogues to saying that shops shouldn’t sell paracetamol because some people would overdose on them. The fault isn’t in the availability, which must, on any rational argument, be a good thing. It is in the manner they were then used by some.

[KerrAvon]

Quote Kerr 'Nobody was promised untold wealth if they bought BT shares (although many understood that they were priced such that there was likely to be a profit to be made) and it was a euphemism for nothing'

Oh yes they did - see the speech by Thatcher.

'Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. We Conservatives are returning power to the people.'

https://youtu.be/Z7Qq01tC0lU

I'm not sure where you are going with that clip. It doesn't say at any point that people were offered untold wealth. The quote that you rely upon confirms that part of the purpose was to enfranchise people and the growth in share ownership confirms that was partially achieved.

[rolymiller]

Your a pedantic owd sod Kerr but I suppose it goes with the nature of your job

Yet your pendantry seems often biased eg surely a balanced reply would have been "it doesnt say people were offered untold wealth but then again it doesn't say they weren't". It is often what you don't say that shows the bias and also when you are defending others. JUst an observation...

[WanChaiMiller]

Events under the time of the Heath government certainly didn’t help the UK economy, but I’m not sure that they can be attributed to that government to any significant degree. The two major events were the 1973/74 oil crisis, which caused a shock to the world economy, rather than specifically to the UK and the industrial action by the NUM that started in 1973 and which led to the imposition of a three day week. That industrial action was a direct consequence of the Heath government seeking to curb inflation by bearing down on wage increases. Unfortunately, Heath didn’t have the will power that Thatcher did and had not prepared the ground for the conflict. The rest is history; Labour took power in 1974 and immediately gave the miners the 35% they were demanding only to repeat the exercise a year later.

How could anyone forget the three day week – the consequences of unfettered union power set in stark relief?

The 1973- 75 recession affected the whole world, but it was only the UK that needed what was the biggest ever bail out from the IMF. That is, in my opinion, attributable to the unwillingness or inability of the Wilson government to curb the actions of its union paymasters and, in consequence, to control wage rises such as to bring inflation under control and to control public spending. We were not known as the sick man of Europe without reason.

Totally agree causes of inflation and the recession. But you wiped that out of history in your epic.

I totally agree the cause of that recession cannot be blamed on a single government but, then, the consequess cannot be attributed to the next government.

I do not agree that our need for an IMF loan was down to Wilsons inability to control union wage demands. The major cause was the recession and our underlaying economic ability to withstand its impact. Other countries may have had more in reserve.

[WanChaiMiller]

I'm not sure where you are going with that clip. It doesn't say at any point that people were offered untold wealth. The quote that you rely upon confirms that part of the purpose was to enfranchise people and the growth in share ownership confirms that was partially achieved.

Depends on where you want to take it.

I read it that if you get on board you can share in the wealth of the City. And this is open to the whole population. Which takes us back to my original point.

[KerrAvon]

Just a question for you Kerr have you ever represented workers in industrial disputes. Just wondered since you seem so anti union. Don't worry i wont throw a wobbly with your answer.

Keen followers of my posts will note that I have said that I used to be retained by one of the UK's biggest unions to provide representation to its members. I like to think that it was a rewarding arrangement for both parties.

I am not anti-union. I am opposed to the wholly undemocratic way in which they used to be allowed to behave. I am opposed to the closed shop, which was nothing more than a legalised protection racket (if you want a job here you are going to hand over a portion of your wages to a union). I am opposed to the intimidation of working people by mass picketing. I support the notion that working people should be allowed to express their views in a secret ballot before a strike is called.

The miners’ strike epitomises the issues that I have with the way unions used to be allowed to behave – working people intimidated by mobs - workers denied the right to express their views in a ballot that the union’s own constitution said they should have and workers having to go to court to stop a union misapplying the funds to which they contributed amongst other things. Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable. When workers have to turn to the law for protection against their own union, something has gone horribly wrong, as I'm sure you would agree.

[WanChaiMiller]

So encouraging people to have additional pension provision over and above that provided by the state was a bad thing? I am going to struggle to agree with you on that one. I would suspect that most people would.

What were people to do? Shrug their shoulders and accept the lot of the state pension?

If advisers improperly encouraged people to switch out of company schemes than that cannot be attributable to Thatcher. Such an argument would be analogues to saying that shops shouldn’t sell paracetamol because some people would overdose on them. The fault isn’t in the availability, which must, on any rational argument, be a good thing. It is in the manner they were then used by some.

It is not the point Im making on pensions.

I said the culture that exited in the 80s as Thatcher sold the financial dream led people to believe they could be wealthy beyond their dreams. Im saying the reality has turned out different and is the basis for such open discontent (the opening post is why right wingers whinge so much - I think this is the reason - they are finding theyve been sold down the river).

I lived in London and South East from mid 70s to late 80s. People down there bought into it.

[mellowmiller]

Football anyone? Just askin'