If Margaret Thatcher had lost in 1979....

[Butts]

And Labour had won that and the subsequent three General Elections would the UK have approached The Millenium in a more robust condition?

Would all the Mines still be open, all the Steelworks running and BT, BA, British Gas and the numerous other privatisations never taken place ?

Would we still have a sizeable "Council House" Estate ?

Or would it have made sod all difference

 

[ainsworth74]

I imagine there will be a group of answers to you question that will fall into the line of 'The UK would have been a much much better place if the Iron **** had never been in power. Tory Scum!' and another string of answers that will fall into the line of 'The UK would have gone broke, Unions would have taken over the show entirely, we would have lost the Falklands. Britain would no longer be Britain. Labour Scum!'

But that's just a guess on my part

 

[AM9]

One thing we could have now is a manufacturing industry like Germany. If the 'winter of discontent' had gone its course, I think the Labour push on the unions started with Barbara's 'In Place Of Strife' publication would have picked up some momentum to create a union structure that was less cynical and more aligned to co-operative relations. That would have been an alternative to opening the doors to exploitation by global corporations in the interests of making a quick buck during the term of a government.
That's not to say that the car industry would be as strong as VW/BMW/Mercedes, but we could have been in a better position vis a vis Airbus and EADS as regards aircraft and defence respectively. Instead the tide went with feeding the 'Essex Man' vote, fuelled by selling the state's industries/assets and encouraging fly operators to manipulate money itself for profit. Although hindsight is a wonderful thing, we now know where that can lead us, even though there were warnings in the '80s.

 

[Yew]

I think we still would have seen gains in the financial and banking sectors, and the gradual wind down of manufacturing, however not to the extent of that seen post thatcher. Hopefully we would have never seen a Neo Liberal government too.

 

[gordonthemoron]

The Falklands war would probably have not happened but we'd have left the EU in the 1980s and now be a third world country

 

[Ash Bridge]

And from a railway point of view, the plug would not have been pulled on the APT project, also the railways would still be in state ownership (Trains included)

 

[Oswyntail]

One thing we could have now is a manufacturing industry like Germany. ....

The major problem at the time was not really the unions - though they were determined to be as obstructive to progress as possible - but the desperate need to invest in industry. Europe had stolen a march on us post-war, because countries, especially Germany, were forced to rebuild (and we helped them). However, in a downward spiral of decreasing competitiveness, the funds for investment were simply not available. What the Thatcher revolution did was revitalise the economy in non-traditional areas, but, sadly, this did not lead to cash being made available for investment across the UK. It is doubtful, however, that a non-Thatcher government would have been able to find even limited investment without massive help from the growing economies of Europe. UK would have ended up as an EU basket case like Portugal - and we would be emigrating to Romania.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would far more left-wing Trades Union support have been forthcoming for Derek Hatton and the Militant Tendency which would have then spread outwards from its Liverpool power base?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

The Falklands war only happened because of a military scale back.
All the ships sent to Gibraltar were to be scrapped. Even the Vulcan bomber was actually in the scrap heap when the war started. The government knew that sending these signals out would start a war. This was so they'll win the next election despite being awful on domestic policy.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

The major problem at the time was not really the unions - though they were determined to be as obstructive to progress as possible - .

Interested to know how you might define 'progress'? The erosion and elimination of all the rights won by Trade Unions over the decades which has led to the current day system of short-term contracts, zero hours contracts, tax credits provided by the Government to bump up low wages, internships on no pay, loss of council housing, 'buy to let' scandal..etc etc/ progress?

 

[gordonthemoron]

The Falklands war only happened because of a military scale back.
All the ships sent to Gibraltar were to be scrapped. Even the Vulcan bomber was actually in the scrap heap when the war started. The government knew that sending these signals out would start a war. This was so they'll win the next election despite being awful on domestic policy.

really? I thought it was gross incompentence

 

[Abpj17]

"Would all the Mines still be open, all the Steelworks running and BT, BA, British Gas and the numerous other privatisations never taken place ?"

how would that necessarily have lead to be better place? The mines were essentially loss-making weren't they? All else being weaker, the UK would likely have been in a much worse place. The UK was in a strong position the couple of years before the millenium (and the first few after).

More borderline cases would be a) if hadn't joined ERM or had stayed in ERM b) less privitisations / privitisations not simply leading to state ownership by France or Germany

 

[Oswyntail]

Interested to know how you might define 'progress'? ...

Things like re-equipping plant with more automation, re-training on new equipment, and recognising that, with changing plant, some trades became less important, others more so.
And, perhaps, not believing that the battles of the 19th century still needed fighting in the 20th (let alone the 21st). Co-operation would have gone a long way.

 

[ainsworth74]

The Falklands war only happened because of a military scale back.
All the ships sent to Gibraltar were to be scrapped. Even the Vulcan bomber was actually in the scrap heap when the war started. The government knew that sending these signals out would start a war. This was so they'll win the next election despite being awful on domestic policy.

I have heard some fantastic tin foil hat stories in my time but this one is right up there with the best. I mean seriously? You honestly believe that? Next you'll be telling us that Thatcher and Galtieri were both in on it! You're not one of those that thinks Argentina sank Invincible and we got the American's to build a replacement are you?

Good lord...

 

[gordonthemoron]

Does GrimsbyPacer know that Gib isn't in the Falklands?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Does GrimsbyPacer know that Gib isn't in the Falklands?

Yes of course I know where it is. Ships were went to Gibraltar before the Falklands war started to be scrapped. This is a fact that anyone can look into. The decission wss later reversed after the war.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

Does GrimsbyPacer know that Gib isn't in the Falklands?

Perhaps he's thinking of the withdrawal of HMS Endurance(think I've got the name correct) which was possibly seen as a signal that the UK weren't necessarily keen on defending the Falklands. Whatever the intention, it did go spectacularly wrong.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I have heard some fantastic tin foil hat stories in my time but this one is right up there with the best. I mean seriously? You honestly believe that? Next you'll be telling us that Thatcher and Galtieri were both in on it! You're not one of those that thinks Argentina sank Invincible and we got the American's to build a replacement are you?

Good lord...

I never suggested the UK and Argentine governments were working together. But the governor of Falklands warned of an invasion ages before it had any effect on UK government. And documents released 30 years later showed the PM only acted as the next election was going to be a disaster for her.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes of course I know where it is. Ships were went to Gibraltar before the Falklands war started to be scrapped. This is a fact that anyone can look into. The decission wss later reversed after the war.

Err, no they weren't. Any ship that was actually being scrapped would not have been in a fit state to go anywhere let alone in to a war zone. Some of the ships were due to be sold or scrapped and that decision was reversed after the war. But none of the ships that served were actually in the process of being scrapped.

I never suggested the UK and Argentine governments were working together. But the governor of Falklands warned of an invasion ages before it had any effect on UK government. And documents released 30 years later showed the PM only acted as the next election was going to be a disaster for her.

That is radically different to what you suggested above. You suggested that the Government deliberately instituted cuts to the armed forces to provoke Argentina to invade. This is significantly different to a PM responding to the invasion of sovereign British territory. Any PM would have had to do something or face annihilation at the polls next time out.

So which is it? Did Thatcher deliberately provoke Argentina (and what is your evidence for this) or did she simply respond to an invasion in the same way just about any sane PM would have? I think the worst accusation you can throw is that the Government took a gamble and lost heavily. Anything else in tin-foil hat territory (without some solid evidence).

 

[Butts]

One thing we could have now is a manufacturing industry like Germany. If the 'winter of discontent' had gone its course, I think the Labour push on the unions started with Barbara's 'In Place Of Strife' publication would have picked up some momentum to create a union structure that was less cynical and more aligned to co-operative relations. That would have been an alternative to opening the doors to exploitation by global corporations in the interests of making a quick buck during the term of a government.
That's not to say that the car industry would be as strong as VW/BMW/Mercedes, but we could have been in a better position vis a vis Airbus and EADS as regards aircraft and defence respectively. Instead the tide went with feeding the 'Essex Man' vote, fuelled by selling the state's industries/assets and encouraging fly operators to manipulate money itself for profit. Although hindsight is a wonderful thing, we now know where that can lead us, even though there were warnings in the '80s.

What you obviously don't remember or have forgotten was that this piece of legislation was largely kyboshed by one James Callaghan (along with others) who later was the Labour Prime Minister at the time of the 1979 Election.

The February 1974 General Election was supposedly about who runs the Country - the Government or the Miners.

The Conservatives narrowly failed to win an overall majority and thanks to the dithering Liberal Leader Jeremy Thorpe failed to achieve a Coalition Administration.

 

[Buttsy]

Err, no they weren't. Any ship that was actually being scrapped would not have been in a fit state to go anywhere let alone in to a war zone. Some of the ships were due to be sold or scrapped and that decision was reversed after the war. But none of the ships that served were actually in the process of being scrapped.



That is radically different to what you suggested above. You suggested that the Government deliberately instituted cuts to the armed forces to provoke Argentina to invade. This is significantly different to a PM responding to the invasion of sovereign British territory. Any PM would have had to do something or face annihilation at the polls next time out.

So which is it? Did Thatcher deliberately provoke Argentina (and what is your evidence for this) or did she simply respond to an invasion in the same way just about any sane PM would have? I think the worst accusation you can throw is that the Government took a gamble and lost heavily. Anything else in tin-foil hat territory (without some solid evidence).

What is known is that Callaghan saw the situation in Argentina and ensured that there was a naval presence in the South Atlantic. The cuts in government spending in the early 80s with regards to Defence meant that the vessel patrolling the South Atlantic was recalled.

Without any UK presence in the area, it is reckoned that Galteri saw an opportunity/considered Britain were no longer interested in the area and decided to invade to try and boost his flagging popularity (having done something similar in 1978 with the world cup [for a theory on this, see the 6-0win over Peru and the sudden trading with that country again]).

Whether this was a deliberate act by Mrs T to potentially provoke a war or an ignorance of the Argentinian situation is more open to conjecture.

I cannot believe that Callaghan would have removed the UK presence in the South Atlantic as he had already dismissed that advice during his leadership

 

[Butts]

What is known is that Callaghan saw the situation in Argentina and ensured that there was a naval presence in the South Atlantic. The cuts in government spending in the early 80s with regards to Defence meant that the vessel patrolling the South Atlantic was recalled.

Without any UK presence in the area, it is reckoned that Galteri saw an opportunity/considered Britain were no longer interested in the area and decided to invade to try and boost his flagging popularity (having done something similar in 1978 with the world cup [for a theory on this, see the 6-0win over Peru and the sudden trading with that country again]).

Whether this was a deliberate act by Mrs T to potentially provoke a war or an ignorance of the Argentinian situation is more open to conjecture.

I cannot believe that Callaghan would have removed the UK presence in the South Atlantic as he had already dismissed that advice during his leadership

Considering Naval matters,

Callaghan was a former wartime RN man, and I believe had he been Prime Minister at the time of The Falklands War, the order to sink The General Belgrano would have been given.

From Butts - no Y !!!

 

[gordonthemoron]

had Callaghan been PM at the time of the invasion he'd have resigned for letting the fiasco happen in the first place

 

[Buttsy]

Considering Naval matters,

Callaghan was a former wartime RN man, and I believe had he been Prime Minister at the time of The Falklands War, the order to sink The General Belgrano would have been given.

From Butts - no Y !!!

I have no doubt about that, but would have Galtieri taken the chance of invading with a gunship nearby, rather than in Portsmouth?

had Callaghan been PM at the time of the invasion he'd have resigned for letting the fiasco happen in the first place

Also true, though PMs in those days didn't resign or face calls to resign as often as now.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

ainsworth74 what do you hate about tin foil hats??

To clarify what meant was the government ignored concerns from the Falklands, started air and naval cutbacks and that lead to war. The PM appeared to allow this to happen at the time and documents said they only responded for the election so it might have been a plot or just stupidity from the government, take your pick. It should of been preventable.

The ships weren't taken out of the scrap heap the Vulcan bomber was. Sorry for confusion but ship scrappage halted afterwards.

 

[SWTH]

The Vulcan wasn't taken off the scrap heap either. All the tin triangles used in the Falklands were from active squadrons. They were scheduled for withdrawl, but that is very different to actually being in a withdrawn state.

I suggest you look a bit more closely at the history before making such statements. Rowland White's book 'Vulcan 607' and Admiral Sandy Woodward's account 'One Hundred Days' are both excellent places to start, and detail the background leading up to the war well.

 

[St Rollox]

If Labour had won the 1979 election then you probably wouldn't know about the Malvinas.

 

[AM9]

What you obviously don't remember or have forgotten was that this piece of legislation was largely kyboshed by one James Callaghan (along with others) who later was the Labour Prime Minister at the time of the 1979 Election.

The February 1974 General Election was supposedly about who runs the Country - the Government or the Miners.

The Conservatives narrowly failed to win an overall majority and thanks to the dithering Liberal Leader Jeremy Thorpe failed to achieve a Coalition Administration.

That doesn't mean that nothing would have changed. Thatcher & co's strategy of destroying the industries that had unions that they couldn't bring themselves to negotiate with wasn't the only way of dealing with the problem. The German governments including the centre-right CDU, have not chosen to bully the unions let alone destroy the industries on which both the unions and the country depend, and look what happened when the global service industry bubble burst. Although Merkel is currently suggesting curtailing union powers at the moment, I doubt that she would kill the industries that the unions depend on to achieve her ideals.
I think that after a short Callaghan premiership after the '79 election, he would have probably been followed by somebody other than Foot or Kinnock. The Labour party would have come back to the issue of unions and their conduct in the national interest.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

had Callaghan been PM at the time of the invasion he'd have resigned for letting the fiasco happen in the first place

We must always remember the type of strings that the Americans were pulling in Argentina as they still wanted Argentina on their side against foreign policy worries about certain South American countries at that time.

 

[Butts]

That doesn't mean that nothing would have changed. Thatcher & co's strategy of destroying the industries that had unions that they couldn't bring themselves to negotiate with wasn't the only way of dealing with the problem. The German governments including the centre-right CDU, have not chosen to bully the unions let alone destroy the industries on which both the unions and the country depend, and look what happened when the global service industry bubble burst. Although Merkel is currently suggesting curtailing union powers at the moment, I doubt that she would kill the industries that the unions depend on to achieve her ideals.
I think that after a short Callaghan premiership after the '79 election, he would have probably been followed by somebody other than Foot or Kinnock. The Labour party would have come back to the issue of unions and their conduct in the national interest.

That's an interesting scenario - David Owen may well have been a prime contender