If Margaret Thatcher had lost in 1979....

[43021HST]

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

I still think we would've pursued the same neo-liberal agenda, but not with the same level of doggedness as Britain currently does. As from the 80s onwards, neo-liberalism was a general global trend, due to the fall of communism and the rise of Ronald Reagan.

I believe mass privatisation would still have occurred but nowhere near to the scale we have now. We'd probably still have BR, Royal Mail and a lot of the utilities.

I must say they're are some excellent political debates happening at the moment, I'm glad I started to re-use this forum.

 

[AM9]

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

The big mistake that many make is to assume that political parties occupy fixed positions on a left-right (or liberal-authoritarian) axis in a vacuum. In reality, the politics of a given party varies with the environment at the time. Apart from a very few extreme alignments which permanently occupy the ends of the scale, parties move to sit somewhere between the main opposition and their favoured end of the scale.
Take for instance if Labour lose their seats in Scotland and do very badly in the rest of the country. The Tories will then migrate to the centre to act as a counterbalance for UKIP. Labour will re-emerge at the following election just to the left of the Tories causing the Tories themselves to shift to the right again to create differentiation between them and Labour.
So all this talk of Labour or any party being banished forever, is just that, - talk by those who would wish it so.

 

[Oswyntail]

...Thatcher & co's strategy of destroying the industries that had unions that they couldn't bring themselves to negotiate with ....

Of course there is another way to see even that. The nationalised steel and coal industries were being destroyed, before Thatcher, by the unions who refused to negotiate on modernisation. Thatcher simply drew a line in the sand and the unions fell over it, dragging their industries and their members' livelihoods with them. Had Thatcher won the election the result for the industries would have been the same, and the old left would have had to find a different bogeyman to frighten the children with.

 

[43021HST]

Of course there is another way to see even that. The nationalised steel and coal industries were being destroyed, before Thatcher, by the unions who refused to negotiate on modernisation. Thatcher simply drew a line in the sand and the unions fell over it, dragging their industries and their members' livelihoods with them. Had Thatcher won the election the result for the industries would have been the same, and the old left would have had to find a different bogeyman to frighten the children with.

Refused to negotiate on modernisation? Weren't many pits modernised during the 60s and 70s to adapt to the Merry go Round working? Among many other improvements.

 

[Butts]

Refused to negotiate on modernisation? Weren't many pits modernised during the 60s and 70s to adapt to the Merry go Round working? Among many other improvements.

Also the cost of importing coal dropped dramatically which affected the viability of continued UK extraction.

 

[ainsworth74]

Refused to negotiate on modernisation? Weren't many pits modernised during the 60s and 70s to adapt to the Merry go Round working? Among many other improvements.

But under the earth were they fully mechanizing the extraction process or were they still using the techniques of the 19th Century? Just because they could get the coal they extracted out more efficiently doesn't mean that the actual extraction, which is the really expensive part, was any more modern or efficient.

 

[Bungle73]

The UK DOES have a manufacturing industry. Don't fall into the old trap of "oh the UK doesn't make anything any more", which is complete nonsense.

The UK has exported five million cars since 2010, and in 2017 we are expected to export more cars than we did when the record was set in 1972: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/21/uk-car-industry-exporting-record-rate

And we may not do some things we used to, but we a lot of other things. For example, there are 40,000 people employed in the motor sport industry, and most smart phones have an ARM chip in them, and ARM is a UK company.

 

[Manchester77]

The UK would likely be a more equal country with the gap between rich and poor far smaller than it is today. We'd probably have actual left wing main partys as opposed to the neo-Thatcherite new labour we have today.

We'd have retained ownership of most of our state assets and would likely have steady incomes from our state assets. I doubt we'd have the hideously expensive internal market within the NHS and so the funding crisis for the NHS probabky wouldn't be a thing.

And I think one of the most important things is that the working people of Britain would have stronger voices as many industries would have retained strong unions to protect their workers from exploitation.

I think if we had seen any privatisations it would've been things like BT, Thomas Cook etc. the more minor nationalised assets. I don't belive we would've seen the mass sell off of state assets which we see today. I imagine energy, water, BR, Royal Mail, NHS and the National Bus Company would all still exist and be collectively owned and operated by the state.

 

[43021HST]

But under the earth were they fully mechanizing the extraction process or were they still using the techniques of the 19th Century? Just because they could get the coal they extracted out more efficiently doesn't mean that the actual extraction, which is the really expensive part, was any more modern or efficient.

Ok fair enough but I think the problem with modern extraction methods are that they require more space which Britain doesn't have.

I think it's unfair to blame the unions entirely for the methods of extraction becoming outdated, I imagine the bosses would've just been as prone to drag their heals in the dirt when it comes to spending money on new extraction methods. The state owned industries weren't exactly flush with cash.

 

[edwin_m]

ARM is a UK company.

Which licenses designs for manufacture elsewhere. In 1979 we had microchip factories in Scotland.

 

[Butts]

The UK would likely be a more equal country with the gap between rich and poor far smaller than it is today. We'd probably have actual left wing main partys as opposed to the neo-Thatcherite new labour we have today.

We'd have retained ownership of most of our state assets and would likely have steady incomes from our state assets. I doubt we'd have the hideously expensive internal market within the NHS and so the funding crisis for the NHS probabky wouldn't be a thing.

And I think one of the most important things is that the working people of Britain would have stronger voices as many industries would have retained strong unions to protect their workers from exploitation.

I think if we had seen any privatisations it would've been things like BT, Thomas Cook etc. the more minor nationalised assets. I don't belive we would've seen the mass sell off of state assets which we see today. I imagine energy, water, BR, Royal Mail, NHS and the National Bus Company would all still exist and be collectively owned and operated by the state.

Someones been on the "waccy baccy" - or Editor of The Morning Star - obviously the Labour Government between 1997-2010 didn't see this script as a formula for success

 

[edwin_m]

Ok fair enough but I think the problem with modern extraction methods are that they require more space which Britain doesn't have.

I believe there was a fair amount of automation in many of the British pits, but it's hard to see how they could have remained competitive with the methods employed elsewhere (digging huge craters or taking the tops of mountains) without some form of protection against imports.

The big difference between the UK and Germany in my view is that the Germans on both sides of the political and industrial "divides" have broadly agreed on a long-term strategy and got on with it. Their banks are primarily geared to supporting "productive" industries, and there are many smallish companies that don't aspire to expand rapidly but continue to produce and employ in a stable and steady way. Thus despite not having the advantage of North Sea oil they have prospered on the back of ingenuity and solidity, absorbed a far more backward Eastern sector with relatively little disruption, and while they have some problems today they are on the whole doing pretty well.

Here we had a series of politically-driven about-turns from the end of WW2 through to the 80s, with the lack of stability making it very difficult to run a company profitably. And although policies in the last 30 years or so have had more consistency, it has largely been away from encouraging a balanced and broadly competitive economy and towards a disproportionate and parasitic financial services sector which has become a tail wagging a dog, sucking money and talent away from the rest of the economy and encouraging a short-term focus which means every other business is only as good as its last (or next) set of results. Labour in the last decade tried to do some good with the tax revenue from the City, but I can't help thinking it was like the the other birds expecting the cuckoos to help them out.

We now have a society where the prosperous south-east is rapidly drifting away from the rest of the country (despite the generous gifts of second-hand 319s!) and while I actually believe George Osborne is genuine in trying to address this, it is probably too little too late. Our workforce is poorly educated, or in some cases quite well educated but not in the right things, and there is an ugly insular attitude which doesn't help us in finding our place in the world.

With the benefit of hindsight, when the government decided in the early 80s that the writing was on the wall for many of our traditional industries, it should then have considered where Britain should be heading, and used some of that oil revenue to build an economy and infrastructure to support those objectives. If that had happened then I think we would still have lost most of the mines, but proper transitional arrangements would have been made to transfer the workforces into more healthy and sustainable industries.

 

[Bevan Price]

Someones been on the "waccy baccy" - or Editor of The Morning Star - obviously the Labour Government between 1997-2010 didn't see this script as a formula for success

More likely that they recognised that, after years of Thatcherism, there was no way they could ever afford to deprivatise what had been sold.

Anyway, back to 1979. If Callaghan had won, it would have been a small majority, possibly needing some unofficial cooperation with the Liberals to pass anything controversial. He may have chosen to retire before the 1983 election, with Roy Jenkins as a likely successor.

They would have shown more interest in railways than Thatcher, but would have been unable to afford any massive new investment. But there would have been no selling of major public assets.

So, gradual, but continuing replacement of older rolling stock, plus a slow but steady extension of electrification, instead of a sudden rush of projects like that now happening. (Walk-on) rail fares would be a lot cheaper, and the fare system would be much simpler.

However, the country would have become bored with Labour by the 1987 election, and there would have probably been a Tory victory, with someone like Geoffrey Howe or Michael Howard as PM, with a return to short-termism, and some selling of assets, but to a much lesser extent than happened under / after Thatcher.

 

[Manchester77]

Someones been on the "waccy baccy" - or Editor of The Morning Star - obviously the Labour Government between 1997-2010 didn't see this script as a formula for success

Not really it doesn't take much to see that new labours success is due to the cloak of old labour! They manage to get the publics side because of the Attlee administration and Bevan's NHS which manages to mask the fact that new labour embraced PFI and Thatcherism. At least Milliband is slightly more left than Blair was but to me the labour party cannot be seen as left until their policy's reflect their perceived stance. They may be left of the conservatives but they aren't left of centre.

Remember, thatcher said her biggest achievement was new labour. A clear illustration of how new labour is a Thatcherism-lite party

 

[ainsworth74]

I suppose it's slightly off topic but I find it interesting we talk about the Conservatives and Labour both being right of centre by varying degrees. Yet compared to the two main US political parties our two main parties are most certainly on the left of the political spectrum.

Just something that I've always found interesting.

 

[12CSVT]

I suppose it's slightly off topic but I find it interesting we talk about the Conservatives and Labour both being right of centre by varying degrees. Yet compared to the two main US political parties our two main parties are most certainly on the left of the political spectrum.

Just something that I've always found interesting.

To put into perspective how right wing the USA is, Barak Obama was accused of being 'Marxist' by some Republicans when the proposed healthcare reforms were first announced.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To put into perspective how right wing the USA is, Barak Obama was accused of being 'Marxist' by some Republicans when the proposed healthcare reforms were first announced.

I think that his first name is that of BARACK, not as you so state.

However I can give examples both from the past and from the more recent times where the word BARAK was used:-
1)...Barak was the son of Abinoam who came from the environs of Kedesh in Naphtali. In the biblical Book of Judges, he is said to be a military commander.
2)...Ehud Barak was a recent personage of power in the state of Israel.

 

[Amberley54]

I think that his first name is that of BARACK, not as you so state.

However I can give examples both from the past and from the more recent times where the word BARAK was used:-
1)...Barak was the son of Abinoam who came from the environs of Kedesh in Naphtali. In the biblical Book of Judges, he is said to be a military commander.
2)...Ehud Barak was a recent personage of power in the state of Israel.

Was not Ehud Barak subsequently convicted of corruption in public office?

 

[Manchester77]

To put into perspective how right wing the USA is, Barak Obama was accused of being 'Marxist' by some Republicans when the proposed healthcare reforms were first announced.

A good illustration of political illiteracy in the US!!

 

[ExRes]

Was not Ehud Barak subsequently convicted of corruption in public office?

I think you'll find that was Ehud Olmert

 

[AM9]

A good illustration of political illiteracy in the US!!

As I said a few posts ago, the actual positions of parties on the scale of left to right varies with circumstances at the time. It's to be expected that the Tories will always be to the right of Labour but the distance between them will vary depending on how prosperous the country is at election time.
It was relatively easy for Thatcher to pull the electorate's view to the right because of the general public's attitude to badly behaved unions in the late '70s. What the public didn't realise until it was too late was that dismantling our industrial base, created a money and debt based society where those in control of money had tremendous power and wealth. Everybody else had a false sense of financila well-being as credit lines were extended to them.When the credit crunch came, it all came crashing down around them. The government of the day was held up as respopnsible for the whole thing.

 

[ExRes]

It was relatively easy for Thatcher to pull the electorate's view to the right because of the general public's attitude to badly behaved unions in the late '70s. What the public didn't realise until it was too late was that dismantling our industrial base, created a money and debt based society where those in control of money had tremendous power and wealth. Everybody else had a false sense of financila well-being as credit lines were extended to them.When the credit crunch came, it all came crashing down around them. The government of the day was held up as respopnsible for the whole thing.

You could argue of course, that the unions were doing a pretty good job of dismantling our industrial base all by themselves in the 70s and 80s, and yes, I was working through the 70s and 80s and also a union member

 

[AM9]

You could argue of course, that the unions were doing a pretty good job of dismantling our industrial base all by themselves in the 70s and 80s, and yes, I was working through the 70s and 80s and also a union member

I doubt that they thought their actions would kill industry off as they thought that they were living in an earlier age where workers had to act together to get any rights. The Thatcher government knew exactly what they were doing when they chose to deal with the problem by removing the rug from under the feet of the unions. Unfortunately for everybody else, their jobs depended on that rug whether they were involved with the unions or not. As a consequence, they joined the dole queue.
The process of 'new jobs' in the service industry was designed to sidestep any union involvement in those areas, at the same time as workers' rights to take industrial action were removed by new laws.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I doubt that they thought their actions would kill industry off as they thought that they were living in an earlier age where workers had to act together to get any rights. The Thatcher government knew exactly what they were doing when they chose to deal with the problem by removing the rug from under the feet of the unions.

That is one difference between the way that Heath tried and failed and subsequently lost a General Election and the way that the Thatcher team dealt with those matters to which you allude.

 

[AM9]

That is one difference between the way that Heath tried and failed and subsequently lost a General Election and the way that the Thatcher team dealt with those matters to which you allude.

Heath's failure does not mean that it is the wrong strategy. Maybe the tories start out with an idealogical disadvantage that some of them think trade unions are superfluous in modern times anyway. I doubt that the unions would intentionally take out a party that is on their side.
Other governments have succeeded to negotiate like adults with unions, notably successive German administrations. Germany was in a mess industrially in the '70s but they developed a relationship that has led to their domestic industries being the most successful in Europe and one of the most consistent in the world. The country is struggling at the moment, but that is more to do with the Euro zone than it's industrial performance.