DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
Trade union legislation, privatisation, right-to-buy, etc. was all in the 1979 Conservative manifesto. The people got pretty much what they voted for.
Question about Thatcher
- Thread starter isitme
- Start date
Trade union legislation, privatisation, right-to-buy, etc. was all in the 1979 Conservative manifesto. The people got pretty much what they voted for.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
isitme - you should maybe take a look at NuLabs policy makng history; they introduced the Human Rights Act into the UK, easily as major a piece of change in the UKs legal system as anything Thatcher did.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Callaghan was in fact the first Monetarist PM in the UK. The rot started there, not with Thatcher.
What people believed is an entirely different thing from what they said they'd do. People shouldn't have believed that the New Labour cloak would come off, and some form of social democratic party would be underneath, because Blair, Brown and all the rest were quite clear and explicit about their plans.
Remember, though, that the story we're given by the media, the establishment, is that elections constitute real choice. This is difficult to see from within, but look at another society: look at the US. There the media say of course we give all points of view; we give Democrat and Republican. Or sometimes they'll say conservative and liberal. But really they give what is called "newsworthy" information. They don't see it themselves as limiting debate, but it is. The New York Times says it gives "all he news that's fit to print". Well, that decision is based on the prevailing consensus. And the prevailing consensus is the neoliberal paradigm.
In the UK, the same applies. The 1997 choice was portrayed as a real choice. A new start. A fresh beginning. But look what was on offer: a promise to keep the Tory's spending plans! And then the new start - a classic neoliberal move: hand monetary policy to the Bank of England. Even Thatcher hadn't gone that far.
I think the bit that confuses me is how she was allowed to have this war with the trade unions which must have cost billions and did untold damage to the country
like, how it was inevitable that implementing her ideas would do that but it was allowed to happen, and the rest of the state even backed her
like, how it was inevitable that implementing her ideas would do that but it was allowed to happen, and the rest of the state even backed her
toblerone3
Grrrrr
The fundamental shift that occurred in the late 1970s were information technology-driven advances in the internationalisation of Capital.
This undermined to an extent the bargaining power of labour unions.
No reciprocal internationalisation of the collective bargaining power of labour has occurred since then.
IMO Without the internationalisation of labour and reversal of the power-shift that took place in the 1970s to an extent it doesn't matter who gets elected.
This undermined to an extent the bargaining power of labour unions.
No reciprocal internationalisation of the collective bargaining power of labour has occurred since then.
IMO Without the internationalisation of labour and reversal of the power-shift that took place in the 1970s to an extent it doesn't matter who gets elected.
The unions in the 1970s were seen as holding the country to ransom, three day weeks, candles, a winter of discontent, the country had had enough of their bullying. The incumbent labour government were a shambles who veered from one crisis to the next, even denying their were crises "crisis what crisis" never properly resolving any of them. Along comes mrs. T telling us britain wasnt working and she would personally take on these costly and failing nationalized industries that she would take on the unions and she did of course, for a long time she was seen as exactly the kind of leader we needed. She threw council house sales and share ownership into the bargain too which rather a lot of people bought into, this saw property prices rise and people become rich very quickly this also changed many peoples political focus from a social viewpoint to a personal me me me viewpoint. It became rather difficult to dislodge her after that.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Thatcher was not on her own in her battle with the organsied working class - she had the richest and most powerful people in the country (and from around the world) supporting her - including much of the media - plus rich corporations and those who run the worlds finaincial system Also much of the establishment within the judiciary and police force.
For labour to try to undo all that in 1997 would have meant going up agaisnt all these vested interests - a more daunhting enemy than the trade unions - but essentailly they didn;t do it becasue they agreed with the thatcher concensus and were pretty open about it. (Blair asked thatcher round for tea within weeks of becoming pm - as did brown).
For labour to try to undo all that in 1997 would have meant going up agaisnt all these vested interests - a more daunhting enemy than the trade unions - but essentailly they didn;t do it becasue they agreed with the thatcher concensus and were pretty open about it. (Blair asked thatcher round for tea within weeks of becoming pm - as did brown).
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
What you need to bear in mind is that the anti-union stance was the culmination of around 10 years of tory anti-organised labour rhetoric, of the tories getting column inches about how trades unionism was ruining the economy. The fact that union wage claims were usually the end result of poor economic management on the part of the different governments was elided from political (and to some extent public) consciousness.
The "state" as entity (at least in the form of the judiciary and the executive) had little choice but to follow the legislature, so it wasn't really a question of "backing".
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Much of the above is true, but at root the shift in consensus happened for the same reason the post war accommodation took place. Post war, the demands of the working class had to be acceded to because of their relative power. The socio economic conditions at the end of the 70s, though, were quite different. KS has mentioned Bretton Wood and OPEC. But also the bargaining power of organised labour was weaker. (Not, as is often assumed from the bland cliche that "the unions had got too strong", stronger. This is exactly what the consensus shift was about: realigning the post war accommodation reached at a point when labour was in a strong position. It is the New Right vantage point that says "the unions were too strong").
Unemployment was higher at that point than it had been for a long time, and it should be clear enough to anyone that this meant the labour market was a buyers' market. The logic of supply and demand alone should make that clear. So that's when bosses (and the press and so on) start chuntering on about "restrictive practises" and "modernisation" and "flexibility". (Translations, in order, "decent conditions", "doing a job on the workers" and "crap conditions").
I'm trying to cover heaps of ground in a very short space, but I hope that makes sense.
eta: I started writing before VP posted, as I was interrupted.
Unemployment was higher at that point than it had been for a long time, and it should be clear enough to anyone that this meant the labour market was a buyers' market. The logic of supply and demand alone should make that clear. So that's when bosses (and the press and so on) start chuntering on about "restrictive practises" and "modernisation" and "flexibility". (Translations, in order, "decent conditions", "doing a job on the workers" and "crap conditions").
I'm trying to cover heaps of ground in a very short space, but I hope that makes sense.
eta: I started writing before VP posted, as I was interrupted.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Yes, globalisation and financialisation happened for a reason (the strength of the w/c in production in the west). it wasn't just a whim, it was a politically determined strategy.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The rise of OPEC and collapse of Bretton Woods effectively ushered in re-ordering of global capital and removed the basis for the post-war boom, cheap mercantile costs for oil. Even if BW had failed, if OPEC had never arisen the post-war consensus would not have been so utterly destroyed as it had been. Surely you regonise the role played by the continuance of the oil-price hegemony in maintaining the economy and therefore bargaining position of Labour, within the UK?
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
To whom are you putting that? (And I take it you mean labour with a small l?)
But, yes, of course.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
No, or at least not in the same way.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
To some extent. It was Callaghan who started it, as I said. Given certain conditions (which didn't exist) he could have continued it.
However, she was there in the moment, and egged on by Keith Joseph and Airey Neive, took advantage of the situation.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
And the love-in was going so well, too.butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well, there were structural imperatives to do what she did. - they appeared internationally at exactly the same time - so broadly yes. But with an overly powerful executive style does matter.
I'm not 100% on what you mean by 'executive' on this thread
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I mean the PM as opposed to the commons.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Executive power is what a US president has, isitme. In the UK, the cabinet as a whole has it, although you should read commentaries as diverse as Tam Dalyell and Alan Clark on how she reigned in cabinet power and concentrated it more in her office than had previously been true of PMs.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
AS BA mentioned earlier, Hailsham's 'Elective Dictatorship' - under the last 4 PMs, sovreign power (i.e. the power to make law) has been concentrated more and more into the cabinet office (helped by huge majorities in parliament), and latterly into the PMs offices. The rise of the special advisor is also part of this.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
That's just one subjective view of the Thatcherite legacy though. Lots of people (including millions of voters) thought it was considerably awesome both at the time and now.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I missed BA's comments. (I'm in demand off-line, and so reading/writing without due care and attention). But yes, absolutely. And very much a feature of the neoliberal project: de-democratisation in favour of government by "experts" where possible.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
but even if you agreed with what she was doing, it's unavoidable that it was a massive thing to do. bussing police all over the country, increasing unempolyment by millions
even if you agreed with her, it was undeniably incredibly drastic
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
Tebbit, Joseph, Thatcher all publicly on record as saying unemployment was used as a tool to bring down inflation. The real lives of real people put on the scrap-heap as an economic tool. As a means-to-an-end. A specific no-no of the Enlightenment figures (Hume, Smith etc) she said she admired.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
It isn't a "conspiracy" in that sense: it's about economic structures.
Like the press giving the news from a consensus-common sense viewpoint: no directives from smoke filled rooms required; the behaviour falls into place because of the structures.
Similar threads
- Poll
