In all the reminiscing about Margaret Thatcher that we've heard lately, it seems that many people believe that one of her greatest achievements was curbing the power of union bosses. Now, to be fair, the power of union bosses was a genuine problem in the 1970s. Their democratic legitimacy was questionable, and the damage they did to the economy with repeated strikes was very real.
It was clear that "something must be done": the classic politician's syllogism. Politicians faced with the challenge that "something must be done" tend to focus more on doing "something", rather than on whether that something is the right something.
In Thatcher's case, it certainly wasn't. She took power from union bosses, but she gave even greater power to multinational corporations, particularly in the financial sector. Anyone who has followed what's happened to the economy since 2008 will know that that didn't end well.
Fast forward to the current Conservative government. One of the big problems they have decided to tackle is the benefits system. And yes, again, we do have a genuine problem. About a third of all government spending goes on benefits. That's clearly unhealthy and unsustainable.
Something must be done.
In this case, that "something" appears to be shafting some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Radical changes to the benefit system are only now starting to take effect, so it's too early to be sure what the results will be, but I fear it is likely that many vulnerable people will be left in misery and destitution.
So to me, Thatcher's legacy is that the Conservative party feel free use the excuse of solving one problem to further their ideological agenda while creating even bigger problems.
Comments
New comment
The first thing I would do is prevent farmers and councils from selling land to developers and encourage everyone to grow their own fruit and vegetables. With a temperate climate like ours it is absurd not to make farming our prime concern.New comment
My views - feel free to contradict them.
When everyone is shouting 'do something' it is hard not to panic and draft bad laws. The unions definately needed reining in because instead of being for the protection of the working man it seemed they were after being a political power in their own right. As a voter I think was sick of them and so didn't object when the conservatives of the time went after them but I didn't appreciate just how hard the new laws would bite until the miners strike. Scargills avowed intention at the time was 'to bring the government down' and so he called an illegal strike in the teeth of opposition from members of his own union and alienating the other unions and many members of the public who would have been sympathetic to the miners cause. I beleive the expression is 'author of his own downfall' and there were also allegations of misuse of union funds (an absolute gift to the government of the day) but I'm not sure it was proven.
Labour could have rescinded some of these laws but they were too convenient a way of controlling the unions. Instead they retained the conservative policies for the first two or three years they were in office as it was working and the economy improving. Towards the end they instituted 'light touch' regulation of the Financial Services industry (i.e. provided you don't cause a scandal we won't kick up a fuss), raided the pension funds, flogged our gold and goodness what else we don't know about.....and we the great british public, by and large sunk in apathy, let them.
Anyway the thing that strikes me most about that period is that it was all about personalities. We can talk about Red Ken, Red Robbo, Maggie Thatcher, Michael Foot, Jim Callaghan, Harold Wilson, Arthur Scargill and Tarzan Heseltine and would be able to recognise them instantly from photos as well as discuss what they stood for. In 30 years time will we be able to do the same for Blair, Blunkett, Brown, Cameron, Milliband and Clegg? I doubt it. Other than those I can only think of one or two politicians and would especially find it hard to identify any of Camerons cabinet.
New comment
Erm....you start off your post about MrsThatcher's stance against the trades unions and then you digress into the disparate and totally different conflicts of today's government.
The world has changed and so has this country.
May I suggest you obtain a copy of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist (Tresswell, R.,). for an understanding of Socialism and then compare the ideal contained within that book of a "fair day's work for a fair days pay", to the Britain inherited my Mrs Thatcher where the trades unions abused their power and held the country to ransom - just because they could?
How the spineless, self-serving, politician muppets of today's government can be regarded as a legacy of the most charismatic and inspirational statesman of the 20th century is beyond me.
Mrs Thatcher (rightly or wrongly) was guided by what she thought was good for the State and not for any tenuous term of office.
JoAnn x
New comment
And in response to Patricia's comment above - I agree entirely.
However, to do what is suggested we would have to do away with the Common Agricultural Policy which is an integral part of the European Economic Community, which then is part of the European Union.
If other countries in the EU produce something, then we must stop producing it and buy theirs.
That's why we no longer enjoy Blackpool tomatoes, Skelmersdale potatoes, London lettuce etc, etc. No, that all comes from Holland.
Beef? That comes from Ireland and Eastern Europe.
Fish? Iceland.
The fact that we are no longer a self-sufficient island is not due to Mrs Thatcher, but due to us losing our identity in the EU.
JoAnn x