Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
28 August 2009
22:1328152#1
Since the second world war Britain has undergone many changes both socially and economically but which of the two major parties has achieved the greater good for the British people.
One of the greatest has to be the formation of the NHS which enabled everyone access to free health care but what about some of the other highlights and lowlights.
The 60s heralded the dawn of social freedom and a generation that was determined to change attitudes toward sex and the drab old ways in which people had lived. The youth became more tolerant toward such subjects as homosexuality and lesbianism which brought changes in the law much to the consternation of the older members of society who regarded such subjects as taboo.
Since the 60s we have become far more tolerant of the way in which other people live their lives and through package holidays and cheap flights are able to discover other countries and cultures.
There have been many low points, the Suez crisis of the 50s which attracted the condemnation of the world. We also had the devaluation of the pound n the 60s when we had to apply to the IMF for a loan.
The unions were abusing their powers with unwarranted strike action which was costing the country dearly.
Years later we lost control and strikes led to power cuts, rubbiish piling up and the dead being left unburied.
The Thatcher years brutally brought the unrest to an end, the unions were weakened and unemployment soared. Our major nationalised industries were sold off for a fraction of their worth and we were encouraged to 'get on our bikes' to find work, even though there were hardly any jobs about.
Moving to modern day events we are back to where we were when Thatcher came in to power with the exception of inflation.
I am not a political anorak and support no political party but looking at it from my viewpoint both political partys' have made mistakes which have been costly to Britain and have affected the lives of its people but going back to the opening lines of this post the greatest achievement of all has to be the NHS because without it many of us would now be dead.
Now what do you think?
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
29 August 2009
02:1428153#2
Dave1
that aint a bad start,
heres a few more
1;Tories continued to strongly support grammar school education and labour
oppose it, that isof course until labour came to power and nowt changed on that
2; MAGGIE was clear in her speeches to smash all unions, she did most, the unions
and everyday person thought that the change of govt would change all that
but apart from a bit tinkering here and thereit stayed the same.
3; Tories oppose tax credits where as labour encouraged them, and many
have been helped through this scheme, it could be better but never the less
it has reached and helped alot of people
4; we should also never discount the lib dems,they may be small in numbers
but could at next election get a bigger say?
on iraq were they the only party to oppose the war?
there now lets get others to add to it
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 August 2009
08:4628162#3
Yes - an interesting thread that deserves a thoughtful response Dave. I will do that when I have a bit more time to put something together that represents a worthy contribution.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 August 2009
12:1028164#4
The NHS can be applauded for the basic principals on which it was based, free healthcare at the point of delivery. No other country copied the NHS simply because, in the way it was set up, it was deeply flawed. No Government has, as yet, adequately reformed the NHS so it remains a flawed service. So I would give the NHS two out of three cheers. Other countries simply do it better.
The 60's were indeed a period in which greater tolerance started. Labour Home Secretary Jenkins said that 'a permissive society is a civilised society'. He went too far with that quote as indeed did the permissive society itself. Yes things needed to change, people needed to become more tolerant, but things have gone too far now. These days we are told not to be judgemental. That means people think they can get away with anything and have no sense of standards. We need to re-introduce a sense of shame back into society, a sense of individual responsibility and that means we, and the authorities, need to be more judgemental and disapproving of those who go too far. No, not back to how thing were back in the 50's but a happy medium.
Travel has indeed opened all our lives and people like Freddie Laker were social reformers as much as Beveridge. We must welcome this development but people jetting off to a Spanish Costa is not real foreign travel. Seeing a Costa is not like seeing Spain. Too many of those who have benefited from this social and economic revolution spend their holidays in resorts laying on the beach, eating fish and chips, binge drinking in fake 'English Pubs' and totally wasting the opportunity they have. In other words they may as well be in Blackpool with the only difference more sun.
A 'smaller' world though, as a result of cheap travel, has added a great deal to our society. We need only look at the places we can go to eat to see that. Every town has its Chinese and Indian restaurants, then (if we are lucky) we have Thai, Mexican, Argentinian, just about any cuisine in the world is available now instead of just Italian and French.... Or, perhaps I should say, Anglicised versions....
There is a negative side though. Too many immigrants do not integrate into our society and hold themselves apart, live in what are almost ghettos and dress and behave in ways that are alien to the UK.
These have been encouraged over the last 12 years by the discredited idea of multiculturalism. This has been a block to integration and is the cause of a great deal of resentment against minorities, something recognised by the head of the CRE. The rise in the BNP in some areas is a direct result and that is not good for any of us.
For decades after the war the UK economy was in decline and many thought that the best any Government could do was to manage that decline. Both Conservative and Labour Governments failed to arrest the decline which was speeded up by militant trade unionism. The Unions became a menace and were guilty of forgetting about the best interest of their members to follow a political agenda. Strikes devastated whole industries and in particular the nationalised ones. These nationalised industries were no more than a burden to the economy, inefficient, overmanned, they required huge taxpayer subsidies to produce cars that broke down all the time that no-one wanted to buy. A subsidised steel industry provided steel, using subsidised coal for a subsidised ship manufacturing industry to produced subsidised ships for the Poles who were able to undercut the hard pressed British merchant marine. It is no wonder we don't have much left of any of those industries any more, it was the economics of the madhouse and totally unsustainable.
Yes, Dave, let us also not forget those other strikes we suffered, the power cuts, the dead left unburied and rubbish not collected.
Don't forget the 29% inflation we had as well under the Callaghan Government. What about all those failed 'pay and price' policies. Then there was taxation, a basic rate of 34p and an effective higher rate, at one point of, 99%. Remember the attitude of Dennis Healey, who spoke about taxing the rich until the pips squeak. No wonder no-one wanted to invest in this country, no-wonder British industries were in seeming terminal decline.
To think now that you could be turned down for a job just because you did not want to join a Trade Union. It seems unbelievable but it happened to me once.
They were mad days and the fact that it got that bad is a poor reflection on both Conservative and Labour Governments during the 50's 60's and 70's.
One of the problems was that successive Governments had placed importance on trying to protect 'traditional' jobs and industries through subsidy. This was a block on progress and left the economy preserved in aspic not changing to meet the needs of a changing world. It simply could not last. The world does not stop still. Massive industries hid huge structural unemployment. The official figure may have been 1.5 million in the late 70's but if you looked at the underlying level the true figure was more than double that. By subsidising declining industries they placed a block on new developing industries and job opportunities. All those subsidies was hide unemployment and make future unemployment worse. (Today disability benefits are used in the same way that nationalised industries were used in the 70's, to hide unemployment).
That ended though, thanks to a great lady. Mrs Thatcher did not see an inevitable terminal decline for this country. She had a clear vision of pulling this country up by the bootstraps and of revitalising business. She could see clearly the failures of the past and had some brilliant minds behind her showing the way. Keith Joseph was one of the first, a student of Hayek and an admirer of the achievements of Friedman, he was the intellectual underpin of the early Thatcher years. A great backroom adviser but not so good as a Minister himself.
She stopped subsidising industries and got rid of a huge swathe of counter productive rules and red tape. Do you remember when you could not take more than £50 abroad? - she ended that. It was hard, no doubt about that, it was 'tough love' but it worked. Yes the hidden unemployment did 'shake out' and many lost their jobs but a great deal was done to attract inward investment and new industries to replace those jobs. It did take time but we are now all benefiting from what she did.
The over mighty Unions were brought within the law, again some tough battles had to be fought, brought about by politically motivated trade union leaders. But the Government of Mrs T won through, again to the great benefit of the UK and all of us.
I will not go into the more recent economic failures now as this post is long enough but will draw a conclusion.
Both Conservative and Labour Governments have failures and have been complicit in some very bad Government.
But there has been two terms of Government that stand apart that have had a profound and long lasting benefit to the UK. That is the 1979/83 and 1983/87 periods under Mrs T. These were rare transformational periods, that will always be controversial, but those years will always resonate because they reversed what was previously though to be an inevitable decline and Britain adopted a renewed self-confidence.
Without those years we would all be a lot poorer and perhaps no better than a third world country.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
29 August 2009
13:3828169#5
Good postings regardless of your political affilations.Well done lads.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
29 August 2009
15:0728170#6
I think Keith you are probably correct no Government has sought to change Thatchers' reforms especially regarding the unions, the old system of solving disputes through strike action was in need of reform and as Barry corectly said it was nearly always the nationalised industries which bore the brunt of those disputes. They had become inefficient, costly and produced inferior goods such as cars which were unreliable and poorly finished. It was also cheaper to import coal rather than use our own but notwithstanding that coal was becoming a dying product.
Broadly speaking Barry I agree with many of the points you have raised. The NHS is in need of reform but not at the expense of the right for free treatment for all. I would think that any government would regard it as political suicide to introduce any form of pay system or means testing.
Regarding Thatcher, yes she did change the whole manner in which this country had been run in the past and generally we have all benefited by her reforms, like her or hate her we have all been affected by her policies. She removed all restraints on finances, credit cards became the norm and Britain went on a huge spending spree, something that she had not envisaged. She thought people would be sensible, they weren't, instead we underwent one of the biggest booms in history, something that we would all have to pay for later.
All governments have had their hands in multiculturalism, which has seriously affected integration and Britain is becoming a split society. This gives rise to parties such as the BNP who prey on thefears and prejudices which are present in our society. We have always been a tolerant nation when it comes to immigration but we must ensure that those who come here will contribute to our society, abide by our laws and not try to impose the culture they have chosen to leave upon us.
The war gave us one ambition and that was to change Britain and not to return to the old pre-war times of deprivation, instability and a country run by the aristocracy.
The NHS, the 60s social revolution, the unions and the Thatcher years have all played some part in our history but it was the ordinary persons desire for change which won the day.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 August 2009
15:4928173#7
Just one point in your post to follow up on, Dave. You refer to the freeing up of consumer credit. You were fair to point out that Mrs T thought people would be more responsible, but also to be fair, she did bring in regulation of retail financial services. During her years (and Major's) the level of consumer debt also played a part in the setting of interest rates.
The recent problem was when the Bank of England was given responsibility, their brief related to inflation targets, with no reference to consumer debt levels. The use of the CPI measure instead of RPI being a reform too far. It is that which led to the house price bubble and huge extension of credit card debt, being a major cause of the present problems. You have to add in the way the tri-partied regime affected the manner of which the major banks were regulated, leading to the City boom which was also based on a bubble, which combined with the impact of Clinton's reforms and the British Bank's activities in the USA, created the foundation of the credit crunch and undermining of our financial system.
Under the old system with Mrs T the Banks would have been under much closer scrutiny and are not likely to have got away with some of their riskier ventures, particularly in the American market. Dont forget, under that regime the bank's senior management teams went to the Bank of Engalnd every quarter where they were grilled on every aspect of what they were doing. That all ended under Brown.
Brown was proud of the impact of his reforms hence his boast 'an end to boom and bust' after consumer credit allowed the UK to avoid the minor recession in 2000. We now know that we would have been better off if he had not made those changes and if we had 'enjoyed' a 2000 recession, the present recession would not be nearly as deep or as long if we had.
The attempts, by some, to blame Mrs T for what is happening now just ignores the changes that Brown was responsible for, which Mrs T would never have contemplated. He basically tinkered with Mrs T's reforms without understanding them to a disasterous affect.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
29 August 2009
16:5728175#8
Point taken Barry and I would not seek to argue with your viewpoint.
The purpose of my postings was not to get too embroiled in fiscal matters but to debate the social issues which have affected us and the mistakes and successes that succesive governments have had.
Mrs. T was lucky in that she came at a time when people were sick to death of major strikes and the ever-growing power of the unions who through their actions could paralyse a country. Whether people fully understood her reforms and the effect that they would have on our day to day lives is perhaps another story. However in the long term we prospered by her reforms.
I have deliberately left Brown out of the thread as all that will happen is the usual tit for tat argument which gets us nowhere. I just hope that other may express their views.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
29 August 2009
17:4528176#9
Dave1 BarryW,
Absolutely refreshing, this is the kind of debate that should be happening from top to bottom, from parliament to local papers. No one Has to agree with anyone else, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Instead of one side looking to bash the other side over what ever they can use as a baseball bat, adult reasoning and a bit of common sense, sitting at the same table and listening to each other, could actually bring this country back to being great again.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
29 August 2009
19:2328181#10
Well I hope now we can debate some of those issues raised.
This is not to pick on one party, but its hard to avoid mentioning who did it, without mentioning them, and if it were a labour person i would be naming in the same way.
So to take on some of the points DAVE1 and BARRYW Points as there is agreement.
UNIONS
The car industry at the time of the strikes over 1o minute tea breaks etc were a joke and showed how unions had got to strong, even those of us heavily involved
in trade unions were unhappy at the way things were.
But things did move on, and working for a large part of life in a nationalised industry, I have to say there was room for improvement, nationalisation wasnt the answer, but nor is throwing millions into private companies to run them either.
there has to be a middle ground, where the public get a public service, at a price they can offord, and able to access.
Maggie made some good points on unions but like all governmrents before her(and after) with big majorities, she went to far, and sadly many workers now suffer because of it.
Making unions ballot before industrial action was one, instead of 8 people in a room deciding(and remember i say this as an active trade unionist)
I recall in my early days in the union attending the Town Hall when the then, National Union of Railwaymen, sent down the executive member to tell everyone we were on strike in the morning, it was challenged, but those days the room weas full of people ready to walk out.
But since the Maggie days the union then reformed and renamed R.M.T. ballots on every strike, and even prior to one dispute i was asked to come out on strike to join the NUM on a trade union day , it was poorly arranged by the TUC and the RMT certainly when i asked them about the legallity said its a personal choice thing, so that 1 fell flat as i refused to be part.
Over the years I have/will support the NUM but it needs to be done in an organised/legal way.
On the other side of things, having balloted all the RMT members on another issue and support for industrial action it was agreed to have a 2 day dispute.
Whilst out on the picket line we got to hear the rail company was in the high court trying to stop the dispute,(yet negotiations could have gone on but they became worse) remember the RMT and al unions were forced to give the company 7 days notice of any dispute.
So I do believe Maggie did well to change some unions, but im afraid she went to far and now workers have great difficulty being represented because of the unfair playing field in place which favours the employer.
As i said Blair had chances to change things to make it a fairer industrial relations but when i heard him speak in Gravesend and he was asked his views on trade unions, he replied, if you think there bad, they wont be improved.
Then we had PRESCOTT who in a full westminster hall tell all the railway people present that when labour gets in they will re nationalise the railways, to loud applause, whether you believe thats the best route or not, its the promise he made, as soon as in power i wrote to him and many other Ministers, asking when its to happen, and was told they couldnt afford to do it, dont forget at the time we had a labour team that were saying they were against privatisation!!!!!!!!
What about the classic error of the year?????????????????????
The sheffield rally when Kinnock invited all the celebrities along to a rally the day before the general election, i told my party hes just lostt labour the election the plonker!!
but he had his good side to, remember that famous speech when he took on Derek Hatton the lefty who was sacking his workers, kinnock was the first real leader to start the move to take on militant who had infiltrated the labour party(this is where Sid and I will probably disagree)
it needed to be done, you had to be in the party at the time to see how bad it was maybe more on that on another posting!!!
N.H.S.
My concern on theN HS is that there will be a move towards, if you can afford to pay you will get better treatment than someone with nowt.
and the NHS will slowly be run down, and you get medical treatment only if you can pay.
THERE are big concerns over the NHS and it does need reform, but just privatising everything that moves isnt the answer.
this i believe is another big debate in itself.
GREAT BRITAIN
Gary I think those days have long gone, but this started when maggie started all those reforms, and we saw both parents out to work, whilst children were left to fend for themselves.
giving out DHSS dosh without some kind of thought is another big issue, but does/will affect our great britain status.
So I hope this can be taken as one of unbiased viewpoint, and healthy debate
