Why are some folk keen on making a point at the funeral?

[MarillionFan]

Craftsmans weren't/aren't cr*p at their jobs.

Then again anything that takes years to train, in like the number of people who can be an "entrepreneur" is only suitable for a minority of the population.

We need jobs for the people who would be cannon fodder in wars.

One of the main reasons we have loads of unemployed people is there is no massive war or epidemic that would kill them off.

Are you suggesting we invade Poland before they errr? invade us? Bit late.

[BlasterBates]

I had a quick check of the statistics. There are no unemployment black spots any more. Inner cities including London typically have "black spots" of 10% ...well 10% isn´t good but is pretty good when you compare it to the rest of Europe. Scotland seems to be doing pretty well really.

[minestrone]

I'm not sure this is true. Historically we led the world at mass production, and even today British high tech manufacturers are as good as any you'll find. Where we lost out was in semiconductor and electronics manufacture. We practically invented the computer and many of the early firms were British. That we don't have an IBM, HP, Intel or Samsung in the UK is, to my mind, the single greatest failure of industrial and economic policy since the war.

We were rubbish, when I went to do mechanical in the early 90s the courses at recently been altered by the institute to add in 'manufacturing sciences' and management that were never taught before. It is inconceivable that we were punting out graduates that had no clue about quality, stats or how to manage a production process.

Much of the drive to do this stuff in other countries came from industry but we had British Leyland and not Toyota.

[VectraMan]

Lets take the "what could she have done differently" argument and turn it around. Where should they have gone?

If your argument is "there are no jobs", as we often hear today, have a look at the unemployment figures:

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate

Unemployment went up significantly in the mid-80s, but then fell again through to the end of Thatcher's reign until the recession messed it up a bit, before continuing to fall again. If it's really true that Thatcher destroyed industry, destroyed whole areas, and left people with no hope of ever finding work again in their lifetimes as we always hear, where are all those people? How come there was less unemployment in 2004 than there was in 1979?

Surely it is the governments job to implement an economic strategy that ensures that whole towns aren't dependent on a single employer, especially when that government is about to pull the plug on said employer.

I agree completely. But that wasn't Thatcher. That was all the years of state run industry and control that preceeded her. Thatcher did ensure that whole towns aren't dependent on a single industry, although you may not like the way she did it, you obviously agree that it was the right thing to do.

I'm not sure why it would be "undemocratic" or "unfair to the majority" to take short term measures to transform or revitalise a failing local economy.

You're still not saying what those measures actually should have been. Please tell us.

[doodab]

If your argument is "there are no jobs", as we often hear today, have a look at the unemployment figures:

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate

Unemployment went up significantly in the mid-80s, but then fell again through to the end of Thatcher's reign until the recession messed it up a bit, before continuing to fall again. If it's really true that Thatcher destroyed industry, destroyed whole areas, and left people with no hope of ever finding work again in their lifetimes as we always hear, where are all those people? How come there was less unemployment in 2004 than there was in 1979?

Sorry, lets get this straight, you're arguing that although unemployment went up sharply under thatcher and didn't recover until 14 years after she left office that it was all none of her doing? And because these areas have partly recovered after 20 years she didn't do any harm?

Thatcher did ensure that whole towns aren't dependent on a single industry, although you may not like the way she did it, you obviously agree that it was the right thing to do.

By ensuring they had zero industry to depend on? She needed to do to build some resilience and potential for recovery into the system before she pulled the plug.

[ZARDOZ]

If your argument is "there are no jobs", as we often hear today, have a look at the unemployment figures:

United Kingdom Unemployment Rate

Unemployment went up significantly in the mid-80s, but then fell again through to the end of Thatcher's reign until the recession messed it up a bit, before continuing to fall again. If it's really true that Thatcher destroyed industry, destroyed whole areas, and left people with no hope of ever finding work again in their lifetimes as we always hear, where are all those people? How come there was less unemployment in 2004 than there was in 1979?


.

That's an easy one to answer, because being on long term benefits doesn't classify as being unemployed, therefore it doesn't count in the statistics. Prior to 79, there wasn't so many hidden unemployed.

[original PM]

hmm I think to get the changes needed (such as removing 1 industry towns) you will always need to wait a generation to see the benefits.

Many of the people affected by the changes Thatcher made will be bitter (and it was hard on them) - but they are missing the fact it offered their children more opportunity.

It will be the same if sweeping changes are made to the benefits system (for example not giving free money/housing to girls who see pregnancy as a career choice).

It will be tough for that generation but not so for the next generation as it will not be an option for them.

[northernladuk]

Be interesting to see the news coverage and see how many of these 'protesters' are even old enough to remember her in office. Looking at the pictures of the 'celebrations' in Liverpool it just looked like another excuse for the lawless to cause trouble. I am not sure how 20 odd year old scouse hoodies can understand what she did or who she is.

[DodgyAgent]

Sorry, lets get this straight, you're arguing that although unemployment went up sharply under thatcher and didn't recover until 14 years after she left office that it was all none of her doing? And because these areas have partly recovered after 20 years she didn't do any harm?



By ensuring they had zero industry to depend on? She needed to do to build some resilience and potential for recovery into the system before she pulled the plug.

Zero industry - stats please? and how was she to build anything with no money to invest? Are you suggesting

1. Money grows on trees?
2. Rather than make welfare payments money should be used on investing?

Most importantly What exactly do you mean by investing?

[doodab]

Zero industry - stats please? and how was she to build anything with no money to invest? Are you suggesting

1. Money grows on trees?
2. Rather than make welfare payments money should be used on investing?

Most importantly What exactly do you mean by investing?

TBH she may have been best off continuing to subsidize the coal industry. That's what the West Germans did and it seems to have worked for them.

In fact you could argue that she was driven ideologically to close the mines, not by her belief in free markets, but by her opposition to reliance on fossil fuels.