Author Topic: Margaret Thatcher  (Read 23989 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13961
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2013, 04:04:57 pm »
Quote
Aren't you contradicting yourself? It's can't be both a con trick AND a lucrative investment

And many con tricks can be lucrative investments for a time....

I'm with you on this Ian as I made a nice little earner out of investing in the privatisation of the National Industries but that doesn't make it right.  The con trick was buying something that I already owned as a taxpayer. Selling off those industries, school fields and council houses has left a legacy that has backfired now.  As a leader she was very good and made some very brave decisions and did a lot of good for the country.  Unfortunately she made some bad decisions too and destroyed Mining communities without any thought for  the families who had no other source of employment to turn to.
She divided the nation and people and I can understand how people either like her or hate her.

Offline snowcap

  • Ad Free Member
  • *
  • Posts: 822
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2013, 04:24:52 pm »
thoughts of Mrs. T, wow, if they build a statue of her it should be with horns, tail and a halo and wings. to those who did well by her she was an angel to the rest she was the devil. No matter what side you stand on she will never be forgotten.  let her rest in piece and watch the hypocrites who try and justify the fortune that is going to be spent on her funeral. there are going to be no winners in this debate.


Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #32 on: April 10, 2013, 06:04:12 pm »
Quote
Aren't you contradicting yourself? It's can't be both a con trick AND a lucrative investment

And many con tricks can be lucrative investments for a time....
In the context of the BT privatisation, that doesn't make a lot of sense. People invested, the shares went up, people sold and banked their profit. I'm sure Fester and I both wish we had been 'conned' a few more times like that in our stock market dealings over the years!  :laugh:

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #33 on: April 10, 2013, 06:07:06 pm »
Quote
Aren't you contradicting yourself? It's can't be both a con trick AND a lucrative investment.

Not if you read my post.

"At a single stroke thousands of people made a massive profit. But only those able to afford to buy shares - the well-off - could profit from that"

It was a con trick to sell back an industry which every tax payer had owned to those few who could afford to buy the shares.
No, because the taxpayers that didn't participate received the benefit of the amounts subscribed to buy shares going back into the national purse, which removed the need for the Govt to either borrow or raise in taxes that equivalent sum.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #34 on: April 10, 2013, 06:43:07 pm »
Quote
In the context of the BT privatisation, that doesn't make a lot of sense. People invested, the shares went up, people sold and banked their profit.

It surprises me that you seem to be deliberately ignoring the fallacy inherent in the 'something for nothing' principle. Successive bouts of nationalisation and conversions left many people far better off - apparently. Simply because we had accounts with building societies, we were enriched to the tune of thousands of pounds. But this money is now proving to have been an illusion and it's now being realised, albeit belatedly, that being given money for nothing isn't the best way to ensure a healthy economy. But the BT shares didn't just go up: they sky-rocketed, making a lot of money for some already wealthy people, and, of course, depriving the treasury of the money.  Now, you might be able to argue that it was understandable, if it had been the Labour party doing it, since they don't comprehend the market.  But this, remember was the Tories, who are supposed to be the experts in and champions of the free market.  BBC news from 2004 put it well:

Yet the fundamental driver of privatisation proved to be the incompatibility of funding investment in the nationalised industry and the government's target for public sector borrowing. BT was profitable, but the investment necessary to maintain this position counted as public borrowing so long as the business was owned by the state.

Amidst massive publicity, the issue of 20 November 1984 was greatly over-subscribed. On 1 December about 2.1 million members of the public were allocated almost two-fifths of the shares, to ensure wider ownership, and British financial institutions bought nearly one-half. When dealing began on 3 December, BT shares traded at an unexpectedly high premium.


Thus BT was already making money for the Treasury;  it was simply an accounting technicality which stopped it appearing as such.

Quote
No, because the taxpayers that didn't participate received the benefit of the amounts subscribed to buy shares going back into the national purse, which removed the need for the Govt to either borrow or raise in taxes that equivalent sum.

But they didn't! As shown above privatisation actually cost the treasury money: first from the appallingly low offer price and secondly because BT was already profitable. No rebates were made to any tax payers whatsoever and the argument that the public purse was somehow 'better off' when the industry went on to make trillions in profits some years later, all for the shareholders,  is clearly specious. The only feasible argument for privatisation was to remove the red tape that existed, and that could probably have been done as it was.

Of course, the Tories have a wonderful[l record in this regard.  The rail network was savaged by the Tories, with Ernest Marples introducing the 1962 Transport Act which made it relatively easy to close lines.  Of course, he made all the right noises about it being economically essential, but forgot to mention that he owned a massive Road Haulage company.  His life ended in ignominy, however, after he fled the country to escape various legal and taxation difficulties.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #35 on: April 10, 2013, 08:36:10 pm »
But this money is now proving to have been an illusion
Really? It still seems to be sitting in my bank account quite nicely?

Quote
No, because the taxpayers that didn't participate received the benefit of the amounts subscribed to buy shares going back into the national purse, which removed the need for the Govt to either But they didn't! As shown above privatisation actually cost the treasury money: first from the appallingly low offer price and secondly because BT was already profitable. No rebates were made to any tax payers whatsoever and the argument that the public purse was somehow 'better off' when the industry went on to make trillions in profits some years later, all for the shareholders,  is clearly specious. The only feasible argument for privatisation was to remove the red tape that existed, and that could probably have been done as it was.
How could it have cost the Treasury money when they would not have received a penny if  had not been privatised? And, of course, the great improvements in efficiency after privatisation meant that those larger profits generated larger amounts of Tax for the Treasury. All the Dividends received by Shareholders were also taxed, of course.

Quote
Of course, the Tories have a wonderful[l record in this regard.  The rail network was savaged by the Tories, with Ernest Marples introducing the 1962 Transport Act which made it relatively easy to close lines.  Of course, he made all the right noises about it being economically essential, but forgot to mention that he owned a massive Road Haulage company.  His life ended in ignominy, however, after he fled the country to escape various legal and taxation difficulties.
According to Wikipedia, he owned a building company (Marples, Ridgway and Partners), not a road haulage company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Marples
Regardless, it's a fact that the Railways were making increasing losses every year back then, and something drastic would have to have been done, sooner or later.

Offline Cambrian

  • Genealogy & Research team
  • *
  • Posts: 912
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2013, 08:41:33 pm »
I have mixed views on Mrs T.  She completely messed up the railway system with privatisation; likewise BT and the Post Office.  Anyone know of any other western democracy where the Post Office is not an organ of Government with clear accountability. Isn't SNCF still state owned ?  On the other hand she stood up to the Eurocrats and took on the Argentine Junta.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #37 on: April 11, 2013, 07:40:12 am »
Quote
Quote
    But this money is now proving to have been an illusion

Really? It still seems to be sitting in my bank account quite nicely?

 :D :D :D  But it's now worth a lot less... More seriously, do you not believe that this approach has brought us to the point we're at globally, today? I've always argued international macro-economics defied understanding, and I think I was right.

Quote
How could it have cost the Treasury money when they would not have received a penny if  had not been privatised?

Because BT was making a profit;  they couldn't appear to be making a profit, because of some arcane financial rules governing state-owned industries at the time (see below)

Quote
And, of course, the great improvements in efficiency after privatisation

Hmmmm.  I've always had mixed feeling about this one. Phrases like "great improvements in efficiency" almost inevitably translate into major job losses, poorer working conditions, lower pay, higher stress levels and - ironically - can lead to a greater drain on the so-called 'public purse' as a consequence.

Quote
According to Wikipedia, he owned a building company

It was a huge civil engineering company, and one which was bidding for motorway construction contracts. That gave him little incentive to maintain the railways.

The entire issue of privatisation is fraught; certainly the financial rules governing them at the time were arcane and ludicrously complex and were, I suspect, designed to actively prevent them from competing with private companies. They were not, for instance, allowed to borrow on the open market, which meant they were entirely dependent on the treasury for expansion. In effect we expected them to become profit-earning, successful businesses for the state whilst tying their hands behind them. There's a very good essay here which examines the possibility of increasing state-ownership throughout the world, and which also debunks some long-held myths about the strategy.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #38 on: April 11, 2013, 10:18:24 am »
Quote
Quote
    But this money is now proving to have been an illusion

Really? It still seems to be sitting in my bank account quite nicely?

 :D :D :D  But it's now worth a lot less... More seriously, do you not believe that this approach has brought us to the point we're at globally, today? I've always argued international macro-economics defied understanding, and I think I was right.
In a Capitalist society, more people should be encouraged to be a part owner of businesses, large & small. The idea that share ownership is only for 'rich people' was perpetuated for decades before the era of privatisations and is line with the socialist idea of keeping poor people poor. Indeed, if Thatcher had never come to power, I doubt I would ever had bought a single share...what a horrifying prospect!

Quote
Quote
How could it have cost the Treasury money when they would not have received a penny if  had not been privatised?

Because BT was making a profit;  they couldn't appear to be making a profit, because of some arcane financial rules governing state-owned industries at the time (see below)
I'm sure BT was not making a 10th of the profit that they do now. The figures post privatisation are freely available, if you could provide a couple of examples of pre privatisation profits? I'm sure figures are available, as I recall headlines about British Steel, British Coal, British Leyland etc all losing record amounts of money back in the 70s and 80s.

Quote
Quote
And, of course, the great improvements in efficiency after privatisation

Hmmmm.  I've always had mixed feeling about this one. Phrases like "great improvements in efficiency" almost inevitably translate into major job losses, poorer working conditions, lower pay, higher stress levels and - ironically - can lead to a greater drain on the so-called 'public purse' as a consequence.
Always an interesting argument. People in nationalised businesses should have a cushy lifestyle, paid for by myself and all the other workers in the private sector? As regards efficiency, I recall that you had to wait several months in the 1970s to have a phone installed!

Quote
Quote
According to Wikipedia, he owned a building company

It was a huge civil engineering company, and one which was bidding for motorway construction contracts. That gave him little incentive to maintain the railways.
Whilst he was certainly as bent as they come, I'm not convinced that he deliberately set out to destroy the railways. The Railways were hugely inefficent and loss making and, drastic measures to reform them were needed by whoever was responsible.

Quote
The entire issue of privatisation is fraught; certainly the financial rules governing them at the time were arcane and ludicrously complex and were, I suspect, designed to actively prevent them from competing with private companies. They were not, for instance, allowed to borrow on the open market, which meant they were entirely dependent on the treasury for expansion. In effect we expected them to become profit-earning, successful businesses for the state whilst tying their hands behind them. There's a very good essay here which examines the possibility of increasing state-ownership throughout the world, and which also debunks some long-held myths about the strategy.
But that's the point, Ian. Why do they need to be owned by the State? It's just like CCBC owning the freehold of Rhos Point Cafe - why do they need to? The age old problem has always been that nationalised businesses are badly run and very inefficient. On the other hand, the argument against purely privately owned business has been that they are governed solely by profit. Personally, I think Dwr Cymru offers a good 'third way' - a single purpose company with no shareholders and it is run solely for the benefit of customers.

Offline Hugo

  • Management board member
  • *
  • Posts: 13961
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2013, 12:08:37 pm »
Why don't you include the NHS Dave,  it's state run.    The Labour Party set it up for the benefit of everyone irrespective of their class and all the Conservatives want to do is take it to bits and privatise those parts and sell them off to their supporters.
If it had been left to a Conservative Government the NHS would never have been set up in the first place as they have had plenty of opportunity to have done it in the past.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #40 on: April 11, 2013, 12:49:46 pm »
Crikey! Even the Telegraph is wondering
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #41 on: April 11, 2013, 12:50:39 pm »
Quote
I'm sure BT was not making a 10th of the profit that they do now. The figures post privatisation are freely available, if you could provide a couple of examples of pre privatisation profits? I'm sure figures are available, as I recall headlines about British Steel, British Coal, British Leyland etc all losing record amounts of money back in the 70s and 80s.

Two points: BT's profitability can't be accurately assessed under the accounting systems then in place for state owned industries. Secondly, of course BT made more money after privatisation, because they were allowed to raise money on the money markets and because a massive telecoms change was starting.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #42 on: April 11, 2013, 01:05:33 pm »
A nice tribute from the Leader of the Labour Party:

"Today is an opportunity for us to reflect on Margaret Thatcher's personal achievements, her style of politics and her political legacy.

As the prime minister said, the journey from child of a grocer to Downing Street is an unlikely one. And it is particularly remarkable as she was the daughter, not the son, of a grocer. At each stage of her life, she broke the mould.

A woman at Oxford when there was not a single woman in the university who held a full professorship. A woman chemist when most people assumed scientists had to be men. A woman candidate for parliament in 1950, against the opposition of some in her local party in Dartford, at the age of only 24. A woman MP in 1959 when just 4% of MPs in the whole of this House were women. The only woman in the cabinet when she was appointed in 1970. And, of course, the first woman prime minister.

Mr Speaker, it is no wonder she remarked as early as 1965 in a speech to the National Union of Townswomen's Guilds conference: "In politics if you want anything said, ask a man. If you want anything done, ask a woman."

I am sure some people in this House – and no doubt many more in the country – will agree with this sentiment.

Having broken so many conventions as a woman, it can't be a coincidence that she was someone who in so many other areas of life was willing to take on the established orthodoxies.

Margaret Thatcher's ability to overcome every obstacle in her path is just one measure of her personal strength.

And that takes me to her style of politics. You can disagree with Margaret Thatcher, but it is important to understand the kind of political leader she was. What was unusual was that she sought to be rooted in people's daily lives, but she also believed that ideology mattered. Not for her the contempt sometimes heaped on ideas and new thinking in political life.

And while she never would have claimed to be, or wanted to be seen as, an intellectual, she believed, and she showed, that ideas matter in politics.

In 1945 Mr Speaker, before the end of the war, she bought a copy of Friedrich Hayek's Road to Serfdom. There is even a story that she suggested that Conservative Central Office distribute it in the 1945 campaign. She said: "It left a permanent mark on my political character." And nobody can grasp Margaret Thatcher's achievements, and Thatcherism, without also appreciating the ideas that were its foundation. And the way in which they departed from the prevailing consensus of the time.

In typical homespun style, on breakfast TV she said this in 1995: "Consensus doesn't give you any direction. It is like mixing all the constituent ingredients together and not coming out with a cake. Democracy is about the people being given a choice." It was that approach that enabled her to define the politics of a whole generation and influence the politics of generations to come.

The prime minister, the deputy prime minister and I all came of age in the 1980s, when you defined your politics by being for or against what she was doing. It's fair to say, we took different paths.

Thirty years on, the people of Britain still argue about her legacy. She was right to understand the sense of aspiration of people across the country. She was right to recognise our economy needed to change. She said in 1982: "How absurd it will seem in a few years' time that the state ran Pickfords removals and the Gleneagles Hotel." She was right. And in foreign policy, she was right to defend the Falklands and bravely reach out to new leadership in the Soviet Union.

And something often forgotten, Mr Speaker, she was the first political leader in any major country to warn of the dangers of climate change. Long before anyone thought of hugging a husky.

But it would be dishonest and not in keeping with the principles that Margaret Thatcher stood for, even on this day, not to be open with this House about the strong opinions and the deep divisions there were, and are, over what she did.

In mining areas, like the one I represent, communities felt angry and abandoned. Gay and lesbian people felt stigmatised by measures like section 28, which today's Conservative party has rightly repudiated. And it was no accident that when he became leader of the Conservative party, the right honourable member for Chingford wrote a pamphlet, called There is Such a Thing as Society.

On the world stage, as this prime minister rightly said in 2006, when he was leader of the opposition, she made the wrong judgment about Nelson Mandela and sanctions in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, debates about her and what she represented will continue for many years. This is a mark of her significance as a political leader. Someone with deep convictions, willing to act on them. As she put it: "Politics is more when you have convictions than a matter of multiple manoeuvrings to get you through the problems of the day."

And as a person, nothing became her so much as the manner of her final years. The loss of her beloved husband, Denis, and her struggle with illness. She bore both with the utmost dignity and courage. The same courage she showed decades earlier after the atrocity of the Brighton bombing. And Mr Speaker, I will always remember seeing her at the Cenotaph in frail health but determined to pay her respect to our troops and do her duty. Whatever your view of her, Margaret Thatcher was a unique and towering figure. I disagree with much of what she did. But I respect what her death means to the many, many people who admired her. And I honour her personal achievements.

On previous occasions, we have come to this House to remember the extraordinary prime ministers who have served our nation. Today, we also remember a prime minister who defined her age."

Offline DaveR

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 13712
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #43 on: April 11, 2013, 01:07:28 pm »
Quote
I'm sure BT was not making a 10th of the profit that they do now. The figures post privatisation are freely available, if you could provide a couple of examples of pre privatisation profits? I'm sure figures are available, as I recall headlines about British Steel, British Coal, British Leyland etc all losing record amounts of money back in the 70s and 80s.

Two points: BT's profitability can't be accurately assessed under the accounting systems then in place for state owned industries. Secondly, of course BT made more money after privatisation, because they were allowed to raise money on the money markets and because a massive telecoms change was starting.

"Yet the privatised telecom industry seemed to deliver; prices came down, waiting lists for telephone vanished in the early 1980s and never reappeared, most faults were cleared quickly, and even public telephones began to work, once the industry regulator cracked his whip."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4061613.stm

Offline Ian

  • Administrator
  • Posts: 8954
Re: Margaret Thatcher
« Reply #44 on: April 11, 2013, 01:09:45 pm »
Quote
But that's the point, Ian. Why do they need to be owned by the State? It's just like CCBC owning the freehold of Rhos Point Cafe - why do they need to? The age old problem has always been that nationalised businesses are badly run and very inefficient. On the other hand, the argument against purely privately owned business has been that they are governed solely by profit. Personally, I think Dwr Cymru offers a good 'third way' - a single purpose company with no shareholders and it is run solely for the benefit of customers.

The debate about state ownership related mainly to 'services' to which everyone was entitled, which is a doctrine now being revisited in the wake of the banking problems. But I don't agree with you about state industries being badly run and inefficient. Hard to find a more efficient organisation than the Post office, IMHO.  And our NHS is pretty good, too.
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.  ― Michel de Montaigne

Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes.