Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Larry's Codpiece.
02 Jan 10 13:58
Joined:
Date Joined: 03 Dec 06
| Topic/replies: 3,737 | Blogger: Larry's Codpiece.'s blog
Apart from salmon does anybody else on the left consider that Thatcher's policies caused the significant rise in crime we saw in the 80's?

If so I'd be interested to know which of her policies you consider were responsible?
Pause Switch to Standard View Thatcher and crime.
Show More
Loading...
Report whodareswins January 2, 2010 3:11 PM GMT
Not sure if I count as being on the "left", but her policies of running down manufacturing industry meant many young people, men in particular, had little chance of gaining a job that would pay them a wage sufficient to live a "normal life" such as raise a family.

Another of her policies of "care in the community" meant that all the won't work brigade of self afflication such as junkies, alkies and criminals were provided for first by the welfare state with social housing and benefits.
They were dumped on the working class areas where some parents were still trying to raise their children with the values of not harming or interfering with others.

Anyone else other than the self afflicted who needed help were refused, and told they were scroungers.

Not that BlueLabour have done anything about it.
Report zilzal1 January 2, 2010 3:14 PM GMT
Id imagine that many up in Northern towns became dependent on drugs in the 80s after unemployment ran amok up there, it wasnt just the mines closing as it created a knock on affect that sent many other small business interests collapse as well, not that it was all her fault, but as is was on her watch she must take some of the blame.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 3:19 PM GMT
whodares

I'd have to agree on the care in the community issue. A true disaster which was sold on the back of individualising care and helping people to live useful lives within the community but which was really a cost saving exercise which had disastrous consequences.
Report MRGRUMPY1 January 2, 2010 3:20 PM GMT
Don't blame Maggie for all the woes of the country.
Many of the businesses that went "under" did so because of poor management.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 3:21 PM GMT
One thing which I would like you to clarify is this curious notion of Thatcher running down manufacturing industry.
Report 1st time poster January 2, 2010 3:27 PM GMT
steel and mining used to employ 150,000 between them till mr mcregor took an axe to both ,hope this helps
Report MRGRUMPY1 January 2, 2010 3:33 PM GMT
Only government subsidy kept british steel alive, and the mining industry was greatly over manned.
Report zilzal1 January 2, 2010 3:33 PM GMT
That would never happen with the banks.............
Report whodareswins January 2, 2010 3:39 PM GMT
Businesses went down before Maggie, and go down still, because of poor management.

But with the exception of specialised niche markets, unless you are producing goods that will sell to your local consumers no amount of good management techniques will sustain a business. Without the home market which was sacrificed on the altar of the Chicago School monetarist doctrines many businesses found it impossible to continue.
All businesses should employ sound business methods, and that includes UK PLC, but UK PLC should consider the wider implications of buying the cheapest in simple monetary terms. Without involving all costs an equilbrium will be untrue.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 3:40 PM GMT
1st time

It doesn't help at all.

You don't manufacture coal and the steel industry which had been a thriving private industry until nationalisation was now massively loss making but contrary to popular misconceptions it was actually EU rules on not subsidising loss making industries rather than anything Thatcher may have wanted.

Thanks for your effort though.
Report zilzal1 January 2, 2010 3:43 PM GMT
Feckin ell, how did Air France get around that one for so long???
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 3:45 PM GMT
whodares

If I wanted gobbledegook masquerading as intelligent discussion I would have read the whole of The Shock Doctrine myself. :)

If I may rephrase my question to remove any ambiguity what did she do and how did she do it?

Thank you.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 3:46 PM GMT
zilzal

Because the French only implement laws which suit them.
Report zilzal1 January 2, 2010 3:50 PM GMT
And so do the rest of Europe, this whole subsidy issue cant be used as a excuse because mainland Europe managed to find ways to circumnavigate them. When i lived on Crete you were supposed to be allowed to bring any car from Europe in, but reality is that its impounded for six months of the year.
Report whodareswins January 2, 2010 3:52 PM GMT
Larry your insults noted. If you don't understand that's fine. No more to be said.
Report flushgordon January 2, 2010 4:10 PM GMT
the chav generation was created by the thatch , blair and brown have done nothing to reduce the amount of petty crime created by these parasites who are only interested in where their next joint,can of special brew/bottle of buckfast are coming from.
the amount of crime created by these people to feed their drug habits and the strain put on public services to feed clothe and educate the children with absent fathers ,who pay no child maintenance is a major problem.
the amount of police time spent chasing the crime caused by generally a small proportion of neer do wells who bring down everyone around them has to be dealt with.
also the high proportion of crimes carried out by immigrants.
zero tolerance is something that i would not have a problem with .
feck the pc brigade and make the housing schemes where 3 generations of children who have never worked safe for law abiding people.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 4:57 PM GMT
zilzal

That is the argument which I have made for years. Most of Europe's legal systems are based more on a civil law system rather than our own common law system. Speaking generally ours is a tradition which allows absolutely anything which isn't forbidden by law. Thus we have traditionally tended to respect and uphold the law. There is no tradition of the shrug of the shoulders and the blind eye. That is why European regulations and directives disproportionately affect us.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 5:02 PM GMT
whodares

Don't be so touchy. If my intention was to insult I would hardly have put a smiley face after my comment. I am genuinely interested in your opinion but would like you to clarify it.
Report salmon spray January 2, 2010 6:12 PM GMT
She produced Mark. That`s one I hadn`t thought of yesterday.
One or two people are saying the same as me. She basically created a much larger alienated underclass than had existed before, which was habituated to a life of petty crime at best.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 8:42 PM GMT
salmon

But she didn't create an underclass any more than pre war Prime Ministers did when they allowed failing industries to do so. The 30 or so years post war where all and sundry loss making industries were propped up were the historical abheration. The problem, which Thatcher didn't create, was a welfare system where people could live in relative comfort on benefits for the rest of their lives. That helped develop an underclass which had been rising from the advent of the post war welfare state.
Report V4 Vendetta January 2, 2010 9:09 PM GMT
Larry's Codpiece. 02 Jan 15:58

Apart from salmon does anybody else on the left consider that Thatcher's policies caused the significant rise in crime we saw in the 80's?

If so I'd be interested to know which of her policies you consider were responsible?


Codpiece,

I shall open with: I am a firm believer in the phrase that if poverty is the mother of crime, stupidity is its father. Having said that, I feel that restructuring the economy from fat northern blokes with sideburns to fat northern blokes with sideburns in call centres and offices instead of making bolts that the East Asians will clearly be able to make more cheaply is likely to have a transitional period of lower income for many individuals. This lowers the threshold over which stupidity must climb and a rise in criminality should be expected. So, while the balance of responsibility as regards causation is very much a political viewpoint, I don't see a problem in acknowledging that a paradigm shift in the economy will involve large sectors of disenfranchisement albeit temporarily.

Now, causation is one thing and responsibility another. I see the weakness of the 70s Tory and Labour governments as responsible for the problems**in the 80s as they perpetuated and prolonged the day of reckoning. Whether they needed or had to be rectified in such a short space of time is again a politically sensitive issue. My view is that it was done well as convincing the market of one's seriousness on inflation policy bears fruit over the medium and long terms. Others would prefer to pay for this over a longer period and have it all "in one easier monthly payment"...
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 9:22 PM GMT
Goring

But that flies in the face of previous experience. We had people thrown out of work in the 30's who already had buggger all and who didn't have the benefits system to fall back on. This didn't result in a massive upsurge in criminality.
Report V4 Vendetta January 2, 2010 9:27 PM GMT
There were more handouts though.
Report salmon spray January 2, 2010 9:41 PM GMT
You sure about your analysis of the 30s Larry ?
I doubt whether crime figures existed in anything like the modern form, but a lot of observers thought it was a pretty lawless decade.
Report bazzar January 2, 2010 9:45 PM GMT
As regards steel she regularly had her lackey editors print and reprint that British steel was costing the taxpayer £3million per hour,
if my memory is correct, she used a similar tactic when she wished to privatise British Telecom.
So don't tell Sid Eternal Optimist.
Most evil women this great nation has had to put up with, you have a very curious way of excusing criminals, Eternal and if anyone has a different view to you they must be left wing and luvvies, none of the descriptions original, just blatantly copying idiot editors who
describe a motorised cycle with 4 wheels as a "quad-bike", totally wrongly but your sort follow without thought.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 9:50 PM GMT
salmon

Quite sure. If you check the link gus gave you on the other thread you can see that statistics for indictable offences go back to the beginning of the 20th century and the 30's as with all of the first half of the 20th century were a time of incredibly low levels of crime.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 9:58 PM GMT
bazzar

Amongst people who believed in upholding the law of the land they lost none. Had Scargill and his thugs not been determined to encourage striking miners to break the law there would have been no conflict with the police.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 10:01 PM GMT
Goring

There weren't more handouts. What is true is that people could turn to more organisations to seek help but pretty much all of these were geared up to prevent people from starving rather than providing them with a way of life.
Report salmon spray January 2, 2010 10:46 PM GMT
Codpiece.

The difference is that bobbys didn`t ( probably couldn`t ) do all the paperwork in those days. They gave the apple-scrumper a clip round the ear. I thought that was accepted on here.
Report treetop January 2, 2010 10:49 PM GMT
The usual tripe about maggie. The police were there to stop aggressive picketing,when young secretaries were being spat at and sworn at as they crossed picket lines it was only right that they had protection.
It is idiotic to say she ran down the manufacturing industry which was often hopelessly outdated and restrictive. Much of it deserved to go bust before it did,waiting for handouts and subisidies due to laziness,useless management and strikes. Her only criticism in this respect was asking those industries to stand on their own two feet instead of persistent begging for support.
Report whodareswins January 3, 2010 12:03 AM GMT
Larry I'll take you at your word. Maggie was convinced by the economic theories of Friedman et al from the Chicago School, that the PSBR had to be kept low. No problem in not spending beyond your means. But one of the "known" givens of the theory was that as unemployment went up inflation came down and vice versa. This meant that to keep inflation down the only cure was higher unemployment. -that is the theory of the Phillips Curve. Social and environmental costs are not incorporated.

The nationalised/privatised industries had severe problems and did need a good dose of better management, more responsible work practices and modern equipment. The problem came the way she went about things. To some extent she was tied in to the privatisation programme, because of the agreement made by such as Denis Healey as part of the IMF loan. So privatisation or structural adjustment as it was called in the underdeveloped world went ahead. The improved management and work practices could have gone ahead within the nationalised industries if there was not an overriding imperative not to exceed an arbitrary PSBR limit. There were historical examples of workers and management joining forces for the common good with the Mond/Turner talks after the 1926 General Strike. It is something that the NFU and the Unite union still do with the agricultural wages settlement every year.
Alternatively Maggie could have used the method by which local councils have arms length companies. The local council is the only, or at least major, shareholder receiving dividends each year and has representation on the board, but the company is privately run. But even here the PSBR imperative causes problems because the companies are still on the books as it were.
Or she could have done what many councils have done with the public housing, and get them off the books, but still retain the right to use them as a means of providing homes for people.

When the nationalised industries were privatised the companies set about improving the bottom line. Nothing unusual in that, because it is what all companies do. The difference was that the privatised companies still had an almost monopoly. In improving their bottom line they bought global at the lowest price. This meant that the small supplier employing a few people locally in the UK went out of business, because he could not compete with the cheap labour abroad, even though often the product was not of the quality he was producing, it was still passable and much cheaper. The knock on effect was felt by many from the hairdresser to the newsagent.
The privatised companies with their major foreign shareholdings did not care about how many people were put out of work in the UK so long as the profits kept coming in. After all they did not have to pay the unemployment money or the disability money or put up with any problems caused by unemployment. While it is easy to argue that companies should not be subsidised, how easy is it to argue that, with the same money, it is better to have unemployment and the problems of social decay it brings rather than pay a fair price for a better quality product.
Remember 20 years ago what Made in China meant?
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 3, 2010 12:42 AM GMT
whodares

Thanks for the reply. I'll have a good read of it in the morning and get back to you during the day because it is a little too in depth to be addressing at this time.
Report Breeze January 3, 2010 5:51 AM GMT
Who dares, did you ever go down on Maggie......
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com