Survey: Thatcher Ranks as Top Post-WW II British PM - Page 4

donsutherland1 · 04-23-08, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

For a start it is bogus to suggest that the worst performing pits were closed. Closure was skewed towards, for example, Yorkshire pit.

At the time the closures were announced, the 20 pits that were slated for closure were described as "uneconomic." Moreover, according to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, 75% of Britain's coal pits were running losses in 1983.

Do you have any reliable evidence that the Yorkshire pit that was subject to closure was profitable?

Scucca · 04-23-08, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

At the time the closures were announced, the 20 pits that were slated for closure were described as "uneconomic."

Why weren't the worst performed closed? Even the orthodox economic evidence cannot support the view that closures were based purely on economic concerns (e.g. Glyn and Machin [1997, Colliery Closures and the Decline of the UK Coal Industry, British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol 35, pp 197-214])

Quote:

Do you have any reliable evidence that the Yorkshire pit that was subject to closure was profitable? [/left]

I've got 2 facts over profitability. Fact 1: The worst performers weren't closed. Fact 2: privatisation led to re-openings.

Yorkshire's over-targeting reflected the need to discourage solidarity

donsutherland1 · 04-23-08, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Why weren't the worst performed closed?

Specifically, what passages from the journal article suggest that mines that were performing worse, on the criteria under which the NCB made its judgments that they were "uneconomic," had not been slated for closure?

Quote:

...privatisation led to re-openings.

There is little dispute that alternative options ranging from "harvesting" to privatization could have been pursued in place of closure. Had the NUM undertaken a cooperative approach, perhaps the clash could have been avoided and a somewhat different course to addressing the industry's overall economic challenges been developed. However, that's a different matter from the need to overcome the often violent course Mr. Scargill chose to embark upon.

Quote:

Yorkshire's over-targeting reflected the need to discourage solidarity

While Margaret Thatcher's memoirs suggest that the closure of the Yorkshire pit in question could have been handled better, there is nothing in her memoirs nor in some of the major international newspapers nor the BBC from the time that suggested that the closure of that pit was aimed at 'discouraging solidarity.'

aegyptos · 04-23-08, 08:47 PM

Obviously Scucca has nothing. As I said before if you carefully analyze his post that aren't simply links to scholarly papers he hasn't read you find that his argument is always political disguised as economic. This thread is a good illustration of that. Its the standard very dated anti-capitalist, marxist rant. Scucca is actually a troll.

Joby · 04-23-08, 10:15 PM

That fascist rag's awards shouldn't be taken seriously.

Scucca · 04-24-08, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Specifically, what passages from the journal article suggest that mines that were performing worse, on the criteria under which the NCB made its judgments that they were "uneconomic," had not been slated for closure?

Here’s a couple of examples:

”[W]hen ranked by productivity, closures were only weakly clustered at the bottom of the distribution, and that there were reasonably large numbers of closures located in the top half of the distribution”

“[C]losures were by no means exclusively concentrated on the worst performers, and many of the pits that were closed at the end of the period had achieved very large increases in productivity over the years preceding closure”

”It is striking, however, that the 5 pits on BC’s closure list that were not on Boyd’s “worst 31” were all in Yorkshire. This seems to support the idea that there was strong political pressure when BC’s list was drawn up to keep open a few pits in the outlying areas.”

Quote:

Had the NUM undertaken a cooperative approach, perhaps the clash could have been avoided and a somewhat different course to addressing the industry's overall economic challenges been developed.

I’m afraid you’re not aware of the right wing militancy of Thatcherism. As I’ve described, confrontation was vital for them. It served the purpose of revenge against the NUM old enemy, whilst also aiding the general attack on unionism. Indeed, the confrontation generated by the government led to a negative relationship between unionism and productivity.

Quote:

However, that's a different matter from the need to overcome the often violent course Mr. Scargill chose to embark upon.

The violence was often harvested by the police. For example, violence at the Orgreave coking works occurred after the police attacked with horses in a bid to disperse the crowd

Quote:

While Margaret Thatcher's memoirs suggest that the closure of the Yorkshire pit in question could have been handled better, there is nothing in her memoirs nor in some of the major international newspapers nor the BBC from the time that suggested that the closure of that pit was aimed at 'discouraging solidarity.'

The split between Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire was an important element for the government victory. They applied all forms of tactics to encourage it. Protection of Nottinghamshire included the attack on civil liberties, such as the use of road bocks to hinder freedom of movement. For example, Wallington (1988, Industrial Relations, the Police and Public Order, Employee Relations, Vol 10, pp 3-12) notes that “in the first 27 weeks of the strike along 164,508 presumed pickets were turned back”[/i]. Note also the quote above about Yorkshire pits in the closure list. The Nottinghamshire miner wrongly took that evidence and concluded that they were safe. Solidarity destroyed by non-economic manipulation.

donsutherland1 · 04-24-08, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

Here’s a couple of examples:

”[W]hen ranked by productivity, closures were only weakly clustered at the bottom of the distribution, and that there were reasonably large numbers of closures located in the top half of the distribution”

“[C]losures were by no means exclusively concentrated on the worst performers, and many of the pits that were closed at the end of the period had achieved very large increases in productivity over the years preceding closure”

”It is striking, however, that the 5 pits on BC’s closure list that were not on Boyd’s “worst 31” were all in Yorkshire. This seems to support the idea that there was strong political pressure when BC’s list was drawn up to keep open a few pits in the outlying areas.”

Based on the information you provided, I'll soften my position from stating that the mines slated for closure were the "worst performers" to economically-troubled. Productivity is only one measure. What were the long-run marginal costs associated with the continued operation of such mines? What was the cashflow/economic profits situation with each mine?

Quote:

I’m afraid you’re not aware of the right wing militancy of Thatcherism. As I’ve described, confrontation was vital for them.

I'm fully aware of Prime Minister Thatcher's right-of-center ideology and the role her ideology played in shaping her policy positions. I'm also aware that she came to power at a time when Britain needed a restructuring of its policies to revitalize its economy. The reality that a subsequent Labor government headed by Prime Minister Blair preserved many of the changes PM Thatcher brought about suggests that there was a broad consensus about the net benefits of such reforms after considering possible tradeoffs. I don't believe it is an accident that the British people view her quite favorably as the poll demonstrated.

In terms of the NUM, while PM Thatcher worried that the radical union might provoke a showdown at some point, it should be noted that in her first term, she took no measures to "crack down" on that militant union. The tough stand occurred afterward when the NUM launched a strike aimed at breaking her government. Had she had a motive of revenge, she had ample opportunity to act throughout her first term in office. She did not.

Quote:

The violence was often harvested by the police. For example, violence at the Orgreave coking works occurred after the police attacked with horses in a bid to disperse the crowd...

At the time, the NUM was engaging in illegal "flying pickets" in which the NUM would send strikers to various coal-powered electricity plants, etc., to try to block deliveries of coal. Such acts were illegal.

Strikers also rampaged through towns inflicting property damage. For example, the November 13, 1984 edition of The New York Times reported, "Bands of miners--on strike for 38 weeks--rampaged through a dozen coalfield villages, tossing gasoline bombs, ripping down concrete lampposts, and setting cars afire..." The article also noted, "The police said pickets hurled sharpened metal staves and homemade spears and dumped three tons of broken glass mixed with oil on roads in Yorkshire to stop police convoys escorting men to work in armored buses."

In addition, the strikers engaged in violence against those who refused to join their strike or went back to work, as well as against their families. In one internationally-noted incident, a miner hurled an object off a bridge killing a cab driver who was transporting a coal worker who was not participating in the strike. In another incident in Peterlee, striking workers through a firebomb in front of a bus carrying working miners.

There is no doubt that the strikers were creating a life-threatening situation, in addition to wantonly damaging property. As such, the police were warranted in putting an end to the lawlessness in which some 7,000 strikers were arrested.

Scucca · 04-24-08, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Based on the information you provided, I'll soften my position from stating that the mines slated for closure were the "worst performers" to economically-troubled.

We have some of the more productive mines being closed. This, at the very least, supports the hypothesis that non-economic criteria were adopted. Following privatisation, we then have 11 pits re-opening. This, at the very least, demonstrates that economic gains were seen to be available. This is not surprising, given the massive productivity gains achieved by many of the pits.

Quote:

I'm also aware that she came to power at a time when Britain needed a restructuring of its policies to revitalize its economy.

I’d be happy with the notion that the economy needed to evolve away from some of its heavy manufacturing. I’d also be happy to refer to the British disease where we failed to adequately produce good quality merchandise with high income elasticity. However, the disaster of Thatcherism did not re-structure the economy to eliminate these problems. We had a move towards low wage labour, encouraging the production of crap product. We also had that negative deindustralisation, where profitable enterprise was wiped out by the idiocy of monetarism. The collapse in manufacturing was more acute than during the Great Depression.

Quote:

The reality that a subsequent Labor government headed by Prime Minister Blair preserved many of the changes PM Thatcher brought about suggests that there was a broad consensus about the net benefits of such reforms after considering possible tradeoffs.

The first past the post system encourages consensus. Labour needed “middle England” to ensure victory. They therefore adopted the right wing policies to ensure it. At the same time, they knew their Northern heartlands were safe given the idea of voting Tory would be taking repulsiveness to its extreme.

Quote:

I don't believe it is an accident that the British people view her quite favorably as the poll demonstrated.

We’ve got a period where the Brits are in a whimper: on one side they are worried about recession and the perceived ineptness of New Labour. On the other, they are confronted with immigration and perceived attacks on British culture. Nostalgic blubbering over the milk snatcher is therefore rather predictable. They want something pre-New Labour, whilst remembering the storm trooping nature of the Thatcherite regime (e.g. the National Front lost a lot of their support because of the Tory’s rightwards slide)

Quote:

…it should be noted that in her first term, she took no measures to "crack down" on that militant union.

I remember it like it was yesterday. I must be getting old. The union attacks were expected. Uncle Blair wrote back in 1980 in the New Statesman ”The government has fired the first shots in a campaign against the trade union movement…”. Attacking the miners was always going to be an integral part of that campaign.

Quote:

At the time, the NUM was engaging in illegal "flying pickets" in which the NUM would send strikers to various coal-powered electricity plants, etc., to try to block deliveries of coal. Such acts were illegal.

Whilst the violence was blown out of all proportion (given the vast majority of the picketing was too boring for the tabloid press), the Sheffield violence was some of the worst seen. It was ensured by an aggressive police action that virtually involved a cavalry charge.

Quote:

The article also noted, "The police said pickets hurled sharpened metal staves and homemade spears and dumped three tons of broken glass mixed with oil on roads in Yorkshire to stop police convoys escorting men to work in armored buses."

You’ll certainly be able to find more material referring to violence by the miners rather than the police. However, this actually reflects the bias generated by a system where the government gave the police every means available to defeat the miners. This included a whitewashing over police complaints. Indeed, given virtually no complaints led to disciplinary action, the NUM informed their members not to bother.

Quote:

As such, the police were warranted in putting an end to the lawlessness in which some 7,000 strikers were arrested.

How many miner casualties were there? The police treated the picketers in the same way as football hooligans, with riot control techniques used prior to violence. I’d certainly react if a baton-wielding policeman clobbered me over the head. A lot of that went on, particularly as police from alternative areas were brought in. The biggest hooligan firm became the Metropolitan police.

donsutherland1 · 04-24-08, 06:36 PM

Some quick information concerning the impact of the privatization of state-owned enterprises that took place under Prime Minister Thatcher's governance:

- At the beginning of her tenure, the national government was losing £3 billion on subsidies and other supports for state-owned enterprises.
- At the end of her tenure, courtesy of the privatization that had occurred, the private entities were generating £2 billion in tax revenue.
- The dramatic shift in financial flows helped make it possible for the British government to reduce its national debt by 12.5% by the time Prime Minister Thatcher left office. Reduced federal borrowing left a larger pool of capital available for private enterprise.

Source: Harvard Business Review, January 1992

According to statistics published by the UN Development Program, growth in British per capita GDP averaged an anemic 1.8% per year in the 1975-85 period prior to and during the beginning of the Thatcher reforms. That growth rate rose to 3.0% in the 1985-90 timeframe. The more rapid growth was sustained, and British per capita GDP rose by an average of 3.9% for the entire 1985-2005 period.

Clearly, while some argued then--and a few even argue today--that the shift away from state-ownership under her tenure was harmful to Britain's national welfare, the statistics strongly suggest otherwise. It is difficult to envision how Britain's competitiveness would have improved had its national debt continued to grow on account of increasing subsidies and other financial support to state-owned enterprises, not to mention had the British government continued to be cowed into wrenching financial concessions by the radical National Union of Mineworkers' militance.

The success of the economic revitalization plans carried out under her leadership were hailed by contemporary leaders ranging from U.S. President Ronald Reagan to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. "As everyone now knows, her policies touched off a boom that brought great prosperity to the British people. In many ways she accomplished more than we did in returning government-run enterprises to where they belonged--the private sector--and created a model that has since been copied by other countries. I wish we could have done as well on this as she did," President Reagan wrote in his autobiography. "The...British Prime Minister managed to improve the situation in British industry and stop its fall in competitivness on the world markets," President Gorbachev observed in his memoirs.

In sum, I believe if one examines what actually took place, both successes and failures, the Prime Minister's successes outweigh her failures. In the end, Britain wound up better off on account of Prime Minister Thatcher's leadership. Therefore, I believe the polling support given to the former British Prime Minister more than likely reflects her net accomplishments and offers a reasonable assessment that, on the whole, the British people judge her favorably.

Scucca · 04-24-08, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Some quick information concerning the impact of the privatization of state-owned enterprises that took place under Prime Minister Thatcher's governance

The privatisation campaign did not characterise Thatcherism. Whilst it has been shown to be consistent with "robbing of the family silver" and it is true that Tory ministers got fat off the back of directorships from the companies, the bigger problem was deregulation. Together with the elimination of wages councils, the collapse of unionism and the introduction of family credit, this was used to promote low wage labour. Have a look at our working poverty figures!

Quote:

In sum, I believe if one examines what actually took place, both successes and failures, the Prime Minister's successes outweigh her failures.

I'd find this amusing if I hadn't seen first hand the misery generated by Thatcherism. The generation of a recession worse than the Great Depression is some failure!