What exactly did Thatcher do?

[Statto]

Mrs Thatcher was vehemently opposed to European integration and to the appropriation of greater powers by the EEC (as it then was) Commission.

She made a now legendary speech to the Commons, reporting back on a European summit where proposals had been tabled by Jacques Delors on further integration and additional powers for the EEC's institutions. Here’s the background:

No. No. No. (Margaret Thatcher) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And here’s a clip

Euro Moments: Thatcher says 'no, no, no' to Europe

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher utters the phrase "no, no, no" in response to calls for greater central control in Europe.

www.bbc.co.uk

Geoffrey Howe was one of the senior & respected Tories of that era, but Thatcher saw Howe as too timid, & would often humiliate him, the no, no, no comments were the final straw for Howe & he resigned from the Government.

Apparently Howe was suffering laryngitis at first so couldn't make his resignation speech for a couple of weeks, when he did he got his revenge on Thatcher, with this cricketing metaphor,

It's rather like sending our opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find that before the first ball is bowled, their bats have been broken by the team captain.

He ended his speech with an appeal to cabinet colleagues

The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties, with which I myself have wrestled for perhaps too long

That did for Thatcher, Heseltine started a leadership contest against Thatcher the day after that speech, although Thatcher won a majority at first ballot, it wasn't big enough to win outright under the rules at the time, & Thatcher was gone days after the first ballot.

 

[may032]

What on Earth is that Union-Jack coloured picture next to the 'Vote YES' supposed to represent?

An ostrich burying its head in the sand

 

[edwin_m]

What on Earth is that Union-Jack coloured picture next to the 'Vote YES' supposed to represent?

Looks like an ostrich with its head in the sand, but I'm not too sure what that's supposed to symbolise.

I believe Thatcher was very instrumental in setting up the Single Market, so presumably had no concerns about Freedom of Movement but more worried about the move to "federalism" which the Eurospeptics saw as a bad thing. In fact if done properly it represents powers being kept at the local level unless there's a good reason for them to be exercised by a wider authority. Combined with the abolition of the GLC and the Metropolitan County authorities which were Labour strongholds, and absolute opposition to voting system reform, I think it was just an attempt to concentrate absolute power with the Westminster government.

 

[nw1]

What on Earth is that Union-Jack coloured picture next to the 'Vote YES' supposed to represent?

Looks like an ostrich with its head in the sand, but I'm not too sure what that's supposed to symbolise.

Presumably an attack on the Leavers of 1975, having their head in the sand about the benefits of the EEC. Well, Maggie did at least one good thing IMO during her time as leader of the Tory party, then...

I believe Thatcher was very instrumental in setting up the Single Market, so presumably had no concerns about Freedom of Movement but more worried about the move to "federalism" which the Eurospeptics saw as a bad thing.

It's a shame the Eurosceptics couldn't have stayed that way: they would have been not nearly as harmful if they did. Complaining about FoM definitely seems to have been a new thing - I'm fairly sure that the 90s Eurosceptics didn't constantly harp on about it. It seemed to be Farage that kick-started that.

Plus, the whole idea of completely cutting ourselves off from the EU, rather than merely leaving and keeping good trade links, is definitely a relatively new thing. Were Leavers of the 70s, 80s and 90s suggesting the kind of radical extreme Brexit that we currently have?

If Thatcher was that worried about FoM I doubt that she would ever have authorised the tunnel. In fact, as someone who was a free-marketeer more than anything else, she would presumably have believed in maximum unrestricted movement of goods and services, as well as people.

All part of why I consider the current Government very, very much worse than that of Thatcher (and not just on EU matters, but their approach as a whole). I am not a fan of Thatcher's ideology - to put it mildly - but at least one senses that there was some rationalism about her approach, albeit completely lacking empathy towards the many that suffered as a result of her policies. I'd say the same about Cameron and Osborne, too. But the current lot seem to be all about power, arrogance and conceit - and not wanting to be proved wrong.

 

[RT4038]

It's a shame the Eurosceptics couldn't have stayed that way: they would have been not nearly as harmful if they did. Complaining about FoM definitely seems to have been a new thing - I'm fairly sure that the 90s Eurosceptics didn't constantly harp on about it. It seemed to be Farage that kick-started that.

FoM did not cause large movements of people in Margaret's era. The Eastern bloc countries were either still under USSR or just independent. The EU countries were (by and large) not a hugely diverse in economic condition (or in the case of Spain/Portugal the numbers of FoMers not that significant). It is the large migration of the post 2000 accession countries, of economies in a completely different place to that of the more established members, that upped the heat.

Plus, the whole idea of completely cutting ourselves off from the EU, rather than merely leaving and keeping good trade links, is definitely a relatively new thing. Were Leavers of the 70s, 80s and 90s suggesting the kind of radical extreme Brexit that we currently have?

If Thatcher was that worried about FoM I doubt that she would ever have authorised the tunnel. In fact, as someone who was a free-marketeer more than anything else, she would presumably have believed in maximum unrestricted movement of goods and services, as well as people.

I am sure Margaret wanted the good trade links. However, it was the increased Federalism, the increased control over 'social' and economic laws that she would have been against. (as shown in #205). [I can just imagine what Margaret would have thought about the Working Time Directive, for instance....] What she would have thought about FoM in the wake of post 2000 is unknown. I think the 1992 changes, and the new accession countries in the 2000s, changed the landscape considerably and comparing Margaret's era (and her views of that era) with the EU in 2016 is not reasonable.

On a slightly different note - I think Margaret sowed some seeds of Brexit (probably unwittingly) with the famous EU contribution rebate negotiated in the 80s. This meant that the UK (one of the few net contributors at the time) would contribute less in exchange for less EU grants (i.e. the UK to decide where the money would be spent in the UK, rather than the EU). This meant (unlike elsewhere in Europe) much less visible EU presence in the UK (thinking of all the EU flags shown on construction signboards all over Europe and on other cultural marketing etc) and therefore no/little appreciation of what the EU does for the UK - hence the £350m for the NHS resonating. This also meant less EU influence internally in the UK, and less harmonisation of culture between the UK and mainland Europe.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looks like an ostrich with its head in the sand, but I'm not too sure what that's supposed to symbolise.

Ah yes, that makes sense. Would probably make more sense if whoever designed that poster hadn't stuck the ostrich picture right next to the 'Vote YES' text though. Half makes it look like voting 'YES' is the ostrich, which is obviously not the intention.

If Thatcher was that worried about FoM I doubt that she would ever have authorised the tunnel.

Eh? That makes no sense to me. It's a bit like saying, if she was worried about FoM then she wouldn't have allowed airliners to fly to other countries. Being opposed to FoM doesn't remotely mean you're opposed to travel or want to make it hard for people to travel: It simply means that you believe each country should have the right to decide (typically via passports and visas) on what basis it will allow people from other countries to come to visit/work/study/live permanently. I'm fairly confident that that was roughly the belief that Margaret Thatcher had.

After all, I'm opposed to FoM, but I also would strongly like to see the Channel Tunnel opened up to more 'regular' rail services (as opposed to the awful airline-like book-in-advance, hyper-expensive Eurostar system) to make it easier for people who want to visit or travel between the UK and the continent. There's nothing inconsistent about the two things (I'd also like to see the Cross-Channel ferries made much more friendly to foot passengers - again there's nothing inconsistent between that and being against FoM in the form the EU insists on it).

 

[nw1]

Eh? That makes no sense to me. It's a bit like saying, if she was worried about FoM then she wouldn't have allowed airliners to fly to other countries. Being opposed to FoM doesn't remotely mean you're opposed to travel or want to make it hard for people to travel: It simply means that you believe each country should have the right to decide (typically via passports and visas) on what basis it will allow people from other countries to come to visit/work/study/live permanently. I'm fairly confident that that was roughly the belief that Margaret Thatcher had.

It does make sense to me because the tunnel makes it easier for people to get here, physically.

In any case as a free-marketeer I'm not sure that Thatcher would have had much problem with FoM. True free-marketeers ought to believe in FoM to some extent, I'd have thought, as it allows free movement of labour unencumbered by restrictive red tape and bureaucracy.

After all, I'm opposed to FoM, but I also would strongly like to see the Channel Tunnel opened up to more 'regular' rail services (as opposed to the awful airline-like book-in-advance, hyper-expensive Eurostar system) to make it easier for people who want to visit or travel between the UK and the continent. There's nothing inconsistent about the two things (I'd also like to see the Cross-Channel ferries made much more friendly to foot passengers - again there's nothing inconsistent between that and being against FoM in the form the EU insists on it).

But an important contributing factor as to why the Channel Tunnel has such a limited service are the border control requirements which heavily restrict where incoming international services originate from - as any continental station wishing to run trains to the UK has to install very expensive border control facilities.

No such thing exists between other Western European countries, hence the presence of far better international services in many cases.

For that reason I cannot see Channel Tunnel services improving beyond what's offered at the moment.

 

[RT4038]

It does make sense to me because the tunnel makes it easier for people to get here, physically.

In any case as a free-marketeer I'm not sure that Thatcher would have had much problem with FoM. True free-marketeers ought to believe in FoM to some extent, I'd have thought, as it allows free movement of labour unencumbered by restrictive red tape and bureaucracy.

I think you are making some broad brush assumptions. During her Premiership I doubt she did have much problem with FoM with the EU as it was constituted then. I don't recall her being particularly pro FoM with all the other countries of the world at that time. But who knows, and it doesn't really have any bearing on the situation post 2000, which is considerably different to that pertaining in her era.

 

[jon0844]

She did a secret deal with Rupert Murdoch to allow him to aquire the Times newspaper, one of the few that actually cared about the truth and exposing government corruption, in return for Murdoch supporting Thatcher's election campaign.

For 30 years this meeting was denied as ever happening until the tapes of the meeting and conversations were released.

Such deals with Mr Murdoch have clearly continued to this day, and not just in the UK.

He's influenced politics for decades. The thing is, politicians have to play the game to succeed. New Labour almost certainly gained by having The Sun back it in 1997.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I believe Thatcher was very instrumental in setting up the Single Market, so presumably had no concerns about Freedom of Movement but more worried about the move to "federalism" which the Eurospeptics saw as a bad thing. In fact if done properly it represents powers being kept at the local level unless there's a good reason for them to be exercised by a wider authority. Combined with the abolition of the GLC and the Metropolitan County authorities which were Labour strongholds, and absolute opposition to voting system reform, I think it was just an attempt to concentrate absolute power with the Westminster government.

That's the EU principle of subsidiarity, the idea that decision making could very appropriately be devolved away from EU structures to those of national governments in particular areas. In many countries that leads to devolution well below central government but the UK government, both under Thatcher and Major, were always opposed to such thinking as it allowed far too many Labour politicians, especially in the large metropolitan areas, to develop a power base. When I speak to people living in other countries they are mostly shocked at just how little scope local authorities here have to implement practical policies for the benefit of local communities. The degree of government centralisation here is far beyond what exists in most other countries considered as socially liberal and is in danger of becoming more like an autocracy. Thankfully we still have reasonably free, if not entirely fair, elections to act as a brake on that tendency.

 

[Enthusiast]

I am probably among the most ardent Brexiteers posting on here. But even I was reasonably happy with the EEC as it was in the 1980s. There were one or two downsides, but overall I found it acceptable and beneficial. I voted to remain in 1975 and if a referendum had been held some time in the 1980s I would probably have voted to remain again. As above, FoM was not a big issue. There were only twelve members with nine of them having fairly similar economies. That said, Greece should never have been permitted to join (and certainly should not have adopted the euro) and Spain and Portugal were a bit marginal. But overall it was reasonably sound. Even the addition of Finland, Sweden and Austria did little to adversely influence the basic model.

That all changed with the eastern expansion. The trading model became unstable, the Single Market became distorted by the huge difference in economies and living standards between the west and the east (which had already been illustrated in miniature when Greece joined) and the idea of a working "Common Market" was shot to pieces. It also prompted the entirely predictable mass migration from east to west. I don't know how clairvoyant Mrs T was as far as expansion goes. In the 1980s I never in my wildest dreams imagined that countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States would join the EEC. But she certainly recognised the EEC's federal ambitions, which were somewhat undiscussed until she returned from Rome in October 1990. She was unsuccessful in persuading her colleagues that these ambitions would not be in the UK's best interests. But she persuaded me and my mind was finally made up when Mr Major ratified the Maastricht Treaty that if ever given the opportunity (which I never thought would be granted) that I would vote to leave. So that's what Mrs Thatcher did for me - and probably many others besides.

That's the EU principle of subsidiarity, the idea that decision making could very appropriately be devolved away from EU structures to those of national governments in particular areas.

Providing the EU agrees to such devolution, of course. But nonetheless, how so jolly decent of them to make such a concession!

 

[TrainGeekUK]

She did, Thatcher was anti Europe (well certainly anti EU) by the time she was ousted, she would have supported Brexit, & the ERG wing of the Tory party (actually the ERG wing are based on her anti EU stance), that's the reason Geoffrey Howe resigned, he was pro EU, his resignation speech destroyed her, & she was gone just a weeks later.

Then we had Mr Major, who was very keen to remove Mrs Thatcher from power..

The Thatcher legacy still coarses through society today, and given the mess Thames Water is in thanks to her privatisation mantra ideology, we have not and will not recover in our lifetime.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Then we had Mr Major, who was very keen to remove Mrs Thatcher from power..

The Thatcher legacy still coarses through society today, and given the mess Thames Water is in thanks to her privatisation mantra ideology, we have not and will not recover in our lifetime.

Talking about the mess Thames Water is in, I had a blocked drain today, with a manhole rapidly filling up with sewage and close to overflowing onto the ground. Definitely not a pretty sight! The drain is in my garden but serves several neighbouring houses, and is therefore Thames Water's responsibility.

After discovering the problem about 11:30 this morning, I went to the Thames Water website, and spent a few minutes filling in an online form to report the drain. By 5pm the same day, the engineer from Thames Water had arrived and took maybe 15 minutes to unblock the drain and fix the problem (which was probably caused by a neighbour flushing something down the loo that they shouldn't have done). That seems pretty decent service to my mind. I wonder if things would've been dealt with that efficiently before privatisation? Yes, I know all about the financial problems Thames Water is in, and the questions around how Macquarie took so much money out of the company, but that does give an example how things aren't all totally disastrous.

 

[Thornaby 37]

The Thatcher legacy still coarses through society today

Ironically, according to Thatcher, there was no such thing as society

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Providing the EU agrees to such devolution, of course. But nonetheless, how so jolly decent of them to make such a concession!

There's no concession involved as such, the principle is written into the Maastricht treaty. One area it covers is transport, which should be of interest to many here. And the fact that there is no overbearing EU governance going on is illustrated by the very different attitudes shown by different countries in implementing the Directive regarding liberalisation of rail transport, particularly of passenger services. The UK went for the (quasi) privatisation that exists within GB, Sweden went for a slightly less liberal version of the same but other countries adopted a much more strictly controlled franchising process with authority for this often being devolved to regional governments, especially in geographically larger countries. Note also that existing public sector operators were not normally excluded from the process.

But Thatcher's extreme distaste for such devolution has continued to dominate government thinking so we have the centralised DfT making all the important decisions. Of course rail privatisation was a policy she kept away from and was only enacted after she had been ousted. Nevertheless her thinking on how government involvement in policy implementation should be applied continues as part of her legacy. I would suggest that the apparent popularity of modern-day regional mayors (of which a certain Boris Johnson is one of the best known) shows that people are developing a preference for at least some degree of decentralisation. Thatcher would not be happy!

 

[Irascible]

As a fellow woman I’d say the issue with Mrs T is that she had bigger b*lls than any other man in parliament and despite the hate and rampant misogyny she took difficult decisions that nobody else had the courage to do.

My mother, late 60s feminist, SRN & running a NHS community service in the 1980s, refuses to acknowledge Mrs T as a woman ( and if you get her started, for several hours ).

--

Something had to be done about the wreckage of the 1970s - what we had was an asset stripping government that has set the tone for everything since. Now we're just about out of assets to strip & look at the state we're in.

 

[BrianW]

45 years of 'cuts' at 2% per year compounding (including over the Blair years) is a hell of a reduction in public services, even without increasing need, e.g old gits like myself ...

 

[JamesT]

45 years of 'cuts' at 2% per year compounding (including over the Blair years) is a hell of a reduction in public services, even without increasing need, e.g old gits like myself ...

Is that in reference to anything in particular? Government spending certainly hasn’t reduced like that, though the composition of what is spent on may have changed. I’ve not seen any figures for last year, but for example the NHS has had real terms budget increases for the last 70 years.

 

[BrianW]

Is that in reference to anything in particular? Government spending certainly hasn’t reduced like that, though the composition of what is spent on may have changed. I’ve not seen any figures for last year, but for example the NHS has had real terms budget increases for the last 70 years.

My contribution is to a thread 'What did Thatcher actually do?'. She brought in a culture, and expectation, of 'efficiency gains' and 'sweating the assets'; there was nothing that could not be improved by reducing expenditure on it. In order to get elected, in order to then be able to reshape matters and reprioritise, Tony Blair had to promise to keep to Conservative budgets- any echoes of today there? He continued Thatcherism, though with a smiley face. Thatcherism remains, 45 years on, the prevailing socio-economic culture. Where is today's manufacturing, mining, shipbuilding, steelworks, coalfield communities, 'the North', ... A 2% cut was 'the norm' through years of Lawson, Howe, Major. No-one seemed to notice or care about the frog dying as the heat was turned upi year on year.

Regarding 'real terms increases' in NHS expenditure- you may find that reductions in defence, road renewals, investment generally, increases in waiting lists and times, including for an ambulance to even arrive, introduction of student fees, elimination of student maintenance grants, dental fees, 'fiscal drag'.... (to name a few at random) have paid for that.

 

[Enthusiast]

And the fact that there is no overbearing EU governance going on is illustrated by the very different attitudes shown by different countries in implementing the Directive regarding liberalisation of rail transport, particularly of passenger services.

If there was no overbearing EU governance there would not be such a directive at all, however "liberally" it might be interpreted. I find it hard to understand how you can claim that no overbearing governance exists when the evidence you cite is a directive which determines how individual sovereign nations must organise and manage their rail networks. The latest EU Rail Directive runs to 78 pages and is made up of 67 Articles and nine Annexes, much of it containing very detailed requirements. With "no overbearing governance" like that I wonder why anybody could have any criticism of the EU.

Regarding 'real terms increases' in NHS expenditure- you may find that reductions in defence, road renewals, investment generally, increases in waiting lists and times, including for an ambulance to even arrive, introduction of student fees, elimination of student maintenance grants, dental fees, 'fiscal drag'.... (to name a few at random) have paid for that.

Very possibly. But overall public spending (in real terms) is the highest it's been since WW2 (leaving aside additional spending during the pandemic). In this financial year the government expects to spend £1.22trillion. This is equivalent to £42,000 per household or 44% of national income. If it's not being spent on the things you mention, where's it all going? And if 44% of national income is insufficient to fund state spending (and it isn't because taxation is expected to raise only £1.13 trillion), how much is?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

If there was no overbearing EU governance there would not be such a directive at all, however "liberally" it might be interpreted. I find it hard to understand how you can claim that no overbearing governance exists when the evidence you cite is a directive which determines how individual sovereign nations must organise and manage their rail networks. The latest EU Rail Directive runs to 78 pages and is made up of 67 Articles and nine Annexes, much of it containing very detailed requirements. With "no overbearing governance" like that I wonder why anybody could have any criticism of the EU.

You can't have the Single Market without some harmonisation of rules, even Thatcher understood that. As far as the liberalisation of passenger rail service provision is concerned we actually went further than anywhere else, almost as if we had to show those Europeans how it should be done. And concerns with technical rail directives are largely irrelevant: international traffic can only reach the UK via the Channel Tunnel which is governed by rules arising from the treaty between the UK and France, not the EU. In some cases adopting EU standards might make it easier/cheaper to buy rail equipment from European manufacturers though our current preference seems to be to persuade those manufacturers to set up operations here despite the real prospect of such operations not surviving in the longer term.

The problem, as usual, is with people wanting to have their cake and eat it, ie the Single Market is a good thing to be a part of, even Brexiteers were saying so before the referendum, but the same anti-EU people were objecting to the existence of any rules which weren't drawn up solely by the UK parliament. And so we are where we are with UK trade with the EU declining and becoming more expensive to carry out. Seemingly sovereignty is deemed more important than pragmatism despite the world becoming an ever more connected and inter-dependent place. Thatcher strived to find ways to make our relationship with Europe workable without accepting the more federalist tendencies of people like Delors but Brexit has removed us from the discussion entirely. I doubt that Thatcher would be too impressed.

 

[edwin_m]

Very possibly. But overall public spending (in real terms) is the highest it's been since WW2 (leaving aside additional spending during the pandemic). In this financial year the government expects to spend £1.22trillion. This is equivalent to £42,000 per household or 44% of national income. If it's not being spent on the things you mention, where's it all going? And if 44% of national income is insufficient to fund state spending (and it isn't because taxation is expected to raise only £1.13 trillion), how much is?

I suggest that shows that in the long term, continuation of Thatcherite policies hasn't really worked.

 

[TrainGeekUK]

Unfortunately Thatcherism is here to stay.

 

[Meole]

Thatcher introduced modern management to the NHS with the internal market resulting in major improvements in service.

 

[TrainGeekUK]

Thatcher introduced modern management to the NHS with the internal market resulting in major improvements in service.

Mrs Thatcher was keen internally to fully privatise the NHS…

Then again, she was keen for everybody to go private anyway for health care.

 

[Enthusiast]

And concerns with technical rail directives are largely irrelevant: international traffic can only reach the UK via the Channel Tunnel which is governed by rules arising from the treaty between the UK and France, not the EU. In some cases adopting EU standards might make it easier/cheaper to buy rail equipment from European manufacturers though our current preference seems to be to persuade those manufacturers to set up operations here despite the real prospect of such operations not surviving in the longer term.

The EU Rail Directive has little or nothing to do with technical aspects of railway operation. It determines how national railways must be organised, governed, licenced, financed and regulated.

Seemingly sovereignty is deemed more important than pragmatism despite the world becoming an ever more connected and inter-dependent place.

It most certainly is. It's very true that the world is becoming more interdependent. But I don't know of any international collaborations which insist on defining (to cite one example of many on which the EU insists) how the participants organise and administer their railway services.

Thatcher strived to find ways to make our relationship with Europe workable without accepting the more federalist tendencies of people like Delors but Brexit has removed us from the discussion entirely. I doubt that Thatcher would be too impressed.

Yes and she singularly failed. The European Project Managers were never going to be swayed by the something so trifling as an awkward Prime Minister of the UK. Each successive Treaty from Maastricht onwards demonstrated that. They were not hindered by national referendums voting against their failed "Constitution". They simply changed the title and ordered he electorates to vote again. Yes, she secured a few concessions but the direction of the Project towards "ever closer union" was never in any doubt.

I suggest that shows that in the long term, continuation of Thatcherite policies hasn't really worked.

And I would suggest that since many of Mrs Thatcher's policies were directed towards reducing the burden on the State, then without them public spending today would be even more outrageous had they never been implemented.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My contribution is to a thread 'What did Thatcher actually do?'. She brought in a culture, and expectation, of 'efficiency gains' and 'sweating the assets';

What's wrong with expecting efficiency gains?

Today the vast majority of us in the UK have lives that almost anyone from 100 years ago would see as extraordinarily luxurious, with our centrally heated homes, abundant access to a huge variety of foods, the ability to travel all over the World, working hours of typically less than 40 hours a week allowing massively more leisure time, healthcare that lets us stay active for longer, etc. etc. That is all possible ONLY because we have become so much more efficient in terms of what each person is able to produce compared to 100 years ago. If there had not been continual efficiency improvements over the last 100 years, then our lives would still be as materially poor as what was typical in the 1920s. The fact that our lives are today so much better than that seems to me a very good thing.

In the private sector those efficiency gains generally result from competition interplaying with improvements in technology as our understanding of the World improves: If you don't gradually become more efficient in terms of what you can sell for what price (either by adopting new technology or by improving your working practices etc.), then sooner or later, a competitor will spring up that is more efficient and then you'll go out of business. But in the public sector there is (or at least, before Thatcher, was) no competition. So what's going to drive efficiency gains if the Government doesn't push a culture of expecting them?

 

[Welly]

Thatcher introduced modern management to the NHS with the internal market resulting in major improvements in service.

Examples please.

 

[RT4038]

What's wrong with expecting efficiency gains?

Today the vast majority of us in the UK have lives that almost anyone from 100 years ago would see as extraordinarily luxurious, with our centrally heated homes, abundant access to a huge variety of foods, the ability to travel all over the World, working hours of typically less than 40 hours a week allowing massively more leisure time, healthcare that lets us stay active for longer, etc. etc. That is all possible ONLY because we have become so much more efficient in terms of what each person is able to produce compared to 100 years ago. If there had not been continual efficiency improvements over the last 100 years, then our lives would still be as materially poor as what was typical in the 1920s. The fact that our lives are today so much better than that seems to me a very good thing.

In the private sector those efficiency gains generally result from competition interplaying with improvements in technology as our understanding of the World improves: If you don't gradually become more efficient in terms of what you can sell for what price (either by adopting new technology or by improving your working practices etc.), then sooner or later, a competitor will spring up that is more efficient and then you'll go out of business. But in the public sector there is (or at least, before Thatcher, was) no competition. So what's going to drive efficiency gains if the Government doesn't push a culture of expecting them?

However, I suspect some of those 'efficiency' gains have been merely failure to maintain/renew assets (i.e. asset stripping) which are now coming to bite us.... i.e. our lives today are so much better but we cannot afford to carry on with such a good life - our lives today being unaffordable.

 

[Enthusiast]

... but we cannot afford to carry on with such a good life - our lives today being unaffordable.

One of the reasons for that may possibly be because 20% of the working age population is not working. So 80% of the workforce has to provide for the other 20%. This has a double effect: The 80% has to enhance the public purse sufficiently to meet the demands that the 20% places on it whilst the same public purse receives no contributions from the 20%. Those not working may well have good reason for not doing so (which is outside he scope of this question). But if a country has one in five of its workforce idle the other four out of five cannot expect the see the full fruits of their labours.