• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What exactly did Thatcher do?

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,057
Location
Nottingham
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.
And if the NHS wasn't in such a terrible state, maybe more of those people would be working.

With privatisation Thatcher was pursuing short-term financial gains but more importantly the ideological objective of minimsing the state. Some of them worked but in other cases we are left with private total or near monopolies that have been able to make large profits while neglecting the services they are intended to provide, or PFI schemes that avoided borrowing the money up front but saddled the public sector users with excessive fees later and left them unable to adapt to changing circumstances. Even the much-trumpeted potholes are the result of not maintaining the roads properly because there isn't the money, then having to spend more later to repair them. All in all, while Thatcher claimed to be setting Britain on a better path, and it was necessary to stop some of the things that happened in the 70s, a lot of it has turned out to be very short term thinking.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,283
Location
SE London
And if the NHS wasn't in such a terrible state, maybe more of those people would be working.

NHS spending as a share of GDP: 5.2% in 1980, shortly after Mrs T. came to power. 7.1% in 2020 (and remember that's a bigger share of a much bigger GDP), 9.3% in 2022. Without doubting that the NHS is in a terrible state, it seems a bit of a stretch to blame the % of people not working on the state of the NHS when back in 1980 health spending was much lower but as far as I can recall without at the time causing a crisis of people unable to work due to health issues.

(Sources: https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/healthcare_spending and https://www.statista.com/statistics/472984/public-health-spending-share-of-gdp-united-kingdom-uk/.) Incidentally the latter link shows a graph that clearly shows how spending massively increased under the Blair/Brown Labour Government before flatlining under Cameron - but I doubt you can blame Thatcher for that ;)

With privatisation Thatcher was pursuing short-term financial gains but more importantly the ideological objective of minimsing the state. Some of them worked but in other cases we are left with private total or near monopolies that have been able to make large profits while neglecting the services they are intended to provide, or PFI schemes that avoided borrowing the money up front but saddled the public sector users with excessive fees later and left them unable to adapt to changing circumstances. Even the much-trumpeted potholes are the result of not maintaining the roads properly because there isn't the money, then having to spend more later to repair them. All in all, while Thatcher claimed to be setting Britain on a better path, and it was necessary to stop some of the things that happened in the 70s, a lot of it has turned out to be very short term thinking.

Call me pedantic, but wasn't PFI a Blair thing, not a Thatcher thing (you could argue it was motivated by a similar philosophy)
 

Gigabit

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2022
Messages
193
Location
United Kingdom
My view on Thatcher is that whilst I disagree with much of what she did, she had an ideology that she believed in, implemented and stuck to (which ultimately led to her downfall). That is a commendable attribute in anyone, in my view.

The problem with the current Tories is that they don't really believe in anything.

So whilst you can pull apart what Thatcher did (much of which I would agree with doing), you cannot deny she did things.

I think she almost single handedly helped to create the housing crisis we've got today. I am sure she could not have predicted the outcome but before she was in charge the UK built enough council houses to sustain demand (peaking I believe under Wilson who built millions a year), something which after her has never been repeated since. Privatisation has a mixed record at best, although infamously she was opposed to privatising the railways. British Airways and BT have overall been successful privatisations, I'd say her others have been middling or poor, especially water. What is most telling I think, is that no other country in the world has repeated her privatisation programme - why not?

In a way she is a very big inspiration of mine but not necessarily because I agree with her policies.

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?

This supposes that these only came about because of her policies. But every country in the EU has these things despite not pursuing many/any of her policies. I would argue that her ideas were good just implemented too much. We could have had much of what she wanted without actually going to the more extreme end as she did. For example you could have modernised and overhauled the nationalised utilities without privatising them as Norway did. Or revolutionised air travel without completely selling off British Airways as France and Germany did.

I think part privatisation was fine and has been repeated. But no other country has sold off water, or the energy grid, or really anything entirely as she did. I would question why not.

Also, nationalised utilities or companies do not preclude competition, that's a misnomer.
 

Meole

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2018
Messages
480
Thatcher successfully challenged Argentina to put up or shut up by withdrawing the Royal Navy cover for the Falklands, Galtieri fell for it and Argentina got a pasting.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,516
Thatcher successfully challenged Argentina to put up or shut up by withdrawing the Royal Navy cover for the Falklands, Galtieri fell for it and Argentina got a pasting.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

In total, 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel, and three Falkland Islanders were killed during the hostilities.
Maybe their lives were 'a price worth paying' for electoral success courtesy of the Great British Public? Certainly a good 'shop window' for French Exocet missiles. Sorry to be cynical but many folk suffered in their lives or previous livelihoods at the expense of Thatcher and her 'vegetables', (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=442150746380870) and many still suffer from Thatcherist economic and geopolitical 'realities'.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,190
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.
Comparing percentage rates of GDP spent on healthcare between countries shows the U.K. consistently much lower than Germany, France, the EU14 average and the G7 average, and a little lower than Canada's. We do, however, score above Italy's world famous system.:!:
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,759
Comparing percentage rates of GDP spent on healthcare between countries shows the U.K. consistently much lower than Germany, France, the EU14 average and the G7 average, and a little lower than Canada's. We do, however, score above Italy's world famous system.:!:
All those European nations spend consistently less than the US on healthcare, which suggests spending levels are not the only thing that matters.
My point was more that rather than relentless 2% cuts that were suggested, the NHS is one of the few areas of government that can rely on an increased budget every year.
 

Enthusiast

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,196
My point was more that rather than relentless 2% cuts that were suggested, the NHS is one of the few areas of government that can rely on an increased budget every year.
Indeed it can, and has. Expenditure on healthcare has increased in real terms and has increased per capita. But unfortunately that's all politicians seem to rely on: e.g. "This government continues to increase funding for the NHS" (or similar pronouncements).

Unfortunately, despite this, outcomes for patients continue to deteriorate. That is why I stand my my assertion that the NHS has plenty of money. It simply doesn't spend it wisely enough. There are enough people employed in the NHS to ensure that it does and the government should not have to undertake this task. The business of ensuring patient outcomes improve is the job of NHS directors and managers.

One policy decision the government could and should take is a radical overhaul (or better still, an abandonment in its current form) of the GP service. It consumes huge sums of money and in many areas it simply does not work. The problem is the GP service acts as the principle gatekeeper to the services that do seem to work reasonably well and unless patients can access those service it doesn't really matter how good they are.
 
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
910
Location
Croydon
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
Are you basing this opinion on anything tangible? It doesn't seem like, at least at the borough/county level that our local governments are restricted in powers that continental towns enjoy. In fact it seems central government pawns off way too much responsibility to them. Especially stuff like social care. Councils are allowed to gamble pretty broadly with investments too, often to point of bankrupting themselves. Scotland/Wales have almost as much power as the German states , just parliamentary sovereignty stops us from giving them constitutional weight.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,516
Are you basing this opinion on anything tangible? It doesn't seem like, at least at the borough/county level that our local governments are restricted in powers that continental towns enjoy. In fact it seems central government pawns off way too much responsibility to them. Especially stuff like social care. Councils are allowed to gamble pretty broadly with investments too, often to point of bankrupting themselves. Scotland/Wales have almost as much power as the German states , just parliamentary sovereignty stops us from giving them constitutional weight.
You may find this of interest:

'Local government in England has limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2018, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level.1 7% of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 12% collected locally or federally in Italy, 32% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada.'

 
Joined
22 Jun 2023
Messages
910
Location
Croydon
You may find this of interest:

'Local government in England has limited revenue-raising powers compared to other wealthy countries. In 2018, every other G7 nation collected more taxes at either a local or regional level.1 7% of the UK's taxes were collected, or intended to be collected, locally in 2014, compared to 12% collected locally or federally in Italy, 32% in Germany, and almost 50% in Canada.'

This does not mean much in terms of what local government actually does . Our local governments get it mainly from government grants , funding others may have to get from locally funded sales tax. The amounts they ultimately get can be the same. Yes government can take away these transfers but ultimately they can also remove or regulate tax collection abilities.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,190
All those European nations spend consistently less than the US on healthcare, which suggests spending levels are not the only thing that matters.
My point was more that rather than relentless 2% cuts that were suggested, the NHS is one of the few areas of government that can rely on an increased budget every year.
Increased budgets both below general inflation and the increase in population levels, while refusing to recognise the effects of an ever-ageing population and the added responsibilities of the NHS every year, are hardly worth producing like rabbits out of hats, I believe the late magician Paul Daniels admitted to being a Tory supporter, so we know where they got that one from. :D
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,759
Increased budgets both below general inflation and the increase in population levels, while refusing to recognise the effects of an ever-ageing population and the added responsibilities of the NHS every year, are hardly worth producing like rabbits out of hats, I believe the late magician Paul Daniels admitted to being a Tory supporter, so we know where they got that one from. :D
The bit I’ve bolded is incorrect. As per https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-budget-nutshell the increases in the NHS budget are on top of inflation as they are real terms increases.
Population of England went from 46.7m in 1979 to 47.7m in 1990, about a 2.1% increase over the whole period.
I have no idea how the demands of the population would have affected the requirements, but the budget was definitely ahead of inflation and population growth.
 
Last edited:

ninja-lewis

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2012
Messages
69
Thatcher successfully challenged Argentina to put up or shut up by withdrawing the Royal Navy cover for the Falklands, Galtieri fell for it and Argentina got a pasting.
Incorrect.

The Thatcher government had begun diplomatic negotiations in 1980 for a peaceful transfer of sovereignty to Argentina subject to the consent of the Falkland Islanders. However, the islanders were resolutely opposed to the plan and were supported by backbenchers in Parliament

Galtieri ousted his junta predecessor in December 1981. As part of a deal to secure the Argentine Navy's support, he agreed to back their plan to seize the Falkland Islands in 1982, ahead of the 150th anniversary. The Argentine Navy's initial plan called for a 'soft' invasion later in the 1982, just in time to be presented as fait accompli at the UN General Assembly meeting to be held in Autumn 1982. The Argentine Navy, and particularly the head of the Navy, Admiral Anaya wanted the glory for themselves. This was important when the military junta was struggling with economic problems and the Navy in particular was heavily involved in the torture, disappearance and murder of political dissidents and many innocent civilians.

Now the Argentine Navy had already been developing another plan to seize South Georgia by sending marines disguised as civilian scrap merchant dealers to make an unauthorised landing and raise the Argentine flag, much as they had done on Southern Thule in 1976. This plan should have been cancelled when the go ahead was given for the Falklands operation but it wasn't. The 'scrap merchant dealers' landed at Leith Harbour on 19 March and raised the Argentine flag.

The illegal landing was immediately reported by the British Antarctic Survey team on South Georgia to the Governor of the Falkland Islands, who in turn reported it to London. Diplomatic protests were lodged and the Argentine captain was ordered to lower the Argentine flag (which they did) and report to the BAS commander (which they did not). HMS Endurance (still very much on station in the Falkland Islands in her final season) was dispatched from Stanley with a party of Royal Marines to ensure the Argentine presence was evacuated. Argentina responded by deploying two frigates to support their landing ship in South Georgia. The Foreign Office suggested that the Argentine presence be regularised by having the proper temporary documentation stamped but Argentina opposed this.

Meanwhile Argentine Navy HQ was looking on aghast. They believed that British nuclear submarines were already on their way in response to the South Georgia crisis, which would ruin their plan for a 'soft invasion' that year. This was despite the weak response of Callaghan and David Owen to the invasion of Southern Thule in November 1976 where they took a full year to order a nuclear submarine and small surface task force (Operation Journeyman) to the South Atlantic. HMS Dreadnaught was instructed that if she was attacked by Anti-Submarine Weapons, she was to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged rather than exercise her right to self defence.

Rather than abandoning the invasion plan, they turned it into a 'hard' aggressive invasion and brought it forward to within 10 days (the submarines were estimated to arrive in 14 days). They invaded despite believing the Royal Navy was already on its way to stop them.

They landed at Stanley in the early hours of 2 April, launching attacks on Moody Brook Barracks (fortunately empty as the remaining Royal Marines had already taken up defensive positions at Government House) and the Governor's residence. HMS Endurance was caught between South Georgia and Falklands, unable to immediately influence events. Lightly armed, her Captain gave serious consideration to entering Port William inlet and using her ice-breaker bow to suicidally ram the Argentine landing ships. Fortunately discretion was the better part of valour and he retreated to the Antarctic ice shelf until help arrived.

In reality, the first British nuclear submarine was dispatched south on 30 March (although an earlier siting of HMS Superb leaving Gibraltar to head north had been misreported). At this time, the British Government still hoped to avoid further escalation. But those hopes were to be dashed as it became clear on 1 April that the Argentine naval task force was heading for the Falklands.

When the confirmation of the invasion reached London on 2 April, the Government was utterly despondent. In 1978, as Director of Navy Plans at the MOD, Sandy Woodward had been responsible for the official assessment of what could be done in the event of Argentina threatening and/or invading the Falkland Islands. The conclusion was there was nothing that could be done to defend the Islands from invasion short of permanently stationing a massive force on the islands and that once lost there would be no hope of recovering the islands.

But the First Sea Lord, Admiral Henry Leach, visited Thatcher in her office at Parliament and told her that not only could the Royal Navy do it but that we must do so lest "in another few months we shall be living in a different country whose word counts for little". The army and the RAF were willing to go along if the Navy said it could be done.

Hence Thatcher was able to announce to Parliament that a task force was hastily being assembled over the Easter weekend to join up with Admiral Woodward's task group which was sailing from the Springtrain exercises at Gibraltar. The goal was to recover the islands by diplomatic, economic and if necessarily military means. European allies supported sanctions against Argentine while the declaration of the Maritime Exclusion Zone on 12 April marked the arrival of the first nuclear submarines (HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan).

While the main task force organised itself at Ascension Island, HMS Antrim led a small task group south to refuel HMS Endurance and recapture South Georgia (Operation Paraquet) with support from HMS Conqueror. Initial reconnaissance missions by special forces encountered weather difficulties. Further Argentine reinforcements were landed by submarine ARA Santa Fe, which also posed a significant threat to the British ships. As she departed South Georgia on the surface, she was spotted by British helicopters and attacked. Damage left her unable to submerge and she was forced to return to South Georgia where she was abandoned by her crew. Taking advantage of the situation, the British task group went for an immediate frontal assault, landing Royal Marines under cover of naval gun fire and forcing the surrender of the Argentine garrison without casualties to either side (this is what Thatcher's 'rejoice' statement was about - although an Argentine sailor was subsequently killed aboard Santa Fe when a British guard feared he was attempting to scuttle the submarine).

Al Haig, the US Secretary of State had been conducting shuttle diplomacy between Washington, London and Buenos Aries trying to find a peaceful outcome. He had a frustrating time as the Argentine foreign minister would say one thing when they met in person and then leave notes in Haig's pocket saying something completely reversing the position. His final version of the peace plan was first presented to and rejected by Argentina on 30 May. It was only at this point that Reagan came down on the British side (Haig and Jeane Kirkpatrick, the US Ambassador to the UN, had argued that the US should support Argentine while the Secretary of Defence and Pentagon argued in support of us).

The 200 mile Maritime Exclusion Zone became the Total Exclusion Zone on 30 April as the task force arrived. The TEZ had no legal effect and was really just a warning to neutral shipping and aircraft to stay out of the way. Argentina had already been warned via the Swiss Embassy on 23 April that the the MEZ did not represent a limit to hostilities and we reserved the right to respond against any Argentine military aircraft or vessel that threatened British forces.

Admiral Woodward was acutely aware of the strict timetable he had to operate to due to the onset of the southern winter and the ability to maintain the fleet at sea so far from support. He could not remain in the South Atlantic indefinitely. The Argentine forces (mostly Army conscripts after the Navy withdrew their professional marines) outnumbered the British landing force 3 to 1 whereas doctrine called for the landing force to have the 3 to 1 advantage. While British doctrine recognised that an unopposed landing away from the defences of Stanley was the best option, Argentina's doctrine expected a full frontal assault at Stanley.

Thus on 1 May, an RAF Vulcan bomber carried out Black Buck 1 to bomb the runway at Stanley airport and deny it to Argentine fast jets. This was followed by Sea Harrier attacks against the airfields at Stanley and Goose Green to reinforce the impression that British landings were underway. Argentine Air Force and Naval Aviation launched attacks against the British task group throughout 1 May, including claiming to have damaged, if not sunk, HMS Invincible as well as shooting down half a dozen Sea Harriers. In reality, there was no significant damage to the British ships and no British combat losses vs several Argentine aircraft shot down.

The Argentine Navy had also deployed as two task groups to launch a pincer attack against the British task force. To the north was the 25 de Mayo carrier group while the Belgrano led a smaller task group with two destroyer escorts as the southern arm of the pincer attack. Their plans to attack on 2 May had to be postponed due to insufficient wind for 25 de Mayo to launch her strike aircraft. She had a lucky escape as both HMS Splendid and Spartan had been hunting for her and only narrowly missed her in foggy weather.

Instead the 25 de Mayo group was detected by a Sea Harrier. Woodward couldn't afford to risk in his valuable Sea Harriers in a strike but nor could he accept being forced away from the Falklands as he had tasks to get on with. Fortunately at midday on 2 May, HMS Conqueror detected the Belgrano group prowling near the shallow (in submarine terms) Burdwood Bank, within striking range of the British task force. Woodward didn't have direct command over the submarines (controlled by Northwood HQ in London) and the Rules of Engagement at the time didn't allow Conqueror to immediately sink the Belgrano. But nonetheless he issued satellite orders to Conqueror to sink her. These orders were intercepted and removed from the satellite by Northwood before Conqueror saw them.

Recognising the urgency of the situation, the Fleet Commander and First Sea Lord sought an immediate change in the Rules of Engagement from the War Cabinet to sink the Belgrano. It was a decision made by the professionals of the Royal Navy. New orders were issued to Conqueror, which she received several hours later and she proceed to sink Belgrano.

HMS Sheffield was sunk by Exocet on 4 May. Despite combat being fully underway, peace talks continued into May. Initially Peru picked up Haig's peace proposals ('Haig in a poncho') and then when these were still rejected by Argentina, the UN General Secretary led talks with both sides right up until the British landings at San Carlos on 21 May.

It was most certainly not something that Thatcher planned nor lured Galtieri into. The entire war was a 'damn close run thing' and right up until the end there were fears we could still lose it. Several British ships were hit by Argentine bombs but the Argentine pilots had been forced to fly so low that the bombs did not have time to arm after release. The loss of either aircraft carrier or a major troopship would have ended the war. The fighting ashore was tough and as brutal as fighting the British Army had experienced since Korean, if not, the Second World War. Both the US and Soviet Union doubted we would succeed.

Unfortunately, ill-informed conspiracy theories spread by the likes of Clive Ponting, Diana Gould and Tam Dalyell still persist in some quarters.
 

TrainGeekUK

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2019
Messages
124
The one thing we can all probably agree on was that Mrs Thatcher was decisive, but divisive.

Just like marmite, you either loved her or hated her.

I wonder what state the country would be in if she were PM at this present moment today.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,516
The one thing we can all probably agree on was that Mrs Thatcher was decisive, but divisive.

Just like marmite, you either loved her or hated her.

I wonder what state the country would be in if she were PM at this present moment today.
Rejoice!?
 

TrainGeekUK

Member
Joined
15 Jun 2019
Messages
124
The Falklands War changed everything for Thatcher - pre-the Argentine invasion she was the least popular prime minister in polling history and would either have had to reverse some of her policies or would have lost the next general election. In 1981 the Tories were up to 10 percentage points behind Labour, then came the SDP split from Labour and at one time they were trailing in third in the polls in the mid 20s. After the war the Tories consistently polled in the low 40s, Labour had imploded and were just 2 percentage points ahead of the Alliance in the 1983 election.

In many ways she changed people's perception of the UK from a country seemingly in terminal decline to one that could stand on its own. We now seem to have gone full circle and the perception is once again a country in decline.
A country that’s even worse in decline now since this post was made!

I don’t think we will ever see a PM like Thatcher again.

On the flip side, another Truss type PM will sink the country into oblivion. Look at the damage she did in 49 days which we are still paying for today!
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,061
Location
Dyfneint
Thatcher successfully challenged Argentina to put up or shut up by withdrawing the Royal Navy cover for the Falklands, Galtieri fell for it and Argentina got a pasting.

I was about to respond with "my arse did she" but the comprehensive post a few above has covered that. Where are people getting these ideas? the RN in the late 70s was out of cash & having trouble even recruiting ( which has come around again, I notice ) and focussed on NATO anti-sub duties in the North Atlantic. We'd never have managed it without it being treated as a NATO live fire exercise logistics-wise, but any emphasis on foreign aid would have smashed the patriotism bounty into pieces.

On the flip side, another Truss type PM will sink the country into oblivion. Look at the damage she did in 49 days which we are still paying for today!

I've seen a number of people who *might* be in a position to know ( as opposed to me who certainly isn't ) that Rishi is at least as bad as Truss anyway.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,875
Location
Way on down South London town
I was about to respond with "my arse did she" but the comprehensive post a few above has covered that. Where are people getting these ideas? the RN in the late 70s was out of cash & having trouble even recruiting ( which has come around again, I notice ) and focussed on NATO anti-sub duties in the North Atlantic. We'd never have managed it without it being treated as a NATO live fire exercise logistics-wise, but any emphasis on foreign aid would have smashed the patriotism bounty into pieces.



I've seen a number of people who *might* be in a position to know ( as opposed to me who certainly isn't ) that Rishi is at least as bad as Truss anyway.

From what Ive heard from the media he does seem surprisingly inept. I thought Theresa May was actually pretty genuine but sadly it seems she also didn't have the right skillset to be PM. We need to seriously consider whether changing a PM in the middle of the term is the right way to go rather than facing a GE
 

Irascible

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2020
Messages
2,061
Location
Dyfneint
From what Ive heard from the media he does seem surprisingly inept. I thought Theresa May was actually pretty genuine but sadly it seems she also didn't have the right skillset to be PM. We need to seriously consider whether changing a PM in the middle of the term is the right way to go rather than facing a GE

When you think that the last PM we had resembling a statesman was Cameron, and Ted Heath - I bet the tories wish they had another one of him around at the moment - or half the members of Thatcher's governments would be giving me dry stares for suggesting he was anything close, then it's more a crisis in politics. Both Thatcher ( spit ) & Blair ( may he rot ) and even John Major were fairly well versed in statecraft, but unfortunately that's got little to do with being able to formulate decent and sensible policies, or even much of anything to do with integrity. I will give some props to the Iron Lady for facing off against the Warsaw Pact with Reagan as her main ally. She got very lucky facing off against Michael Foot & his unilateral disarmament policy in 1983 ( for anyone who can't remember or doesn't know much about the cold war, a full hot war nearly kicked off twice that year ) and I'm still not sure if the damage the next government did to the country was a worthwhile price to pay for having a hand in ending the cold war - I have rather less problems with a lot of her foreign policy. The way the exit from Hong Kong was set up was disgraceful though.
 
Last edited:

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,779
One policy decision the government could and should take is a radical overhaul (or better still, an abandonment in its current form) of the GP service. It consumes huge sums of money and in many areas it simply does not work. The problem is the GP service acts as the principle gatekeeper to the services that do seem to work reasonably well and unless patients can access those service it doesn't really matter how good they are.

It does not work as we do not have enough GPs. The current government has embarked on a course of replacing GPs with non-doctors under the "Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme". Under this scheme funding has been specifically reduced for GPs and provided for the associate roles. These have proven to be ineffective and in some cases, fatal.

We have GPs and Locum GPs who cannot find work.

We have patients screaming for appointments with GPs.

We have "noctors" holding clinics with no ability to prescribe, limited training, limited experience and, in many cases, insufficient supervision.*

The current government is deliberately creating a two-tier system and forcing failure on a previously exemplary service.

*Physcian Associates are tasked with seeing undifferentiated patients in GP Clinics after a two year MSc fast track medical qualification. Doctors who have spent 5 years in medical school, completed two years post-qualification in hospitals and general practice are still not permitted to see undifferentiated patients without supervision. (Undifferentiated = without a formal diagnosis)
 
Last edited:

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,516
It does not work as we do not have enough GPs. The current government has embarked on a course of replacing GPs with non-doctors under the "Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme". Under this scheme funding has been specifically reduced for GPs and provided for the associate roles. These have proven to be ineffective and in some cases, fatal.

We have GPs and Locum GPs who cannot find work.

We have patients screaming for appointments with GPs.

We have "noctors" holding clinics with no ability to prescribe, limited training, limited experience and, in many cases, insufficient experience.*

The current government is deliberately creating a two-tier system and forcing failure on a previously exemplary service.

*Physcian Associates are tasked with seeing undifferentiated patients in GP Clinics after a two year MSc fast track medical qualification. Doctors who have spent 5 years in medical school, completed two years post-qualification in hospitals and general practice are still not permitted to see undifferentiated patients without supervision. (Undifferentiated = without a formal diagnosis)
This is eminently worthy of being laid at Thatcher's door, and those of her 'descendant' occupiers of Downing Street. Same as Dental Technicians, Pharmacy Technicians, Architectural Technicians, Teaching Assistants, ... From 1931 the title 'Architect' was protected by law- people could be prosecuted for purporting to have the qualifications of an Architect- five years of higher education and two years of professional practice. Mrs Thatcher deemed this to be akin to a 'closed shop'. The value of Qualifications have been downgraded, including the 'gold standard' A-level and 'First Class' degrees. All must have prizes- all will have Grade A (sorry A***, or its numbered replacement!); all are able to go to the Uni of their choice irrespective. Ranting now- sorry!
The key thing is the Technician or 'noctor' is cheaper. We are living longer (or had been!) so it must be ok! We will soon have workless folk dragooned into 'social care' jobs however ill-equipped (uncaring) they may be, to 'protect the public purse'; and less-than-totally-voluntary assisted dying of the economically inactive for the same reason. I've done my three score years and ten so will be put on that waiting list of 'undifferentiated patients' for that waiting room ... Where's that hand-cart?
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,779
This is eminently worthy of being laid at Thatcher's door, and those of her 'descendant' occupiers of Downing Street. Same as Dental Technicians, Pharmacy Technicians, Architectural Technicians, Teaching Assistants, ... From 1931 the title 'Architect' was protected by law- people could be prosecuted for purporting to have the qualifications of an Architect- five years of higher education and two years of professional practice. Mrs Thatcher deemed this to be akin to a 'closed shop'. The value of Qualifications have been downgraded, including the 'gold standard' A-level and 'First Class' degrees. All must have prizes- all will have Grade A (sorry A***, or its numbered replacement!); all are able to go to the Uni of their choice irrespective. Ranting now- sorry!
The key thing is the Technician or 'noctor' is cheaper. We are living longer (or had been!) so it must be ok! We will soon have workless folk dragooned into 'social care' jobs however ill-equipped (uncaring) they may be, to 'protect the public purse'; and less-than-totally-voluntary assisted dying of the economically inactive for the same reason. I've done my three score years and ten so will be put on that waiting list of 'undifferentiated patients' for that waiting room ... Where's that hand-cart?

We're now seeing nurses perform complex surgery and upgraded dental nurses/hygienists fill teeth. This is great if all goes well, but it's not so good in the percentage of cases that turn complex under their hands before experienced help can be found, or they miss the vital clues about something more concerning than a completely trained doctor or dentist would be aware of.

The Royal College of Surgeons has expressed alarm that a non-surgeon has removed patients’ gallbladders at Walsall Manor Hospital.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,257
The worst thing she did was allow social housing to be sold off. While people (including my own family) benefited in the short term, we now have a legacy of the lack of cheap affordable housing. Too many peoples incomes are now spent on rent or mortgages which effects the wider economy as there is less money to go round.

The sale of the social housing wasn’t an issue per se. What was the issue was that councils were not allowed to spend the proceeds building more social housing to replace what was sold.
 

TheSmiths82

Member
Joined
29 Jun 2023
Messages
264
Location
Manchester
The sale of the social housing wasn’t an issue per se. What was the issue was that councils were not allowed to spend the proceeds building more social housing to replace what was sold.

I agree with that but it still costs more to build the new homes than it does to replace what was sold at a discounted price :( I've said before that my grandparents benefit from the scheme, and indirectly so did we but I still think the policy was wrong and it what is causing so much of the cost of living crisis today.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,516
The sale of the social housing wasn’t an issue per se. What was the issue was that councils were not allowed to spend the proceeds building more social housing to replace what was sold.
This is broadly correct. I'm not sure it 'wasn't an issue' for some- it was a 'political' move to enable and encourage 'aspirational' tenants of council housing to 'buy their houses' to which they had been paying rents often for years. These rents were paid into the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to pay for their maintenance and the loans (and associated interest thereon) from the Public Works Loan Board. Once sold there was no rent from that property to pay into the HRA. Thatcher decided to offer a discount related to how long the tenets had been in occupation there, some would say as a 'bribe'. This was unfair, and maybe unnecessary other than to curry favour and win votes in less familiar territory. She banned it use for building new council housing, arguably a source of future Labour voters and/or workshy and indolent wasters on benefit paid for by 'hard working people' who would be low on housing waiting lists and wanting a 'home of their own', which Tory-Party supporting developers would be pleased to build. Basildon Man was the model. The availability of funds from the sale of council houses was said to help reduce the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement (PSBR) -remember that? Reducing the PSBR was a prominent feature of the 1980s- the Thatcher years. Few flats in tower blocks were bought while attractive houses with gardens on the outer estates were snapped up, resulting in the so-called 'sink estates' sneered at by some and today's legacy of societal divisions.
 

Top