Thread 17813774 - /his/ [Archived: 608 hours ago]

Anonymous
7/4/2025, 3:09:56 PM No.17813774
lr
lr
md5: 6e14ac04d9ecf2175af17602ed7fafd4๐Ÿ”
Anti-Thatcher demonstrators in 1983 during the height of the battles in the UK over closing of coal mines.
Replies: >>17813846 >>17813858 >>17814820 >>17815223 >>17815281 >>17815805
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 3:32:37 PM No.17813846
>>17813774 (OP)
i'd be pissed too if they took away my livelihood and put me on the dole for the rest of forever because the resident braintrust listened to a couple of libertarian think tanks
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 3:37:54 PM No.17813858
>>17813774 (OP)
Should have revolted instead of just feebly complaining
Now you are bankrupt, starving investor cattle
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:35:19 PM No.17814765
Milk Snatcher Does it Again!
Milk Snatcher Does it Again!
md5: a659a30d5fa7b81c18ba0761f4bc2409๐Ÿ”
Something I never understood, if Thatcher was so shit how did she win the 1987 election?
>1979
country in shit, time for change
>1983
big falklands boost, rally round the flag
>1987
???
Replies: >>17814770 >>17814779 >>17814931
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:37:46 PM No.17814770
>>17814765
Labor was and is incompetent
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:40:15 PM No.17814779
>>17814765
>if Thatcher was so shit how did she win the 1987 election?
leftist infighting as usual, though the economy had also started recovering which made some people think thatcher had been right all along
Replies: >>17814849
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:42:59 PM No.17814791
the bankers the bonuses the bankers the bonuses
Replies: >>17817081
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 9:57:26 PM No.17814820
>>17813774 (OP)
>this industry is unproductive
>instead of fixing it just destroy it entirely
>replace it with a different industry? no fuck that, just put the coal miners on welfare instead
>this is somehow better for the economy
I don't understand. If you're gonna put them all on gibs then why not just subsidize the coal mines instead? Wouldn't it be cheaper that way? Or instead of subsidies they could just use that money to rebuild a different, profitable industry instead that doesn't need to subsidies to stay alive? You're gonna be giving out money to these people either way, nobody is gonna let them just starve to death. Like what the fuck was the plan here?
t. not a bong
Replies: >>17814858 >>17817170
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:15:12 PM No.17814849
>>17814779
>you see, my perfect economic system only requires you to go through 8 years of misery
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:16:55 PM No.17814858
>>17814820
>If you're gonna put them all on gibs then why not just subsidize the coal mines instead? Wouldn't it be cheaper that way?
By selling the mines to private companies (who simply closed them and sold off the equipment/assets) the government made a quick immediate one time monetary gain.
Investing for greater gains down the line would have required foresight.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:19:06 PM No.17814865
Was never gonna work. Britain led the Industrial Revolution in the 18th-19th centuries due to abundant locally available coal but after oil and gas became the dominant forms of energy coal became less important and Britain didn't have any of those.
Replies: >>17814895 >>17814896
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:30:33 PM No.17814895
British Tabloids on Corbyn
British Tabloids on Corbyn
md5: e08de3609e5072765e1281c5974d6884๐Ÿ”
>>17814865
>Britain didn't have any of those.
Britain had and has significant oil reserves in the North sea, the same ones that Norway runs it's entire economy off today. The difference is rather than investing in it the government privatized it and now receives none of the proceeds of it.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:30:55 PM No.17814896
>>17814865
They had the North Sea in the mid 1900s but all that money was basically hidden away in tax havens and looted.
Anonymous
7/4/2025, 10:47:45 PM No.17814931
>>17814765
Labour was having a meltdown and cucking instead of strongly rejecting her bullshit
Plus every major newspaper was shilling for her as always - the tory bias of the british media is crazy. Imagine if every American media outlet bar maybe 2 newspaper was Fox News
Replies: >>17815210 >>17815612
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:08:00 AM No.17815210
>>17814931
>the tory bias of the british media is crazy.
Guardian, miror, independent?
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:13:49 AM No.17815223
>>17813774 (OP)
My parents left the UK to move to the United States because of thatcher


fuck her and fuck jannies
Replies: >>17815231
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:17:13 AM No.17815231
>>17815223
>thank god we escaped thatcherism
>in reagan's america
Replies: >>17815233
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:17:25 AM No.17815233
>>17815231
Fuck Reagan too
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 1:48:44 AM No.17815281
>>17813774 (OP)
This was the last time politics actually meant something. i.e it represented different class interests. Thatcher's genius move, her secret sauce, was Right to Buy. Home ownership turned working class people into peasants, the "potatoes in a sack" that Marx described in the 13th Brumaire. Of course, now all those subsidized houses are flowing back into the private hands of a small group of tycoons, especially foreigners and the potatoes are being re-proletarianised.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 5:13:10 AM No.17815612
>>17814931
Further British music in the 80s had like 138,990 anti-Thatcher songs, so...
Replies: >>17815626
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 5:20:37 AM No.17815626
>>17815612
Name 3.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 6:54:50 AM No.17815805
Screenshot 2025-07-04 215421
Screenshot 2025-07-04 215421
md5: 1337028530d0e33258aac6842ff9aaea๐Ÿ”
>>17813774 (OP)
lol
Replies: >>17817106
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:04:42 PM No.17817081
>>17814791
It's disgusting.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:22:54 PM No.17817106
1724772152096
1724772152096
md5: 1326f0465db2bb6466d6c85a4a09a3a0๐Ÿ”
>>17815805
was it really the empire collapsing that caused this? other european countries did fine after colonization ended
Replies: >>17817148
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:43:58 PM No.17817148
>>17817106
It's thatcherism unironically
Britain is just allergic to actually investing in infrastructure, industry or services
Replies: >>17817159
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:48:49 PM No.17817159
>>17817148
The UK had a higher GDP per capita than Germany before WW2 (and obviously after) and also recieved the largest Breton woods settlement.
Before Thatcher was elected, Italy had surprassed the UK in GDP per capita and that only got reverted after Thatcherism.
Unironically blaming Thatcher for retarded socialist labour policies is the most smooth brain take anyone can have, if the UK assumed the same economic policies as Germany (basically just standard capitalism + welfare) you wouldn't even have seeing Thatcherism rise
Replies: >>17817169 >>17817179
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:52:06 PM No.17817169
1747832995328
1747832995328
md5: ca4916c882101a3a7d58db47c2eecd38๐Ÿ”
>>17817159
>le... socialism buckbroke britain
Enjoy 50 more years of austerity
Replies: >>17817175 >>17817199
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:52:30 PM No.17817170
>>17814820
The idea is to take people from unproductive industries and to eventually dump welfare for another job. The main issue with the UK it is extreme centralization in London, with a more decentralized system the country would have rebounded much better and with more diverse industries
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:53:56 PM No.17817175
>>17817169
No, it is a basic fact that the retarded policies that the UK took post war is what caused its relative decline to the rest of Europe. Labour didn't even do socialism right, Degaulle and Franco were interventionists but they were not as fucking retarded as Labour
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 9:55:02 PM No.17817179
>>17817159
>gdp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s2xTttJHtI
Replies: >>17817194
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:00:07 PM No.17817194
>>17817179
>Noooo don't measure economic output per person that is a meme
The UK managed everything like shit after WW2 and it is the most inept goverment in all of western Europe. Thatcherism was just a result of shit management but it didn't fix the core issue it just fixed a bit the economic model
Replies: >>17817239
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:02:11 PM No.17817199
>>17817169
>le... socialism buckbroke britain
Well, le postwar consensus did but sure, continue to believe that Britain (the "sick man of Europe", remember) voted for Thatcherism for no reason because it was just bored of living in utopia.

Adenauer and de Gaulle invested their Marshall Plan money into industrial plant and infrastructure. Britain invested it in a free-at-the-point-of-use welfare system (a meaningless distinction from insurance-based models like those in Europe, insisted on by Bevan and other retards), and maintaining a bloated military to guard an empire that it would lose in five minutes regardless.
Replies: >>17817230
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:15:25 PM No.17817230
>>17817199
That's another thing. The UK took a loan that it finished paying in 2006 to mantain a huge navy and army that it couldn't even intervene successfuly at Suez.
The amount of incompetent morons that took over the country after the war is baffling
Replies: >>17817273 >>17817284 >>17817298
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:18:50 PM No.17817239
>>17817194
Which is more valuable for Britain, producing 100,000 tonnes of coal for ยฃ1,000,000, or a person in London buyingยฃ2,000,000 worth of stocks in CITIC?
Replies: >>17817250 >>17817268
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:21:49 PM No.17817250
>>17817239
The financial sector is basically the only thing that keeps the UK's horrible balance of payments from being even more horrible. The coal is just throwing money down the toilet
Replies: >>17817271
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:30:00 PM No.17817268
>>17817239
>spend 1,200,000 to make 1,000,000
>cannot possibly see why this might be a bad idea
this is why bongs have been slowly getting poorer for several decades.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:31:26 PM No.17817271
>>17817250
So you inherit the country in 1979, your options are
>reform the industry to either make it profitable or invest in new industries that are profitable
or
>sell off everything and have the entire country be impoverished but the average GDP is okay because some stockbrokers in london have billions, pulling up the average
and you think the latter is better?
Replies: >>17817282 >>17817318
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:32:29 PM No.17817273
>>17817230
>The amount of incompetent morons that took over the country after the war is baffling
I put it down to the Attlee landslide. Churchill had thought that his victory in '45 would be the most assured thing in his career, and was mortally personally and politically wounded when he lost by such a margin. Attlee, likewise, had not really expected to win, and Labour was factionally riven. This is subjective, but I rate Bevin and Gaitskell as brilliant men who ought to have been given a lot more power, Cripps as a clever man who happened to be wrong about a lot of things, Morrison as a snake in human flesh much like his nephew Peter Mandelson, Bevan as the human embodiment of the Zinoviev letter, and pretty much everyone else as a non-entity. How could they be otherwise, with no practical experience in government and everyone who was too close to Ramsay Macdonald reviled as a traitor to the Labour movement? Anyway, Labour obviously bled support every year subsequent to their election, but Churchill then limply regaining power did not dispel the Tories' confidence, which was holed below the waterline. They, too, were riven with conflict between Rab Butler and Harold Macmillan, and couldn't really manage to do more than competently manage the fallout from the wrong decisions already taken by the Attlee administration. I think if Gaitskell had won in '59 then he might have been able to shape Labour into something much more competent, but alas he lost, there were five more years of zombie managerialism, and the used car salesman Harold Wilson and paedophile Edward Heath were than allowed to continue (mis)managerialism for another two decades. It was over by Callaghan, though I think he would have done a much better job than Wilson in the sixties.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:35:32 PM No.17817282
>>17817271
Thatcher tried to do both. There were numerous attempts at reform of British industry, there's no reason why it should conflict with the finance reforms of 1986 and the Big Bang, it's just that the cabinet was filled with financiers who could carry successful banking reforms and had very few industrialists, or at least astute ones, so they had to turn to the very idiots in British boardrooms who had started the mess in the first place.

Her admittedly abrasive and confrontational style makes a lot of people assume malice instead of lack of competence in the Thatcher administration. Smashing West German industrial dominance and giving unionists no reason not to vote for a thousand year Tory reich would have tickled Thatcher pink, they just failed to achieve it.
Replies: >>17817289
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:36:51 PM No.17817284
>>17817230
>and army that it couldn't even intervene successfuly at Suez.
In fairness, the Suez operation was a total and complete *military* success. It was the Soviet and American *political* intervention that doomed it.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:39:28 PM No.17817289
>>17817282
>There were numerous attempts at reform of British industry
Were there?
Replies: >>17817316
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:42:54 PM No.17817298
>>17817230
The post-war incompetent morons were a continuation of the pre-war incompetent morons, you would've been laughed out of Whitehall for the mere suggestion that Britain concede that its survival was now dependent on the US so it should scale back its military obligations to only what was required to defend its shores and meet its obligations to NATO
Replies: >>17817303
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:44:11 PM No.17817303
>>17817298
>you would've been laughed out of Whitehall for the mere suggestion that Britain concede that its survival was now dependent on the US so it should scale back its military obligations to only what was required to defend its shores and meet its obligations to NATO
With good reason. Britain should have stood it's ground in the Suez Crisis. If push came to shove America was not going to become a hostile power to both Britain and France. It was a game of poker they lost.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:49:12 PM No.17817316
>>17817289
Yes, largely before Keith Joseph was sidelined. Joseph was far more interested in industry than he was in finance, IIRC the finance-led aspect of the Thatcherism only really went into overdrive once Nigel Lawson had her ear. The 1980-82 supply side reforms were sincere (albeit failed) attempts to revivify British industry. The problem (in my view) is that Thatcher, Joseph, and Howe were too ideologically committed to the monetarist theory of 'crowding out', that too much public money was making private investment impossible. Cutting regulation and government subsidy should, in theory, fix this automatically, but of course as always Friedman and the monetarists always assumed that things that are sometimes true are always and everywhere true, so of course all the other myriad uncompetitivenesses of the British economy went unaddressed.
Replies: >>17817331
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:49:31 PM No.17817318
>>17817271
To make the industry competitive you had to wipe out the entire system all together starting with regulations and unions. Unions were not even open for reform they just wanted to mantain the status quo and bleed the country dry for their own pockets.
In Germany where the unions are run by adults all the needed reforms were taken by the private sector on its own which explains their manufacturing success
Replies: >>17817329
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:54:32 PM No.17817329
>>17817318
>unions... BAD
you're not ruling class just because you live with your parents and they pay for everything
Replies: >>17817333 >>17817392
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:55:47 PM No.17817331
>>17817316
You're clearly far more educated in this topic than I am even if I disagree with you ideologically.
Replies: >>17817360
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 10:56:47 PM No.17817333
>>17817329
Unions can be good if they actually are reasonable and also look for the good of the company. The corporativist union culture in Germany explains its long term success
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 11:08:55 PM No.17817360
>>17817331
Well, I hoped I wasn't really making an ideological point. I did say that Thatcher mostly failed, after all. All major UK parties have significant stains on their record, which is possibly why they keep reinventing themselves to be diametrically opposite to what they used to be. I don't think that Thatcherism succeeded on its own terms, I just don't think it was the boogie man that it sometimes portrayed as. If nothing else it was more internally consistent than Reaganism, which I think was mostly nakedly cynical pork-barrelling.
Anonymous
7/5/2025, 11:21:29 PM No.17817392
>>17817329
Unions, as a concept, are a good thing. Sadly, there were some practices in UK unions of that era that desperately needed reform, like the closed shop and their clinging to piecework systems of payment that were dumped in Germany and France decades before. That's saying nothing with British unions' problems with revolutionary vanguardism. That is NOT at the very top of the union management, who were usually at the absolute right wing of the Labour party machine, but in the rank-and-file. Some of these are alleged to have been fomented by The Kremlin, though I don't really know enough to comment on that. Anyway, labour relations are undoubtedly much better now than they were then. Even the post-COVID inflation strikes were relatively lacking in rancour.