|
|
|
|
|
by blasterford
5211 days ago
|
|
Read the book (Or some other facts from the time). She had to privatise industries because they became ridiculously uncompetitive and expensive to run. During the previous socialist government the number of public sector workers increased drastically. British steel was haemorrhaging money. And the unions response? Demand pay increases and strike. Same with the coal industry. Would you rather she kept us paying billions in ever increasing public sector wage demands? "Full employment" should not be a policy. You don't spend public money employing unproductive workers in useless public sector jobs just for the hell of it. Full employment is something that happens naturally when individuals take responsibility for themselves. The UK economy is a mess because of drastic overspending by socialist governments. Something we're having to put right (again). Shame the lessons of the 70s/80s weren't learnt. |
|
(I agree that the actions of the unions in 70s are also to the blame, but a better approach would have been to engage the unions and slowly transition to better balance of public and private sector industries rather than the union busting and throwing the baby out with the bathwater that MacGregor and Thatcher did)
In answer to your question would I rather pay billions in the cost of benefits to support people being unemployed or billions keeping people working in nationalized industries or the public sector ? At least with the latter you are getting something back for your money rather than people sitting on their arse all day watching daytime TV.