MovieChat Forums > Brassed Off (1996) Discussion > What where the tories like?

What where the tories like?


Just being 17 I [according to my dad] was lucky not to have been around when Thatcher was PM. Being in West-Centeral Scotland which relied heavily on industry there's hardly anyone I know who would support the tories. So were the tories really as bad as what is made out [UK as a whole]? Or is it just from certain view-points?

reply

It depended on your point of view. Personally, I’ve never known any politician of any party divide public opinion as much as she did: there are many to this day who think that she was one of the greatest leaders that the UK ever had; others loathe her and all she stood for in equal measure. She certainly never united the country in the way her St. Francis of Assisi speech hoped for when she first walked into Downing Street.

The Conservatives went to the right of political spectrum in a big way when they were elected in 1979. They committed to the Chicago school of economics, with its emphasis on less government interference in the economy and in general ignored the consensus that had existed in the UK since the end of WWII. Heavy industry and the manufacturing base, with its communities traditionally rooted around them, were consigned to history and the service industry took over in their places. The message that came through loud and clear was ‘tough: deal with it’

All the utility companies were sold off at prices far below their true value to encourage ownership by private individuals, most of which finished up in the hands of major investment groups. These were asset-stripped and for the most part ended being owned by major transnational companies. Those who worked in the utility companies were offered shares in these new companies at reduced prices, and most – including ironically most union members - jumped at them; it was a good deal and they sold them on for a nice profit as soon as they could. Their jobs went with them too.

There were some elements of revenge and vindictiveness in the Thatcher government's handling of the NUM especially; the control that the NUM had enjoyed over electrical power distribution (via industrial action) and which had been a major factor in the downfall of the Heath government was something that rankled them and they were determined never to let it happen again. The NUM, led by a doctrinaire Marxist, was extremely slow to wake up to the realities of life in a changing world and tried to compete through the same strategy as previously. It failed miserably.

It was a relief for many when she finally quit in 1990; and equally she was sadly missed by many others. She was replaced by someone who wasn’t so dogmatic in their beliefs but the country had changed once again: her time was over. The belief in economic competence that the Conservatives had managed to garner about themselves during this period finally died in 1992 with Black Wednesday; they didn’t regain the trust of the electorate until 2010.

The overall impression that I remember of that period when the Conservatives were in and she was PM was of the language of confrontation, riots, anger and an increase in selfishness in the whole populace. We suffered two horrible recessions: one when she came in; one when she left.

Her overall legacy didn’t mean that much to me if I’m honest; she and the Conservatives halted the decline in the UK’s position in the world for a while but it continues to lessen in importance. Despite all her beliefs, protestations and complaints, the UK has moved ever closer to ties with a United Europe. She seemed powerless to prevent them. Perhaps she was simply too old and tired after the length of time she'd had in the job.

reply

[deleted]

Absolutely true. But I must confess that although I should vote on a party’s policy statement, in general I vote to see the back of the last one, whoever that may be. And I couldn’t agree more with you about the UK being in financial meltdown when the Conservatives took over in 1979; exactly the same thing has occurred once again in 2010. It’s a sad truism that following on from each Labour government, the Conservatives spend years repairing the economic damage that Labour has done to the country.

And please don’t get me started on Labour’s assault on civil liberties, all of which started long before the attack on the Twin Towers. The fact that Blair tried to limit the right to trial by jury, tried to limit (or eradicate) habeas corpus, constrained the right to freedom of speech, introduced control orders (house arrest), was planning ID Cards and a National Identity Register for the entire population, had increased surveillance tenfold, abolished the law of double jeopardy, admitted hearsay evidence, and introduced at least 15 Acts of Parliament against the Rule of Law (common law, convention and expert opinion – half the British Constitution) all made me a libertarian and anti-statist forever. The last Labour government was media and image driven, and determined to obtain more and more power for the executive branch and exclude Parliament from any meaningful role for itself. It was authoritarian at its heart.

As for Europe, the Conservatives were the party who initially took us into a ‘Common Market’ and who have never stopped complaining about it ever since. It was a subject that helped condemn the Major government to oblivion. Heath was the PM who wanted entry and who lied and hid exactly what the plan was: to cede the UK’s power to a United Europe. (please see the government papers released under the 30-year rule for the truth) Labour of course was pure as the driven snow in this matter – that is until they obtained power. Then it was simply ‘we want to be nearer to the heart of Europe’ so they began to cave into in all the demands made on them, all but the single currency that is.

reply

It’s a sad truism that following on from each Labour government, the Conservatives spend years repairing the economic damage that Labour has done to the country.


What absolute fùcking nonsense. To say nothing of the fact that Labour governments had to cope with economic crises immediately after the Tory or Tory-dominated govts of 1945, 1963, and Heath's self-inflicted boom and bust in 1974, the only governments they had post-war before Blair - they had to cope with the worst one yet in 2008, and actually managed to keep unemployment much lower than it ever had been under Thatcher.

To say nothing of all that, and yet Gideon has managed to put Britain back into recession within six months, six fùcking months, of his appointment as chancellor.

Well fùcking done Tories. When we want a good, protracted recession with high unemployment we know who to come to, don't we? But then, we always did, because they don't actually fùcking care that much about whether the country has anything approaching full employment, do they? Thatcher proved that much.







It's about how audaciously you are carrying on in calm.

reply

What absolute ******** nonsense. To say nothing of the fact that Labour governments had to cope with economic crises immediately after the Tory or Tory-dominated govts of 1945, 1963, and Heath's self-inflicted boom and bust in 1974, the only governments they had post-war before Blair - they had to cope with the worst one yet in 2008, and actually managed to keep unemployment much lower than it ever had been under Thatcher.


The government of 1945-51 was Labour through and through. They won by a landslide directly after WWII - 'The Khaki Election' - with Atlee implementing the start of the Welfare State - thanks to the money that was given to the UK via the USA and the Marshall Plan. Labour managed to spend the lot, devalued the pound, lost the next 3 consecutive elections and let the Conservatives in for 13 years; when the UK actually managed to prosper once again. Profumo sank Macmillan and the Tories in 1963, not economics.

In 1967, within 3 years of Labour having gained power twice they'd devalued the pound - yet again - and by the time another General Election came round in 1970, had left the Conservatives industrial strife plus inflation to deal with too.

Doesn't seem like nonsense to me.

However, I couldn't disagree that Heath's 'dash for growth' under Barber was a failure; as was most of his time in office I personally felt that his cold, distant personality was a factor in motivating people to work with him. Economic problems were compounded by the Oil Crisis, the Yom Kippur War and subsequent energy crises. Plus the unions were at that time as powerful as they'd ever been, or will ever likely be; by the time Wilson won the 'Who governs Britain?' election, Heath at least discovered the answer to that one: it's not you, mate.

Labour's poor economic record after Wilson resigned was again plain to see though for everyone; there's no way anyone could say that the IMF auditing the UK's finances for a loan and supervision in 1976 was a brilliant move: it was a humiliation for Labour. Can you remember Chancellor Denis Healey preparing to fly abroad and having to be dragged back from the airport to deal with it? And by the time 1979 rolled round, well, they'd had two terms in office, with inflation at one time reaching a peak of something like 30% (this figure could be wrong, it's from memory) plus more union militancy and more strikes. No wonder the Conservatives won.

To say nothing of all that, and yet Gideon has managed to put Britain back into recession within six months, six ****** months, of his appointment as chancellor.


Actually recession is generally defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. You're basing your assertion on less time than that.

Well ******* done Tories. When we want a good, protracted recession with high unemployment we know who to come to, don't we? But then, we always did, because they don't actually ******* care that much about whether the country has anything approaching full employment, do they? Thatcher proved that much.


Some unemployment figures between 1979 and 2010 below:

1979 - 1.4 m
1982 - 3.3 m
1984/87 - 3.25 m
1990 - 1.5 m
1993 - 2.0 m
1997 - 1.7 m
2007 - 1.25 m
2010 - 2.5 m

I don't think that we'll ever see full employment again; no matter which party gets in.

reply

One needn't ask what they were like as we are witnessing a very good view of the Tories at their worst today. Supposedly in coalition ...

I'm not trying to break your heart,
I'm just trying hard not to fall apart

reply

Got to love the irony of how in 1984 the Conservatives began the long process of closing mines putting over 250,000 British workers out of business.

Now they are continuing there legacy allowing a unstoppable deluge of immigrants into the country who are taking British worker jobs on low wages, leaving millions of Brits out of work...

reply

'' but she also provided people living in Council houses the opportunity to purchase the homes they had lived in for so long'' - Keeleboy

Shame that A) only wealthier middle-class people could buy those house, B) many had to sell them due to the state of the UK after Thatcherite policies and C) there are no decent council houses left for the poor members of society who really need them, only the slums were left!

''One thing she did was good ie she broke the huge power of the unions who were tearing the heart out of Britain with their strike actions and destroying the economy'' - paul 1125

Same old spoon-fed union-hating news media bollocks! What was destroying our economy was the war that the government had decided to wage against the workers of the country. The unions had every right to strike in support of the thousands of workers who were about to lose their jobs - which is what the strikes in the Thatcher era was about -

''...the electorate but also knowing that in the long term it was the only way to increase the strength of the British economy.''

Or when we get past the nonsense, increased unemployment, which is still a problem to our day. Immigrants are not why we cannot find jobs, Thatcherite polices are.

''So, yes the working classes hated her for taking away their union power base but the middle classes loved her for stabilising the economy and bringing inflation and interest rates under control.''

Because the majority of this country, the working-class who spend their lives holding the country on their backs, do not deserve power or to have a say in how this country is run. Damn your middle-class.

'' Obviously a stable economy benefited the working class as well - who really wants to live in a country where everything costs 15% more than it did last year?''

Why did unemployment increase during Thatcher's premiership? Why has unemployment been a problem since then? Because her policies did not benefit the working-class. The economy wasn't stabilized, it just meant that the wealthier members of society grew wealthier and private companies did more business in the UK.

''e Thatcher was. Under her watch, inflation and interest rates still rose and unemployment went from 1 million to 3 million. WOW!!! Amazing economic skills. All she did was transfer the collective wealth of the working class to the middle class.'' - bobalot

Well said!


''Now they are continuing there legacy allowing a unstoppable deluge of immigrants into the country who are taking British worker jobs on low wages, leaving millions of Brits out of work...'' - Tomboevans

The problem isn't really immigration, it is the fact that there are no jobs to be found due to privatization of our economy and the fact that companies IMPORT immigrants from abroad, hired abroad, to act as near slaves. Those who arrive from the usual immigrant channels simply become permanent residence and citizens, thus members of our society, and have the same wages as the rest of us. Imported workers, on the other hand, are separated from the other unions and forced to live awful lives on little pay, especially when you consider that they are being used as bogeymen by the media, the populace and the government itself!

These migrant workers are fellow workers, fellow members of our international working-class, if they work here it should be for the same pay and in the same unions. The government has no wish to halt migrant workers coming here, because they use them as pawn to divide the working-class and give idiots a false enemy to hate, they instead put blocks on regular immigration, including ones based on marriage (which is beyond vile), who have to have an income of about three times as much as the minimum wage allows, and those seeking political asylum.

People should learn to separate the immigrants from problems in society. Immigrants are not a problem, privatization and other capitalist policies are.




Formerly KingAngantyr

reply

When PM Thatcher was voted into power the country was a mess. The Unions were holding the country to ransom. We has just had the winter of discontent. This was a vicious circle which had to be broken.

The coal industry was losing millions of pounds a week as it was so uncompetitive and many miners welcomed the closures and like we saw in the film many voted for it.

I saw a documentary some years ago as to what some of the miners were now doing. One had retired a millionaire after making a killing on the stock market, another owned a pub, another owned 3 cab firms and another ran and owned a sports club.

Life can be so much better than working in a pit and dying young. When I left school, I immediately moved to London. That was where the money was being made. I retired in my mid 40's. Or I could have stayed in the village I lived in and been on benefits my whole life.

reply

[deleted]

How's this for irony, in America the most liberal President ever (Obama) is killing the coal industry putting tens of thousands of workers on the dole and offering amnesty to 5,000,000 illegal aliens. New boss same as the old boss.

let's go and say a prayer for a boy who couldn't run as fast as I could

reply

Evil selfish filth who turned people against each other then as they do now.

reply

Then, just as now, they were bastards. The Party exists only to protect the wealth and power of the Corporate Ruling Class.

reply

No ones mentioned the thing I remember most about Thatcher - she Privatized (read: sold off) Most of the public utilities, a move i didnt like at the time , but now im not so sure - it might have been a good thing given a government seems unable to efficiently run a company.

At the time it just felt they belonged to all of us and she sold them off with no visible benefit - where did the billions go? we didnt all get a free holiday , or not pay tax for a year, it was just "absorbed" if you can only keep your country afloat by selling off billion dollar industries it dosent seem sustainable.

reply