Thatcher gave us reality check after failures of socialism

The two adjacent letters from Messrs Howley and Penn (The Yorkshire Post, October 22) on the topic of who was the best post-war prime minister provide food for thought on the merits of socialism versus capitalism.

Firstly, Mr Howley’s letter makes comparisons between Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher with implications of the latter coming from a comfortable middle class and Attlee having a closer identity with the working class. Attlee was in fact a public school “toff” and Thatcher was a grammar school girl. Attlee was a lawyer and Thatcher was the only Prime Minister ever to have real work experience in industry.

The Attlee administration presided over the introduction of the NHS and also the nationalisation of public utilities and major capital industries.

To those who questioned the cost at the time, it was argued the cost of the NHS would progressively reduce as the nation became healthier with free care. In the case of the nationalised industries, it was further argued that productivity would increase when the workers effectively became their own bosses.

The consequence was that the nation was facing economic meltdown when Thatcher came to power. Not surprisingly with a nation accustomed to living in the socialist clouds, she was, and still is, demonised for the drastic action necessary to restore some semblance of reality to the situation.

That brings us to Mr Penn’s letter and his various thoughts on growth being reliant on profits, greed, selfishness and self-destructive capitalism. The population with its needs and expectations is growing all the time. Profits are the only fuel for growth or otherwise where does the money come from?

There can be little argument that bankers and senior public servants walking away with obscene amounts of public or other people’s money is pure greed. However when it comes to Mr Penn’s point on producing countless products that no one really needs or wants, we are faced with some dilemmas. It is the manufacture of products and processed goods which provides employment with wages and profits that sustains the economy.

On the other hand, this soaks up energy and finite resources which conflicts with all the “green” policies.

Those around the world with nothing to eat might consider our insatiable appetite for more and more material affluence makes us all greedy or selfish, but it will be a very bold Prime Minister who ever dares to tell us that.