|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 2, 2012 21:54:39 GMT
Mcf, You're wasting your time with Sifu. He either just doesn't get it or he's just fucking dead angry that someone's giving him a good beating. I gave up trying to explain the fact that an increase in borrowing as a % of GDP when GDP itself is rising is the economics of a moron. So, in the so called 'good times' Labour, even with an ever increasing GDP, still had to increase debt\borrowing as a % of GDP to fund whatever vote bagging shit they decided to waste our money on. I think we need to get down to basics with our Sifu so here's an example of what he obviously can't grasp: Year 1 : GDP �1 billion: Debt\Borrowing as a % of GDP: 30% Year 2 : �1.5 billion: 30% GDP has risen and borrowing as a % of GDP remains the same. This means that the government is borrowing more money. Get it? So, under fuckstick Labour: Year 3: �2 billion: 35% Year 4: �2.5 billion: 37% Are you getting it yet? The borrowing as a % of GDP doesn't appear anything out of the ordinary but when compared to rising GDP (boom times) something at some point will break. The government is borrowing even more money to pay for 'something'. I've asked Sifu at least ten times when Labour were actually going to ease off on the borrowing but he's never come back with anything of substance other than he 'doesn't know'. It was obvious that our nation's running costs under Labour were only 'affordable' with increased borrowing and remember that this was happening pre-2008. Why didn't they put some away for a rainy day? Simple, because they were spending every fucking penny coming in from tax etc as well as the increasing funds coming from borrowing. No government could have kept this going but fortunately for Labour the 2008 crash gave them a useful 'excuse' and getting voted out in 2010 pretty much got them off the hook as far as their core vote were concerned. So all you doctors out there that want to strike later in the year please remember that the government of the time couldn't actually afford the massive pay increases you received so the government that's currently in power have to fix it. That's my last post on this as I predict another tiresome barrage of 'it was nothing out of the ordinary' crap from you know who. You fight the good fight MCF! ;D Oh yeah, you can tell from my language about those "fuckpig" Tories that I'm dead angry ;D. (For clarification, as it's probably necessary, that was mcf's choice of word regarding Gordon Brown, not mine. I notice you used fuckstick Labour! Feel free to imagine me getting angry if it helps, though I suspect you're falling into the FYD trap and simply trying to reflect your own feelings onto me ). This is presumably why you don't bother posting any more - you can't accept that someone simply disagrees with what you consider to be "correct" and it makes you angry, frustrated etc. It doesn't bother me that others hold differing opinions, probably because I don't find it hard to see all the enormous holes in their arguments or the lack of reliable evidence which they present. Something which you are particularly prone to, Squareball . I've never said Labour didn't spend more than the Tories did. The figures show they spent it on health and education for the most part. Again, feel free to consider this a "waste of money" if you must, you've already said "the sooner we privatise the NHS shit the better" so it's clear to see where you stand on this. That's fair enough, it's your opinion. One which is not shared by the overwhelming majority of people in the UK, however, which is why Labour tried to improve things from the woeful condition both were in after 18 years of Tory neglect. Presumably this is why they were borrowing to spend even while GDP was increasing? But perhaps you're right, Squareball, perhaps there simply isn't enough money to properly fund the NHS, education, defence, transport, welfare etc etc without increasing borrowing even against an increasing GDP? So what's your alternative? Privatise it all and make the populace pay for things directly? Never spend if it means having a budget deficit? Never borrow if it means borrowing exceeds growth? Good luck with squaring that approach with the public's demand for a decent NHS and other public services! I'm guessing you'll go on about cutting out inefficiency and wastage. Strange then, that despite 18 years of Tory super efficiency and no wastage in the public sector the NHS and education systems were still so poor? What about reducing spending regardless of the impact on those services whenever spending rises above 25% of GDP as mcf posted? That's when it becomes inefficient apparently. "I've asked Sifu at least ten times when Labour were actually going to ease off on the borrowing but he's never come back with anything of substance other than he 'doesn't know'."Ten times? Rubbish! But to answer the question again, why do you think Darling's plans were to halve the deficit over the next four years in 2007? Something which the Tories endorsed through their matched spending plans? To scale back on spending and borrowing perhaps after a period of trying to improve the shitty public services the country inherited from the Tories? Probably. And probably why the Tories promised to match them - much more sensible than your insistence that they just lied ;D. We've done this several times already - they didn't put money away for a rainy day because the rightwing consensus (shared by New Labour btw) was that the markets would sort themselves out so there was no need to panic. Osborne wasn't planning on putting money away for a rainy day either you know! I suspect if anyone is genuinely getting angry it's those rightwing supporters who are slowly coming to realise that the rightwing supply side economic dogma both governments have followed for the last 30 years is "dysfunctional". You once said our growth was built on debt, Squareball. You were dead right, most of it as a result of private lending by reckless banks. No government was planning on keeping it going! Your lack of understanding of the bigger picture is amazing. I repeat, why do you think Darling and Osborne were both planning on reducing the deficit by reducing spending to below growth? Neither was anticipating a financial crisis, having to lend banks billions and a recession caused by banking collapse which rivals the 30s Depression! But both looked at the projected growth figures, the projected spending and the impact on debt and deficit and committed to a 2% increase in public spending each year. Why? Because they both assumed that the free markets would sort themselves out. Wrongly. It must be painful to acknowledge the mess 30 years of rightwing economic ideology has left us with which probably explains your desperation to blame it all on Labour. And the anger and frustration when even the bankers admit that the way they've been doing things has been dysfunctional. But I'm afraid that is the reality, no matter how much it hurts. Sif, I applaud your tenacity Sir, how you keep hitting them with common sense and winning the argument is the true essence of this thread. Good luck against the fcukwits mate...
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 3, 2012 20:27:52 GMT
Sif, I applaud your tenacity Sir, how you keep hitting them with common sense and winning the argument is the true essence of this thread. Good luck against the fcukwits mate...[/quote]
Yeah , keep on keeping on .
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 6, 2012 8:20:36 GMT
Luke
I’ve never seen anything so bizarre in my life – you’ve asked for proof – you get the proof – you get the conclusions from these type of sources and yet you still deny it.
Blaming the bankers. Yes, we know the banks had a part – because Brown fucked up his regulation . Whitewashing the whole concept of ‘rightwing economic ideology’ – whatever that is - with specific banking behaviour that Brown simply allowed and encouraged to happen just won’t wash.
Taking selective figures from the post recession points of Tory governments and comparing them to the best of what Labour were handed from Major simply won’t wash either.
I think your hurting because you must have voted in Labour at some point – come on, admit it – you voted in 13 years of wank didn’t you?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2012 13:58:49 GMT
I'm really not at all surprised you find it bizarre. You've got your conclusions which you consider correct and cling to despite a deep lack of understanding which you've demonstrated pretty regularly over this thread. Is it any wonder you find it odd that I don't agree with you? For instance, you argue regularly that running a budget deficit is bad practice but appear unable to explain why this has happened for 30 out of the last 37 years, blue and red governments. You demonstrated your lack of understanding by confusing Labour's spending with the Balance of Payments figures! I'm not whitewashing anything, simply stating what Robert Peston, Sir Philip Hampton to name just a few consider to be the reason for the mess we're in. The banks were the key transmission mechanism [to where we are now], simple as that. Not overspending otherwise they'd say it wouldn't they? Funny how the mess Spain is currently in is to do with the solidity of their banks isn't it? Funny how both Labour and the Tories, after a period of intense and reckless government overspending which almost bankrupted the country, were planning on increasing that spending by 2% in real terms each year. Crazy fools the pair of them . What were they thinking back in 2007?! If you don't know what rightwing economic ideology even is (free markets, lack of government intervention, supply side economics to name three aspects most apposite to this thread) how can you make rational "correct" conclusions about the impact this approach has had? Brown basically carried on from before. Is that so hard to understand? Light touch regulation which followed on from the deregulation initiated by Thatcher which, amongst other things, allowed the banks to gamble recklessly with their own debt. This is precisely what Robert Peston was on about. Watch the programme! The selective application of figures! Oh come on, mcf, that's hilarious! You proved that the public sector at the end of Thatcher's term of office was higher as a % of the total workforce than anything under Labour but still believe that just 300,000 jobs somehow added almost 20% of GDP to our debt post financial crisis! You cling to this desperate 13 years of wank mantra despite managing to demonstrate with your own figures that government spending as a % of GDP (ie affordability) under Labour from 1997 to the financial crisis was no higher than under Major! Remember that Major was doing so well that he handed over a great set of cards. In other words his spending must, by your definition of a great set of cards, have been nothing out of the ordinary. In which case I fail to see how you "correctly" conclude that similar levels of spending as a % of GDP by Labour right up to 2007-08 are suddenly reckless overspending ;D. Regarding spending, you post a link which shows that any spending over 25% of GDP is inefficient and this is why massive cuts in spending might actually (in theory) be a good thing. Perhaps not surprisingly you've never actually commented on this since, although I'm keen to know how " you don't get if you don't pay" squares with "I wouldn't raise taxes, I'd swing the axe elsewhere first" and "I don't need to say what I'd do I'm not running the country" with a country which wants a good NHS, education system and other public services! All in all I'm not surprised that you find this all so bizarre. I don't think you really grasp it in anything approaching a coherent way. Add to that the dysfunctional [right-endorsed] way we've been doing capitalism for the last 30 years and it must feel like having the rug pulled from under your feet. On the one hand "growth based on debt is a bad thing" and on the other the "Big Bang made us a shitload of money". I'm not surprised you're confused about the way things turned out! "A nation is like a business that is like a household". Let me guess - anyone who thinks that is one of the most simple-mindedly trite pieces of analysis is not forming the correct conclusions, right? ;D
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 7, 2012 6:51:02 GMT
Nobody will fall for this straw man bollocks and misrepresentation and you’ve had answers to all of this several times.
For the love of God, you wanted evidence from reliable sources and when you get them you either can’t even read their, not mine, their conclusions properly or you simply ignore them and keep wittering away with a defence that doesn’t hold water.
I’m saying the banks were part of it for crying out loud – because some utter tool messed up the regulation of them. Brown didn’t carry on as before – he did 2 things that totally messed it up. Plenty of articles and conclusions from credible sources do say that it was government overspending.
Spain is in trouble because of shit regulation to their banks and real estate market. It’s quite possible that Spain doesn’t have the same year on year spiralling government spending and borrowing that our country had and so Peston didn’t see if as quite the same issue for them.
Thatcher’s rightwing economic ideology was about free markets and a lack of government intervention in terms of industries being ‘propped up’ by the state. She never said ‘Let them do what the fuck they want’ or ‘fuck up the regulation of them’.
You’ve had answers why most of years are in deficit for the last 40 years – mainly because of the positions that various governments have found themselves in and you’ve had answers with regard to the changing nature of the public sector workforce. I never said that 300k in jobs added 20% to our debt in its entirety either– I twice mentioned the fall in tax receipts.
...and now best of all, after saying that I didn’t want to post opinion on what I would do as I’m not qualified to say, your defence includes quotes of some of those throw away opinionated lines. Well done Luke. Ignore the conclusions from all of the qualified sources that you have asked for, and finish on selective quotes that you pushed me for or that are taken out of context. What a clever person you are.
Just for clarity though
‘growth based on debt being a bad thing’. Yes, I tend not to get too excited around a growing GDP when we were borrowing more and more money each year to ‘fund’ that growth.
‘Big Bang made us a shitload of money’. Yes, I think it’s safe to say that financial sector has made us a lot of money over the years.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 11:04:24 GMT
mcf, they're not answers if they don't make coherent sense. Repeating them does not make them any more sensible if they didn't work the first time around. "I’m saying the banks were part of it for crying out loud – because some utter tool messed up the regulation of them. Brown didn’t carry on as before – he did 2 things that totally messed it up. Plenty of articles and conclusions from credible sources do say that it was government overspending.
Spain is in trouble because of shit regulation to their banks and real estate market. It’s quite possible that Spain doesn’t have the same year on year spiralling government spending and borrowing that our country had and so Peston didn’t see if as quite the same issue for them." And Ireland and Portugal and Greece and the UK and the USA = How the West Went Bust. Quite some coincidence really isn't it . But you keep on blaming Tory-endorsed overspending and Brown creating the financial crisis for the UK if you want to, no-one's going to stop you. But not many people, other than rightwingers desperate to blame Labour and desperate to avoid the thought that rightwing economic ideology (whatever that is) might ultimately explain How the West Went Bust will share your conclusions. Today's Guardian leader could almost have been written for you: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/euro-crisis-spainJust can't understand why they don't make more of this overspending ;D "Thatcher’s rightwing economic ideology was about free markets and a lack of government intervention in terms of industries being ‘propped up’ by the state. She never said ‘Let them do what the fuck they want’ or ‘fuck up the regulation of them’". She said exactly that I'm afraid ;D, that's what the deregulation of the financial sector was all about, most disastrously allowing banks to combine safe 'high street' banking operations with risky debt re-packaging and investment gambling. Watch the Peston programme! "You’ve had answers why most of years are in deficit for the last 40 years – mainly because of the positions that various governments have found themselves in and you’ve had answers with regard to the changing nature of the public sector workforce. I never said that 300k in jobs added 20% to our debt in its entirety either– I twice mentioned the fall in tax receipts."Actually you said that 300,000 jobs was a very very sizeable proportion of that 20% of GDP increase in our debt! But then, unsurprisingly, probably because you know it's rubbish, you never managed to show any evidence that this was the case. But I'm happy you're at least bactracking on this. Or are you? One minute you say you get what you pay for, then, after presumably realising that 30 out of 37 years of budget deficits means that governments on both sides have been spending more than they received might mean raising taxes which is not rightwing policy, then appear to advocate Edwardian levels of public spending or swinging an axe elsewhere without ever explaining how this would work! Given that "the nation is like a business that is like a household", can you explain why the nation hasn't gone bankrupt over those last 37 years when it has been spending more than it received?! How come our creditors haven't foreclosed on us like a mortgage lender would have for a household? "Just for clarity though
‘growth based on debt being a bad thing’. Yes, I tend not to get too excited around a growing GDP when we were borrowing more and more money each year to ‘fund’ that growth.
‘Big Bang made us a shitload of money’. Yes, I think it’s safe to say that financial sector has made us a lot of money over the years".Call it cherry-picking if you will, I simply chose the above because they are good examples of a lack of coherent thinking which underpins your conclusions, why you consider them to be correct, why they aren't and why you get so frustrated when I and others point this out. For example: In May 2011, The Guardian's economic editor, Larry Elliot, wrote: "There is a simple reason why output is still 4% below its peak and growing only slowly: the debt-driven model of economic growth deployed in the 25 years from the financial deregulation of the 1980s to the bank run at Northern Rock no longer delivers". More recently, the RBS's Philip Hampton said the above approach was dysfunctional. It's rightwing dogma dreamt up by the right in the early 80s and embraced by Labour I'm afraid
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Jun 7, 2012 11:58:37 GMT
Ok I've dipped in and all I can say is...
Sirs, I salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigabaility. I am with you all the way.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 7, 2012 12:49:53 GMT
The way you view Peston’s opinions is pretty bizarre too. He’s done a few programmes where he talks about may things. Yes, he talked about the free market revolution (that happened globally and we would have been left behind had Thatcher not got behind it) but he also compared the lives of workers in China as compared to those in Britain. He talked about how the West had just generally lived beyond its means for years. How Chinese people saved so much more than we did. Yep, he compared to the German model based on manufacturing and export economies. Tell us again about New Labour’s manufacturing record and how it worsened under Brown and how he couldn’t give a fuck for BoP. (Or better still, just make some bullshit up about me being confused about the BoP imbalance and the government’s deficits) He spoke to experts warning of declining living standards that could be poorer than at any time since the 70s. The 70s? My God, what could he mean? Not this Utopian time when a Labour government and the Unions ran the show surely? Back to the de-regulation though which you is a bit of a red herring really. The program talked about central banks keeping interest rates artificially low, cheap borrowing and everyone getting into debt. Again, ask yourself what did for the UK on this. Peston explained the progress of the Chinese economy and the effect of the East Asia crisis of 1997-98. A debt bubble burst and they vowed it would never happen again, so built safer economies. They went on to build surpluses – what did Brown do from this time when he was handed an economy just months away from a surplus? Now, I’m a regular reader of Peston’s BBC blog and I also keep an eye on Flanders stuff as well. As you would expect from the BBC you very, very rarely get too much political bias from either of them. There are some that think Peston had a hand from Brown and his cronies to give him the heads up on certain scoops so maybe that is why he goes easy. Didn’t stop Flanders in 2005 though. ’Britain is growing slower than it has in more than a decade. The high street has ground to a halt, and inflation is the highest it has been under Labour. When we look back, in a few years’ time, at Brown’s economy, will we still see an economic miracle? Or another old-fashioned spending binge that, sooner or later, had to run dry? What is left of the miracle economy, if you strip out the cheap imports and the consumer spending? What is left is a lot of public spending. The only part of the economy that has grown faster than spending by all of us the past few years has been spending by the government.’ Not like you just to pick up the bit about banks though The non- peston stuff.... Of course no one will stop me blaming Brown helping to create the crisis in the UK...because plenty of people believe it to be the case based on facts . I’ve posted loads of sources to back it up – you just ignore them – and the ‘not many people’ will include Centre for Economic Performance, ukpublicspending, institute for Fiscal Studies, Governor of BofE, Blair, Darling, Flanders etc Yep, apart from them though, there is no one. Of course I’m not back tracking, spending exploded even further at the same time as these jobs were being added to the payroll. I’ve told you before, I’m not fussed whether taxes are raised to pay for public services which is what I would rather happen than the country borrow, or pay less tax, and have poorer public services. Yep, I prefer the 2nd option but I’m easy either way. I’m not necessarily advocating Edwardian spending – the purpose of that article was to show that the columnist thought that was the cut off point where you start getting diminishing returns on your borrowing. ie borrow £2.18 and get £1 back – the same kind of thinking in the tullet prebon report. Probably similar to some of those very clever economists who think you get far lower growth when you are saddled with high debts – like us. For example: In May 2011, The Guardian's economic editor, Larry Elliot, wrote: "There is a simple reason why output is still 4% below its peak and growing only slowly: the debt-driven model of economic growth deployed in the 25 years from the financial deregulation of the 1980s to the bank run at Northern Rock no longer delivers". Did you get this of Wilkipedia? If so, read the rest of the details on Big Bang and then you might possibly get the first clue about the difference between what Thatcher did and how then Brown fucking it up was done so by something completely different. Larry might be half right as well, if your government then goes on to squander the profits rather than investing it in other industries – especially exporting ones. Remember that article I linked penned by the guy who worked for Brown which basically said he pissed it away?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 18:48:03 GMT
But everything I say is bizarre to you because I'm not sure you fully understand your own position, let alone one which contradicts what you have already decided is "correct". Anyone who disagrees is "incapable of coming to the correct conclusions", that's what you said! It's not bullshit about you fucking up the difference between BoP and governmental budget surplus deficits and I only mention it because I think it's a good example of your muddled thinking, but we'll let it slide. Peston's prog was looking into how decisions taken 30 years ago (ie pre New Labour to state the bleedin obvious) led us to where we are now. What's so hard to accept about that? The 70s you say - the three day week, power cuts, the move away from budget surpluses to deficits, all under that socialist stalwart Edward Heath . Ignore that though, we'll just focus on the latter part of the decade shall we when spending fell as a % of GDP every year from 1975 onwards? Ooops. (But you're right about the Unions, one of the things Thatcher got right imo ) "Back to the de-regulation though which you is a bit of a red herring really. The program talked about central banks keeping interest rates artificially low, cheap borrowing and everyone getting into debt. Again, ask yourself what did for the UK on this".Yep, shedloads of private debt as a result of banks lending to anyone who wanted it on the assumption that the free market would regulate itself over time so no need to worry, regulate or intervene = classic right wing supply side economics. All in all, you can understand why senior bankers consider that to be the key transmission mechanism to where we are now. Or at least I can. Maybe you consider that bizarre, I don't know. Ah, so Peston's biased is he? He has decided to go easy on New Labour because he got some scoops? Any evidence for this or just what you know to be true ;D. "’Britain is growing slower than it has in more than a decade. The high street has ground to a halt, and inflation is the highest it has been under Labour. When we look back, in a few years’ time, at Brown’s economy, will we still see an economic miracle? Or another old-fashioned spending binge that, sooner or later, had to run dry? What is left of the miracle economy, if you strip out the cheap imports and the consumer spending? What is left is a lot of public spending. The only part of the economy that has grown faster than spending by all of us the past few years has been spending by the government.’"And your conclusion from that is that overspending got us to where we are now? Not that a period of spending took place on public services to improve them (after a period of paying off the debt Major left us with) and was then due to be scaled back (with Tory endorsement ;D) in order to halve the deficit over the forthcoming four years? I'm sure this won't wash with you. Oh no, it was just reckless overspending on your unquantifiable non-jobs, despite the obvious backing from the Tories that increasing public spending below growth was sustainable at the time! Probably the reason I picked up the bit about the banks is because this was the central theme to the entire programme of how the west went bust! Well, since you thought I ignored them, let's deal with those sources shall we: ukpublicspending: "a rapid increase in public spending" = reckless overspending in mcf's world, is that right? Despite the figures showing that spending dropped while New Labour concentrated on reducing Major's debt legacy before increasing when Labour spent money on trying to improve the shitty services the Tories left us with and despite the figures being less than those of John Major's govt, this is reckless overspending simply because it says there was a rapid increase. Is that how you interpret that phrase? You might want to read the IFS summary below! Mervyn King: "We are confronted with a situation where the scale of deficits is truly extraordinary [not we were note]. This reflects...the fact that we came into this crisis with fiscal policy on a path that wasn’t sustainable and a correction was needed". Could this be why, after a period of spending on shitty public services etc etc, both Darling and Osborne were planning to address that very point? Or was the planned 2% increase in real terms just more reckless overspending for a laugh? Blair: "We should also accept that from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the potential structural deficit. The failure to embrace the Fundamental Savings Review of 2005-6 was, in retrospect, a much bigger error than I ever thought at the time". Quite important that last phrase, no? Do you think this might mean that New Labour bought into the rightwing ideology that the markets would look after themselves and that a correction was all that was needed in the future to bring the deficit down? Sounds like it backs up what I've been saying all along really doesn't it? No-one thought the near catastrophic collapse of several banks would ever happen and we could reduce the deficit by reducing spending to below growth over a period of four years. Alistair Darling. "[by the autumn of 2007]‘We had reached the limits of what I thought we should be spending". Again, kind of ties in with what I've said really doesn't it. I suspect this is why Osborne endorsed his plans too. But you take the above to mean reckless overspending? Finally, and most enjoyably, let's look at the IFS report you quoted. I'll post the summary here. Forgive me, it's quite long but I think reading it does rather neatly demonstrate your hatred of anything non-Tory and explodes this "13 years of wank and financial ineptitude" nonsense: Summary: Over the first eleven years of Labour government, from 1997 to the eve of the financial crisis in 2007, the UK public finances followed a remarkably similar pattern to the first eleven years of the previous Conservative government, from 1979 to 1989. The first four saw the public sector move from deficit to surplus, while the following seven saw a move back into the red. By 2007 Labour had reduced public sector borrowing slightly below the level it inherited from the Conservatives Really?!. And more of that borrowing was being used to finance investment rather than the day-to-day running costs of the public sector. Surely not! Labour had also reduced public sector debt below the level it had inherited. As a result the ‘golden rule’ and ‘sustainable investment rule’ that Gordon Brown had committed himself to on becoming Chancellor in 1997 were both met over the economic cycle that he eventually decided had run from 1997–98 to 2006–07. But over the same ten years the vast majority of other leading industrial countries reduced their borrowing by more than the UK. And most also reduced their debt by more. So while the UK public finances were in better shape ;D when the financial crisis began than they were when Labour came to power (not possible surely, Major handed over a great set of cards ;D) the UK was in a worse position relative to most comparable countries. The financial crisis and the associated recession SUBSEQUENTLY saw public sector net borrowing balloon to levels not seen since the Second World War – and far higher than was seen in the latter years of the Conservative government, including during the aftermath of the 1990–92 recession (when the previous post Second World War high borrowing occurred). Once again, the UK public finances have underperformed relative to comparable industrial countries. The UK is forecast by the OECD to experience the highest level of borrowing in 2010 and the fifth largest increase between 2007 and 2010 out of 26 industrial countries. Only Ireland and Iceland are projected to see a larger increase in debt over this period with the UK sliding further from its ‘mid-table’ position in the international public debt league table. If you genuinely don't change your position after reading that, which you referenced remember ;D, I seriously worry about you. You'll probably pick up on the fact that comparable to other industrialised countries the UK's figures were worse. I don't doubt that they were which is why I keep banging on about how you would fund the kind of NHS the public wants without European levels of taxation and where Labour's spending went after 18 years of Tory neglect! I doubt that other industrialised countries had neglected their public services to the extent the Tories did. I can't quite believe you'd prefer to pay less tax and have poorer public services but at least you're honest. I guess that's the difference between you rightwingers and me. "I’m not necessarily advocating Edwardian spending – the purpose of that article was to show that the columnist thought that was the cut off point where you start getting diminishing returns on your borrowing. ie borrow £2.18 and get £1 back – the same kind of thinking in the tullet prebon report. Probably similar to some of those very clever economists who think you get far lower growth when you are saddled with high debts – like us." Fair and sensible enough, mate, but I suspect the reality of an ageing population with increasingly costly demands on an NHS (amongst other services) means spending will never drop to those levels of efficiency again.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 7, 2012 19:33:28 GMT
But you're right about the Unions, one of the things Thatcher got right imo Is this statement a serious expression of your considered opinion? Tell me this is not so!!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2012 8:27:42 GMT
I'm afraid so.
In my opinion some of the Unions had far too much power to disrupt their own, and often other entirely unrelated industries, often over trivial issues.
I'm not anti-Union, iglukuk. If you look back through the decades, they're probably responsible for the majority of significant improvements in working conditions around the world, but, at that time in the 70s in the UK I think their power had become too strong and had gone to some of their leaders' heads.
Ironically, this is probably what helped to get Thatcher elected in the first place after the sick man of Europe tag during the Winter of Discontent in 78-79, so ultimately they shot themselves in the foot the daft sods!
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 8, 2012 9:47:06 GMT
I have no problem with unions really but just like career politicians we now have career union men who often have their own agenda over the work they should be doing
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 11, 2012 8:51:37 GMT
Yep, shedloads of private debt as a result of banks lending to anyone who wanted it on the assumption that the free market would regulate itself over time so no need to worry, regulate or intervene = classic right wing supply side economics. All in all, you can understand why senior bankers consider that to be the key transmission mechanism to where we are now. Or at least I can. Maybe you consider that bizarre, I don't know.No, I call it Labour wank – in particular, Gordon Brown labour wank – failure to regulate – see the conclusions of the Centre for Economic Performance – they thought it was Gordon Brown wank too. Probably the reason I picked up the bit about the banks is because this was the central theme to the entire programme of how the west went bust!Indeed, which is the very reason why I said that going on about Labour’s overspending was no great omission in the context of the programme for Christsakes....or because he is the son of a Labour peer maybe? ;D Is that ‘your summary’ of the IFS report or their ‘actual summary’? Yawn - we’ve already been through how Thatcher and Major had recessions, and we’ve already been through how Labour followed Tory spending plans and did pick up surpluses that they want to lay claim to. Yes, he committed himself to golden and sustainable investment rules that were anything but. Yes, we’ve then been through how the global financial crisis didn’t help – a recession that we were massively unprepared for because you and Brown ‘don’t do recessions’ even though we had to 2 in the last 30 years prior....and yes, I will pick up on the fact that the UK’s figures were amongst the poorest of any other country. Keep going on about this great difference between rightwingers and you. It seems you think I’m bizarre for wanting less tax and poorer public services. It seems pretty bizarre to me that you want great public services but quite happy not to tax people for it because the electorate will never go for it. Still, at least we can understand why you are happy with Labour putting us in to this shit mess and the utter wank excuses for it. Fair and sensible enough, mate, but I suspect the reality of an ageing population with increasingly costly demands on an NHS (amongst other services) means spending will never drop to those levels of efficiency again.We will see. If we don’t get our act together it may well be forced on us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 18:28:21 GMT
It's pretty clear you see what you want to see, so feel free to call it what you want. No doubt banking deregulation was all a Labour mistake, and the fact that Osborne is about to reverse many of the original Big Bang provisions is also a Labour mistake! Presumably you also think the policy of banking deregulation (which, I should probably remind you, you've already conceded, after some prompting, is a rightwing policy) is somehow now not indicative of the fact that Labour followed on the light touch rightwing approach to the financial sector initiated by the Tories. Instead it was some weird little known socialist economic policy that was to blame! The programme was about why the west went bust. If overspending had been the cause you claim it to be, it would have had that as a central theme! Not tricky. Unless Peston is biased of course as you claim and only got to be the BBC's Business Editor cos they only employ Labour sympathisers! That summary is indeed copied word for word (apart from my obvious pisstakes Really? and Surely Not! Oh and the obvious pisstake about Major's great set of cards ;D) from the IFS report you yourself posted ;D. Did you even read it?! Or just use some selective quotes . A report whose summary says the state of the public finances inherited [ in the great set of cards ] from Major was actually improved by 2007 after a whole decade of reckless overspending, which was ultimately endorsed in 2007 by the Tories ;D. Seriously do you still want to carry on with this belief? I'll bet you do though! I'll bet that, despite posting that report which pisses all over your 13 years of wank and reckless overspending, you just can't bring yourself to admit it! You should do really, your mates in government at the moment clearly didn't have an issue with Labour spending pre financial crisis, so why should you? I think I'd have more respect and understanding for your position if you simply said "I love the Tories and hate anything non-Tory" and be done with any 'analysis'. But since you've managed to destroy this 13 years of financial ineptitude bollocks with the IFS report you posted, shall we put it to bed and move onto financial sector regulation? You might have more joy with that one!
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 11, 2012 18:43:02 GMT
I have no problem with unions really but just like career politicians we now have career union men who often have their own agenda over the work they should be doing Gotta say , I definitely agree with you on that .
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 11, 2012 19:01:59 GMT
I'm afraid so. In my opinion some of the Unions had far too much power to disrupt their own, and often other entirely unrelated industries, often over trivial issues. I'm not anti-Union, iglukuk. If you look back through the decades, they're probably responsible for the majority of significant improvements in working conditions around the world, but, at that time in the 70s in the UK I think their power had become too strong and had gone to some of their leaders' heads. Ironically, this is probably what helped to get Thatcher elected in the first place after the sick man of Europe tag during the Winter of Discontent in 78-79, so ultimately they shot themselves in the foot the daft sods! Whilst I agree with that analysis , it's not the same thing as saying Thatcher got it right on this topic . I am afraid that's a step too far in my opinion , sif . Agreed the unions did take things too far in the 70's but then again how many years had company owners and big land owners done the same thing ? Too long/many to count . They did need to be moderated to some degree, but Thatcher quite clearly wanted to completely change the balance of power in the work place and kill off all the unions and their influence, altogether . That way she could also sideline the parliamentary Labour party too . The continuation of this approach from all the parties subsequently ( "new" Labour included ) has now led us to a place where Britain has some of the worst worker rights in western Europe (excluding Germany....no wonder they've had a continued economic miracle.......who cares about society afterall, there's no such thing[sic] ....all that matters is a healthy balance sheet) I sure hope all this arguing hasn't worn you down a bit
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 22:33:31 GMT
He's already said he knows fuck all. Don't expect any of his opinions to make any actual sense! ;D So basically, when I said in the '26k benefits cap' thread that some people just like to look down on others, I should have said less intelligent people looking down on others makes them feel safe and they are often right-wingers, according to the Daily Mail ;D That certainly chimes with a lot of views on this forum. "The study, published in Psychological Science, claims that right-wing ideology foPrms a 'pathway' for people with low reasoning ability to become prejudiced against groups such as other races and gay people". You don't say! On the eeb you can have opinions coming out of your ears and be blue in the face but, it will get you absolutely nowhere. I just sit back with a glass of red and a bag of maltesers and watch the experts Mate don't eat maltesers with red wine ,they tase horrible and leave a slick on top of the wine ! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 22:37:21 GMT
The Mail is so patronising in the way it treats its readers calling them thick is merely the next step I have yet to meet a Daily Mail reader who is not a jingoistic bigotted cretin. That's one of the nicest things anyone has called me .thank you. Bring on the Daily Mirror ;D
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 11, 2012 22:47:16 GMT
I'm afraid so. In my opinion some of the Unions had far too much power to disrupt their own, and often other entirely unrelated industries, often over trivial issues. I'm not anti-Union, iglukuk. If you look back through the decades, they're probably responsible for the majority of significant improvements in working conditions around the world, but, at that time in the 70s in the UK I think their power had become too strong and had gone to some of their leaders' heads. Ironically, this is probably what helped to get Thatcher elected in the first place after the sick man of Europe tag during the Winter of Discontent in 78-79, so ultimately they shot themselves in the foot the daft sods! Here's a different take on that time, wonder what your thoughts are ? www.theweek.co.uk/politics/23545/seventies-were-great-dont-believe-myth-thatcherism
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 11, 2012 22:54:40 GMT
From the above
By 1978, the British economy was rapidly improving. Inflation was down to single figures and unemployment was falling too. Productivity was rising, including in the nationalised industries. North sea oil revenues were starting to transform the balance of payments, which showed a surplus of £109m in 1977. And in December 1978 Britain recorded a massive trade surplus of £246m.
Britain was a contented society that had a healthy work-life balance
During 1978, Britain's standard of living rose by 6.4 per cent to reach its highest ever level: so much for the 'Sick Man of Europe'. "The outlook for Britain is better than at any time in the postwar years," was the verdict, not of a Labour party propagandist, but of Chase Manhattan bank's chief European economist, Geoffrey Maynard.
Bernard Nossiter, a Washington Post journalist, argued in his 1978 book Britain- the Future that Works, that Britain, unlike the US, had created a contented society that had managed to get the balance right between work, leisure and remuneration. Far from having had enough of Labour and the post-war consensus, opinion polls show that the party would have won a General Election, had Prime Minister James Callaghan called one, as expected, for October 1978.
The so-called 'Winter of Discontent' of 1979 - which ushered in Thatcherism - is also shrouded in myth. James Callaghan never said 'Crisis, what crisis' - that was an invention of The Sun. The strikes themselves only lasted for a comparatively short period and were largely over by February 1979.
One might ask why all this matters. It does, because if we are going to break with neoliberalism, we need to shatter the myths put forward by Thatcherite ideologues. We need to understand the truth which was that the British economy performed far better 30 years ago than is commonly believed. The mixed economy model didn't fail. We were no more in need of Mrs Thatcher's 'painful medicine', than someone suffering from a common cold needs a course of chemotherapy. Acknowledging the truth about the 1970s is important, because it means that we can then return to an economic model that served the great majority of Britons extraordinarily well for over 30 years after World War Two. It was a model under which large sections of the economy - including transport, energy and most major industries - were in public ownership; capitalism was strictly regulated and made to work for the common good and manufacturing was regarded as more important than finance.
In no other period in British history was there such a rapid rise in living standards. The gap between rich and poor was significantly reduced. As the One Nation Tory Harold Macmillan, one of the architects of the post-war consensus, famously declared, we never had it so good.
Since 1979 we have followed a very different economic path: one of deregulation, privatisation and allowing 'market forces' to rule the roost. And we all know where that has led us. ·
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Jun 12, 2012 7:19:24 GMT
On and on and on it goes with the insane defence of
a) It wasn’t really Brown with his fucked up regulation it was ‘Thatcher and right wing concept’ and b) Lets pick up the 2 points in time with no context to compare the Tories (at their lowest point) and Labour (before the shit hit the fan as a result of their ineptitude) so they don’t look as utterly wank as they should and I can try and gloss over their overspending that even key Labour figures and a variety of credible sources agree with.
Well done....except it fools no one.
What Osborne does and doesn’t change is up to him. While I broadly agree that free markets and low levels of red tape are generally perceived as rightwing policy, it doesn’t mean that ‘they’ should be without regulation in its entirety. It was always about having the right rules in place. Again, what banks went bust in the 90s? What Brown did wasn’t based on a rightwing or a socialist economic policy – it was simple and straightforward incompetence in the 2 key changes that he made.
(For all you claim that banks and capitalism is dysfunctional, there seems to be a pretty strong feeling that they must be the only show in town given that they are all being repaired and new regulations being put in place btw)
Overspending is the central theme. The overspending of the west. The entire premise of his programmes are on how the west in general has borrowed too much and lived beyond its means. Did you watch the programme or did you really watch Peppa Pig with the kids? I think you are that obsessed with banks that it clouds your entire judgement.
There are some countries where governments did not spend too much but allowed their banks (or at least a section of them) to get out of control and then there are some they where governments spent too much, people borrowed too much and banks pushed themselves beyond the brink. We are in this last category. That is why most credible sources say that for the UK it was down to failed regulation and overspending of the government. It really isn’t difficult.
Of course I will keep on with the belief because the majority of credible sources and the facts and figures and reasoning tend to agree with the conclusions of failed regulation and overspending.
I don’t simply love the Tories but in a two horse of what we’ve had in past and at the moment then there is only 1 winner and not because they are any great shakes (they should be cutting a lot deeper) but because what Labour have to offer is next to nothing that is of value. It’s insane to think that anybody would vote in a party that had Ed Balls has the chancellor after the glorious part he had to play in their last fiasco and continues with the ‘spend our way out of trouble’ when it’s practically fact (from what I’ve posted previous on this) that we won’t get a good enough return on that money. He’s just robbing our future generations which ‘some’ of our selfish population seem to be happy with. If that’s the kind of future that you want for our country then be my guest.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 14:11:44 GMT
But everything is "insane" to you if it doesn't agree with your "correct conclusions", even when you yourself post reports which completely destroy this 13 years of reckless overspending nonsense! To spell it out, you've got two possible conclusions based on what you've said and posted references to: one - "Major handed over a great set of cards and it's hard to believe he got voted out" + the public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were in 1997 (your IFS report) + Tory endorsement of Labour spending plans = no reckless overspending in the decade before the financial crisis = you don't know what you're talking about. two - Major's govt wasn't in fact a great set of cards so even if your IFS report states that the public finances were in better shape in 2007 than in 1997 that's not saying much and Tory endorsement of Labour's spending plans doesn't say much for them either = you don't know what you're talking about. (three - Robert Peston wrote the IFS report and he's well biased him ). Either way, your arguments on reckless overspending just don't make any kind of coherent sense I'm afraid. "What Osborne does and doesn’t change is up to him. While I broadly agree that free markets and low levels of red tape are generally perceived as rightwing policy, it doesn’t mean that ‘they’ should be without regulation in its entirety. It was always about having the right rules in place. Again, what banks went bust in the 90s? What Brown did wasn’t based on a rightwing or a socialist economic policy – it was simple and straightforward incompetence in the 2 key changes that he made."You flip flop and back track more than an Osborne budget plan ;D! You've already said a free market and lack of intervention are right wing policies. For once, you're right, they are. Now it sounds like you're trying to edge away from this and say the fact that Brown carried on with a non-interventionist light touch approach to regulation is somehow neither rightwing nor socialist?! To use your own phrase, that just won't wash I'm afraid! It's rightwing policy as you said! Barings went bust in 1995 ;D. A perfect early example of the reckless gambling which soon became the norm in so many of the banks around the world. Never mind, just ignore the fact you were wrong once again and maintain your position regardless! Plus the savings and loan crisis in the financial sector which probably helped to cause the early 90s recession. "(For all you claim that banks and capitalism is dysfunctional, there seems to be a pretty strong feeling that they must be the only show in town given that they are all being repaired and new regulations being put in place btw)"I never said that - but perhaps you didn't understand that either. It was "the way we'd been doing capitalism for the last 30 years was dysfunctional" not the fact that banks and capitalism exist! And it was the RBS's Sir Philip Hampton who said it, not me, although I agree because it's pretty obvious! "Overspending is the central theme. The overspending of the west. The entire premise of his programmes are on how the west in general has borrowed too much and lived beyond its means. Did you watch the programme or did you really watch Peppa Pig with the kids? I think you are that obsessed with banks that it clouds your entire judgement." Most of that overspending and debt was private as your own Tullet Prebon report showed (or are we discrediting this bit ) and where did this private debt come from? Hint: it was the banks . If I am at all obsessed with anything it's simply the lazy, ill thought through guff that you rightwingers trot out time and time again about "13 years of financial ineptitude and reckless overspending on public sector non-jobs". Even when your own references state that the public finances were in better shape in 2007 than they were at the time Labour came to power and more money went on investment than day to day running ;D. Btw, did you see that public satisfaction with the NHS is at a record low? Funny that isn't it. Cut spending and services suffer. You get what you pay for as you rightly said. Conversely, you won't improve the public services the majority of the public demands without spending money on them. Simple. If you don't think the banks are at the root of all this, why do you think the Spanish ones have had a E100bn bailout that went directly to them and not the Spanish government? Of course I will keep on with the belief because the majority of credible sources and the facts and figures and reasoning tend to agree with the conclusions of failed regulation and overspending."Like your IFS report for instance. Like the ukpublicspending figures for instance. Like How the West Went Bust for instance. I can see why you make these "correct conclusions" ;D "I don’t simply love the Tories but in a two horse of what we’ve had in past and at the moment then there is only 1 winner and not because they are any great shakes (they should be cutting a lot deeper) but because what Labour have to offer is next to nothing that is of value. It’s insane to think that anybody would vote in a party that had Ed Balls has the chancellor after the glorious part he had to play in their last fiasco and continues with the ‘spend our way out of trouble’ when it’s practically fact (from what I’ve posted previous on this) that we won’t get a good enough return on that money. He’s just robbing our future generations which ‘some’ of our selfish population seem to be happy with. If that’s the kind of future that you want for our country then be my guest."Oh come off it, mcf, just be honest and be done with it! Anyone who thinks Major's government was a great set of cards and who has to ask in what way the current government is failing is truly blinded by love of the Tories! You hate Labour, you love the right, you see what you want to see to back up those beliefs and that's all there is to it!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 17:03:11 GMT
I'm afraid so. In my opinion some of the Unions had far too much power to disrupt their own, and often other entirely unrelated industries, often over trivial issues. I'm not anti-Union, iglukuk. If you look back through the decades, they're probably responsible for the majority of significant improvements in working conditions around the world, but, at that time in the 70s in the UK I think their power had become too strong and had gone to some of their leaders' heads. Ironically, this is probably what helped to get Thatcher elected in the first place after the sick man of Europe tag during the Winter of Discontent in 78-79, so ultimately they shot themselves in the foot the daft sods! Whilst I agree with that analysis , it's not the same thing as saying Thatcher got it right on this topic. I am afraid that's a step too far in my opinion , sif . Agreed the unions did take things too far in the 70's but then again how many years had company owners and big land owners done the same thing ? Too long/many to count . They did need to be moderated to some degree, but Thatcher quite clearly wanted to completely change the balance of power in the work place and kill off all the unions and their influence, altogether . That way she could also sideline the parliamentary Labour party too . The continuation of this approach from all the parties subsequently ( "new" Labour included ) has now led us to a place where Britain has some of the worst worker rights in western Europe (excluding Germany....no wonder they've had a continued economic miracle.......who cares about society afterall, there's no such thing[sic] ....all that matters is a healthy balance sheet) I sure hope all this arguing hasn't worn you down a bit Don't worry about that, iglugluk, I enjoy a good political debate, irrespective of whether some of the less bright folk on here conclude that it makes me angry for some odd reason. Why would I keep bothering if it made me angry? Most of the incoherent arguments, non sequitur thinking and simple wrongness (which usually gets ignored from that point on!) from the right on here makes me laugh if anything . All fair points above, although I'm not sure I'd conclude that Thatcher wanted to kill off all the unions and their influence altogether, I think that's too far too . The balance of power in some industries was too much in favour of Unions. I agree with your point about Labour's distancing itself from Union strike action if not the Unions themselves so much. I'm afraid you're wrong about workers' rights in Germany. I spend a lot of time over there and know a fair bit about their rights (edit: in standard forms of employment only ). For example, it's very difficult simply to sack someone in Germany, much more so than here. The majority of private sector companies operate a flexi-time scheme and part-time work is considered normal and doesn't have the stigma attached to it over here. This is probably because there is much less private childcare in Germany so it's expected and normal that workers start fulltime, become parents and go parttime. A new mother has the right to have her job kept for her for three years after the birth. (Not full pay obviously, but there will be a position available at the end of the 3 years of childcare). It's illegal to continue to renew contract worker's contracts ad infinitum. One renewal then you have to take them on permanently. Just a few examples of how you can provide for society and still be a market leader, impossible according to the socialist haters on here! They pay more tax - go figure! The difference in approach to Unions is probably cultural actually. While Unions in Germany were equally in favour of promoting their members' rights and pay, they were also (imo, I have no evidence apart from what Germans have told me) much more pragmatic about accepting changes which were ultimately beneficial to the industry they were representing. I don't think this was the case with our Unions in the late 70's and early 80's.
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 12, 2012 17:06:00 GMT
From the above By 1978, the British economy was rapidly improving. Inflation was down to single figures and unemployment was falling too. Productivity was rising, including in the nationalised industries. North sea oil revenues were starting to transform the balance of payments, which showed a surplus of £109m in 1977. And in December 1978 Britain recorded a massive trade surplus of £246m.
Britain was a contented society that had a healthy work-life balance
During 1978, Britain's standard of living rose by 6.4 per cent to reach its highest ever level: so much for the 'Sick Man of Europe'. "The outlook for Britain is better than at any time in the postwar years," was the verdict, not of a Labour party propagandist, but of Chase Manhattan bank's chief European economist, Geoffrey Maynard.
Bernard Nossiter, a Washington Post journalist, argued in his 1978 book Britain- the Future that Works, that Britain, unlike the US, had created a contented society that had managed to get the balance right between work, leisure and remuneration. Far from having had enough of Labour and the post-war consensus, opinion polls show that the party would have won a General Election, had Prime Minister James Callaghan called one, as expected, for October 1978.
The so-called 'Winter of Discontent' of 1979 - which ushered in Thatcherism - is also shrouded in myth. James Callaghan never said 'Crisis, what crisis' - that was an invention of The Sun. The strikes themselves only lasted for a comparatively short period and were largely over by February 1979.
One might ask why all this matters. It does, because if we are going to break with neoliberalism, we need to shatter the myths put forward by Thatcherite ideologues. We need to understand the truth which was that the British economy performed far better 30 years ago than is commonly believed. The mixed economy model didn't fail. We were no more in need of Mrs Thatcher's 'painful medicine', than someone suffering from a common cold needs a course of chemotherapy. Acknowledging the truth about the 1970s is important, because it means that we can then return to an economic model that served the great majority of Britons extraordinarily well for over 30 years after World War Two. It was a model under which large sections of the economy - including transport, energy and most major industries - were in public ownership; capitalism was strictly regulated and made to work for the common good and manufacturing was regarded as more important than finance.
In no other period in British history was there such a rapid rise in living standards. The gap between rich and poor was significantly reduced. As the One Nation Tory Harold Macmillan, one of the architects of the post-war consensus, famously declared, we never had it so good.
Since 1979 we have followed a very different economic path: one of deregulation, privatisation and allowing 'market forces' to rule the roost. And we all know where that has led us. ·Very interesting........thanks for the link and info. You may be interested in this link H l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/the-radical-alternative-to-austerity/
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 12, 2012 17:23:17 GMT
All fair points above, although I'm not sure I'd conclude that Thatcher wanted to kill off all the unions and their influence altogether, I think that's too far too . The balance of power in some industries was too much in favour of Unions. I agree about Labour's distancing itself from Union strike action if not the Unions themselves so much. I'm afraid you're wrong about workers' rights in Germany. I spend a lot of time over there and know a fair bit about their rights. For example, it's very difficult simply to sack someone in Germany, much more so than here. The majority of private sector companies operate a flexi-time scheme and part-time work is considered normal and doesn't have the stigma attached to it over here. This is probably because there is much less private childcare in Germany so it's expected and normal that workers start fulltime, become parents and go parttime. A new mother has the right to have her job kept for her for three years after the birth. (Not full pay obviously, but there will be a position available at the end of the 3 years of childcare). It's illegal to continue to renew contract worker's contracts ad infinitum. One renewal then you have to take them on permanently. Just a few examples of how you can provide for society and still be a market leader, impossible according to the socialist haters on here! They pay more tax - go figure! The difference in approach to Unions is probably cultural actually. While Unions in Germany were equally in favour of promoting their members' rights and pay, they were also (imo, I have no evidence apart from what Germans have told me) much more pragmatic about accepting changes which were ultimately beneficial to the industry they were representing. I don't think this was the case with our Unions in the late 70's and early 80's. I too have a uncle from Frankfurt and an aunty who is a factory union rep. in Germany too ( and has been for at least 20 years ).So , whilst I am fully aware that there are indeed cultural differences I am not speaking from a position of ignorance on this either . You may or may not know that in Germany they have brought in a system of what are referred to as "mini" jobs ....these jobs allow employers to pay below minimum wage and provide no real worthwhile contract, no sick and no holiday pay . This enables employers there, to hire and fire with impunity . I also know a French woman who has been working over there in these jobs for some time and so I can absolutely assure you these jobs are exploitative and are leading to concern in Germany amongst those who care ( most definitely not Merkel who loves austerity and punishment of the working classes it would seem!! ) that an underclass of 'working poor' is becoming entrenched within Germany's apparent economic miracle......I am sure you will agree this is most definitely not a healthy state of affairs
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 17:31:17 GMT
Indeed so, iglugluk, that's a depressing state of affairs.
I wasn't aware of this underclass of workers. It sounds like the hire and fire approach whic is being actively pursued by the right in this country at the moment.
I wonder how representative of the workforce it is as a whole. I can imagine it being popular with certain employers!
|
|
|
Post by iglugluk on Jun 12, 2012 17:42:27 GMT
Indeed so, iglugluk, that's a depressing state of affairs. I wasn't aware of this underclass of workers. It sounds like the hire and fire approach whic is being actively pursued by the right in this country at the moment. I wonder how representative of the workforce it is as a whole. I can imagine it being popular with certain employers! 1 in 4 according to this article ....5 million workers or so . Concerning stuff ...I imagine that Cameron and his mob are deep in thought www.thelocal.de/money/20110426-34619.html
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2012 17:56:05 GMT
I'm afraid so. In my opinion some of the Unions had far too much power to disrupt their own, and often other entirely unrelated industries, often over trivial issues. I'm not anti-Union, iglukuk. If you look back through the decades, they're probably responsible for the majority of significant improvements in working conditions around the world, but, at that time in the 70s in the UK I think their power had become too strong and had gone to some of their leaders' heads. Ironically, this is probably what helped to get Thatcher elected in the first place after the sick man of Europe tag during the Winter of Discontent in 78-79, so ultimately they shot themselves in the foot the daft sods! Here's a different take on that time, wonder what your thoughts are ? www.theweek.co.uk/politics/23545/seventies-were-great-dont-believe-myth-thatcherismI agree with a lot of that, Huddy, especially and most importantly the last paragraph and the reduction in the gap between the rich and poor. Although that article does conveniently ignore the IMF bailout in 76 . Because Thatcher took over in 1979, any rightwing analysis of the 70s nearly always ignores the mess that was the early 70s under Ted Heath, those positive figures about trade and standards of living and assumes that 74-79 was a disaster. It's basically mcf's entire justification for Thatcher's budget deficits even during boom times. But that does beg the question. If the economy was in a decent condition, and it is usually that which keeps governments in power more than anything else, why were Labour voted out in 1979? Probably because people were becoming increasingly fed up with industrial action. In the months of strikes in the Winter of Discontent voting opinion swung away from Labour, in the lead before the strikes began, to being a long way behind come February when they pretty much ended. I do think the Unions shot themselves in the foot at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 12, 2012 23:04:05 GMT
From the above By 1978, the British economy was rapidly improving. Inflation was down to single figures and unemployment was falling too. Productivity was rising, including in the nationalised industries. North sea oil revenues were starting to transform the balance of payments, which showed a surplus of £109m in 1977. And in December 1978 Britain recorded a massive trade surplus of £246m.
Britain was a contented society that had a healthy work-life balance
During 1978, Britain's standard of living rose by 6.4 per cent to reach its highest ever level: so much for the 'Sick Man of Europe'. "The outlook for Britain is better than at any time in the postwar years," was the verdict, not of a Labour party propagandist, but of Chase Manhattan bank's chief European economist, Geoffrey Maynard.
Bernard Nossiter, a Washington Post journalist, argued in his 1978 book Britain- the Future that Works, that Britain, unlike the US, had created a contented society that had managed to get the balance right between work, leisure and remuneration. Far from having had enough of Labour and the post-war consensus, opinion polls show that the party would have won a General Election, had Prime Minister James Callaghan called one, as expected, for October 1978.
The so-called 'Winter of Discontent' of 1979 - which ushered in Thatcherism - is also shrouded in myth. James Callaghan never said 'Crisis, what crisis' - that was an invention of The Sun. The strikes themselves only lasted for a comparatively short period and were largely over by February 1979.
One might ask why all this matters. It does, because if we are going to break with neoliberalism, we need to shatter the myths put forward by Thatcherite ideologues. We need to understand the truth which was that the British economy performed far better 30 years ago than is commonly believed. The mixed economy model didn't fail. We were no more in need of Mrs Thatcher's 'painful medicine', than someone suffering from a common cold needs a course of chemotherapy. Acknowledging the truth about the 1970s is important, because it means that we can then return to an economic model that served the great majority of Britons extraordinarily well for over 30 years after World War Two. It was a model under which large sections of the economy - including transport, energy and most major industries - were in public ownership; capitalism was strictly regulated and made to work for the common good and manufacturing was regarded as more important than finance.
In no other period in British history was there such a rapid rise in living standards. The gap between rich and poor was significantly reduced. As the One Nation Tory Harold Macmillan, one of the architects of the post-war consensus, famously declared, we never had it so good.
Since 1979 we have followed a very different economic path: one of deregulation, privatisation and allowing 'market forces' to rule the roost. And we all know where that has led us. ·Very interesting........thanks for the link and info. You may be interested in this link H l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/the-radical-alternative-to-austerity/Thanks Ig..that was going to be my next link on here.. you see there is an alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jun 12, 2012 23:06:28 GMT
I agree with a lot of that, Huddy, especially and most importantly the last paragraph and the reduction in the gap between the rich and poor. Although that article does conveniently ignore the IMF bailout in 76 . Because Thatcher took over in 1979, any rightwing analysis of the 70s nearly always ignores the mess that was the early 70s under Ted Heath, those positive figures about trade and standards of living and assumes that 74-79 was a disaster. It's basically mcf's entire justification for Thatcher's budget deficits even during boom times. But that does beg the question. If the economy was in a decent condition, and it is usually that which keeps governments in power more than anything else, why were Labour voted out in 1979? Probably because people were becoming increasingly fed up with industrial action. In the months of strikes in the Winter of Discontent voting opinion swung away from Labour, in the lead before the strikes began, to being a long way behind come February when they pretty much ended. I do think the Unions shot themselves in the foot at that time. I'm pretty sure I read an article that explains some of the reasons, a key factor was the movement of money offshore by the money men. Will have a look and see if I can find the article.
|
|