|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 8, 2020 8:22:24 GMT
There's a big clue in the title of the thread, waga! For the record, ex Labour MP Joyce is a disgusting nonce. One was just pointing out that the shower of shit that masquerades as a opposition Fair no better
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 8, 2020 8:38:54 GMT
That's a not entirely unexpected one-eyed way of looking at it, I guess. It's more accurate to look at the entire picture from the start. So Thatcher kicked off the lurch to the right in 79, abandoning the post war consensus for a mixed economy and, instead, embracing monetarism and free market capitalism. Major moderated this a little, Blair moderated it further, before the current lot have kicked England even further towards the right. However you look at it, the end result is a right-wing England. To be accurate the shift started with Dennis Healy who realised that the primary government economic policy needed to move from full employment to controlling inflation ie monetarism as you say. Thatcher, of course, embraced it - rather clumsily - and became synonymous with it. But the idea started with the bushy eyed Labour chancellor. As to the continued drift right - I think you’re smoking dope. Surely it was the case that the 70s Labour government got into economic difficulties and had to go to the IMF ("The Gnomes of Zurich" as Wilson called them) and seek an underwriting of the £sterling to prop up the country. The conditions the IMF laid down included government spending had to be reigned in. If I remember correctly the government of the time were pouring money into nationalised industries like steel and coal and propping up companies like British Leyland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_crisisThe country got sick of our terrible economy, riddled with strikes, and voted in a a right wing Thatcher government. Funny how history repeats itself, must be something to do with human nature.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 8, 2020 8:48:07 GMT
To be accurate the shift started with Dennis Healy who realised that the primary government economic policy needed to move from full employment to controlling inflation ie monetarism as you say. Thatcher, of course, embraced it - rather clumsily - and became synonymous with it. But the idea started with the bushy eyed Labour chancellor. As to the continued drift right - I think you’re smoking dope. Surely it was the case that the 70s Labour government got into economic difficulties and had to go to the IMF ("The Gnomes of Zurich" as Wilson called them) and seek an underwriting of the £sterling to prop up the country. The conditions the IMF laid down included government spending had to be reigned in. If I remember correctly the government of the time were pouring money into nationalised industries like steel and coal and propping up companies like British Leyland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_crisisThe country got sick of our terrible economy, riddled with strikes, and voted in a a right wing Thatcher government. Funny how history repeats itself, must be something to do with human nature. So, it sounds like the IMF had some significant impact on Healey's choices as chancellor at the time, which, if partick's sources are accurate, included the first knockings of monetarism. History often repeats itself, not least because people ignore its lessons. For example, the rise of populism currently. It never ends well.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Aug 8, 2020 9:14:18 GMT
To be accurate the shift started with Dennis Healy who realised that the primary government economic policy needed to move from full employment to controlling inflation ie monetarism as you say. Thatcher, of course, embraced it - rather clumsily - and became synonymous with it. But the idea started with the bushy eyed Labour chancellor. As to the continued drift right - I think you’re smoking dope. Surely it was the case that the 70s Labour government got into economic difficulties and had to go to the IMF ("The Gnomes of Zurich" as Wilson called them) and seek an underwriting of the £sterling to prop up the country. The conditions the IMF laid down included government spending had to be reigned in. If I remember correctly the government of the time were pouring money into nationalised industries like steel and coal and propping up companies like British Leyland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_crisisThe country got sick of our terrible economy, riddled with strikes, and voted in a a right wing Thatcher government. Funny how history repeats itself, must be something to do with human nature. The country was in a mess which Labour inherited including a three day week. The IMF was a small loan paid off quickly as North Sea revenues came on stream? I remember the Tories telling everyone privatisation would be good because companies would have access to private capital! Didn’t do the steel workers any good, did it? Closing British coal mines to import cheap foreign coal didn’t do British coal miners any good, did it? History does repeat itself? Right wingers making promises such as levelling up and then delivering a levelling down for the entire country!
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Aug 8, 2020 9:29:57 GMT
That's a not entirely unexpected one-eyed way of looking at it, I guess. It's more accurate to look at the entire picture from the start. So Thatcher kicked off the lurch to the right in 79, abandoning the post war consensus for a mixed economy and, instead, embracing monetarism and free market capitalism. Major moderated this a little, Blair moderated it further, before the current lot have kicked England even further towards the right. However you look at it, the end result is a right-wing England. To be accurate the shift started with Dennis Healy who realised that the primary government economic policy needed to move from full employment to controlling inflation ie monetarism as you say. Thatcher, of course, embraced it - rather clumsily - and became synonymous with it. But the idea started with the bushy eyed Labour chancellor. As to the continued drift right - I think you’re smoking dope. Applying a broad brush and ignoring blips here and there, Britain has moved socially to the left, but economically to the right, since the 60s/70s. People rarely uncouple social policy from economic policy when looking at these trends. Blair, for example, was socially left, economically right. Ditto Cameron. The "Trad Labour" position may be characterised as socially right, economically left. In that it perpetuated socially conservative policies alongside those that sought to nationalise industry, protect wages, tax the rich, prevent undercutting through immigration and other means, and so on and so on. We've shifted from a broadly cross-party post-war consensus on Britain being socially right, economically left, to the polar opposite.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 8, 2020 9:52:39 GMT
Surely it was the case that the 70s Labour government got into economic difficulties and had to go to the IMF ("The Gnomes of Zurich" as Wilson called them) and seek an underwriting of the £sterling to prop up the country. The conditions the IMF laid down included government spending had to be reigned in. If I remember correctly the government of the time were pouring money into nationalised industries like steel and coal and propping up companies like British Leyland. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_crisisThe country got sick of our terrible economy, riddled with strikes, and voted in a a right wing Thatcher government. Funny how history repeats itself, must be something to do with human nature. The country was in a mess which Labour inherited including a three day week. The IMF was a small loan paid off quickly as North Sea revenues came on stream? I remember the Tories telling everyone privatisation would be good because companies would have access to private capital! Didn’t do the steel workers any good, did it? Closing British coal mines to import cheap foreign coal didn’t do British coal miners any good, did it? History does repeat itself? Right wingers making promises such as levelling up and then delivering a levelling down for the entire country! A few facts: 1. The 3 day week was in 1974, years before the IMF loan, and implemented by Heath to conserve coal stocks and maintain electricity supply due to the miners strike. Miners were the highest paid labourers in industry but were demanding inflationary wage rise after just having had one. 2. The "small" IMF loan was the largest ever up to that time - read the link! 3. MacGregor knocked the steel and coal industries into shape. Steel, where I worked was returned to profitability and sold off; those of us who bought employees shares (matching free one for each one bought) did very well out of it). 90% of redundancies were voluntary, with large redundancy payments, partly funded by the EEC Iron & Steel Community. We burn hardly any coal in power stations any longer to save the planet from global warming. Durham is now full of nice attractive resident villages, instead of filthy polluting coal holes. www.power-technology.com/features/no-coal-uk-power-great-britain-transition/4. All political parties make promises they cannot (and in some cases have no intention of) keep. That's why I don't have any political allegiance any longer.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 8, 2020 10:31:02 GMT
To be accurate the shift started with Dennis Healy who realised that the primary government economic policy needed to move from full employment to controlling inflation ie monetarism as you say. Thatcher, of course, embraced it - rather clumsily - and became synonymous with it. But the idea started with the bushy eyed Labour chancellor. As to the continued drift right - I think you’re smoking dope. Applying a broad brush and ignoring blips here and there, Britain has moved socially to the left, but economically to the right, since the 60s/70s. People rarely uncouple social policy from economic policy when looking at these trends. Blair, for example, was socially left, economically right. Ditto Cameron. The "Trad Labour" position may be characterised as socially right, economically left. In that it perpetuated socially conservative policies alongside those that sought to nationalise industry, protect wages, tax the rich, prevent undercutting through immigration and other means, and so on and so on. We've shifted from a broadly cross-party post-war consensus on Britain being socially right, economically left, to the polar opposite.Valid points. I'd say Britain has become socially more liberal, rather than left as such. Economically, I'd agree, although government spending in times of economic difficulty as the current government is doing is very Keynesian.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 8, 2020 10:43:59 GMT
Much of the progress in social liberalism has been eradicated in the past 5 years. Hate crime including racism is soaring. There is a large part of society emboldened by recent Political events and the associated intolerant and deliberately provocative language.
Anti Asian hate crime is up 25% during covid. This is a country riddled with division, tension and hate not seen since the early 80s.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Aug 8, 2020 10:45:42 GMT
The country was in a mess which Labour inherited including a three day week. The IMF was a small loan paid off quickly as North Sea revenues came on stream? I remember the Tories telling everyone privatisation would be good because companies would have access to private capital! Didn’t do the steel workers any good, did it? Closing British coal mines to import cheap foreign coal didn’t do British coal miners any good, did it? History does repeat itself? Right wingers making promises such as levelling up and then delivering a levelling down for the entire country! A few facts: 1. The 3 day week was in 1974, years before the IMF loan, and implemented by Heath to conserve coal stocks and maintain electricity supply due to the miners strike. Miners were the highest paid labourers in industry but were demanding inflationary wage rise after just having had one. 2. The "small" IMF loan was the largest ever up to that time - read the link! 3. MacGregor knocked the steel and coal industries into shape. Steel, where I worked was returned to profitability and sold off; those of us who bought employees shares (matching free one for each one bought) did very well out of it). 90% of redundancies were voluntary, with large redundancy payments, partly funded by the EEC Iron & Steel Community. We burn hardly any coal in power stations any longer to save the planet from global warming. Durham is now full of nice attractive resident villages, instead of filthy polluting coal holes. www.power-technology.com/features/no-coal-uk-power-great-britain-transition/4. All political parties make promises they cannot (and in some cases have no intention of) keep. That's why I don't have any political allegiance any longer. Facts? The recovery from the Barber boom and crash was only a short time from the IMF loan in economic terms! The IMF loan was paid back quickly which is a fact! The three day was not to conserve stocks as power stations had record amounts stockpiled? How do I know? My mother was secretary to the boss of one of the biggest power stations in Britain! So, you did well out of giveaway shares? Knock me down with a feather? If McGregor did such a marvellous job why has the steel industry lurched from crisis to crisis and had so many different owners since? Hardly something to boast about? One of the reasons so many workers left was because Margaret Thatcher told them their redundancy payments would not be affected if they claimed sickness benefits! The same Tories who claim such workers are shirkers today actually started it all! A fact you have conveniently overlooked! Then you claim that in 1983 the Tories had the prescience to see global warming thirty years before it became a major issue? If the Tories are that good at seeing the future they can do my Lottery ticket for me! Lol!
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Aug 8, 2020 10:57:54 GMT
A few facts: 1. The 3 day week was in 1974, years before the IMF loan, and implemented by Heath to conserve coal stocks and maintain electricity supply due to the miners strike. Miners were the highest paid labourers in industry but were demanding inflationary wage rise after just having had one. 2. The "small" IMF loan was the largest ever up to that time - read the link! 3. MacGregor knocked the steel and coal industries into shape. Steel, where I worked was returned to profitability and sold off; those of us who bought employees shares (matching free one for each one bought) did very well out of it). 90% of redundancies were voluntary, with large redundancy payments, partly funded by the EEC Iron & Steel Community. We burn hardly any coal in power stations any longer to save the planet from global warming. Durham is now full of nice attractive resident villages, instead of filthy polluting coal holes. www.power-technology.com/features/no-coal-uk-power-great-britain-transition/4. All political parties make promises they cannot (and in some cases have no intention of) keep. That's why I don't have any political allegiance any longer. Facts? The recovery from the Barber boom and crash was only a short time from the IMF loan in economic terms! The IMF loan was paid back quickly which is a fact! The three day was not to conserve stocks as power stations had record amounts stockpiled? How do I know? My mother was secretary to the boss of one of the biggest power stations in Britain! So, you did well out of giveaway shares? Knock me down with a feather? If McGregor did such a marvellous job why has the steel industry lurched from crisis to crisis and had so many different owners since? Hardly something to boast about? One of the reasons so many workers left was because Margaret Thatcher told them their redundancy payments would not be affected if they claimed sickness benefits! The same Tories who claim such workers are shirkers today actually started it all! A fact you have conveniently overlooked! Then you claim that in 1983 the Tories had the prescience to see global warming thirty years before it became a major issue? If the Tories are that good at seeing the future they can do my Lottery ticket for me! Lol! Oh and by the way the full IMF loan was never taken out! As a matter of fact!
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 8, 2020 12:09:20 GMT
A few facts: 1. The 3 day week was in 1974, years before the IMF loan, and implemented by Heath to conserve coal stocks and maintain electricity supply due to the miners strike. Miners were the highest paid labourers in industry but were demanding inflationary wage rise after just having had one. 2. The "small" IMF loan was the largest ever up to that time - read the link! 3. MacGregor knocked the steel and coal industries into shape. Steel, where I worked was returned to profitability and sold off; those of us who bought employees shares (matching free one for each one bought) did very well out of it). 90% of redundancies were voluntary, with large redundancy payments, partly funded by the EEC Iron & Steel Community. We burn hardly any coal in power stations any longer to save the planet from global warming. Durham is now full of nice attractive resident villages, instead of filthy polluting coal holes. www.power-technology.com/features/no-coal-uk-power-great-britain-transition/4. All political parties make promises they cannot (and in some cases have no intention of) keep. That's why I don't have any political allegiance any longer. Facts? The recovery from the Barber boom and crash was only a short time from the IMF loan in economic terms! The IMF loan was paid back quickly which is a fact! The three day was not to conserve stocks as power stations had record amounts stockpiled? How do I know? My mother was secretary to the boss of one of the biggest power stations in Britain! So, you did well out of giveaway shares? Knock me down with a feather? If McGregor did such a marvellous job why has the steel industry lurched from crisis to crisis and had so many different owners since? Hardly something to boast about? One of the reasons so many workers left was because Margaret Thatcher told them their redundancy payments would not be affected if they claimed sickness benefits! The same Tories who claim such workers are shirkers today actually started it all! A fact you have conveniently overlooked! Then you claim that in 1983 the Tories had the prescience to see global warming thirty years before it became a major issue? If the Tories are that good at seeing the future they can do my Lottery ticket for me! Lol! Yes, facts. There were 2 miners strikes in the early 70s during the heath government which led to low coal stocks and the need for a 3 day week to conserve fuel and keep power supplies available. www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/events/1972_1974_strikes.aspThe healthy stock of coal were in the 80s when Thatcher and her government plotted to destroy the miners and had stocks build up before Scargill stupidly led the miners into a strike they had not all voted for. Global warning has been around for over half a century. I still have "The Doomsday Book" by Gordon Rattray taylor 1970, which includes warnings about global warning since the industrial revolution. A TV series in the 1970s was based on it. Global warming was first postulated in 1896 and in 1909. Scientific papers were published through out the 1960s and 1970s confirming the theory. The debate was how long/fast would it be? The steel industry was profitable in 1987/88 and privatised. It was one of the most profitable steel industries in Europe per tonne produced. But privatisation killed it as it could not compete with protected European industry and investors saw better pickings elsewhere. The industry collapsed due to unfair competition from China and in the EU, just as the American steel industry did
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 8, 2020 12:54:26 GMT
Bit diasapointed you've failed to post the link of the ex Labour MP convicted of child porn Sorry to disappoint your pathetic attempt at deflection.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Aug 8, 2020 12:55:36 GMT
But how many G7 countries ran their economies around a low carbon economy? To argue the ideas have been around a long time doesn’t prove much? Malthus postulated over population hundreds of years ago but only Communist China has a population strategy? Marx postulated monopoly capitalism nearly two hundred years ago but we’re in thrall to big business? As to the IMF crisis, the main reason was to prop up the pound which between 1972-76 lost 20% of its value and that was definitely a direct consequence of Heath’s infamous ‘Dash for growth’ strategy! The weaker pound with high inflation meant global investors saw British government debt as a very poor return! One of the reasons the IMF wanted higher interest rates! Also the IMF sees government deficits as a direct cause of trade deficits. Government departments buying in foreign goods, government workers buying foreign goods e.g. cars. But the loan was never fully taken up . It was subsequently estimated that some of the underlying factors in the economy had been underestimated e.g. growth.
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Aug 8, 2020 19:25:16 GMT
Applying a broad brush and ignoring blips here and there, Britain has moved socially to the left, but economically to the right, since the 60s/70s. People rarely uncouple social policy from economic policy when looking at these trends. Blair, for example, was socially left, economically right. Ditto Cameron. The "Trad Labour" position may be characterised as socially right, economically left. In that it perpetuated socially conservative policies alongside those that sought to nationalise industry, protect wages, tax the rich, prevent undercutting through immigration and other means, and so on and so on. We've shifted from a broadly cross-party post-war consensus on Britain being socially right, economically left, to the polar opposite.Valid points. I'd say Britain has become socially more liberal, rather than left as such. Economically, I'd agree, although government spending in times of economic difficulty as the current government is doing is very Keynesian. Agree with this yes, although I think there's a confusing semantic issue around the word "liberal". In economic policy, it means low taxes, deregulation, free market and so on - which has been adopted by the right wing. In social policy, it means being one of those bloody "do-gooders" (an awful thing, no one likes people doing good...) which is centrist/left wing. And yes, totally agree re: current government spending. I wonder where they found Jeremy Corbyn's much-ridiculed magic money tree
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Aug 8, 2020 19:27:05 GMT
Much of the progress in social liberalism has been eradicated in the past 5 years. Hate crime including racism is soaring. There is a large part of society emboldened by recent Political events and the associated intolerant and deliberately provocative language. Anti Asian hate crime is up 25% during covid. This is a country riddled with division, tension and hate not seen since the early 80s. This is all very true and hopefully will prove to be a blip, rather than an ongoing trend....
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Aug 8, 2020 22:48:09 GMT
Bit diasapointed you've failed to post the link of the ex Labour MP convicted of child porn Sorry to disappoint your pathetic attempt at deflection. Your welcome
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 9, 2020 11:59:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 11, 2020 10:35:57 GMT
The utter corruption of this Government summed up with one brief exchange on The Today Programme this morning.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Aug 11, 2020 13:01:51 GMT
Boris Johnson's Cabinet 'worst in 36 years', says Sir Nicholas Soames link
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Aug 11, 2020 13:07:47 GMT
Health minister: Covid study cited by Gavin Williamson is 'work in progress' link
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 11, 2020 13:31:36 GMT
Facts? The recovery from the Barber boom and crash was only a short time from the IMF loan in economic terms! The IMF loan was paid back quickly which is a fact! The three day was not to conserve stocks as power stations had record amounts stockpiled? How do I know? My mother was secretary to the boss of one of the biggest power stations in Britain! So, you did well out of giveaway shares? Knock me down with a feather? If McGregor did such a marvellous job why has the steel industry lurched from crisis to crisis and had so many different owners since? Hardly something to boast about? One of the reasons so many workers left was because Margaret Thatcher told them their redundancy payments would not be affected if they claimed sickness benefits! The same Tories who claim such workers are shirkers today actually started it all! A fact you have conveniently overlooked! Then you claim that in 1983 the Tories had the prescience to see global warming thirty years before it became a major issue? If the Tories are that good at seeing the future they can do my Lottery ticket for me! Lol! Yes, facts. There were 2 miners strikes in the early 70s during the heath government which led to low coal stocks and the need for a 3 day week to conserve fuel and keep power supplies available. www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/events/1972_1974_strikes.aspThe healthy stock of coal were in the 80s when Thatcher and her government plotted to destroy the miners and had stocks build up before Scargill stupidly led the miners into a strike they had not all voted for. Global warning has been around for over half a century. I still have "The Doomsday Book" by Gordon Rattray taylor 1970, which includes warnings about global warning since the industrial revolution. A TV series in the 1970s was based on it. Global warming was first postulated in 1896 and in 1909. Scientific papers were published through out the 1960s and 1970s confirming the theory. The debate was how long/fast would it be? The steel industry was profitable in 1987/88 and privatised. It was one of the most profitable steel industries in Europe per tonne produced. But privatisation killed it as it could not compete with protected European industry and investors saw better pickings elsewhere. The industry collapsed due to unfair competition from China and in the EU, just as the American steel industry did These two charts are interesting...
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Aug 12, 2020 13:19:54 GMT
Does anyone know how much the economy shrunk over Q1 and Q2?
I've seen that the Q2 figures are skewed slightly because the UK spent more of Q2 in lockdown than other European countrie.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 12, 2020 15:48:31 GMT
ONS says Q1 economy shrank by 2.2%
Q2 shrank by 20.4%
|
|
|
Post by The battheader chronicles on Aug 12, 2020 15:55:11 GMT
ONS says Q1 economy shrank by 2.2% Q2 shrank by 20.4% So brief summary- we’re fucked
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Aug 12, 2020 15:58:20 GMT
ONS says Q1 economy shrank by 2.2% Q2 shrank by 20.4% So brief summary- we’re fucked All hangs on the recovery really, how long that takes, what the government does to encourage it etc. Interesting take in the Telegraph today, basically arguing to raise taxes, promote the gig economy and zero hours contracts and time limit benefits for the unemployed since they're likely to grow in number. What you're supposed to do if you don't get a job before the time runs out it obviously didn't say!
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Aug 12, 2020 16:42:50 GMT
ONS says Q1 economy shrank by 2.2% Q2 shrank by 20.4% So brief summary- we’re fucked yep and just imagine what will happen in jan on top of this with a no deal
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Aug 12, 2020 16:44:56 GMT
So brief summary- we’re fucked All hangs on the recovery really, how long that takes, what the government does to encourage it etc. Interesting take in the Telegraph today, basically arguing to raise taxes, promote the gig economy and zero hours contracts and time limit benefits for the unemployed since they're likely to grow in number. What you're supposed to do if you don't get a job before the time runs out it obviously didn't say! well the tories like Victorian values so poor houses and gruel !!!
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Aug 12, 2020 17:30:57 GMT
The same people that wanted a longer lockdown will be moaning about being poor and eating moss.
Pisser.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 12, 2020 18:07:51 GMT
So brief summary- we’re fucked yep and just imagine what will happen in jan on top of this with a no deal Can your knickers get any wetter?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 21:25:42 GMT
So brief summary- we’re fucked All hangs on the recovery really, how long that takes, what the government does to encourage it etc. Interesting take in the Telegraph today, basically arguing to raise taxes, promote the gig economy and zero hours contracts and time limit benefits for the unemployed since they're likely to grow in number. What you're supposed to do if you don't get a job before the time runs out it obviously didn't say! Or we could put forward a radical plan to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in a new green economy with us at the forefront globally. Proper sustainable jobs that require skills and expertise and that tap into the worlds biggest crisis. I won’t hold my breath of course......
|
|