homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Two speeches (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Two speeches
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Corbyn owns a house in Islington, has his salary as leader of the opposition and is drawing his parliamentary pension, so I think we can assume he isn't looking for coins down the back of the sofa at the end of the month.

However his personal lifestyle has always been modest, going on frugal, and he has never waivered from his commitment to old-school socialism all through the Thatcher & Blair years. It's hard to make a hypocrisy charge stick (one reason why the gutter press hate him so much), and he is no populist opportunist.

I've often wondered what Corbyn does with his money. He's not exactly an ascetic but he doesn't have the lifestyle of someone who has paid of the mortgage and has earned 3 times the average for decades and now earns even more. He could be stashing it under the mattress or spending it on his children, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is giving a fair chunk of it away.
Posts: 2800 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Please, put me out of my misery, tell me I'm laughably, stupidly wrong, that I don't understand and couldn't possibly?

The turkeys are paying for Christmas.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16648 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
He's not exactly an ascetic but he doesn't have the lifestyle of someone who has paid of the mortgage and has earned 3 times the average for decades and now earns even more. He could be stashing it under the mattress or spending it on his children, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is giving a fair chunk of it away.

As far as I understand it, he both gives away a significant amount, and he doesn't claim anywhere near his full entitlement of expenses for his parliamentary work.

Perhaps he thinks he earns enough.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8723 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Please, put me out of my misery, tell me I'm laughably, stupidly wrong, that I don't understand and couldn't possibly?

The turkeys are paying for Christmas.

AFAIUI, the argument goes like this:

Investments are made with taxed income. Therefore to tax the profits of investments would be to tax the income twice. This applies to both Capital Gains Tax and dividends.

(Note that this argument does not apply to VAT, which is absolutely a double tax, and it impacts the poor disproportionately.)

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8723 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks Doc, that matches my understanding. I knew someone clever would come along and explain it. But it's bollocks isn't it? The investment has been taxed. So? The return hasn't. The return on investment isn't the investment. The same applies to savings interest.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16648 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And I bet you there are people who invest untaxed income, income they haven't paid a penny's tax on. Legally.

So, if taxing dividend income from taxed investment principle is croo-ell, robbing the rich, why do we do it at all? On what moral basis? None that Russ could adduce I'm sure.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16648 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Of course, inheriting wealth (mostly tax free) from which I get income (mostly tax free) is fine too, just as long as you don't examine the "taxing my investment twice" argument very hard.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8723 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's the interesting pile of money for tax fairness isn't it? Family fortunes which descendents haven't earned. Passive investments which provide income for no actual work performed. The Liberal gov't in Canada proposes to tax this invested money the same as earned income, effectively increasing tax rates of ~15 up about 70% for amounts above some to be determined amount. Probably needs to happen. Money which is directed into a business to develop business is to be treated differently and taxed at a lower rate. Basically saying that living off a family fortune without contributing actively to the economy is to be discouraged as parasitic.

I do think there is an additional question of shell companies created in places like Ireland, Panama and Switzerland which take money out of country to shield it from tax must be brought into the same tax level as other money. Apple is an international tax cheat. In Canada, Cameco is in court over billions of evaded tax.

--------------------
Maybe I should stop to consider that I'm not worthy of an epiphany and just take what life has to offer
(formerly was just "no prophet") \_(ツ)_/

Posts: 10874 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's good to know no...

Phew Doc! I'm glad NOBODY'S noticed here. John McDonnell for one.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16648 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
AFAIUI, the argument goes like this:

Investments are made with taxed income. Therefore to tax the profits of investments would be to tax the income twice. This applies to both Capital Gains Tax and dividends.

(Note that this argument does not apply to VAT, which is absolutely a double tax, and it impacts the poor disproportionately.)

And council tax, which certainly comes from my "post-tax" income.
Posts: 2800 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back to the two speeches, party conferences, leaders if I May.

I see an apophenic pattern in Theresa May's now tepidly championing students and first time buyers after shooting herself in the head, not just the foot to become a lame duck, but a dead in the water zombie one. In announcing the dementia tax before the election, she somehow thought she'd actually win over the squeezed middle which especially includes the parents of students and stay at home none-time buyers.

That by saving billions in social care by making the demented pay for it and disinheriting the squeezed middle that would ... and then she didn't actually join up the dots to show the squeezed middle and their kids how they would benefit.

Utterly staggering political incompetence. Only now eclipsed by Spain.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16648 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
There were economic problems all over the world in the mid 1970's, caused by the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 which quadrupled the price of oil.

This is wrong.

It wasn't France who decided things were so bad that they had to get the largest ever loan from the IMF. It was the UK. France were doing just fine.

It wasn't Germany who had the IMF telling us how to run our country because we'd messed it up and a dramatic run on the pound was imminent. It was the UK. National archives.

It wasn't Belgium that was called the sick man of Europe. It was the UK.

Everywhere else coped fine. It was the Corbynite policies that nearly destroyed the UK. Corbyn was about the only person in the UK who didn't accept that reality, and this is why older voters won't touch him with a barge pole.

I was watching the superb 70s drama Smiley's People a little while ago. There's a lovely line where his German counterpart offers to buy him lunch, on the grounds that British people have no money, because their country is so poor.

Let's not go there again.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
This is wrong.

It wasn't France who decided things were so bad that they had to get the largest ever loan from the IMF. It was the UK. France were doing just fine.

It wasn't Germany who had the IMF telling us how to run our country because we'd messed it up and a dramatic run on the pound was imminent. It was the UK. National archives.

It wasn't Belgium that was called the sick man of Europe. It was the UK.

Everywhere else coped fine. It was the Corbynite policies that nearly destroyed the UK. Corbyn was about the only person in the UK who didn't accept that reality, and this is why older voters won't touch him with a barge pole.

I was watching the superb 70s drama Smiley's People a little while ago. There's a lovely line where his German counterpart offers to buy him lunch, on the grounds that British people have no money, because their country is so poor.

Let's not go there again.

quote:
The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The initial nations targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States with the embargo also later extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa.
(opening paragraph on wiki 1973 oil crisis)
Neither Belgium or Germany were subjected to an oil embargo.

(eta)

So unless Corbyn is planning to declare war on oil-producing Middle Eastern states, I think we're good here.

[ 04. October 2017, 10:29: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8723 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sarah G wrote:

quote:
Everywhere else coped fine. It was the Corbynite policies that nearly destroyed the UK. Corbyn was about the only person in the UK who didn't accept that reality, and this is why older voters won't touch him with a barge pole.
I'm curious which Corbynite policies you are referring to, and which reality Corbyn did not accept at that time. I think he became a Labour councillor in 1974, so presumably, you are saying that he was formulating Labour policy then?

The PMs in the 1970s were Wilson and Callaghan, the latter who famously criticized Keynesian policies, and recommended a form of neo-liberalism. But plenty of Labour politicians were critical of that.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Come the next general election (whether as scheduled or called early by Mrs May) it will be obvious to all just how unbelievably incompetant the Tories are, and the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would walk into Downing Street.

That's when Corbyns problems will start. He'll inherit a country heading inexorably towards the plug hole as a result of the totally idiotic Tory approach to Brexit (Brexit, of course, is a totally stupid idea anyway, the current government have managed to find a way to make it even more idiotic). The worst of those Brexit consequences are likely to hit on his watch, and he'll get the blame for a mess that wasn't of his making.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 31986 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That should read, plenty of Labour politicians were critical of neo-liberalism.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Come the next general election (whether as scheduled or called early by Mrs May) it will be obvious to all just how unbelievably incompetant the Tories are, and the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would walk into Downing Street.

That's when Corbyns problems will start. He'll inherit a country heading inexorably towards the plug hole as a result of the totally idiotic Tory approach to Brexit (Brexit, of course, is a totally stupid idea anyway, the current government have managed to find a way to make it even more idiotic). The worst of those Brexit consequences are likely to hit on his watch, and he'll get the blame for a mess that wasn't of his making.

Yes, there is a sense in which watching the Tories mess up most things must be enjoyable for Labour politicians right now, and probably they might want to enjoy it a bit longer. Against that, they also want to win an election.

Brexit will probably sink everybody in political terms, since it is unmanageable. I imagine that Starmer is trying to steer Labour towards the single market, with what success, I don't know, and it may be too late if the Tories have gone for no-deal. Well, my allotment is looking good right now, plenty of winter vegetables, purely for our own use, not for a soup kitchen, sorry.

[ 04. October 2017, 12:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:


Brexit will probably sink everybody in political terms, since it is unmanageable.

In a totally Gramscian way, that might be one of the few upsides of the coming disaster. If we got genuine pr, and the break-up of the rotten cartels that are the Tory and Labour parties, then, well it wouldn't go nearly far enough to make it all worth it, but I'd allow myself a wry smile and look forward to the opportunity to vote for a party more closely reflecting what I want for the country -and for everyone else to be able to do the same.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1340 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's very pleasant to see a reference to Gramsci. I wonder what dazzling aphorisms he would produce in the present situation, well, at least, we always have, 'The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.'

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's very pleasant to see a reference to Gramsci. I wonder what dazzling aphorisms he would produce in the present situation, well, at least, we always have, 'The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.'

Which was exactly what I had in mind.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1340 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the interesting ideas in Gramsci is a critique of a rigid economic determinism, presumably, as characterized at the time by the Stalinists.

But this also hinged on a view of Marx and Engels as narrow determinists, or as embracing a wider view of history, including cultural, personal, social, moral factors.

I wonder what Corbyn makes of this? It's a bit esoteric, I suppose, but the new left has definitely been pro-Gramsci and anti-Stalinist, and I have heard people criticize Corbyn/McDonnell as being too quasi-Stalinist.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185

 - Posted      Profile for Sighthound   Email Sighthound   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem is the Tories have dug themselves into a massive hole and keep digging.

They need to dump their doctrinaire attachment to failed 19th Century economic theory, kick out the bigots and racists in their numbers and become a 21st Century European conservative party. They might ask Frau Merkel for some tips. Then they might broaden their appeal, instead of losing a vote with nearly every funeral.

--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/

Posts: 164 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Come the next general election (whether as scheduled or called early by Mrs May) it will be obvious to all just how unbelievably incompetant the Tories are, and the proverbial donkey with a red rosette would walk into Downing Street.

But is that necessarily true? As Alastair Campbell writes in this recent cautionary article, a Tory implosion doesn't automatically give victory to Labour, and the euphoria of the Labour Conference does not necessarily translate into support from the British population at large. And - though he doesn't say it - there's also the "elephant" of the SNP to be kicked out of the room if Labour are to win.
Posts: 9263 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

The PMs in the 1970s were Wilson and Callaghan, the latter who famously criticized Keynesian policies, and recommended a form of neo-liberalism. But plenty of Labour politicians were critical of that.

Don't forget Edward Heath (19 June 1970 to 4 March 1974).

When was the oil crisis? Oh, yes, it started in October 1973 and ended in March 1974. The three day week? Oh, yes, that was from 1 January to 7 March 1974.

The economic problems of the UK in the 1970's seem to have been mainly during a Tory PM's term of office.

Posts: 265 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Poor Tee-May - koffing her way through her speech (P45 and all), with Bo-Jo The Clown joking about the corpses in Sirte (not to mention selling 'clinky-clinky' bottles of booze to Sikhs a few weeks ago)... [Disappointed]

The Tories are not being helped either, by a local-ish MP, Craig McKinlay (Cee-Mac?) urging jobless youngsters from Glasgow to come south on their bikes to work at fruit-picking with 'gorgeous EU women'. And there's me thinking that the Tories wanted to get rid of the EU fruit-pickers, and send them home... [Confused]

How the f**k did we end up with this gang of losers in government ? [Mad]

Come on, Jay-Cor - come and save us!

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8790 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

The PMs in the 1970s were Wilson and Callaghan, the latter who famously criticized Keynesian policies, and recommended a form of neo-liberalism. But plenty of Labour politicians were critical of that.

Don't forget Edward Heath (19 June 1970 to 4 March 1974).

When was the oil crisis? Oh, yes, it started in October 1973 and ended in March 1974. The three day week? Oh, yes, that was from 1 January to 7 March 1974.

The economic problems of the UK in the 1970's seem to have been mainly during a Tory PM's term of office.

I think Callaghan went through various problems, and brought in wage restraint. But 1978 was supposed to be quite a good year in economic terms, but then of course, the unions began to kick back against wage retraint.

But I wasn't sure which policies were being labelled Corbynite - surely not Callaghan's, who famously was one of the first to advocate neo-liberalism, of a kind.

'You can't spend your way out of a recession' was his well-known pronouncement. Austerity, instead, I suppose.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Watching a clip of Mrs. May's speech just now, I did wonder why someone (NOT Bo-Jo The Idiot Clown, please) didn't offer to deliver it for her. The poor lass obviously wasn't at all well - not her fault, of course, but it'll be used against her, which IMHO ain't fair.

I vote Green (or Labour, strategically), BTW...

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8790 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Quite a funny joke really - Mrs T's speech was a ucking disaster. You have to see the speech, and the letters sliding off the background. Prosperity or everyone, votes or women!

Still, you have to admire her phlegm.

[ 04. October 2017, 18:20: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Killing me]

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8790 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some interesting rewriting of history here. Benn's faction, which advocated the Alternative Economic Strategy, is the tradition of which Corbyn is heir, though moderated by time and experience. It was the right of the party, the Liz Kendall's of their era, that went to the IMF. Whether you think the Labour left's ideas would have worked, they're not to blame for the winter of discontent. Ironically those ideas included withdrawal from the common market as then was.
Posts: 2800 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Some interesting rewriting of history here. Benn's faction, which advocated the Alternative Economic Strategy, is the tradition of which Corbyn is heir, though moderated by time and experience. It was the right of the party, the Liz Kendall's of their era, that went to the IMF. Whether you think the Labour left's ideas would have worked, they're not to blame for the winter of discontent. Ironically those ideas included withdrawal from the common market as then was.

Well, yes, although I was willing to give Sarah G credit if she meant that the strikes in 1979, were Corbynite in nature, although that would be rather anachronistic. But as you say, to say that the Labour government was Corbynite, is turning history upside down. In fact, Callaghan introduced a form of monetarism, I thought. Ah, the good old days, when right wing Labour was cock of the walk.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ironic though, that the left are getting blamed for the bollocks made by the right wing.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the main folk memories of the 70s in this country are of unions and strikes (and terrible clothes). Any serious analysis of that decade reveals a much more nuanced picture; often the strikers had good reason for their dissatisfaction - many industries were appallingly mismanaged, many public servants subsisted on meagre wages. The oil shock caused rampant inflation throughout the western world.

But it was all the lefties' fault.

Posts: 334 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One weird aspect of the current situation is that the Brexit vote has triggered plenty of rage and discontent, hence the mordant joke, you won, get over it. For some people this is focused on the EU, but there is a widespread feeling of being fed up with low wages and food banks, that some firms are ripping us off, and there are no houses for young people. Labour are moving back to Keynes and Beveridge, unless my eyes deceive me.

If Cameron had won the referendum, he would still be PM, and a Tory government would be papering over the cracks.

In a strange way, Brexit has opened up the cracks. This is not to say that it will inevitably benefit Labour - not at all. It could sink them as well.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9528 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think the main folk memories of the 70s in this country are of unions and strikes (and terrible clothes). Any serious analysis of that decade reveals a much more nuanced picture; often the strikers had good reason for their dissatisfaction - many industries were appallingly mismanaged, many public servants subsisted on meagre wages. The oil shock caused rampant inflation throughout the western world.

But it was all the lefties' fault.

It's because (aside from closed factories) it's difficult to create an image narrative of mismanagement whereas you can much more easily picture a strike getting out of hand.

Can't remember who it was that said the besetting sin of UK labour relations was the participants... Essentially, other countries seem to manage with unions who work *with* the bosses, and bosses who *trust* the unions. The fact that it isn't like that here is the fault of idiocy (and idiots) on both sides.

Moreover, it comes back to the war (doesn't everything?). Germany, and to an extent France, having been bombed flat used their international aid money to rebuild their industrial capacity and modern road/rail networks. Britain (led by Labour on this one) blued it on defence capability and (AIUI) essentially paying for national service). Result? Late 1940s/1950s boom time through a combination of imperial preference and lack of competitors in the smoking continental European rubble, followed in the 1960s by said continental types waving gaily as they overtook.

In all seriousness, postwar commonwealth immigration was about (amongst other things) providing manpower to operate Victorian machinery in Victorian mills at a time when the rest of the (western continent) was investing in mechanisation.

I can think of at least one factory still operating in northern England that hasn't updated it's production line since the 1930s - and they're a household name brand...

Not sure what the answer is, but post WW2 Britain is a litany of poor choices.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1340 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm getting a welcome frisson of cognitive dissonance over the 70s.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16648 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

Essentially, other countries seem to manage with unions who work *with* the bosses, and bosses who *trust* the unions. The fact that it isn't like that here is the fault of idiocy (and idiots) on both sides.

Not sure what the answer is, but post WW2 Britain is a litany of poor choices.

I think it's mostly a class issue - any form of restructuring of which has been tamped down on, and that is reflected in the policy choices of both the right and the left when they got into government. Buttressed by most of the major institutions in the UK.

The result of this is that industrial relations are seen as a zero sum game.

Posts: 3741 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Britain (led by Labour on this one) blued it on defence capability and (AIUI) essentially paying for national service).

You seem to be forgetting the NHS, the welfare state, the massive housebuilding program, all of which happened post-war. Private enterprise didn't invest - a failure of capital, if you will.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8723 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Britain (led by Labour on this one) blued it on defence capability and (AIUI) essentially paying for national service).

You seem to be forgetting the NHS, the welfare state, the massive housebuilding program, all of which happened post-war. Private enterprise didn't invest - a failure of capital, if you will.
I'm not forgetting it in the slightest, I'm just pointing out that we had choices between armaments and a welfare state on the one hand, and rebuilding the economy to pay for those on the other. Germany took a different route with less money loaned and starting from more of a position of need.


From the BBC

[ 05. October 2017, 11:57: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1340 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Britain (led by Labour on this one) blued it on defence capability and (AIUI) essentially paying for national service).

You seem to be forgetting the NHS, the welfare state, the massive housebuilding program, all of which happened post-war. Private enterprise didn't invest - a failure of capital, if you will.
Yep, and ironically underscored by what betjemaniac goes on to describe:

"postwar commonwealth immigration was about(amongst other things) providing manpower to operate Victorian machinery in Victorian mills at a time when the rest of the (western continent) was investing in mechanisation."

Rather than invest in improving productivity, the capital class chose the political measures that allowed them to drive down their costs via other means.

The finger of blame points fairly clearly at the more powerful, who prevented the sorts of social and economic change that would have been necessary to properly modernise the country - at the expense perhaps of their own social standing. The Thatcher era mainly undercut the - historically anomalous - power gained by organised labour, financialised the economy of the South-East and left the rest of the country in a similar state to the south of Italy.

Posts: 3741 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What were the loyal opposition saying at this point? That we should retreat from our colonies and reduce our international influence?

I'm certainly not arguing that the money wouldn't have been better off spent at home, rebuilding infrastructure and communications, but private capital should have been shouldering at least part of the burden of modernisation.

That should certainly be identified as part of the "British disease".

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8723 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:


I'm certainly not arguing that the money wouldn't have been better off spent at home, rebuilding infrastructure and communications, but private capital should have been shouldering at least part of the burden of modernisation.


the unfortunate truth is that private capital in the UK was left to shoulder *more* of the burden of modernisation than in France or Germany.

Every Chancellor from Sir Stafford Cripps onwards basically kept the govt almost entirely out of the non nationalised industries. Over the Channel, they were literally handing out cash to their boss class to improve private businesses. Over here, not to anything like the same extent.

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1340 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Read the damning statements on the German and French submissions for Marshall Aid vs the Boris Johnson like ramble through British history (seriously, is it the government that sends them mad or do they start like this?) that Cripps sent in.

[ 05. October 2017, 12:10: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1340 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
For clarity, I'm not saying that it isn't a mark of shame that private capital didn't just deal with it by itself, but then I'm more of a social democrat anyway so I'd not expect them to behave purely virtuously by themselves!

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1340 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
O, I think Bo-Jo The Clown started off mad, but being in 'government' has just made him worse...

The same applies to others, no doubt, but he's the most prominent swivel-eyed loon at the moment.

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8790 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
For clarity, I'm not saying that it isn't a mark of shame that private capital didn't just deal with it by itself, but then I'm more of a social democrat anyway so I'd not expect them to behave purely virtuously by themselves!

I think we're more or less agreed on this. Perhaps it's indeed true, that we're lions led by donkeys.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8723 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That is a gross libel on that most sagacious of animals, the Donkey.

[Two face]

IJ

--------------------
The future is another country - they might do things differently there...

Posts: 8790 | From: With The Glums At The Bus Stop | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The initial nations targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States with the embargo also later extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa.
(opening paragraph on wiki 1973 oil crisis)
Neither Belgium or Germany were subjected to an oil embargo.

(eta)

So unless Corbyn is planning to declare war on oil-producing Middle Eastern states, I think we're good here.

Reading on in the article-

quote:
Of the nine members of the European Economic Community (EEC), the Netherlands faced a complete embargo, the UK and France received almost uninterrupted supplies (having refused to allow America to use their airfields and embargoed arms and supplies to both the Arabs and the Israelis)...Despite being relatively unaffected by the embargo, the UK nonetheless faced an oil crisis of its own—a series of strikes by coal miners and railroad workers over the winter of 1973–74 became a major factor in the change of government.

So the embargo's not the thing to blame for the economic crises of the 70s. In fact the main problem appears to be the unions, and here Corbyn's Labour are vulnerable. He's already said he wants to see union strike rights restored, and he owes the unions for keeping him in power.

Since the £312 billion or whatever investment will likely create noticeable inflation again, strikes could once more become a serious problem.

Those bright eyed 20 year old Corbynistas will think again when their electricity/wifi/phone usage gets cut off for hours every day.
[Devil]

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669

 - Posted      Profile for Sarah G     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think my problem is more the whole JC package. As JC put it:

quote:
That’s what we fought for in the election and that’s what’s needed to replace the broken model forged by Margaret Thatcher many years ago.

I get and share the intense dislike for Thatcher, but at most she did save us from the economy of the 70s.

This model, improved and humanised by Blair, is what he wants to ditch. So it's back to tax and spend; needlessly nationalising all sorts of things where the money could be better spent; regulating markets and intervening in the economy, heavy investment that creates insufficient growth...70s stuff.

High taxation of all sorts of things leading to stagnant growth, heavy spending leading to inflation. Then the strikes will begin.

We don't need to abandon the market economy consensus that has delivered prosperity since the 80s. A strong economy is the best way to help the most vulnerable.

Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The problem is that Thatcherism doesn't provide a strong economy, does it? If it did Corbyn wouldn't be in the position he is. Thatcherite ideas caused the 2008 crisis, and the utterly counterproductive austerity that arose from it. Besides, nationalising things was the 40s and 50s, not the 70s. Restoring strike rights won't give unions the power they had in the 70s because industries aren't organised on the same scale.
Posts: 2800 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools