India’s successful Moon Landing

[deema]

Read the link already given several times! Post-war consensus - Wikipedia.
Ignorance is no excuse nowadays, we have instant access to amazing sources.
Good to see you trying to catch up Deema!

Read it, that doesn’t add anything, but highlights how terrible everything was and the start of a journey that has led to to where we are today, at no stage was there a step backwards so, your point is pointless, ie nothing about 1979 change the trajectory, in fact it improved afterwards if you look at actual data.

 

[Jacob]

Read it, that doesn’t add anything, but highlights how terrible everything was and the start of a journey that has led to to where we are today, at no stage was there a step backwards so, your point is pointless, ie nothing about 1979 change the trajectory, in fact it improved afterwards if you look at actual data.

er - read it again? See heading "Collapse of consensus".
1979 was the year rightwing ideology took centre stage, as distinct from right wing pragmatism. Hayek, Friedman etc
Prior to that conservatism had been a familiar and simple minded affair:
"Salisbury in 1879 wrote: “Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible”. Conservatives had a duty to postpone change. In 1892 he said: “The use of Conservatism was to delay changes till they become harmless.”
Nothing intellectual about conservatism, until it got subverted by the new boys and became proactive instead of reactionary!
The highest point of right wing ideology in practice, so far, has been the brief reign of Truss/Kwarteng

 

[Terry - Somerset]

My main recollection of the 1970's (aged early 20s) is of a strike ridden nation in decline relative to most of Western Europe. Nationalised industries were a comfortable place to work but bureaucratic and very inefficient.

I recall £50 limit on foreign currency due to the dire state of the balance of payments. Winter of discontent. Inflation averaging ~15% for the decade. High tax (lyrics of "Taxman" 1966). Brain drain because opportunity was so constrained for the educated and professional.

Industries were failing due to the inefficient and high cost of manufacture compared to competition, and a resistance to change - eg: British Leyland, steel, coal mining, shipbuilding etc.

The origins of the problems may be WW2 victory. We complacently assumed that because we won that we had the right answers. For 20 years events supported this view - standards of living increased for most/all as rationing ended and growth ensued.

Had a Thatcher not emerged one could speculate on what may have become of the UK:

• a socialist utopia with universally high living standards, the elimination of poverty and homelessness, a caring society, or
• an increasingly broken model vulnerable to a far more extreme right wing insurrection
• part of a greater Russian empire!?!

It needed radical change. I do not think Thatcher got it all right - in particular more support should have been provided to communities impacted by the changes (skills, transition, training etc). But to fondly remember the 1970's is an illusion only possible with rose tinted spectacles.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Ignore the provocative title, it’s a good watch and very interesting…..does this remind you of anything? Why facts don’t have any influence on some peoples perspective? A theory created by a guy fighting against the Nazis

Comments in the video might not go down too well with the supporters of Trump ... or perhaps over their heads?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

.......a socialist utopia

......is a popular right-wing "straw man". Oddly they've sold themselves an even more dubious bit of nonsense: a free market neo-liberal utopia, with Brexit as the jewel in the crown.

with universally high living standards, the elimination of poverty and homelessness, a caring society, or

not a utopia but we were well on the way to a more egalitarian society, with NHS, council housing, family allowance, good welfare payouts, massive public spending/investment etc

• an increasingly broken model vulnerable to a far more extreme right wing insurrection

Which is what we now have.

• part of a greater Russian empire!?!

Popular delusion on the right. As Wilson said - Labour owes more to Methodism than Marxism

It needed radical change. I do not think Thatcher got it all right

pretty well all wrong

- in particular more support should have been provided to communities impacted by the changes (skills, transition, training etc).

She also promised "NHS safe in our hands" but that's going by the board rapidly.

But to fondly remember the 1970's is an illusion only possible with rose tinted spectacles.

I remember the 1970s well because I had an expanding and successful business at the time, but it collapsed very quickly following the 1979 election, as did many others, with the first Thatcher recession immediately following.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I remember a fairly wealthy Swedish man talking to my parents in about 1968 - he told them he was emigrating to the the U.S. as in Sweden he was paying an ever increasing rate of income tax, and 105% tax on his investments. That's what happens when you overtax the wealthy - they take their money somewhere else.

I remember the £50 limit well. I got pulled by Scotland Yard going through Heathrow, I went through the metal detectors and suddenly got a hand on each shoulder. Two plain clothes guys threw me up against the wall, spreading my legs and searching me from head to toe. They had a book off mugshots out and thought I might be Irish (one did say I didn't sound very Irish). I found out afterwards that I'd been picked out as I was going with no luggage onto an international flight. I persuaded them I wasn't Irish and wasn't carrying anything illegal and they let me go. They took no notice of £1800 in notes in my jeans pockets.

 

[Jacob]

I remember a fairly wealthy Swedish man talking to my parents in about 1968 - he told them he was emigrating to the the U.S. as in Sweden he was paying an ever increasing rate of income tax, and 105% tax on his investments. That's what happens when you overtax the wealthy - they take their money somewhere else.

Except the ones with enough brain power to recognise a healthy society and the opportunities it offered.
Possibly your man was not the brightest of Swedes ( a bit of a turnip?) and I bet he didn't move anyway.
Intelligent Swedes are more likely to stay in Sweden rather than move to violent and recession hit USA, or some banana republic with even lower taxes.
Flight of the over-taxed is a very silly myth, not least because they often have huge assets here too, but most of all because they can afford to stay if they wish!
It's the less well off who migrate, as you might have noticed if you paid a little more attention to the media.

 

[John Brown]

I remember a fairly wealthy Swedish man talking to my parents in about 1968 - he told them he was emigrating to the the U.S. as in Sweden he was paying an ever increasing rate of income tax, and 105% tax on his investments. That's what happens when you overtax the wealthy - they take their money somewhere else.

I remember the £50 limit well. I got pulled by Scotland Yard going through Heathrow, I went through the metal detectors and suddenly got a hand on each shoulder. Two plain clothes guys threw me up against the wall, spreading my legs and searching me from head to toe. They had a book off mugshots out and thought I might be Irish (one did say I didn't sound very Irish). I found out afterwards that I'd been picked out as I was going with no luggage onto an international flight. I persuaded them I wasn't Irish and wasn't carrying anything illegal and they let me go. They took no notice of £1800 in notes in my jeans pockets.

One swallow doesn't make a summer. I knew lots of fairly wealthy Swedish men in the 70s, they moaned about the tax, but didn't emigrate.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You knew a lot who didn't. A lot did.

 

[Jacob]

You knew a lot who didn't. A lot did.

A lot did in late 19th and early 20C when Sweden was backward. It made more sense then, but only the turnips would do it now.
https://www.mnhs.org/newspapers/swe...s of some,and social circumstances in Sweden.

 

[deema]

Except the ones with enough brain power to recognise a healthy society and the opportunities it offered.
Possibly your man was not the brightest of Swedes ( a bit of a turnip?) and I bet he didn't move anyway.
Intelligent Swedes are more likely to stay in Sweden rather than move to violent and recession hit USA, or some banana republic with even lower taxes.
Flight of the over-taxed is a very silly myth, not least because they often have huge assets here too, but most of all because they can afford to stay if they wish!
It's the less well off who migrate, as you might have noticed if you paid a little more attention to the media.

This has got to be your most ridiculous posts so far. Just about nothing you have written is factually correct. No wonder your ‘thriving and growing’ business failed if this is a demonstration of your financial system’s knowledge. Interesting, though, did your socialist perspective derive from bitter resentment that your business failed and you blame Thatcher?, because before it did, you were clearly part of the capitalist money grabbing business owning elite you shout about so much.

Now, a little background reading will highlight that the world is rather large, and you don’t have to invest your money in the country you live in. Equally there are still lots of investment solution to reduce / eliminate tax burdens irrespective of where you domicile. Putting up taxes just increases the number of instruments people use to shelter their money and in fact reduces the tax collected by governments. (Plenty of papers on the subject should you actual research the subject) Every year, the British government tries to tie off new schemes, and every year now schemes are dreamt up to circumnavigate it. However, you need good accounts and lawyers to make this beneficial, and as such it’s only something the wealthy employ. The rest of us just get clobbered and have to listen to the imbeciles that keep suggesting higher taxes on the ‘rich’ are the utopia to all problems. To achieve higher tax returns you lower taxes for the wealthy and upon businesses. Yoi go about it in a controlled manner, not a Liz Trust approach. Southern Ireland, Eire, has lower business taxes than most of Europe, and if you look where a number of major corporations head quarters are, where they legitimately move the profit to minimising taxation. Hence Eire has a very health tax income from LOWER corporation tax, something the EU is very upset about……there are other places in tge EU that have similar low taxes.

 

[Jacob]

This has got to be your most ridiculous posts so far. Just about nothing you have written is factually correct. No wonder your ‘thriving and growing’ business failed if this is a demonstration of your financial system’s knowledge. Interesting, though, did your socialist perspective derive from bitter resentment that your business failed and you blame Thatcher?, because before it did, you were clearly part of the capitalist money grabbing business owning elite you shout about so much.

Now, a little background reading will highlight that the world is rather large, and you don’t have to invest your money in the country you live in. Equally there are still lots of investment solution to reduce / eliminate tax burdens irrespective of where you domicile. Putting up taxes just increases the number of instruments people use to shelter their money and in fact reduces the tax collected by governments. (Plenty of papers on the subject should you actual research the subject) Every year, the British government tries to tie off new schemes, and every year now schemes are dreamt up to circumnavigate it. However, you need good accounts and lawyers to make this beneficial, and as such it’s only something the wealthy employ. The rest of us just get clobbered and have to listen to the imbeciles that keep suggesting higher taxes on the ‘rich’ are the utopia to all problems. To achieve higher tax returns you lower taxes for the wealthy and upon businesses. Yoi go about it in a controlled manner, not a Liz Trust approach. Southern Ireland, Eire, has lower business taxes than most of Europe, and if you look where a number of major corporations head quarters are, where they legitimately move the profit to minimising taxation. Hence Eire has a very health tax income from LOWER corporation tax, something the EU is very upset about……there are other places in tge EU that have similar low taxes.

Interesting. Googled it. Comparing the UK and Irish economies….
Just in case you can't be bothered to read it here is an extract: .... "But the elephant in the room has to be Brexit. Whereas UK trade with Ireland has been relatively flat, Ireland’s exports to the UK have boomed, particularly since 2020, and the picture with the EU as a whole is even worse. Brexit has also meant that Ireland became the only major English speaking common law jurisdiction within the EU, resulting in a lot of foreign direct investment, which might otherwise have gone to the UK, coming to Ireland instead."

PS It's a bit tedious how you start all your posts with a round of sarcasm and insults. I alway take this as a lack of confidence on your part and that you are not really sure of your facts. Childish really - but revealing!

 

[Keith Cocker]

Ok, strong statement, I’m not sure how you’ve arrived at this perspective, so I’d appreciate you elaborating on why this was the case.
Looking at history (I know some prefer to go down I think it, so it must be route, but I prefer hard indisputable facts, call me old fashioned), poverty after WW2 was rampant, the inequality in society was monumental, (for light entertainment, watch say upstairs downstairs, or Downton Abbey to appreciate the massive accumulated wealth and people who lived their entire lives in service, something that only stated to change after the war. In the 60s we saw the massive slum clearance. It was only in 1971 did the women’s equality come, and after it much of the legislation to prevent racial, religious and sexual orientation, age discrimination, so clearly if like @Jacob you preferred a period in history where prejudice, inequality and wealth distribution were at its peak, you might feel it was a better society. Let’s also put to one side that education levels, life expectancy and every other measure of a better life has increased since the 1970’s, including air quality etc etc.

I’m afraid you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. It was exactly the opposite of what you say. The post war period was one of vast improvement in British society on all counts. That improvement came about through the values highlighted in the article Jacob quotes. As for my intron understanding would my Cambridge University MA and my Manchester University MPhil in History be of any relevance? You should try these two books from my shelves to improve your understanding of the period. There is a third one covering the sixties which I also recommend.

 

[deema]

@Jacob I can’t believe that you’re a supporter of Harold Wilson, the well known socialist who on his death was worth around £5 million. That’s back in 1995, a massive amount of money then and still today. Oh, how the socialist elite loved to set the example of how we should create a more equal society by hoovering up cash from the poor for themselves……

Let’s look at Jim Calllagan, a reported net wealth of £2 million when he died in 2005, or perhaps Tony Blair with a reported net worth of c £50 million. Hypocrisy on a major scale.

Pethaps the head of the TUC Paul Novak……reported about £1.6 million, and what about the union general sectratries

https://assets.publishing.service.g...448/Appendix_5_Cert_Off_Ann_Rep_2016-2017.pdf
Take a look at all the fat cats with 6 figure salaries, all paid for by subs from the workers. Never hear any mention of the salary multiple of them compared to the lowest paid of their members do we.

I could go on and list the estimated net worth of the leaders of every single socialist state, all huge fat cats……more than catalist or liberal based society.

 

[deema]

Interesting. Googled it. Comparing the UK and Irish economies….
Just in case you can't be bothered to read it here is an extract: .... "But the elephant in the room has to be Brexit. Whereas UK trade with Ireland has been relatively flat, Ireland’s exports to the UK have boomed, particularly since 2020, and the picture with the EU as a whole is even worse. Brexit has also meant that Ireland became the only major English speaking common law jurisdiction within the EU, resulting in a lot of foreign direct investment, which might otherwise have gone to the UK, coming to Ireland instead."

PS It's a bit tedious how you start all your posts with a round of sarcasm and insults. I alway take this as a lack of confidence on your part and that you are not really sure of your facts. Childish really.

Read it, absolutely nothing to do with the point and again shows your lack of knowledge and awareness of financial systems.

 

[deema]

I’m afraid you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. It was exactly the opposite of what you say. The post war period was one of vast improvement in British society on all counts. That improvement came about through the values highlighted in the article Jacob quotes. As for my intron understanding would my Cambridge University MA and my Manchester University MPhil in History be of any relevance? You should try these two books from my shelves to improve your understanding of the period. There is a third one covering the sixties which I also recommend. View attachment 165528

Hi Keith we agree. It was terrible after the war, and became better, the point that I made which was contrary to yours is that it has continued to improve without stopping, there was no cliff fall in the 1970. It’s a far better, wealthier, healthier and longer lived now to be born that it was in the 1970 or any decade going back. Your preposition was that it had stoped in the 1970, something I the facts totally disagree with.

 

[Jacob]

.... again shows your lack of knowledge and awareness of financial systems.

....so you keep saying! Trying to convince yourself? Insults just lower the tone, it's good that we don't all huff and puff in the same way.

 

[Lefley]

A lot did in late 19th and early 20C when Sweden was backward. It made more sense then, but only the turnips would do it now.
https://www.mnhs.org/newspapers/swe...s of some,and social circumstances in Sweden.

I know a lot of professionals that have left Sweden for Canada. High taxes low wages. Doctor salary sweden 39,000 sek to 179,000 sek that's 4,000 to 17,000 dollars A month.that's an average of 100,000 us a year. They make Monumentally more in USA. Average 300,000 a year in USA. Lol.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Not much more to be said in this thread IMHO.

 

[Scruples]

In 1979 I was a Manager in ICI ( many will remember Imperial Chemical Industries but for those who are younger it was the largest industrial business in the UK). We devoted a huge amount of time and money to developing and maintaining good relationships with the accredited Trade Unions via what we called Joint Consultation- not quite European Works Councils but similar) It paid off in very good Industrial Relations. We had very few strikes and disputes and a good degree of cooperation in managing change. I was part of the group involved nationally in this and on the night of the 1979 election we were in the middle of discussion with the TUs on the annual pay round. The Managment team and the national officers of the unions were staying overnight in the same London hotel and we were drinking together as the results were coming in. Once it was clear that Thatcher had won one of the TU national officials said to us “nothing will be the same after this. We won’t be meeting in this way and it will be all down hill for Britain and British Industry”. And he was right.

Yes, your trade union buddy was right. Things changed. The unions no longer would be able to hold the country to ransom and the subsidised companies would no longer get a free ride on the taxpayers' backs.
Maggie was good for the country but bad for those that wanted to be carried.