Work so hard you cripple yourself

[AJB Temple]

People don't need to agree, just debate rationally without the blaming. Blaming the tories for everything, as some are wont to do (and then criticising others for tribalism) without seeing the irony just makes the thread unattractive to participate in. The UK is a small participant in a complex global economy that we have little or no control over and so blaming politicians is simplistic.

All politicians are elected. Compromise is usually better than conflict, and would probably better represent the majority of the electorate.

 

[RobinBHM]

The UK is a small participant in a complex global economy that we have little or no control over and so blaming politicians is simplistic

other countries have managed to achieve better standard of living and better public services……so why do we have no control but they do?

In the last 45+ years this country has ended up with worse standard of living and worse public services than equivalent economies.

But we aren’t allowed to blame the party that has been in power for most of the last 45 years?

 

[planesleuth]

Jeez. The joke's on you lot. You are voting in an entirely undemocratic system controlled by the old boys.... Even worse when the luvvies do vote they vote for a knight of its kingdom. Laughable. Get yourself informed! Don't vote then the system has to change!

 

[Scruples]

^^ Time and motion studies, usually devised by people who haven't done manual labour and and are in overpaid positions. It's a heartless concept, that should have been consigned to history, and in my mind it is little better than slavery.
Type of thing a tory would come up with.



I hope you're kidding.

In my time, with an electricity board, as an apprentice, we went through Time and Motion studies. We were all apprehensive about whatefect it migh have on our salaries. It tuned out that salaries were unaffected by productivity. That the times used by the T&M guys were to generous. When I ended my apprenticeship and took on on full time role the bonuses earned through productivity were always at ninety-something percent.
After, a few years the board consolidated the bonus, at the levels we'd been getting, and life moved on.

It was the Tories that were power at the time (1964 - 1970) and I thank them for that.

 

[Scruples]

other countries have managed to achieve better standard of living and better public services……so why do we have no control but they do?

In the last 45+ years this country has ended up with worse standard of living and worse public services than equivalent economies.

But we aren’t allowed to blame the party that has been in power for most of the last 45 years?

Nice but not true. I look around and see good jobs, fair pay and people with good cars, houses and frequent holidays abroad. 45 years ago, you wouldn't have seen much of that in the UK.

Now, we'll have a Labour government for a term, before the populace remember just how bad they are and then, hopefully, we'll get back to normal with a resumption in the growth of the economy and investment together wih the reduction of the national debt caused by the pandemic.

We'll move on... and the cycle of Labour interrupting the Tories, briefly, carries on.

 

[Sideways]

.....(And I got a good look down their chest which made the delivery quite fun!!)

This is the sort of low grade harassment that all of our wives, daughters, sisters, mothers and too many of our friends are subjected to in daily life.
To the men on this forum: discuss this post with your wives and daughters and wake up !
To @flying haggis : someone should have taught you that this isn't acceptable behaviour never mind something to snigger about.

And if anyone even hints at the woke word in response to this, you're gone for good....

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Nice but not true. I look around and see good jobs, fair pay and people with good cars, houses and frequent holidays abroad. 45 years ago, you wouldn't have seen much of that in the UK.

Now, we'll have a Labour government for a term, before the populace remember just how bad they are and then, hopefully, we'll get back to normal with a resumption in the growth of the economy and investment together wih the reduction of the national debt caused by the pandemic.

We'll move on... and the cycle of Labour interrupting the Tories, briefly, carries on.

I will provide one single real world observation of why I think you are wrong. The examples are legion, but one ought to do it as an evidenced example.

In 2010, public satisfaction in the NHS was at an all time high.
In 2024, public satisfaction in the NHS was at an all time low.


Come to think of it, I'll provide a second real world observation of why I think your viewpoint is poppycock...

The number of UK billionaires in UK tripled between 2010 and 2024.
The real terms UK median wage in 2024 is 8% lower than in 2010. (Which kinda refutes your personal anecdotal evidence of nice cars and fancy holidays!)


The evidence here is irrefutable.
First, deliberate mismanagement and ideologically-driven defunding of Public Services under Tory governments is irrefutable and unforgiveable.
Second, the huge widening gap between the wealthy and less wealthy is unsustainable - particularly under the environment where Public Services have been decimated - since the less wealthy do rely more heavily on those Services. And "trickle down" clearly is a complete and utter fallacy, judging solely on the real world evidence.



One thing that people tend to forget and/or disregard as they grow older, particularly the older of today, is that if you have been semi-successful you have climbed a bit of a ladder and have better pay and more accumulated "stuff" than when younger - and this is particularly true if you own your own home - whereas the challenge that the younger generation now face in getting onto the housing ladder is nigh-on insurmountable.

One needs to open one's eyes to those that are not in one's immediate or even extended circle before judging about more people having nicer cars and fancy holidays, because that kind of throw away "observation" is not substantiable when considering the entire population at present.

 

[Croolis]

Jeez. The joke's on you lot. You are voting in an entirely undemocratic system controlled by the old boys.... Even worse when the luvvies do vote they vote for a knight of its kingdom. Laughable. Get yourself informed! Don't vote then the system has to change!

That's an appalling and objectively wrong viewpoint based on pretty much any definition of what representative democracy is. Our FPTP system, while arguably flawed, is hardly "entirely undemocratic", by demonstration of ballots being cast and governments changing. Behave.

Things like labour laws (which is actually relevant to the thread topic that I am now going to derail even further), are decided by the representatives we decided to make those decisions for us. We actually had a chance to change the system umm, ~12? years ago (through an actual proper use of referendum), but democratically decided it was better not to (shame). Get yourself informed.

Never ceases to amaze me when folks suggest you shouldn't vote to prove this half baked point. The only reasons politicians want you to vote is when you're voting for them. If you're not going to vote for them, it;s absolutely fine by them that you're not going to vote at all. You enable them by not voting. I agree spoiling ballot papers or similar should at least be popularised, simply for the purposes of collecting data.

One final thing about one of the main things that democracy importantly drives, but people rarely seem to notice - changes of leadership with easy, non-problematic succession. This is something Trump (and on occasion, Democrats) attack when things don't go their way and is extremel;y dangerous. But you'll notice that any country that cannot change its leadership without strife is a shambles, and it's easy to see that leaders who stay in power overly long make increasingly bad decisions (in modern times Thatcher, Putin, Mugabe and potentially now the Chinese leader who's name I am not interested in googling, just to name a few that I know). Being a "democratic" country doesn't guarantee prevention of this, but being a functioning democracy, which the UK is, warts and all, makes it very, very common.

See Roman Empire, French Revolutionary Wars, Pax Britannica, Argentina and the Falklands War for more reading on peaceful succession and failure to manage it.

If you think not voting is going to change any of the whatever-that-was things you spouted there, you need to flush your brain out a bit. Nobody in power is going to get a bag on if you don't vote.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

other countries have managed to achieve better standard of living and better public services……so why do we have no control but they do?

In the last 45+ years this country has ended up with worse standard of living and worse public services than equivalent economies.

I would question these statements - what data are you using - are you being somewhat selective. BTW, neither would I assert the UK has done particularly well.

Why 45 years - arguably the decline started post WW2, not just since Thatcher.

But we aren’t allowed to blame the party that has been in power for most of the last 45 years?

Politicians are elected. We, the electorate, are ultimately responsible for their performance.

We set the expectations and aspirations against which politicians seek to deliver.

The 1997 Labour government started with very positive economic conditions and wound up just about bankrupt after 13 years. Perhaps public services and standard of living is unrelated to the government in power.

 

[RobinBHM]

Nice but not true

It is true.

Living standards are lower in U.K. than equivalent Western economies.
Public services in U.K. are worse than equivalent Western economies.
Wealth inequality is high in U.K. than equivalent economies.

Who has been in power most of the last 45 or so years?

 

[Croolis]

The number of UK billionaires in UK tripled between 2010 and 2024.
The real terms UK median wage in 2024 is 8% lower than in 2010. (Which kinda refutes your personal anecdotal evidence of nice cars and fancy holidays!)

Exactly. Saying we've all got smart phones now so we're better off is kinda nonsense when you're talking about current relative wealth issues, isn't it.

 

[Croolis]

The 1997 Labour government started with very positive economic conditions and wound up just about bankrupt after 13 years. Perhaps public services and standard of living is unrelated to the government in power.

Genuine question, that I don't know the answer to: did the UK economy fall off a cliff during the '08 economic crash or had it been in serious decline before then? I don't expect trying to blame everything on the '08 crash is a useful thing to do, but I think to answer the "why 45 years" question, probably depends on your age group. Because, being in my early fifties, in my brian I've got boom and bust under Thatcher, recession under Major (I'm told leaving the IMF was the only sensible thing he did and even that was just forced on him), then a bunch of good years under Labour, then an endless shambles under Tories.

Of course, this is to ignore any shambles created by pre-Thatcher Labour. Where's the cutoff point? There is none.

I suspect that the current Labour strategy of blaming the previous government for everything is as dubious as claiming that the previous government was responsible for all the good things that a sucessor government enjoys.

 

[Amplidyne]

Labour is and always has been the party of the Unions, or in the wider sense; of the labour movement. A bit weak and feeble at the moment but would be pointless and fade away without the unions.

I know. That's why I won't vote for them.

It'd be very dull world without idealism!
Or did you mean "ideology"? which is not the same thing at all.
In fact the tories are more ideological than the others, with their commitment to free-market, neo-liberal, deregulated economical theories.
Labour more pragmatic - about how to get things done, rather than the whys and wherefores.

It's pretty dull anyway isn't it?
Still if you want to argue semantics. Go ahead. I won't be joining in.

"The Tories are"
"Labour are"

Yes, as I said in the first place, both as bad as each other.
Basically both unelectable.

Staggering from one disastrous government to the next until it's time for "The other lot" again.

Still I rest my case as to some people seem to think that one choice is better than the other.

I used to think that the FPTP electoral system was best, but after this latest fiasco, I reckon we need some sort of PR.

At least we might have the people that most people want representing us.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Genuine question, that I don't know the answer to: did the UK economy fall off a cliff during the '08 economic crash or had it been in serious decline before then? I don't expect trying to blame everything on the '08 crash is a useful thing to do, but I think to answer the "why 45 years" question, probably depends on your age group. Because, being in my early fifties, in my brian I've got boom and bust under Thatcher, recession under Major (I'm told leaving the IMF was the only sensible thing he did and even that was just forced on him), then a bunch of good years under Labour, then an endless shambles under Tories.

Of course, this is to ignore any shambles created by pre-Thatcher Labour. Where's the cutoff point? There is none.

I suspect that the current Labour strategy of blaming the previous government for everything is as dubious as claiming that the previous government was responsible for all the good things that a sucessor government enjoys.

The answer to the "fall off a cliff in 2008" is that, yes the Global Financial Crisis was the single factor that led to a sudden and massive decline.

Sadly, the UK was "over-exposed" to the Global Financial Market, and to a similar extent, so it remains today. Hopefully the overall market is better regulated these days. Part of the biggest problem is that the Labour Govt of the era was following the Tory mantra of "free market" and allowed a certain amount of deregulation to take place. When the market collapsed, that left the country (and govt on behalf of the country) in big doo-doo and had to bail out the banks in order to prevent further worse financial domestic meltdown. This was the Private Sector milking Economies for profit, while leaving Economies to pay the price for mess-ups (and the parallels with this to the UK domestic privatised Public Services are stark and worrying and ought to have been predicted properly from the start - and regulated properly to prevent mess-ups)

The big problem with Private Sector milking countries for profit, and claiming that they can "regulate themselves" is therefore not a new thing. Witness how the water companies, for example, bought up by Private Equity purely to milk maximum profit to the detriment of the People (capital letters on purpose - Public Services are named Public for a reason) has resulted in a shocking demise of the entire water supply//water treatment ecosystem. Insignificant investment is the obvious result of "maximising profit" at the expense of everything else. The warning signs just were not heeded in 2008, or since, but have been obvious all along to those with eyes in their heads. This isn't restricted to just water, but to ALL public services under Tory ideology. And this is why the country is in such a mess and why wealth equality has risen so very steeply over the past 14 years.

 

[AJB Temple]

Genuine question, that I don't know the answer to: did the UK economy fall off a cliff during the '08 economic crash or had it been in serious decline before then? I don't expect trying to blame everything on the '08 crash is a useful thing to do, but I think to answer the "why 45 years" question, probably depends on your age group. Because, being in my early fifties, in my brian I've got boom and bust under Thatcher, recession under Major (I'm told leaving the IMF was the only sensible thing he did and even that was just forced on him), then a bunch of good years under Labour, then an endless shambles under Tories.

Of course, this is to ignore any shambles created by pre-Thatcher Labour. Where's the cutoff point? There is none.

I suspect that the current Labour strategy of blaming the previous government for everything is as dubious as claiming that the previous government was responsible for all the good things that a sucessor government enjoys.

This perspective is with respect, delusional. There are plenty would say that labour Blair took us into an illegal war, then enriched himself immeasurably and that Gordon Brown near bankrupted the economy by selling off the gold reserves, which he signalled in advance causing a catastrophic economic problem. Starmer now is self evidently out of his depth, clueless about business and flailing around discussing reparations for what people did hundreds of years ago.

Equally many would argue that Thatcher enabled ordinary people to buy their own homes and at least get a foot on the wealth ladder. She also encouraged the start up of thousands of businesses and provided true leadership in the Falklands.

The real picture is of course far more complex and nuanced. I realise Croolis that some here have a very set perspective and nothing will change that, but going on and on about the mistakes of the past and endlessly blaming the "tories" achieves nothing. We must look forward and do what we can now in the circumstances we currently experience. Name calling is for the playground. Stirring up managers vs workers angst is of no value either. We need people with a range of capabilities to pull together to get trade, industry, technology, the finance sector and retail moving again under UK control and ownership (ie not amazon and prc everything).

 

[Croolis]

This perspective is with respect, delusional. There are plenty would say that labour Blair took us into an illegal war, then enriched himself immeasurably and that Gordon Brown near bankrupted the economy by selling off the gold reserves, which he signalled in advance causing a catastrophic economic problem. Starmer now is self evidently out of his depth, clueless about business and flailing around discussing reparations for what people did hundreds of years ago.

Equally many would argue that Thatcher enabled ordinary people to buy their own homes and at least get a foot on the wealth ladder. She also encouraged the start up of thousands of businesses and provided true leadership in the Falklands.

The real picture is of course far more complex and nuanced. I realise Croolis that some here have a very set perspective and nothing will change that, but going on and on about the mistakes of the past and endlessly blaming the "tories" achieves nothing. We must look forward and do what we can now in the circumstances we currently experience. Name calling is for the playground. Stirring up managers vs workers angst is of no value either. We need people with a range of capabilities to pull together to get trade, industry, technology, the finance sector and retail moving again under UK control and ownership (ie not amazon and prc everything).

Dude, you give a very negative view of Labour management, then a very positive view of Thatcher management, and then stuff about having a nuanced view and not being dogmatic based on the past. Seems a bit contradictory.

Can't argue with the final sentence, mind.

"Managers vs workers angst" has a permanent tension that is never going away and needs to be dealt with properly in line with the final sentence. Not creating a scenario that the OP describes is one of those things. Thou Shalt Not Take The P**s out of the workers too much, should be at least some of the law, if not the whole of it. Lest problems arise and disrupt the greater good.

I'm not a union man, btw, in case anyone actually thinks that. Laughable idea. If I'm a firm I don't like, I vote with my feet if I can't fix it myself.

 

[Croolis]

But I'll go so far as to say that actually, all business has a social function by virtue of the fact that they are employers and one of the major components that make society tick. As soon as that (in a very light touch way, the defintion of which is where the rub is) stops being recognised, society moves in the wrong direction.

 

[John Brown]

"Name calling is for the playground."
I believe I made a similar observation a while back when you were indulging in it.

 

[Jacob]

But I'll go so far as to say that actually, all business has a social function by virtue of the fact that they are employers and one of the major components that make society tick.

Don't all human activities have a social function?

As soon as that (in a very light touch way, the defintion of which is where the rub is) stops being recognised, society moves in the wrong direction.

Yes. When business and finance are seen as somehow separate, or not under democratic control, then society goes in wrong directions.

 

[Jacob]

.....

Equally many would argue that Thatcher enabled ordinary people to buy their own homes and at least get a foot on the wealth ladder.

And find themselves with enormous mortgage debts, or paying inflated rents in a "free-market ecomomy" with a house bubble pricing more and more people out of good quality housing, and a massive housing shortage.

She also encouraged the start up of thousands of businesses

Really? Have you any links concerning this far fetched idea? See link below.
Property prices alone has become the biggest obstacle for many start ups.

and provided true leadership in the Falklands.

Falklands war was a dreadful fiasco which she mobilised to ingratiate herself with the unwoke in order to hang on to power, as she was falling rapidly out of favour. It cost billions and there were many deaths on both sides.
An abject failure of politics and diplomacy which gave her 7 more years in power in which to continue wreck the economy.

https://www.history.com/news/margaret-thatcher-falklands-war