Work so hard you cripple yourself

[AJB Temple]

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.

Nope. Read it again. I said "plenty would say". I did not say what my view is. In fact I think Blair was a good PM and Gordon Brown was just a wannabe. I don't regard Blair as a war criminal and I think he did what he thought was sensible and right. He was immeasurably better than Starmer.

 

[AJB Temple]

Jacob, I think you are a pot stirrer at heart so I don't rise to it.

However, I do think that overall Thatcher mostly made a positive impact in her day. A lot of working people strongly supported her. My parents were able to buy their council house largely because of her policies. They were not natural conservative supporters. As for starting businesses, I was just beginning my career during the Thatcher era and working for a consulting firm. We were inundated with start up business, M&A work and such like. It felt very positive. At that time I was young, rather academic and not very interested in politics. I just wanted to see the world.

The point I was making really is that old men tend to go on about the past. They all have some perspective driven perhaps by their own social standing, and talk about the past as if it is still the present. We need to get a grip or else we will continue with this pointless blame game politics.

Starmer wants to tax the rich, but they've all cleared off to Switzerland, Portugal and Spain where they are given a big welcome. So he's going to tax you now instead.

 

[Croolis]

Yes, I didn't miss the "plenty would say" bit. I'll say this though, Starmer's only just got going. Things could get much worse yet. Or maybe better. Th-i-i-ngs, da da de da da-da.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

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,

The 2008 crash had its roots in the US savings and loans industry where loans were made to folk to buy homes whose repayments they could not afford.

These were then "packaged" as financial instruments and sold by major banks. They carried a credit rating reflecting the issuing banks credit rating, not that of the underlying loans. It became apparent these bonds were effectively worthless and bankrupted several major US banks.

The rot spread to UK banks. To ensure consumer confidence and prevent a financial implosion the UK had to bail out UK banks - costs broadly similar to the pandemic (massive).

Gordon Brown could not be held accountable for the failure of US S&L, but was wholly accountable for the weaknesses in UK bank regulation and oversight. As the guy at the top he carried the can for the ensuing economic mess.

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.

You make a good point about age being a base for perspectives on the past. I am early 70s and economic and political awareness dates from mid-1960s. The 1970s were a true low point in post war economic history - UK underperforming vs European economies, high inflation, strikes.

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

I suggested WW2 may be a cut off - victory reinforced an arrogance that we Brits knew best. UK was saddled with massive debts. Defeat had the opposite effect on Japan and Germany generating an energy to rebuild in complete contrast to the UK.

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.

Agreed. There is a "tradition" of blaming all the problems on a previous administration. On the Labour defeat in 2010 there is some justification - Liam Byrne left a note apologising "I afraid there is no money".

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Agreed. There is a "tradition" of blaming all the problems on a previous administration. On the Labour defeat in 2010 there is some justification - Liam Byrne left a note apologising "I afraid there is no money".

I believe that similar notes were something of a tradition between Govt changeovers, and this note was not an isolated case. It was expected to find some kind of tongue In cheek memo when taking over No10/No11.

Sadly, the first time it was attempted to be "publicly used against" the previous Govt was by Tory in 2010.

 

[RobinBHM]

I do think that overall Thatcher mostly made a positive impact in her day. A lot of working people strongly supported her

Thatcher bribed working class with cheap council houses, she robbed local authorities of the money and stopped them building more.

housing benefit is a huge burden on councils….and the money goes into the pockets of privately owned housing associations.

These days the working class are paying dearly for that policy….millions are now trapped in unaffordable rent.

As Thatcher setting in place privatisation of so much of the U.K. assets has resulted in water, railways, gas and electricity network, energy suppliers being owned by sovereign wealth funds resulting in the structural failures and inflation playing a key role in the UKs downfall.

Labour contributed to this as well

 

[Croolis]

I believe that similar notes were something of a tradition between Govt changeovers, and this note was not an isolated case. It was expected to find some kind of tongue In cheek memo when taking over No10/No11.

Sadly, the first time it was attempted to be "publicly used against" the previous Govt was by Tory in 2010.

Yes I've read about this before as well. Not what the Tories sold it as.

 

[Scruples]

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.

Public satisfaction is based on feelings. The feelings after the pandemic were low. No government was going to survive that strength of feeling

The number of rich people is pretty irrelevant. You're assuming that having more rich people means we have more poor people which is not the case. The rich people invest their wealth to get returns. The investments usually involve increasing profits for companies who employ more staff, who earn money, who pay taxes. The economy benefits.

Governments want the UK to thrive to boost the economy. Itr's how they choose to do that that counts. We know Labour will mess up the next 4 years and we know that the Tories, without or without a coalition, will return to power to remain for several decades until some other, third party event, changes the feelings of the people once more. History does rather repeat itself, politically-speaking.

I was modestly successful in lfe. I worked, was ambitious and ended up with a lot more than my parents ended their time with. Because of that, I can help my kids financially while I'm still around to see their development and will leave them my wealth when I'm gone. They will, I hope, use their inheritence to maintain and develop their lifestyles. I'm sure there are a lot of middle class families like mine.

When I look around and see those who can't afford homes, I see a lot of those who don't work yet crave the benefits of those that do, but without the effort.

I suppose I am using the house ownership, new cars and frequent family holidays as a benchmark of success, ambition and middle class wealth. But it's just an irrefutable fact of the modern age. Hard work brings its own rewards. Sitting around waiting fo rewards generally doesn't. It is the way of the world.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, I think you are a pot stirrer at heart so I don't rise to it.

However, I do think that overall Thatcher mostly made a positive impact in her day.

For some, but not for all.
I was running a successful small business in 1979 but had to wind it up, during what became known as Thatcher's first recession. It affected a lot of other businesses - we were not alone and were hit by knock on effects from elsewhere, unpaid invoices, orders cancelled.

A lot of working people strongly supported her. My parents were able to buy their council house largely because of her policies.

Some benefitted. More did not. Many council houses sold ended up as rental properties at much higher rents. Tory policies (or lack of them) led to the current housing crisis.

.....

Starmer wants to tax the rich,

He daren't. Anyway he's one of them himself. They have too much power - look how they dealt with the Corbyn threat.

but they've all cleared off to Switzerland, Portugal and Spain where they are given a big welcome.

They haven't though. Anyway they can't take land and property with them, nor conceal business activity in UK, so tax is perfectly possible at many points. They know that - look how frantically they battered Corbyn out of the picture. Starmer is their man and he is doing their bidding.

So he's going to tax you now instead.

Yep.

 

[Jacob]

.... Hard work brings its own rewards.

For some, but many of the hardest working people are the lowest paid. Most high wealth is based on inheritance and not the just deserts of hard work.

Sitting around waiting fo rewards generally doesn't. It is the way of the world.

It does if you have rich daddy and all the privileges which go along with it.

If you seriously believe that all poverty and disadvantage is a matter of lifestyle choice - how would you go about remedying this?

 

[Croolis]

We know Labour will mess up the next 4 years and we know that the Tories, without or without a coalition, will return to power to remain for several decades until some other, third party event, changes the feelings of the people once more.

Oh behave. Blameless, ain't they.

 

[robbit]

Many years ago I worked as a delivery driver for a builders merchants (1997-8) and one our regular customers was the local art college who bought casting plaster and plaster of Paris from us.
The lecturer, good for him, always made the students come out to unload the truck as they were the ones who were going to be using the plaster.
I stood on the ruck and gently lowered the 25kg bags onto the students shoulder as they stood alongside and I used to laugh at how many of them crumpled to the floor as they took the weight of the bag. And it was usually the boys that couldn't cope, the girls were fine. (And I got a good look down their chest which made the delivery quite fun!!)

A little bit too much info in this day and age haha .

 

[Amplidyne]

And still the ritual declaring that the right cheek to be better than the left cheek continues. . .

 

[robbit]

Jacob, I think you are a pot stirrer at heart so I don't rise to it.

However, I do think that overall Thatcher mostly made a positive impact in her day. A lot of working people strongly supported her. My parents were able to buy their council house largely because of her policies. They were not natural conservative supporters. As for starting businesses, I was just beginning my career during the Thatcher era and working for a consulting firm. We were inundated with start up business, M&A work and such like. It felt very positive. At that time I was young, rather academic and not very interested in politics. I just wanted to see the world.

The point I was making really is that old men tend to go on about the past. They all have some perspective driven perhaps by their own social standing, and talk about the past as if it is still the present. We need to get a grip or else we will continue with this pointless blame game politics.

Starmer wants to tax the rich, but they've all cleared off to Switzerland, Portugal and Spain where they are given a big welcome. So he's going to tax you now instead.

Starmer and his crowd won't tax the rich too much, why?, because he is One of them, can't see it?, he has proved he likes freebies, people at the top are always grabbing what they can, that's how they get there, the people at the bottom getting the crumbs, nothing new under the sun, what ever party you follow, just old fashioned greed, but, the difference in a democracy you can get to the top if you have the drive, ability, skills, Socialism, your just lined up in rows and rows waiting for your bowl of crule.
Speak out and await the knock on the door.

 

[RobinBHM]

but they've all cleared off to Switzerland, Portugal and Spain

A very small percentage might’ve done.

 

[Croolis]

in a democracy you can get to the top if you have the drive, ability, skills, Socialism, your just lined up in rows and rows waiting for your bowl of crule.

You do appreciate that democracy is a form of government selection and socialism (whatever your definition of its detail) is a strategy of government, however that government is selected.

I mean, your post makes no sense.

EDIT: 2 posts to your account and you're in off topic, hmm. Even I didn't start that young.

 

[Noel]

Starmer and his crowd won't tax the rich too much, why?, because he is One of them, can't see it?, he has proved he likes freebies, people at the top are always grabbing what they can, that's how they get there, the people at the bottom getting the crumbs, nothing new under the sun, what ever party you follow, just old fashioned greed, but, the difference in a democracy you can get to the top if you have the drive, ability, skills, Socialism, your just lined up in rows and rows waiting for your bowl of crule.
Speak out and await the knock on the door.

Welcome to the forum @robbit
Look forward to your WW contributions.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Thatcher bribed working class with cheap council houses, she robbed local authorities of the money and stopped them building more.

Alternative view to which I would subscribe - Thatcher recognised the pride that people took over their own property, enabled (millions??) to improve their circumstances, and relieve local authorities of an onerous responsibility.

housing benefit is a huge burden on councils….and the money goes into the pockets of privately owned housing associations.

Although many housing associations are privately owned they are not for profit organisations.

These days the working class are paying dearly for that policy….millions are now trapped in unaffordable rent.

Rents and property prices are high because successive governments have failed to build sufficient new homes - fundamentally supply has seriously lagged demand.

As Thatcher setting in place privatisation of so much of the U.K. assets has resulted in water, railways, gas and electricity network, energy suppliers being owned by sovereign wealth funds resulting in the structural failures and inflation playing a key role in the UKs downfall.

I think there were some very quick wins from privatisation which re-energised thoroughly sclerotic and inefficient state run organisations.

The regulatory regime which should have ensured that these industries were properly run (investment, dividends, service standards etc etc) have proven largely ineffectual. The regulators are accountable to government - it is they who have failed.

 

[RobinBHM]

Governments want the UK to thrive to boost the economy. Itr's how they choose to do that that counts

Tory govts exist to boost wealth of the wealthy.

By the way the evidence shows Labour and Conservative have been pretty much the same on the economy, loads of evidence of the metrics shows it.

Your claim that Labour wreck the economy and Conservatives repair it is nothing more than a right wing trope.

 

[trvlr]

The Blair-Brown partnership accelerated the privatisation of sectors of the NHS (the Thatcher era initiated moves to privatise it all of course); the Private-Public partnership being one disaster initiated during the B-B era. Subsequent Troy admins continued it, and now Starmer is on file as saying he wishes to involve the private sector even more...

The proposed (anticipated) increase in NHS dues will likely go straight into the general tax income pot; rather than being ring fenced for the NHS only - and in addition to the usual and indexed(?) support for the NHS.