Party Planning for Thatcher's death...
Comments
-
Pretty sure overall unemployment proportions were lower too in the 60s and 70s, but I'll have to check back on the book (and that's a little difficult to do when I'm pretending to work)0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Pretty sure overall unemployment proportions were lower too in the 60s and 70s, but I'll have to check back on the book (and that's a little difficult to do when I'm pretending to work)
And there's the difference. In the 60s and 70s you'd check the book without worrying.0 -
possibly employment figures were warped by nationalised employment. Don't get me wrong i'm for it if i pays its way, but it wasn't in the 70's. Britain was in managed decline.Rick Chasey wrote:Pretty sure overall unemployment proportions were lower too in the 60s and 70s, but I'll have to check back on the book (and that's a little difficult to do when I'm pretending to work)All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
bianchimoon wrote:
possibly employment figures were warped by nationalised employment. Don't get me wrong i'm for it if i pays its way, but it wasn't in the 70's. Britain was in managed decline.Rick Chasey wrote:Pretty sure overall unemployment proportions were lower too in the 60s and 70s, but I'll have to check back on the book (and that's a little difficult to do when I'm pretending to work)
It's in a worse state now...
Take the period as a whole, a good 20 years, through the whole cycle. What we call the 00's boom years, growth was slower by almost half than in the 60s & 70s.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Take the period as a whole, a good 20 years, through the whole cycle. What we call the 00's boom years, growth was slower by almost half than in the 60s & 70s.
Is that in real terms or before inflation?0 -
GiantMike wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Take the period as a whole, a good 20 years, through the whole cycle. What we call the 00's boom years, growth was slower by almost half than in the 60s & 70s.
Is that in real terms or before inflation?
Real, obviously....0 -
-
When people think of the 70s they may well think of the music, but living in those Heath and Callaghan years was terrible. The power cuts and 3 day weeks - sitting around in the evening by candle light. I'm no so called Thatcherite but thank God it changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6729683.stm0 -
-
berliner wrote:When people think of the 70s they may well think of the music, but living in those Heath and Callaghan years was terrible. The power cuts and 3 day weeks - sitting around in the evening by candle light. I'm no so called Thatcherite but thank God it changed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6729683.stm
Things are different now. Years of (albeit slower) growth mean that there's a much higher standard to fall from - so that this crash which, by any number is worst since the '30s, doesn't feel as bad as the '70s.
I'd suggest the post Thatcher 'free-market capitalism' figures will get worse, with the biggest consensus on future growth calling more or less stagnant growth till 2017, after a 2012 dip. (i.e. a stagnant decade like Japan).
To put it into perspective, the worst unemployment rate in 1978, according to wikipedia anyway
with this reference http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15276765Unemployment had also risen during this difficult period for the British economy; some 1,500,000 people were now unemployed by 1978, nearly treble the figure at the start of the decade, at a national rate of well over 5%. It had exceeded 1,000,000 since 1975
Whereas now unemployment rate is at 8.3%....0 -
It's more complex and insidious than that. True, Murdoch is obsessed with crass popularism and his own profits, but in terms of public opinion it's a continual feedback loop. Murdoch listens to the public mood, distorts it according to his own agenda (anti-intellectualism, soulless materialism, callous self-interest) and feeds it back to them. This creates a closed loop in which nothing with any true value or meaning can be dicusssed, and forces any party trying to get into power to pander to Murdoch's populist ideology. The major parties become practically inseparable in terms of policy, so that the only things that distinguish them in the public eye become those things that Murdoch specialises in - scandal, personality assassination, short-term sensationalism. Then at some point before the election, Murdoch decides whether supporting one party or the other will sell the most papers (taking into account the potential of each to be cowed into not taking any legislative steps that might restrict his power) and that party wins. It's not that he has any true political agenda, just that the power he has over the media means that real, informed democracy can't happen.Smokin Joe wrote:
Wrong.neeb wrote:and with the support of Murdoch's media empire which has basically been the deciding factor in most UK general elections in the last 30 years or so due to its ability to swing the the unpoliticised majority.
Murdoch's media empire does not lead public opinion, it is terrified of being out of step with it and follows slavishly in it's wake, hence the obsession with paedos which it knows will strike a cord with it's readers. That's why it backed Blair in '97 and Cameron at the last election, it knew the tide was turning and it took the line it thought it's readers wanted it to. The influence of the Sun (readership of around three million, a great many who probably don't ever vote) on election outcomes is a myth put about by the paper itself.
In the 80's, it so happened that one party (Thatcher's Tories) actually pretty much shared Murdoch's agenda - they were made for each other, so Labour never stood a chance. Until Blair reinvented Labour in the Murdoch mould..0 -
Can't people see past the simple "Thatcher or the 1970s" choice? Anyone would think that they are the only 2 systems of labour relations we could have. Why not have a look around the world, to see where they have good protection for workers and efficiency at the same time?
By the way, for anyone who thinks that neo-liberal policies saved us in the 80s, here's a graph showing British oil production:
So basically, the UK goes from being a net importer of oil in the 1970s (with oil prices at a historical high), to a net exporter in the 1980s. Which was a massive, massive help for Thatcher.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Can't people see past the simple "Thatcher or the 1970s" choice? Anyone would think that they are the only 2 systems of labour relations we could have. Why not have a look around the world, to see where they have good protection for workers and efficiency at the same time?
I'm not saying the '70s were amazing, but I am saying that the neo-liberal 'free market capitalism' model, over the more mixed style, doesn't stand up to the figures, despite the rhetoric and discourse. The '70s is a useful comparision.
You can look at the figures I've looked at for the UK anywhere that was affected by the neo-liberal economic push, even the Soviet 'disasters' in Africa and see the figures were better, by and large, than they are now.0 -
The economic side of things (which, let's be honest, is at the forefront of our minds at the moment), in terms of economic politics, has barely changed since Thatcher/Reagan.
Their legacy, whether dictated by them or merely attributed to them, is one that we still live with, and are in the shadow of, today.
That they were such an extreme departure from what had happened before, will be divisive - especially when you couple it with the hard-nosed combative nature of her politics.
She could have done the same regarding legislation etc without being so divisive, had she wanted.
Nor did she appear to show much contrition despite the fact there was considerable pain in (significant) parts of the country.
That's why stuff like this turns up.
Cameron, who's closer to Thatcher than perhaps he'd care to let know, at least dresses his policies up in cuddly language.0 -
Smokin Joe wrote:Wrong.
Murdoch's media empire does not lead public opinion, it is terrified of being out of step with it and follows slavishly in it's wake, hence the obsession with paedos which it knows will strike a cord with it's readers. That's why it backed Blair in '97 and Cameron at the last election, it knew the tide was turning and it took the line it thought it's readers wanted it to. The influence of the Sun (readership of around three million, a great many who probably don't ever vote) on election outcomes is a myth put about by the paper itself.
Some background reading, a brief overview:
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:johnfinch wrote:Can't people see past the simple "Thatcher or the 1970s" choice? Anyone would think that they are the only 2 systems of labour relations we could have. Why not have a look around the world, to see where they have good protection for workers and efficiency at the same time?
I'm not saying the '70s were amazing, but I am saying that the neo-liberal 'free market capitalism' model, over the more mixed style, doesn't stand up to the figures, despite the rhetoric and discourse. The '70s is a useful comparision.
You can look at the figures I've looked at for the UK anywhere that was affected by the neo-liberal economic push, even the Soviet 'disasters' in Africa and see the figures were better, by and large, than they are now.
I wasn't talking about you so much as the Thatcher fans. They never seem quite able to see that there are other alternatives to 3 day working weeks on the one hand and neo-liberalism on the other.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:johnfinch wrote:Can't people see past the simple "Thatcher or the 1970s" choice? Anyone would think that they are the only 2 systems of labour relations we could have. Why not have a look around the world, to see where they have good protection for workers and efficiency at the same time?
I'm not saying the '70s were amazing, but I am saying that the neo-liberal 'free market capitalism' model, over the more mixed style, doesn't stand up to the figures, despite the rhetoric and discourse. The '70s is a useful comparision.
You can look at the figures I've looked at for the UK anywhere that was affected by the neo-liberal economic push, even the Soviet 'disasters' in Africa and see the figures were better, by and large, than they are now.
I wasn't talking about you so much as the Thatcher fans. They never seem quite able to see that there are other alternatives to 3 day working weeks on the one hand and neo-liberalism on the other.
Indeed, the obvious example is Germany and it's industrial success whilst having labour laws that offer a lot more protection to its workers.0 -
-
All this and we haven't even touched on the idea that neo-liberal economics redistributes overall wealth upwards...
Most unequal since the 19th Century or something?0 -
sure is"That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college! " - Homer0
-
Many more world wide factors affecting our own economy now. 20 years ago China was nothing. Big investments now in African agriculture Wasnt long ago the ploddy German Mittlestand model was being crtisised just as our own financial services industry was heralded as being a success.
This thread title suggestes celebration if someone dies. Think I saw a tweet refering to Galloway celebrating or something. A little bit of dignity called for.0 -
berliner wrote:Many more world wide factors affecting our own economy now. 20 years ago China was nothing.
Yeah key point regarding the distribution of wealth. With a country the size of China pursuing capitalism as aggressively as they are I can't see things changing anytime soon.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:GiantMike wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Take the period as a whole, a good 20 years, through the whole cycle. What we call the 00's boom years, growth was slower by almost half than in the 60s & 70s.
Is that in real terms or before inflation?
Real, obviously....
Why's it obvious? I don't have a copy of the book you're gleaning all your knowledge from. But I do know that at times of high inflation the growth in output can appear real but actually be stagnant or even negative in real terms. But you know that already.0 -
9pm tonight on 'Yesterday' channel - The Making of the Iron Lady. Looks good."There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0
-
Party you say, count me in.
0 -
OK.
Corrections re my stats need to be made.
Turns out the stats I was pumping out were for the 'developing' world, rather than the UK.
*fail*
Anyway, the stats bit I'll write out.
their emphasis. It's taken from a chapter basically saying that all developed nations had protectionist - non neo-liberal policies when they were 'developing', but insist that all 'developing' nations must be neo-liberal, which, as the above shows, is not particularly beneficial.Per capita income growth in the developing world fell from 3 per cent per year in the 1960s and 1970s to 1.7 per cent during the 1980-2009 period, but this was largely due to the rapid growth of China and India - two giants that, while liberalizing, did not embrace neo-liberal politics
Hmm. Some humble pie may need to be eaten.
The unemployment stats I gave above are right, and the above echos my sentiment - but it's not UK related growth stats....
*ahem*...
The graph I put above gives a better picture of the UK - i.e. more volatile growth, (as high as 10% just before the late '70s bust).0 -
Jeez...I never thought i would need a PHD in economics to reply to a 'Cake Stop' thread. :oops:0
-
LeicesterLad wrote:Jeez...I never thought i would need a PHD in economics to reply to a 'Cake Stop' thread. :oops:
You can have this reply on me if you like (I've only got a Degree in Economics)
Economic growth is a a red herring. What should really be central to these debates are the less tangible, but more important measures, such as Quality of Life, Standard of Living, Opportunity, Life expectancy etc.0 -
GiantMike wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Jeez...I never thought i would need a PHD in economics to reply to a 'Cake Stop' thread. :oops:
You can have this reply on me if you like (I've only got a Degree in Economics)
Economic growth is a a red herring. What should really be central to these debates are the less tangible, but more important measures, such as Quality of Life, Standard of Living, Opportunity, Life expectancy etc.
'tis true, but, the right kind of economic growth tends to improve those...
You know, reasonably even growth across the income spectrum etc.0 -
johnfinch wrote:
How, exactly, were socialist policies responsible for the demise of Mac and May? Was the bank taken over by the workers?
In 1996, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 20050
