|
Post by mercian on Dec 17, 2023 23:24:19 GMT
Apologies to Graham. My error. Time for bed.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,374
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 17, 2023 23:37:26 GMT
I don't entirely agree in that electoral fortune is often determined by 'events' which happen quite suddenly and the decisions taken by particular individuals. Overall I tend to the view that General Election results are decided by the answer to the question ' Are you happy with the current government'? If the answer is broadly 'Yes', the alternative offered by the Opposition is likely to receive relatively little serious consideration. On that basis,I don't believe there was anything inevitable or preordained about Thatcher winning in May 1979. Had the electorate gone to the polls in September or October 1978 the answer to that question might have been very different to that given in May 1979 - and Attlee's concensus might well have survived with Thatcher denied entry to Downing St. It was the events which occurred during the intervening 6 or 7 months which brought about a Tory win. Callaghan's decision to delay calling the election proved fatal. Had the 1983 election not been preceded by the Falklands War a year earlier, it might well be that Labour's left wing policy package would have mattered far less. The severe economic downturn of Thatcher's first term did not dominate the campaign, and recent military success made voters far more receptive to arguments re- Defence and CND. Without the aura of the Falklands bestowing credibility on the entire range of her policies, the outcome might have been very different with a Hung Parliament a serious possibility. The Hard Bennite Left began to lose ground at Labour's 1981 Conference as reflected in NEC elections and this continued in 1982 - and obviously post 1983. I have long been of the view that Labour's 1992 and 1997 manifestos were presented in the wrong order. Voters might well have accepted Blair's 97 programme had it been on offer in 92 - but by 1997 the electorate had moved on from Thatcherism and was in far more of an anti- Tory mood. People were ready for far more radical change - including a reversal of some of the Thatcherite agenda - than Blair was inclined to offer or deliver.
I think you are looking at the 1970s/80s with too much of a political lens. There were more fundamental forces at work. The oil price shock caused by the Arab-Israel war of 1973 undermined the cheap energy/high growth model that had supported the post-war social democratic model. Attempts as Keynesian stimulation produced high inflation rather than growth. The industrial unrest of the 1970s (partly caused by trying to keep up with that inflation) produced more anti-union feeling, even in parts of the working class. In short there was a mood for seeking a new economic model given the perceived failures of the post-war one. This was seen in many countries, not just the UK, although each had its local circumstances of course. Sadly the right had their answer ready, i.e neo-liberalism. It was, IMO, exactly the wrong answer. But the left had nothing - and came up with nothing until the Clinton/Blair 'Third Way' of the 1990s of accepting chunks of neo-liberal thought but trying to distribute the proceeds of growth more fairly. This in turn was killed by the 2008 crash. That would have been the ideal moment for a shift to a more egalitarian approach. Sadly Brown's government was unlucky enough to be blamed and we got Osborne's neo-liberalism on steroids instead.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 17, 2023 23:56:34 GMT
I don't entirely agree in that electoral fortune is often determined by 'events' which happen quite suddenly and the decisions taken by particular individuals. Overall I tend to the view that General Election results are decided by the answer to the question ' Are you happy with the current government'? If the answer is broadly 'Yes', the alternative offered by the Opposition is likely to receive relatively little serious consideration. On that basis,I don't believe there was anything inevitable or preordained about Thatcher winning in May 1979. Had the electorate gone to the polls in September or October 1978 the answer to that question might have been very different to that given in May 1979 - and Attlee's concensus might well have survived with Thatcher denied entry to Downing St. It was the events which occurred during the intervening 6 or 7 months which brought about a Tory win. Callaghan's decision to delay calling the election proved fatal. Had the 1983 election not been preceded by the Falklands War a year earlier, it might well be that Labour's left wing policy package would have mattered far less. The severe economic downturn of Thatcher's first term did not dominate the campaign, and recent military success made voters far more receptive to arguments re- Defence and CND. Without the aura of the Falklands bestowing credibility on the entire range of her policies, the outcome might have been very different with a Hung Parliament a serious possibility. The Hard Bennite Left began to lose ground at Labour's 1981 Conference as reflected in NEC elections and this continued in 1982 - and obviously post 1983. I have long been of the view that Labour's 1992 and 1997 manifestos were presented in the wrong order. Voters might well have accepted Blair's 97 programme had it been on offer in 92 - but by 1997 the electorate had moved on from Thatcherism and was in far more of an anti- Tory mood. People were ready for far more radical change - including a reversal of some of the Thatcherite agenda - than Blair was inclined to offer or deliver.
I think you are looking at the 1970s/80s with too much of a political lens. There were more fundamental forces at work. The oil price shock caused by the Arab-Israel war of 1973 undermined the cheap energy/high growth model that had supported the post-war social democratic model. Attempts as Keynesian stimulation produced high inflation rather than growth. The industrial unrest of the 1970s (partly caused by trying to keep up with that inflation) produced more anti-union feeling, even in parts of the working class. In short there was a mood for seeking a new economic model given the perceived failures of the post-war one. This was seen in many countries, not just the UK, although each had its local circumstances of course. Sadly the right had their answer ready, i.e neo-liberalism. It was, IMO, exactly the wrong answer. But the left had nothing - and came up with nothing until the Clinton/Blair 'Third Way' of the 1990s of accepting chunks of neo-liberal thought but trying to distribute the proceeds of growth more fairly. This in turn was killed by the 2008 crash. That would have been the ideal moment for a shift to a more egalitarian approach. Sadly Brown's government was unlucky enough to be blamed and we got Osborne's neo-liberalism on steroids instead. I agree with that in part - but note that the main stimulus to demand in Keynesian terms actually occurred under Heath - ie the 'Barber Boom'. The Wilson/Callaghan governments were nothing like as expansionary with demand restricted post Summer 1975 by an Incomes Policy permitting wage & salary increases well below the prevailing inflation rate. The last full year of the Callaghan government - 1978 - did see RPI inflation fall back to 8% compared with circa 27% in mid-1975 and over 13% inherited from Heath in March 1974.
From the polling evidence , it is far from clear that the electorate would have opted for the Thatcher/Keith Joseph alternative had the election taken place in Autumn 1978. A continuation of some form of Incomes policy might well have been preferred - indeed this remained the Lib/SDP Alliance policy at the 1983 election. Strangely enough , they never mention it at all now! There is also a bit of a myth re-strikes and industrial action during the 1970s. The period of peak indusrial disruption occurred during the first half of the 1970s under Ted Heath. The Wilson/Callaghan years were actually much more peaceful - the late 1977 Firemens' strike being an exception - until the Winter of Discontent exploded at the end of 1978 and which continued unchecked throughout January and February 1979. The overwhelming sense of crisis of those months has coloured perceptions of the 1974 - 1979 period as a whole.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,078
|
Post by oldnat on Dec 18, 2023 1:26:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moby on Dec 18, 2023 5:42:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 18, 2023 7:10:56 GMT
crossbat11"No glad morning again and apart from a few false dawns and hurrahs under Martin O'Neill, it's been almost a quarter of a kilo of unbroken mediocrity, including three years in the Championship. No trophies and many relegation battles." A couple of losing FA Cup Finals. That's more than a lot of clubs did in that time. ... "Are the Villa back, I wonder? We shall see, but it's a club that means a great deal to me. Woven into my life from childhood and for many generations of my family too. My maternal grandfather died on the ground in 1965 and we have a memorial plaque for him behind the Trinity Round Stand. " I'm not trying to play topper, but my paternal grandfather is supposed to have known William McGregor. My dad wasn't interested, having been born in Canada, but my pal at primary school got me interested. It's good to find common interests even if political views vary. The statue of William McGregor at Villa Park, on the Trinity Road Stand concourse, is positioned very close to where the memorial plaque for our grandfather, an engraved floor tile, is located. "In memory of Herbert Hulland MM" it simply says. He won a Military Medal in Gallipoli in the First World War. He never told anyone what he'd done to earn the high ranking medal. An act of bravery of some sort but he never talked about it which, I believe, is very typical of old war veterans. Particularly those who fought in The Great War 1914-18. As for the two losing FA Cup Finals you mention, in 2000 and 2015, I'm afraid few recall losing finalists and we were abject in both games. We never laid a glove on Chelsea in the last ever Final at the old Wembley Stadium and the Final against Arsenal in 2015 was one of the most one sided in FA Cup history. We did well to get out with a 4-0 defeat. It could and should have been more. I've even admitted as much to Crofty of this parish I loved the two days out in the capital, but we were an embarrassment on the pitch in a typical anti-climactic Villa sort of way.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,161
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 18, 2023 7:50:59 GMT
I think you are looking at the 1970s/80s with too much of a political lens. There were more fundamental forces at work. The oil price shock caused by the Arab-Israel war of 1973 undermined the cheap energy/high growth model that had supported the post-war social democratic model. Attempts as Keynesian stimulation produced high inflation rather than growth. The industrial unrest of the 1970s (partly caused by trying to keep up with that inflation) produced more anti-union feeling, even in parts of the working class. In short there was a mood for seeking a new economic model given the perceived failures of the post-war one. This was seen in many countries, not just the UK, although each had its local circumstances of course. Sadly the right had their answer ready, i.e neo-liberalism. It was, IMO, exactly the wrong answer. But the left had nothing - and came up with nothing until the Clinton/Blair 'Third Way' of the 1990s of accepting chunks of neo-liberal thought but trying to distribute the proceeds of growth more fairly. This in turn was killed by the 2008 crash. That would have been the ideal moment for a shift to a more egalitarian approach. Sadly Brown's government was unlucky enough to be blamed and we got Osborne's neo-liberalism on steroids instead. I agree with that in part - but note that the main stimulus to demand in Keynesian terms actually occurred under Heath - ie the 'Barber Boom'. The Wilson/Callaghan governments were nothing like as expansionary with demand restricted post Summer 1975 by an Incomes Policy permitting wage & salary increases well below the prevailing inflation rate. The last full year of the Callaghan government - 1978 - did see RPI inflation fall back to 8% compared with circa 27% in mid-1975 and over 13% inherited from Heath in March 1974.
From the polling evidence , it is far from clear that the electorate would have opted for the Thatcher/Keith Joseph alternative had the election taken place in Autumn 1978. A continuation of some form of Incomes policy might well have been preferred - indeed this remained the Lib/SDP Alliance policy at the 1983 election. Strangely enough , they never mention it at all now! There is also a bit of a myth re-strikes and industrial action during the 1970s. The period of peak indusrial disruption occurred during the first half of the 1970s under Ted Heath. The Wilson/Callaghan years were actually much more peaceful - the late 1977 Firemens' strike being an exception - until the Winter of Discontent exploded at the end of 1978 and which continued unchecked throughout January and February 1979. The overwhelming sense of crisis of those months has coloured perceptions of the 1974 - 1979 period as a whole.
Yes, the Barber Boom was the response to the economic eff-up caused by Heath’s introduction of the neoliberal: the banking deregulation that quickly saw us in the Secondary Banking crisis: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_banking_crisis_of_1973right-wingers then claim that it was this spending that caused the inflation, but actually it was the oil price spike following the Yom Kippur war, which affected many countries. Barber’s moderate stimulus did not cause the inflation around the world! If you cross-check, you can see what really caused it: the oil price spike. here is a graph of the oil prices in the era. You can see that the oil prices happened to start rising in ‘73 which happened to be when Barber was doing his stimulus, causing some to assume it was the stimulus causing all the inflation. You can also see the second oil price jump in ‘78 that led to the Winter of Discontent and maps onto the second bout of inflation in the late Seventies. Did the world suddenly start spending massively again all at the same time causing inflation? No, it was the second oil price spike.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,161
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 18, 2023 8:24:46 GMT
P.s. regarding the inflation.
There were other sources of inflation in the era, besides the Barber Boom stimulus and the oil price spikes. In particular, there was the devaluation of sterling in ‘67, there was a further devaluation when our currency became free-floating. Furthermore, the policy of full employment also tended to be associated with a bit of inflation (since if you are at full productive capacity already, then if you get a rise in demand you can’t respond by producing more goods). However, the big one that affected many countries notably, was the oil price spikes. (This is the challenge, to try and tease out and address all the potential causes, rather than picking just the ones that suit a particular ideology).
Also, if you look at the graph, you can see oil prices rising markedly again in the 2000s. This did not lead to the same level of inflation as in the Seventies, which also someone brought up on the old board and needed explaining. The main point, was that we had worked to become less exposed to oil price shocks, in part by changing generating methods. We moved to gas, Japan moved to more nuclear, for example. But also over time businesses become more efficient and reduce energy usage etc.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,105
|
Post by domjg on Dec 18, 2023 8:47:57 GMT
I know the Reading - Waterloo line well, it's slooow. Wokingham has to represent one of the biggest gaps between constituency (educated and liberal in large part) and longterm MP in Redwood. Hopefully he'll finally be given the boot next year. Reading I'm not sure qualifies as part of the blue wall. Though wealthy it's always been a gritty place with areas of not insignificant deprivation and one or both of it's constituencies have often been Labour. Reading East is since 2017 and leafier Reading West was up to 2010.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 18, 2023 8:57:35 GMT
It might take some time.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,161
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 18, 2023 9:01:49 GMT
took me about ten seconds. (But then I think that’s quite good for a donkey really)
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 18, 2023 9:04:25 GMT
A Conservative minister has said he hopes his former colleague Michelle Mone “sees sense” and does not return to the Lords after Mone admitted she lied in denying involvement with a company that held UK government PPE deals during the Covid pandemic. The comments by Lord Callanan, the energy efficiency minister, heap further pressure on Mone, who had repeatedly denied a connection to PPE Medpro, which made millions of pounds in profits during the pandemic. In a BBC interview on Sunday, Mone said she had not told the truth about her involvement to protect her family from media attention. When it was put to her that she had admitted lying to the press, Mone replied: “That’s not a crime.” Mone was made a Conservative peer by David Cameron in 2015, but has been on a leave of absence from the Lords since last year.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,765
|
Post by Danny on Dec 18, 2023 9:14:29 GMT
But however this came about, this tragic event has completely changed the situation. Israel can no longer continue with their indiscriminate bombing and shooting in quite the same way I dont see that at all. Obviously, even though most being killed in the war seem to be palestinians, there must be israelies dying too. Its just another unfortunate casualty, or indeed inevitable casualty. The whole point is to achieve a final solution so there will be no future deaths because the animals have been eradicated from the gaza strip. (their, words, for avoidance of doubt, though I have there strung together a couple of different Israeli quotes about a final solution and them being animals.) Do people not notice the war in Ukraine, where both sides are busy sending people to die over a patch of land? Land has always been and remains more important than human life. You only have to look at the UK immigration policy to know that.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 18, 2023 9:34:25 GMT
If you can forgive me for a nerd moment, one of my interests is in the practical future of space propulsion, a very interesting video from the angry astronaut about Magnetoplasma Drive, the huge amounts increase in propulsion achieved dwarf anything currently being used and even the nuclear propulsion systems currently at test stage with NASA. The results of getting this technology to work would for example reduce the journey time for an earth mars transit from the current 7 months to around little as 3 days,with constant thrust maintaining the equivalent of gravity , taking less time than a transatlantic liner took to travel from Europe to north America. It's game changing and opens the entire solar system for exploration. If you're equally nerdy worth a watch , I'd skip the first six minutes which is essentially housekeeping issues for the site. youtu.be/_njF161FCB0?si=nYPa9_gfBiQwKV12
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Dec 18, 2023 9:37:29 GMT
A Conservative minister has said he hopes his former colleague Michelle Mone “sees sense” and does not return to the Lords after Mone admitted she lied in denying involvement with a company that held UK government PPE deals during the Covid pandemic. The comments by Lord Callanan, the energy efficiency minister, heap further pressure on Mone, who had repeatedly denied a connection to PPE Medpro, which made millions of pounds in profits during the pandemic. In a BBC interview on Sunday, Mone said she had not told the truth about her involvement to protect her family from media attention. When it was put to her that she had admitted lying to the press, Mone replied: “That’s not a crime.” Mone was made a Conservative peer by David Cameron in 2015, but has been on a leave of absence from the Lords since last year. View AttachmentI hope you all felt as upset as I was for Michelle as she was cruelly grilled by Laura. She felt it was SO UNFAIR that people were horrid to her about this. It really upset her and was SO UNFAIR on her children. I was crying a lot.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 18, 2023 9:56:32 GMT
If you can forgive me for a nerd moment, one of my interests is in the practical future of space propulsion, a very interesting video from the angry astronaut about Magnetoplasma Drive, the huge amounts increase in propulsion achieved dwarf anything currently being used and even the nuclear propulsion systems currently at test stage with NASA. The results of getting this technology to work would for example reduce the journey time for an earth mars transit from the current 7 months to around little as 3 days,with constant thrust maintaining the equivalent of gravity , taking less time than a transatlantic liner took to travel from Europe to north America. It's game changing and opens the entire solar system for exploration. If you're equally nerdy worth a watch , I'd skip the first six minutes which is essentially housekeeping issues for the site. youtu.be/_njF161FCB0?si=nYPa9_gfBiQwKV12Whilst this might achieve robotic exploration wouldn't the acceleration G forces prevent any human travel at those sorts of speeds?
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,374
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 18, 2023 9:58:12 GMT
I agree with that in part - but note that the main stimulus to demand in Keynesian terms actually occurred under Heath - ie the 'Barber Boom'. The Wilson/Callaghan governments were nothing like as expansionary with demand restricted post Summer 1975 by an Incomes Policy permitting wage & salary increases well below the prevailing inflation rate. The last full year of the Callaghan government - 1978 - did see RPI inflation fall back to 8% compared with circa 27% in mid-1975 and over 13% inherited from Heath in March 1974.
From the polling evidence , it is far from clear that the electorate would have opted for the Thatcher/Keith Joseph alternative had the election taken place in Autumn 1978. A continuation of some form of Incomes policy might well have been preferred - indeed this remained the Lib/SDP Alliance policy at the 1983 election. Strangely enough , they never mention it at all now! There is also a bit of a myth re-strikes and industrial action during the 1970s. The period of peak indusrial disruption occurred during the first half of the 1970s under Ted Heath. The Wilson/Callaghan years were actually much more peaceful - the late 1977 Firemens' strike being an exception - until the Winter of Discontent exploded at the end of 1978 and which continued unchecked throughout January and February 1979. The overwhelming sense of crisis of those months has coloured perceptions of the 1974 - 1979 period as a whole.
I agree with most of that, but would make two observations. (1) An incomes policy would have depended on cooperation from the trade unions - and on the trade union leaders being able to control their members to accept a squeeze on their living standards. The winter of discontent was ample evidence that neither of those conditions was present any longer. (2) while is is true that the main period of sustained strikes occurred under Heath, I well remember the continuous rumble of industrial discontent that went on throughout the 70's. Seeing 'Red Robbo' (Derek Robinson) regularly on the news calling the British Leyland workers out on yet another strike based on a show of hands at a mass meeting in the car park (and it took a brave man to vote the other way) was revolting to many - including a lot of Trade Unionists*. There was a mood to do something to better regulate union power, and some Trade Union leaders actually welcomed the early Thatcher legislation as giving them more control over their militants. Of course she didn't stop there, being ideologically opposed to organised labour. * Ironically Robinson, a Communist, was often outflanked on the left by Trotskyist stewards calling unofficial strikes - those really were different times: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Robinson_(trade_unionist)
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 18, 2023 10:10:49 GMT
The Guardian's John Harris was one of the few mainstream journalists to pick up on Labour's struggles in the Red Wall seats early on, and here, he takes a swing through the Blue Wall - www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/17/britains-blue-wall-crumbling-tories-failing-voters"I would also wonder how and why a political force that once styled itself as an embodiment of business success and a belief in the future is turning into such a weird bundle of neurotic and nostalgic grievances: not so much a party as an explosive coalition of political cults, all oblivious to the everyday failures and inconveniences that seem to define the whole country’s tired, slightly bitter mood." Nails it, I think.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,161
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 18, 2023 10:19:00 GMT
I agree with that in part - but note that the main stimulus to demand in Keynesian terms actually occurred under Heath - ie the 'Barber Boom'. The Wilson/Callaghan governments were nothing like as expansionary with demand restricted post Summer 1975 by an Incomes Policy permitting wage & salary increases well below the prevailing inflation rate. The last full year of the Callaghan government - 1978 - did see RPI inflation fall back to 8% compared with circa 27% in mid-1975 and over 13% inherited from Heath in March 1974.
From the polling evidence , it is far from clear that the electorate would have opted for the Thatcher/Keith Joseph alternative had the election taken place in Autumn 1978. A continuation of some form of Incomes policy might well have been preferred - indeed this remained the Lib/SDP Alliance policy at the 1983 election. Strangely enough , they never mention it at all now! There is also a bit of a myth re-strikes and industrial action during the 1970s. The period of peak indusrial disruption occurred during the first half of the 1970s under Ted Heath. The Wilson/Callaghan years were actually much more peaceful - the late 1977 Firemens' strike being an exception - until the Winter of Discontent exploded at the end of 1978 and which continued unchecked throughout January and February 1979. The overwhelming sense of crisis of those months has coloured perceptions of the 1974 - 1979 period as a whole.
I well remember the continuous rumble of industrial discontent that went on throughout the 70's. Well of course, inflation was hammering wage packets. Even before the oil crisis and barber boom, it hit 9% a couple of years earlier due to devaluations etc. Then you got swingeing rises in the oil crisis on top 18%, 25%, wage packets were getting trashed. But the right focus on industrial discontent and the need to tame those unions, but are strangely silent when it’s unions like teachers and doctors striking
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,161
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 18, 2023 10:22:26 GMT
I don't entirely agree in that electoral fortune is often determined by 'events' which happen quite suddenly and the decisions taken by particular individuals. Overall I tend to the view that General Election results are decided by the answer to the question ' Are you happy with the current government'? If the answer is broadly 'Yes', the alternative offered by the Opposition is likely to receive relatively little serious consideration. On that basis,I don't believe there was anything inevitable or preordained about Thatcher winning in May 1979. Had the electorate gone to the polls in September or October 1978 the answer to that question might have been very different to that given in May 1979 - and Attlee's concensus might well have survived with Thatcher denied entry to Downing St. It was the events which occurred during the intervening 6 or 7 months which brought about a Tory win. Callaghan's decision to delay calling the election proved fatal. Had the 1983 election not been preceded by the Falklands War a year earlier, it might well be that Labour's left wing policy package would have mattered far less. The severe economic downturn of Thatcher's first term did not dominate the campaign, and recent military success made voters far more receptive to arguments re- Defence and CND. Without the aura of the Falklands bestowing credibility on the entire range of her policies, the outcome might have been very different with a Hung Parliament a serious possibility. The Hard Bennite Left began to lose ground at Labour's 1981 Conference as reflected in NEC elections and this continued in 1982 - and obviously post 1983. I have long been of the view that Labour's 1992 and 1997 manifestos were presented in the wrong order. Voters might well have accepted Blair's 97 programme had it been on offer in 92 - but by 1997 the electorate had moved on from Thatcherism and was in far more of an anti- Tory mood. People were ready for far more radical change - including a reversal of some of the Thatcherite agenda - than Blair was inclined to offer or deliver.
I think you are looking at the 1970s/80s with too much of a political lens. There were more fundamental forces at work. The oil price shock caused by the Arab-Israel war of 1973 undermined the cheap energy/high growth model that had supported the post-war social democratic model. Attempts as Keynesian stimulation produced high inflation rather than growth. The industrial unrest of the 1970s (partly caused by trying to keep up with that inflation) produced more anti-union feeling, even in parts of the working class. In short there was a mood for seeking a new economic model given the perceived failures of the post-war one. This was seen in many countries, not just the UK, although each had its local circumstances of course. Sadly the right had their answer ready, i.e neo-liberalism. It was, IMO, exactly the wrong answer. But the left had nothing - and came up with nothing until the Clinton/Blair 'Third Way' of the 1990s of accepting chunks of neo-liberal thought but trying to distribute the proceeds of growth more fairly. This in turn was killed by the 2008 crash. That would have been the ideal moment for a shift to a more egalitarian approach. Sadly Brown's government was unlucky enough to be blamed and we got Osborne's neo-liberalism on steroids instead. You just made a claim without evidence: that attempts at keynesian stimulation produced high inflation. That claim has been made before, on the old board a few tines, and I posted the graphs to show that the inflation tracked the oil price rises pretty well. They did try and curb spending to provide another means to bring inflation down, but that’s not the same as saying that spending caused the inflation. When trying to work out causes, it is useful to cross-check to try and work out what really happened. When you look at other countries, many of them also suffered inflation, because they also suffered high oil prices. It’s not like they all suddenly decided to open the stimulus taps at the same time, no, they were all affected by the oil price rises. Further more, when I posted additional data, you could see that the amount of inflation, as you might expect, was correlated with their EXPOSURE to oil price rises, further evidence that it’s the oil prices that were the issue. Countries which had more exposure, like Japan, who had more leccy generation from oil, and had to import the oil, tended to suffer more than countries like the US who had more of their own oil. We were quite exposed to oil because we had been moving away from coal generation of leccy, to oil generation, but it was worse for us because Heath decided to have a conflict with the miners during an oil crisis, so now we were short of coal too, turning an oil crisis into a full blown energy crisis. The economy returned to growth and inflation fell back, and Labour kept unemployment down to about a million. Then there was another oil price spike that did for Labour, and the spike peaked in Thatcher’s first term. After the original quadrupling of the oil price rise, we now had a further doubling. Things were now so bad there was a recession in the US too. I was working in a factory at that time and we used to do work for Rolls, Alvis, MoD etc., and things were pretty grim. The managing director took me on a trip to Rolls Royce Derby I think it was, and I recall looking out from the mezzanine over that massive shop floor, to see just the one lonely engine casing making its way slowly round, and lots of people standing around with no work to do. The adoption of the Third Way, and the workfare etc. that came with it, did not solve this problem. What gave temporary respite was the dash for gas and it didn’t hurt we had quite a bit of it ourselves for a while. But when an energy shock came again more recently we were still vulnerable to energy shortages and higher energy prices. We are now trying to solve the problem properly, by producing lots more of our own energy. But we also used energy subsidies to produce temporary respite. I’m not sure how much we could have done that in Seventies, since it wasn’t just leccy and heating that was affected but petrol prices quadrupled too, affecting everything from transport to the plastics used for packaging, and then doubled again. The alternative left-wing approach was to have lots of energy stored, but we would have needed big stocks in that era, as the crisis lasted nearly a decade.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,105
|
Post by domjg on Dec 18, 2023 10:26:58 GMT
If you can forgive me for a nerd moment, one of my interests is in the practical future of space propulsion, a very interesting video from the angry astronaut about Magnetoplasma Drive, the huge amounts increase in propulsion achieved dwarf anything currently being used and even the nuclear propulsion systems currently at test stage with NASA. The results of getting this technology to work would for example reduce the journey time for an earth mars transit from the current 7 months to around little as 3 days,with constant thrust maintaining the equivalent of gravity , taking less time than a transatlantic liner took to travel from Europe to north America. It's game changing and opens the entire solar system for exploration. If you're equally nerdy worth a watch , I'd skip the first six minutes which is essentially housekeeping issues for the site. youtu.be/_njF161FCB0?si=nYPa9_gfBiQwKV12Thanks Steve, as someone interested in research on new methods of propulsion that was very interesting, gonna watch some of his other stuff.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,988
|
Post by neilj on Dec 18, 2023 10:31:04 GMT
This is right up there with the Mail attacking Starmer for buying a field so his disabled mum could set up a donkey sanctuary
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,242
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 18, 2023 10:32:46 GMT
wb61 As I understand the idea would be to keep the acceleration at a constant The physical feeling of g-forces acting on your body are not an effect of speed, but of acceleration. When you’re driving in a car or flying on a commercial airline, you feel the g-force push on your body only when the vehicle is accelerating. Once you reach a steady cruising speed, things begin to feel normal. If you’re accelerating at a fast enough rate to produce a constant 1 g, then , you’ll be able to create artificial, Earth-like gravity. It's the principle used in the series " the expanse" it requires the sort of virtually limitless fuel envisaged in the magnetic drive, if you turned it off in flight your speed would remain constant but acceleration would be zero and you'd be weightless. The flip side is when you want to decelerate you have to do so in the same way. Consequently greater speed doesn't produce a faster acceleration and the thrust effect, on a trip to mars deceleration at .4 g would mean you arrived on the red planet already weighing what you would on the surface. I'm not a scientist and if anyone knows better happy to be corrected.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 18, 2023 10:42:43 GMT
P.s. regarding the inflation. There were other sources of inflation in the era, besides the Barber Boom stimulus and the oil price spikes. In particular, there was the devaluation of sterling in ‘67, there was a further devaluation when our currency became free-floating. Furthermore, the policy of full employment also tended to be associated with a bit of inflation (since if you are at full productive capacity already, then if you get a rise in demand you can’t respond by producing more goods). However, the big one that affected many countries notably, was the oil price spikes. (This is the challenge, to try and tease out and address all the potential causes, rather than picking just the ones that suit a particular ideology). Also, if you look at the graph, you can see oil prices rising markedly again in the 2000s. This did not lead to the same level of inflation as in the Seventies, which also someone brought up on the old board and needed explaining. The main point, was that we had worked to become less exposed to oil price shocks, in part by changing generating methods. We moved to gas, Japan moved to more nuclear, for example. But also over time businesses become more efficient and reduce energy usage etc. Plus from the 1980s onwards we had North Sea Oil.
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 18, 2023 10:44:27 GMT
Worth reading - paulmainwood.substack.com/p/in-which-i-annoy-everyone?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=8zv6vPaul Mainwood is one of the less frivolous commentators on covid & NHS issues, tending to undershoot the impacts more often than not. In other tweets he's predicted that the balance of impacts will be 2/3 covid 1/3 flu over the next month or so, which I would agree with. But this is less about which disease is worse, and much a question of why no one in the political and media world seems to care. The collapse of our emergency care services (and make no bones about, it is a series of repeated collapses) should have been one of the leading news stories for over a year now. Labour should have been all over this like a rash. But the commentariat has collectively shrugged it's shoulders and got on with the serious business of commenting on Robert Jenrick's new haircut. Such is the contemptible level of concern for what was once a defining electoral issue. We seem to have just accepted the fact that as an advanced nation, we don't deserve to have a half decent ambulance service. Mainwood's comments on the junior doctor's strikes are also worth noting.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Dec 18, 2023 10:57:05 GMT
I agree with that in part - but note that the main stimulus to demand in Keynesian terms actually occurred under Heath - ie the 'Barber Boom'. The Wilson/Callaghan governments were nothing like as expansionary with demand restricted post Summer 1975 by an Incomes Policy permitting wage & salary increases well below the prevailing inflation rate. The last full year of the Callaghan government - 1978 - did see RPI inflation fall back to 8% compared with circa 27% in mid-1975 and over 13% inherited from Heath in March 1974.
From the polling evidence , it is far from clear that the electorate would have opted for the Thatcher/Keith Joseph alternative had the election taken place in Autumn 1978. A continuation of some form of Incomes policy might well have been preferred - indeed this remained the Lib/SDP Alliance policy at the 1983 election. Strangely enough , they never mention it at all now! There is also a bit of a myth re-strikes and industrial action during the 1970s. The period of peak indusrial disruption occurred during the first half of the 1970s under Ted Heath. The Wilson/Callaghan years were actually much more peaceful - the late 1977 Firemens' strike being an exception - until the Winter of Discontent exploded at the end of 1978 and which continued unchecked throughout January and February 1979. The overwhelming sense of crisis of those months has coloured perceptions of the 1974 - 1979 period as a whole.
I agree with most of that, but would make two observations. (1) An incomes policy would have depended on cooperation from the trade unions - and on the trade union leaders being able to control their members to accept a squeeze on their living standards. The winter of discontent was ample evidence that neither of those conditions was present any longer. (2) while is is true that the main period of sustained strikes occurred under Heath, I well remember the continuous rumble of industrial discontent that went on throughout the 70's. Seeing 'Red Robbo' (Derek Robinson) regularly on the news calling the British Leyland workers out on yet another strike based on a show of hands at a mass meeting in the car park (and it took a brave man to vote the other way) was revolting to many - including a lot of Trade Unionists*. There was a mood to do something to better regulate union power, and some Trade Union leaders actually welcomed the early Thatcher legislation as giving them more control over their militants. Of course she didn't stop there, being ideologically opposed to organised labour. * Ironically Robinson, a Communist, was often outflanked on the left by Trotskyist stewards calling unofficial strikes - those really were different times: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Robinson_(trade_unionist)The opposition to the White Paper "In Place of Strife" (1969) that Barbara Castle introduced as Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity was led by Jim Callaghan as Home Secretary. Had the Cabinet supported Wilson and Castle rather than Callaghan, the whole industrial discontent of the 70s might never have happened, or at least been much less. Perhaps it was too much to expect British Trade Unions to support the same principles that they had imposed on German industry and unions when the German state was reconstructed after WW2. My father was an AEU works convenor in Coventry at the time, so saw all of what pjw describes.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 18, 2023 10:57:27 GMT
wb61 As I understand the idea would be to keep the acceleration at a constant The physical feeling of g-forces acting on your body are not an effect of speed, but of acceleration. When you’re driving in a car or flying on a commercial airline, you feel the g-force push on your body only when the vehicle is accelerating. Once you reach a steady cruising speed, things begin to feel normal. If you’re accelerating at a fast enough rate to produce a constant 1 g, then , you’ll be able to create artificial, Earth-like gravity. It's the principle used in the series " the expanse" it requires the sort of virtually limitless fuel envisaged in the magnetic drive, if you turned it off in flight your speed would remain constant but acceleration would be zero and you'd be weightless. The flip side is when you want to decelerate you have to do so in the same way. Consequently greater speed doesn't produce a faster acceleration and the thrust effect, on a trip to mars deceleration at .4 g would mean you arrived on the red planet already weighing what you would on the surface. I'm not a scientist and if anyone knows better happy to be corrected. I probably didn't express myself well, what I meant is this that Mars is about 140 million miles away, that means that to get there in 3 days you would have to travel an average of just under 2 million MPH. To accelerate to achieve that average speed and decelerate to arrive, all within 3 days would involve destructive levels of G forces would it not? I understand acceleration above 6 or 7G for extended period of time is significantly deleterious. The forces involved where acceleration would be over 2 miles per second per second to reach 2 million mph within 3 days, surely that's unsustainable is what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 18, 2023 11:00:09 GMT
Of course not if you had inertial dampers as in Star Trek (not sure that would work though)
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,374
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 18, 2023 11:03:25 GMT
c-a-r-f-r-e-w - you seem to be trying to pick a fight with me over nothing. If you actually read what I wrote: (a) I said the oil price shock of 1973 was the cause of the crumbling of the post-war social democratic model, which (unconsciously) depended in cheap energy - i.e. I agree with you (b) I said that much of the industrial strife was caused by workers trying to keep their pay in line with inflation - i.e. I agree with you (c) I didn't say Keynesian stimulus caused all the inflation. My point was that in an economy already stressed by the oil price hike and other factors, it failed to produce the growth politicians expected - hence the 1970s phenomenon of 'Stagflation' - stagnation + inflation. (d) You seem to think I approve of "the third way". I don't. I thought it vacuous. My point was that the left (in its broad sense) failed to respond to the failures of the social democratic model in the 1970s with new thinking. The centre-left offered the same ideas that had prevailed in the post war era (hence Graham's point about the Liberal/SDP manifesto of 1983), while the far left advocated withdrawal from the EEC (as then was) and mass nationalisation. Neither would have worked and neither had much appeal. This left the field clear for neo-liberalism to be inflicted by a rampant right. (e) My comments on trade union power do not reflect by own views but the widely held feeling at the time. If you don't believe me see this polling: www.ipsos.com/en-uk/attitudes-trade-unions-1975-2014
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,161
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Dec 18, 2023 11:03:30 GMT
I agree with most of that, but would make two observations. (1) An incomes policy would have depended on cooperation from the trade unions - and on the trade union leaders being able to control their members to accept a squeeze on their living standards. The winter of discontent was ample evidence that neither of those conditions was present any longer. (2) while is is true that the main period of sustained strikes occurred under Heath, I well remember the continuous rumble of industrial discontent that went on throughout the 70's. Seeing 'Red Robbo' (Derek Robinson) regularly on the news calling the British Leyland workers out on yet another strike based on a show of hands at a mass meeting in the car park (and it took a brave man to vote the other way) was revolting to many - including a lot of Trade Unionists*. There was a mood to do something to better regulate union power, and some Trade Union leaders actually welcomed the early Thatcher legislation as giving them more control over their militants. Of course she didn't stop there, being ideologically opposed to organised labour. * Ironically Robinson, a Communist, was often outflanked on the left by Trotskyist stewards calling unofficial strikes - those really were different times: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Robinson_(trade_unionist)The opposition to the White Paper "In Place of Strife" (1969) that Barbara Castle introduced as Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity was led by Jim Callaghan as Home Secretary. Had the Cabinet supported Wilson and Castle rather than Callaghan, the whole industrial discontent of the 70s might never have happened, or at least been much less. Perhaps it was too much to expect British Trade Unions to support the same principles that they had imposed on German industry and unions when the German state was reconstructed after WW2. My father was an AEU works convenor in Coventry at the time, so saw all of what pjw describes. Well there was an incomes policy and wage rises restricted to 6% or summat. But inflation was running year-on-year at rates of things like 15%, 25% etc… inflation came down to 8% then there was the second oil price hike, inflation shot back up to 18% and people were getting so h2mmeter we had the winter of discontent. in Place of Strife didn’t magic away high inflation trashing wage packets.
|
|