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: 6,728
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 12:56:47 GMT
I suppose it all depends where you're looking from. I don't think we've had a right-wing government for over 30 years. We have had a right-wing government since May 1979 - other than a two year interval 2008 - 2010 during the GFC when Keynesian policies made a comeback. This is the thing Graham. Until recently I might have agreed. But in some important ways - though not all by any means! - Labour and Tories before ‘79 were more right-wing than Tories now. In particular, Tories and Labour were decidedly right-wing when it came to the energy crisis. Instead of doing the more sane things we do now, which is to race to try and get more energy supply, while employing energy subsidies alongside to bear down on inflation*, in the 70s they used high interest rates which cripples industry, and bore down on the wages to try and deal with the inflation, causing considerable hardship and leading to strikes. It’s kind of an irony, but whereas the working class were able to seek and secure higher pay more recently, and some of the middle class were the ones striking, in the 70s, it was the other way around. The working class took the brunt of it, expected to have pay constrained while teachers and doctors got rather more lavish pay. Furthermore, Labour did quite a lot of damage in the 60s with the switch from coal to oil, a right wing move, leaving us more open to global energy prices, sacrificing homegrown, energy security. * incidentally, Blair also employed some energy subsidies, though unsurprisingly, he focused them on the retiring boomers |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 19, 2024 13:06:29 GMT
mercian Irrespective of your intent or otherwise to vote Green, the list of policies you listed aren't remotely " communist " Ok, I may have used the term loosely. I'm not too well up on the shades of difference between the multifarious factions of the left so I use 'communist' as a catch-all for extreme left. Since those policies weren't much more than mainstream social democratic I have now discovered to my surprise that I am both communist and extreme left.  P.s. I do think a case can be made that the Greens in their quest to be an all-purpose LoC party have lost sight of their core environmental message. |
|
|
|
Post by norbold on Jun 19, 2024 13:16:25 GMT
The latest MRP from Ipsos Mori shows the Tory vote collapsing to Reform in Clacton - Con 16 Lab 24 LD 2 Grn 3 Ref 52. I saw that, but seems a very fast movement. Bit dubious to my mind. Yes, I think that is a bit overdone, but our latest experience is that the Tory vote is collapsing fast to Farage who I would say is definitely now leading around these parts, and that Labour is now the obvious challenger. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jun 19, 2024 13:18:21 GMT
Ok, I may have used the term loosely. I'm not too well up on the shades of difference between the multifarious factions of the left so I use 'communist' as a catch-all for extreme left. Since those policies weren't much more than mainstream social democratic I have now discovered to my surprise that I am both communist and extreme left. P.s. I do think a case can be made that the Greens in their quest to be an all-purpose LoC party have lost sight of their core environmental message. As mercian regards anyone to the left of Starmer (which includes the Lib Dems) as extreme left or communist (Starmer presumably he only considers far-left), welcome to the "communists and extreme left" on UKPR2. |
|
|
|
Post by norbold on Jun 19, 2024 13:25:22 GMT
Just a light diversion from the serious matter of the polls....
I encountered a long standing acquaintance of mine in Morrison's at lunch time. He is a long-standing Tory Party member, who I suspect is now likely to vote RFUK Ltd. Anyway, he started ranting on to me about Sadiq Khan and what Labour rule has done/is doing to London. He said that Khan was proposing that London should extend out to Peterborough. I expressed my doubts about this and asked him where he got this from. He replied that he was already starting to extend London's boundaries into Essex so that he could introduce 20 m.p.h limits everywhere. I asked him to explain. He said, "Well, he's just brought Ilford and Romford into London." I said that happened in 1965, so I didn't think that Khan was responsible. He took a moment to absorb this information and said, "I didn't drive in 1965, so I wouldn't know about that." Well that's all right then.
|
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jun 19, 2024 13:33:47 GMT
P.s. I do think a case can be made that the Greens in their quest to be an all-purpose LoC party have lost sight of their core environmental message. Leaving aside the problems with suggesting that the core of Green politics is an environmental message (I may bore you later!), I think you have a point. I can forgive the Green Party having policies it's easy to poke holes in and I give them points for being fairly honest about the scale of investment required for the transition to net zero, but it bothers me that they don't make the case for a distinctively Green approach. Green spokespeople keep missing opportunities to make quite basic arguments for Green/sustainability-focused policies that are now routinely being made by some mainstream, establishment analysts and economists - including some people who haved advised government. There's a gaping hole in the Greens' manifeso where there ought to be a radical yet credible vision for a sustainable economy, including a transformation in how we think about natural assets, biodiversity and land rights. In this election campaign the Green Party has tended to lead on its ambitious plans for the NHS and they propose to invest more money in the NHS than in the net zero transition. Denyer used her closing statements in both TV debates to argue that in pursuit of power Lab has morphed into Tory-lite - she's clearly fishing in the pool of disaffected leftie voters, assuming a strong correlation between green and left. Whilst the de-emphasising of Green political philosophy annoys the small minority of people like me, from a pragmatic perspective the most important failure is that at the moment the Greens don't seem capable of articulating an ambitious yet credible net zero strategy that could be used as a benchmark by which to judge the proposals of the other parties (possibly a reflection of the party's anti-science tendency). |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 19, 2024 13:43:19 GMT
P.s. I do think a case can be made that the Greens in their quest to be an all-purpose LoC party have lost sight of their core environmental message. Whilst the de-emphasising of Green political philosophy annoys the small minority of people like me, from a pragmatic perspective the most important failure is that at the moment the Greens don't seem capable of articulating an ambitious yet credible net zero strategy that could be used as a benchmark by which to judge the proposals of the other parties (possibly a reflection of the party's anti-science tendency). I don't disagree with some of your more general points but surely there is a benchmark in their manifesto? Wind to provide around 70% of the UK’s electricity by 2030. Delivery of 80GW of offshore wind, 53 GW of onshore wind, and 100 GW of solar by 2035. Investment in energy storage capacity and more efficient electricity distribution. Communities to own their own energy sources, ensuring they can use any profit from selling excess energy to reduce their bills or benefit their communities. Cancel recent fossil fuel licences such as for Rosebank and stop all new fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK. Remove all oil and gas subsidies. Introduce a carbon tax on all fossil fuel imports and domestic extraction, based on greenhouse gas emissions produced when fuel is burned. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 19, 2024 13:48:06 GMT
"Tory government from 2010 to 2024 worse than any other in postwar history, says study by leading experts.
Sir Anthony Seldon, arguably Britain’s leading contemporary political historian, is publishing a collection of essays written by prominent academics and other experts and they have analysed the record of the Conservative government from 2010 to 2024, looking at what it has achieved in every area of policy. It is called The Conservative Effect 2010-2014: 14 Wasted Years? and it is published by Cambridge University Press and its conclusion is damning. It describes this as the worst government in postwar history. Here is the conclusion of the final chapter, written by Seldon and his co-editor Tom Egerton, which sums up the overall verdict:
'In comparison to the earlier four periods of one-party dominance post-1945, it is hard to see the years since 2010 as anything but disappointing. By 2024, Britain’s standing in the world was lower, the union was less strong, the country less equal, the population less well protected, growth more sluggish with the outlook poor, public services underperforming and largely unreformed, while respect for the institutions of the British state, including the civil service, judiciary and the police, was lower, as it was for external bodies, including the universities and the BBC, repeatedly attacked not least by government, ministers and right-wing commentators.
Do the unusually high number of external shocks to some extent let the governments off the hook? One above all – Brexit – was entirely of its own making and will be seen in history as the defining decision of these years. In 2024, the verdict on Brexit is almost entirely negative, with those who are suffering the most from it, as sceptics at the time predicted, the most vulnerable. The nation was certainly difficult to rule in these fourteen years, the Conservative party still more so. Longstanding problems certainly contributed to the difficulties the prime minister faced in providing clear strategic policy, including the 24-hour news cycle, the rise of social media and AI, and the frequency of scandals and crises. But it was the decision of the prime minister to choose to be distracted by the short term, rather than focusing on the strategic and the long term. The prime minister has agency: the incumbents often overlooked it.
Overall, it is hard to find a comparable period in history of the Conservatives which achieved so little, or which left the country at its conclusion in a more troubling state'.
In their concluding essay, Seldon and Egerton argue that poor leadership was one of the main problems with the 14-year administration. They say that Boris Johnson and Liz Truss were “not up to the job” of being prime minister, and they have a low opinion of most of the other leading figures who have been in government. They say:
'Very few cabinet ministers from 2010 to 2024 could hold a candle to the team who served under Clement Attlee – which included Ernest Bevin, Nye Bevan, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell and Herbert Morrison. Or the teams who served under Wilson, Thatcher or Blair. Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and Philip Hammond were rare examples of ministers of quality after 2010 …
A strong and capable prime minister is essential to governmental success in the British system. The earlier four periods saw two historic and landmark prime ministers, ie Churchill and Thatcher, with a succession of others who were capable if not agenda-changing PMs, including Macmillan, Wilson, Major and Blair. Since 2010, only Cameron came close to that level, with Sunak the best of the rest. Policy virtually stopped under May as Brexit consumed almost all the machine’s time, while serious policymaking ground to a halt under Johnson’s inept leadership, the worst in modern premiership, and the hapless Truss. Continuity of policy was not helped by each incoming prime minister despising their predecessor, with Truss’s admiration for Johnson the only exception. Thus they took next no time to understand what it was their predecessors were trying to do, and how to build on it rather than destroy it.'
Seldon’s first book, published 40 years ago, was about Churchill’s postwar administration, and he has been editing similar collections of essays studying the record of administrations since Margaret Thatcher’s. He is a fair judge, and not given to making criticisms like this lightly."
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jun 19, 2024 13:52:12 GMT
Whilst the de-emphasising of Green political philosophy annoys the small minority of people like me, from a pragmatic perspective the most important failure is that at the moment the Greens don't seem capable of articulating an ambitious yet credible net zero strategy that could be used as a benchmark by which to judge the proposals of the other parties (possibly a reflection of the party's anti-science tendency). I don't disagree with some of your more general points but surely there is a benchmark in their manifesto? Wind to provide around 70% of the UK’s electricity by 2030. Delivery of 80GW of offshore wind, 53 GW of onshore wind, and 100 GW of solar by 2035. Investment in energy storage capacity and more efficient electricity distribution. Communities to own their own energy sources, ensuring they can use any profit from selling excess energy to reduce their bills or benefit their communities. Cancel recent fossil fuel licences such as for Rosebank and stop all new fossil fuel extraction projects in the UK. Remove all oil and gas subsidies. Introduce a carbon tax on all fossil fuel imports and domestic extraction, based on greenhouse gas emissions produced when fuel is burned. I suppose my thought was that the Greens haven't chosen to lead on this sort of thing but have talked far more about issues such as funding public services. One result is that no party has made much of the really big issue of this century - global heating. Its been almost absent from the campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Jun 19, 2024 13:52:26 GMT
Re failings of the Greens in this election campaign, I forgot to add:
There was a telling moment in the Climate and Nature Debate I listened to: challenged to give a response to people who want to delay or dilute climate policies because they are worried about the implications for their personal financial situation the Greens' co-leader was flummoxed. He managed to mutter something about insulation saving people money on their energy bills, but that was it. Like it or not, this question has become central to climate policy in Europe and the Greens need to be willing to tackle it. The mainstream parties are all trimming their already inadequate climate policies to suit the electoral mood - doing what they always do, choosing the expedient, short-term option (see decades of underinvestment in infrastructure or planning for low-probability, high-impact events across many governments) and the consequences will be catastrophic.
|
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 19, 2024 13:55:37 GMT
I've lost track on what people are quoting on Clacton so I'm not sure if this constituency poll has been highlighted or not:
James Johnson reposted
Steven Swinford
@steven_Swinford
Exclusive:
Nigel Farage is on course to win the Clacton by-election with the biggest swing in modern electoral history, a new poll has suggested
A Survation poll commissioned by Arron Banks, a former Ukip donor, suggested Farage will win 42% of the vote in Clacton with the Tories on 27% and Labour on 24%
|
|
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: 6,728
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 14:06:42 GMT
I suppose it all depends where you're looking from. I don't think we've had a right-wing government for over 30 years. We have had a right-wing government since May 1979 - other than a two year interval 2008 - 2010 during the GFC when Keynesian policies made a comeback. Incidentally Graham, Keynesianism is more coventionally a right-wing policy, albeit soft-right. Keynes was a Liberal, and the use of a stimulus in a downtown, is a way of using the state to save capital when it screws up. Once the downturn is over, the stimulus stops and the hegemony of capital returns. The role of the state is limited to helping capital in a downtown, which was considered preferable to the downward spiral you would get if you didn’t have some state action. Biden, in contrast, is more to the left, as would Labour be if they are able to do the green deal. Because in this instance, you are using the resources of the state is significant ways to assist the economy outside of a downtown, not just when things are in recession. How left-wing it really would be, depends to some extent on whether the state funding goes towards private sector firms, as opposed to securing assets for the state itself, or the people. (Not everybody who considers themselves left-wing, is keen on the idea of state action. However, without significant state action, achieving lofty goals, tends to be decidedly more limited. You can, of course have hybrid approaches, where maybe the state acts more initially, then devolves it more to individuals down the line, but not in a way where caplital takes over again). |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2024 14:10:12 GMT
We have had a right-wing government since May 1979 - other than a two year interval 2008 - 2010 during the GFC when Keynesian policies made a comeback. This is the thing Graham. Until recently I might have agreed. But in some important ways - though not all by any means! - Labour and Tories before ‘79 were more right-wing than Tories now. In particular, Tories and Labour were decidedly right-wing when it came to the energy crisis. Instead of doing the more sane things we do now, which is to race to try and get more energy supply, while employing energy subsidies alongside to bear down on inflation*, in the 70s they used high interest rates which cripples industry, and bore down on the wages to try and deal with the inflation, causing considerable hardship and leading to strikes. It’s kind of an irony, but whereas the working class were able to seek and secure higher pay more recently, and some of the middle class were the ones striking, in the 70s, it was the other way around. The working class took the brunt of it. Furthermore, Labour did quite a lot of damage in the 60s with the switch from coal to oil, a right wing move, leaving us more open to global energy prices, sacrificing homegrown, energy security. * incidentally, Blair also employed some energy subsidies, though unsurprisingly, he focused them on the retiring boomers I rather disagree - particularly with regard to the Wilson/Callaghan governments 1974 - 1979. The energy prices paid by consumer were heavily subsidised throghout that period - as were rail fares. The Tories effectively removed them in Geoffrey Howe's first Budget in June 1979 which caused consumer prices to increase sharply. You say that interest rates were high at the time. Whilst that was true in nominal terms, real interest rates were negative throughout those years. Bank rate never rose higher than 15% whilst RPI inflation peaked at 27% in Summer 1975. Inflation fell back in 1976 to circa 12% but so did interest rates. Whilst people were faced with much higher morgage repayments compared with earlier years , the real burden of their outstanding debt was actually falling because inflation was so much higher. This would also have been true of loans taken out by firms across the economy. Interest rates were to peak at 17% under Thatcher in November 1979 when they were increased to combat rising inflation whiich was to return to 22% in Spring 1980 - more than double the 10% inherited from Callaghan in May 1979. What did squeeze consumers during that period was the failure of incomes to match inflation following the introduction of an Incomes Policy in Summer 1975 which limited pay rises to 10%. A year later the limit was 5%. Attitudes to taxation were very different at the time. In the July 1974 Mini-Budget - between the two elections of that year - Healey reduced VAT from 10% to 8% - a level at which it remained until Howe increased it to 15% in his June 1979 Budget.Howe's Budget did a great deal to stoke inflation by forcing Nationalised industries to sharply raise their prices whilst also announcing big increases in Indirect taxes. No wonder RPI inflation rose so sharply in the second half of 1979 and the early months of 1980.
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2024 14:15:23 GMT
I've lost track on what people are quoting on Clacton so I'm not sure if this constituency poll has been highlighted or not: James Johnson reposted Steven Swinford @steven_Swinford Exclusive: Nigel Farage is on course to win the Clacton by-election with the biggest swing in modern electoral history, a new poll has suggested A Survation poll commissioned by Arron Banks, a former Ukip donor, suggested Farage will win 42% of the vote in Clacton with the Tories on 27% and Labour on 24% Not as good for Farage as yesterday's MRP survey! |
|
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: 6,728
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 14:20:20 GMT
This is the thing Graham. Until recently I might have agreed. But in some important ways - though not all by any means! - Labour and Tories before ‘79 were more right-wing than Tories now. In particular, Tories and Labour were decidedly right-wing when it came to the energy crisis. Instead of doing the more sane things we do now, which is to race to try and get more energy supply, while employing energy subsidies alongside to bear down on inflation*, in the 70s they used high interest rates which cripples industry, and bore down on the wages to try and deal with the inflation, causing considerable hardship and leading to strikes. It’s kind of an irony, but whereas the working class were able to seek and secure higher pay more recently, and some of the middle class were the ones striking, in the 70s, it was the other way around. The working class took the brunt of it. Furthermore, Labour did quite a lot of damage in the 60s with the switch from coal to oil, a right wing move, leaving us more open to global energy prices, sacrificing homegrown, energy security. * incidentally, Blair also employed some energy subsidies, though unsurprisingly, he focused them on the retiring boomers I rather disagree - particularly with regard to the Wilson/Callaghan governments 1974 - 1979. The energy prices paid by consumer were heavily subsidised throghout that period - as were rail fares. The Tories effectively removed them in Geoffrey Howe's first Budget in June 1979 which caused consumer prices to increase sharply. You say that interest rates were high at the time. Whilst hat was true in nominal terms, real interest rates were negative throughout those years. Bank rate never rose higher than 15% whilst RPI inflation peaked at 27% in Summer 1975. Inflation fell back in 1976 to circa 12% but so did interest rates. Whilst people were faced with much higher morgage repayments compared with earlier years , the real burden of their outstanding debt was actually falling because inflation was so much higher. This would also have been true of loans taken out by firms across the economy. Interest rates were to peak at 17% under Thatcher in November 1979 when they were increased to combat rising inflation whiich was to return to 22% in Spring 1980 - more than double the 10% inherited from Callaghan in May 1979. What did squeeze consumers during that period was the failure og incomes to match inflation following the introduction of an Incomes Policy in Summer 1975 which limited pay rises to 10%. A year later the limit was 5%. Attitudes to taxation were very different at the time. In the July 1974 Mini-Budget - between the two elections of that year - Healey reduced VAT from 10% to 8% - a level at which it remained until Howe increased it to 15% in his June 1979 Budget.Howe's Budget did a great deal to stoke inflation by forcing Nationalised industries to sharply raise their prices whilst also announcing big increases in Indirect taxes. No wonder RPI inflation rose so sharply in the second half of 1979 and the early months of 1980.
Trying to say that real interest rates weren’t high because inflation was higher doesn’t really work. What it means in practice is that industry was being hit both by high inflation and high interest rates. Higher inflation doesn’t magically wipe out the hit from the high interest rates. Industry, already struggling with higher costs due to inflation, now had to pay more for the borrowing necessary to produce goods before selling them. This was devastating, as I saw working in a factory at the time, and as you can see by how unemployment shot up, and we had a recession. We agree on the impact of wage restraint on workers during a period of high inflation. This was not levied fairly either: in 1973 alone, teachers got a 30% pay rise, and doctors’ pay doubled over the decade. The pay restraint tended to apply to the working class. When eventually they have to strike because they cannot afford to live because inflation is thriugh the roof, the right then treat the (working class) unions as being vexatious. It was a disastrous right-wing policy from Labour that helped destroy the party as a force for assisting the working class. we agree also on how the increase in VAT further stoked inflation, and the cuts increased the damage further. It’s almost like the damage was deliberate, as Alan Budd suggested in is a “nightmare” vision… |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jun 19, 2024 14:24:00 GMT
I rather disagree - particularly with regard to the Wilson/Callaghan governments 1974 - 1979. The energy prices paid by consumer were heavily subsidised throghout that period - as were rail fares. The Tories effectively removed them in Geoffrey Howe's first Budget in June 1979 which caused consumer prices to increase sharply. You say that interest rates were high at the time. Whilst hat was true in nominal terms, real interest rates were negative throughout those years. Bank rate never rose higher than 15% whilst RPI inflation peaked at 27% in Summer 1975. Inflation fell back in 1976 to circa 12% but so did interest rates. Whilst people were faced with much higher morgage repayments compared with earlier years , the real burden of their outstanding debt was actually falling because inflation was so much higher. This would also have been true of loans taken out by firms across the economy. Interest rates were to peak at 17% under Thatcher in November 1979 when they were increased to combat rising inflation whiich was to return to 22% in Spring 1980 - more than double the 10% inherited from Callaghan in May 1979. What did squeeze consumers during that period was the failure og incomes to match inflation following the introduction of an Incomes Policy in Summer 1975 which limited pay rises to 10%. A year later the limit was 5%. Attitudes to taxation were very different at the time. In the July 1974 Mini-Budget - between the two elections of that year - Healey reduced VAT from 10% to 8% - a level at which it remained until Howe increased it to 15% in his June 1979 Budget.Howe's Budget did a great deal to stoke inflation by forcing Nationalised industries to sharply raise their prices whilst also announcing big increases in Indirect taxes. No wonder RPI inflation rose so sharply in the second half of 1979 and the early months of 1980.
Trying to say that real interest rates weren’t high because inflation was higher doesn’t really work. What it means in practice is that industry was being hit both by high inflation and high interest rates. Higher inflation doesn’t magically wipe out the hit from the high interest rates. Industry, already struggling with higher costs due to inflation, now had to pay more for the borrowing necessary to produce goods before selling them. This was devastating, as I saw working in a factory at the time, and as you can see by Hal unemployment shut up, and we had a recession. We agree on the impact of wage restraint on workers during a period of high inflation. This was not levied fairly either: in 1973 alone, teachers got a 30% pay rise, and doctors pay doubled over the decade. The pay restraint tended to apply to the working class. When eventually they have to strike because they cannot afford to live, the right then treat the unions as being vexatious. It was a disastrous right-wing policy from Labour that destroyed the party as a force for assisting the working class. we agree also on how the increase in VAT further stoked inflation, and the cuts increased the damage further. Those who had mortgages undoubtedly benefitted from an extended period of high inflation. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jun 19, 2024 14:24:07 GMT
"I encountered a long standing acquaintance of mine in Morrison's at lunch time. He is a long-standing Tory Party member, who I suspect is now likely to vote RFUK Ltd"
"Spillage in aisle three"
|
|
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: 6,728
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 14:27:11 GMT
Trying to say that real interest rates weren’t high because inflation was higher doesn’t really work. What it means in practice is that industry was being hit both by high inflation and high interest rates. Higher inflation doesn’t magically wipe out the hit from the high interest rates. Industry, already struggling with higher costs due to inflation, now had to pay more for the borrowing necessary to produce goods before selling them. This was devastating, as I saw working in a factory at the time, and as you can see by Hal unemployment shut up, and we had a recession. We agree on the impact of wage restraint on workers during a period of high inflation. This was not levied fairly either: in 1973 alone, teachers got a 30% pay rise, and doctors pay doubled over the decade. The pay restraint tended to apply to the working class. When eventually they have to strike because they cannot afford to live, the right then treat the unions as being vexatious. It was a disastrous right-wing policy from Labour that destroyed the party as a force for assisting the working class. we agree also on how the increase in VAT further stoked inflation, and the cuts increased the damage further. Those who had mortgages undoubtedly benefitted from an extended period of high inflation. Yes, inflating assets is another “benefit” of the policy mix from a right-wing perspective (although some might have complained about the high interest rates affecting repayments for a while. mercian certainly did! Higher inflation was arguably a deliberate policy post-war, to inflate away some of the post-war debt). |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Jun 19, 2024 14:31:55 GMT
pjw1961 The inconvenient truth " One above all – Brexit – was entirely of its own making and will be seen in history as the defining decision of these years. In 2024, the verdict on Brexit is almost entirely negative, with those who are suffering the most from it, as sceptics at the time predicted, the most vulnerable. "
?
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 19, 2024 14:39:03 GMT
I suppose it all depends where you're looking from. I don't think we've had a right-wing government for over 30 years. Where would you place that well known 'lefty' Liz Truss on the political spectrum, as a matter of interest? Incompetent centrist. |
|
|
|
Post by laszlo4new on Jun 19, 2024 14:41:29 GMT
I rather disagree - particularly with regard to the Wilson/Callaghan governments 1974 - 1979. The energy prices paid by consumer were heavily subsidised throghout that period - as were rail fares. The Tories effectively removed them in Geoffrey Howe's first Budget in June 1979 which caused consumer prices to increase sharply. You say that interest rates were high at the time. Whilst hat was true in nominal terms, real interest rates were negative throughout those years. Bank rate never rose higher than 15% whilst RPI inflation peaked at 27% in Summer 1975. Inflation fell back in 1976 to circa 12% but so did interest rates. Whilst people were faced with much higher morgage repayments compared with earlier years , the real burden of their outstanding debt was actually falling because inflation was so much higher. This would also have been true of loans taken out by firms across the economy. Interest rates were to peak at 17% under Thatcher in November 1979 when they were increased to combat rising inflation whiich was to return to 22% in Spring 1980 - more than double the 10% inherited from Callaghan in May 1979. What did squeeze consumers during that period was the failure og incomes to match inflation following the introduction of an Incomes Policy in Summer 1975 which limited pay rises to 10%. A year later the limit was 5%. Attitudes to taxation were very different at the time. In the July 1974 Mini-Budget - between the two elections of that year - Healey reduced VAT from 10% to 8% - a level at which it remained until Howe increased it to 15% in his June 1979 Budget.Howe's Budget did a great deal to stoke inflation by forcing Nationalised industries to sharply raise their prices whilst also announcing big increases in Indirect taxes. No wonder RPI inflation rose so sharply in the second half of 1979 and the early months of 1980.
Trying to say that real interest rates weren’t high because inflation was higher doesn’t really work. What it means in practice is that industry was being hit both by high inflation and high interest rates. Higher inflation doesn’t magically wipe out the hit from the high interest rates. Industry, already struggling with higher costs due to inflation, now had to pay more for the borrowing necessary to produce goods before selling them. This was devastating, as I saw working in a factory at the time, and as you can see by how unemployment shot up, and we had a recession. We agree on the impact of wage restraint on workers during a period of high inflation. This was not levied fairly either: in 1973 alone, teachers got a 30% pay rise, and doctors’ pay doubled over the decade. The pay restraint tended to apply to the working class. When eventually they have to strike because they cannot afford to live because inflation is thriugh the roof, the right then treat the (working class) unions as being vexatious. It was a disastrous right-wing policy from Labour that helped destroy the party as a force for assisting the working class. we agree also on how the increase in VAT further stoked inflation, and the cuts increased the damage further. Sorry, just because my third publication was about the crisis of Keynesian economics, a long quotation ("short" because it was well over a hundred pages) - will only come back to the discussion if there is interest about the other aspects of the Keynesian economics (and the connection between that and monetarism): In Keynes’s theory the interest rate is completely independent of the rate of profit, its size is exclusively regulated by the preferences of the speculators, that is, its manifestation form, the speculative demand for money and the speculative supply of money, therefore the state (which also acts a speculator), apart from the liquidity trap, has infinite power in determining the interest rates. This is how the interest rate becomes an exogeneous factor in the Keynesian theory. Therefore, at this point, Keynes is monetarist because on the one hand, apart from the liquidity trap, the important momentum of the Keynesian theory, the uncertain rate of profit, disappears, and on the hand because the state interve3nes through the manipulation of the total supply, and this is how it increases the total demand. In our view, contrary to Keynes’s assertion, this financing form does not cause inflation, or at least uncontrolled inflation, as long as the additional money finances real, future accumulation. In fact the state is not able to check if the increased volume of money serves this. If the additional creation of money happens when the general renewal and/or regrouping of invested capital is necessary, the state intervention expands the length of this process as it creates the situation in which profit could be realised without the change in the economic structure and/or introduction of new technology. If additional demand through the increasing of the volume of money appears against such commodities in whose production the invested capital is bigger than allowed by the profit conditions, that is productivity levels and ratios, then the additional demand sustains (or even increases) the level of profit, but this increased or sustained level of profit is fictive. The productivity differences between economic sectors (or companies) therefore are realised through the increase in prices. The increase of the level of prices restores the real level of profit, but at higher prices, therefore in a given sector the maintenance of production and employment can only be ensured through increasing rate of price increases. This, as it creates such competition relationships that makes capital uncertain and obstructs the flow of capital, appears in the disturbances of reproduction, in frequent and short surge and bust periods (this is what characterised the second half of the 1970s). |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 19, 2024 14:42:44 GMT
I suppose it all depends where you're looking from. I don't think we've had a right-wing government for over 30 years. Whereas some might say we have had right-wing governments for rather longer. We have had ladder-pulling ever since Thatcher. Ramping up house prices, energy prices, abandoning full employment et cetera. We have had the switch to pro-capital since joining the common market. Even where we had more investment in public services, it tended to involve handing more money to the private sector, with the associated profiteering, rather than building state-owned assets etc. Although, in some respects one can argue for an increasing shift leftwards lately, e.g. furlough, and using energy subsidies to control inflation, rather than driving down wages instead. It’s not necessarily outright left-wing, but a move leftwards all the same. In the Sixties, with the social democrats taking over Labour, we had not only the social liberal reforms of course, but a shift right-wards economically, converting our energy to a more globalist approach - with the associated vulnerabilities, we saw in the energy crisis - and the more pro-capital approach of seeing wages - particularly working-class wages - as the enemy. When in fact, the problem was government policy Yes. It just shows how limited the terms right and left are in a political context. As opposed to when driving for instance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2024 14:46:22 GMT
Bugger politics - anyone with any experience of gallstones? MRI scan suggesting I’ve got them and I’m wondering if they were the cause of the recent stay in hospital that I “bravely “ endured.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on Jun 19, 2024 14:49:04 GMT
" the union was less strong" (quoted by pjw1961)
They make it sound as if that is a bad thing!
|
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jun 19, 2024 14:50:45 GMT
Since those policies weren't much more than mainstream social democratic I have now discovered to my surprise that I am both communist and extreme left. P.s. I do think a case can be made that the Greens in their quest to be an all-purpose LoC party have lost sight of their core environmental message. As mercian regards anyone to the left of Starmer (which includes the Lib Dems) as extreme left or communist (Starmer presumably he only considers far-left), welcome to the "communists and extreme left" on UKPR2. You forget that I have met crossbat11, who comes across as very sensible and restrained on this site. In person he is much different. When he got on to his plan to use the Tory cabinet as bayonet-practice dummies for the army I have to admit I was rather taken aback. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Jun 19, 2024 14:51:10 GMT
Where would you place that well known 'lefty' Liz Truss on the political spectrum, as a matter of interest? Incompetent centrist. lol I half agree with you |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jun 19, 2024 14:52:59 GMT
A Survation poll commissioned by Arron Banks, a former Ukip donor, suggested Farage will win 42% of the vote in Clacton with the Tories on 27% and Labour on 24% Not as good for Farage as yesterday's MRP survey! Constituency polls don't always have a good track record but I think I'd trust that more than an MRP. |
|
|
|
Post by alberto on Jun 19, 2024 14:58:42 GMT
Ok, I may have used the term loosely. I'm not too well up on the shades of difference between the multifarious factions of the left so I use 'communist' as a catch-all for extreme left. Since those policies weren't much more than mainstream social democratic I have now discovered to my surprise that I am both communist and extreme left. P.s. I do think a case can be made that the Greens in their quest to be an all-purpose LoC party have lost sight of their core environmental message. Alternatively, the Greens have realised that capitalism. and it's endless striving for growth on a finite planet, is a big part of the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jun 19, 2024 15:00:09 GMT
The usual suspect(s) still spouting the brown stuff about Brexit being a defining moment in recent past. Let me correct this. The decision, and spiteful cruelty of the 2010s in terms of austerity was enabled by the Lib Dems. Left wing and progressive? My arse - Bolloxs to that idea. |
|
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: 6,728
Member is Online
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jun 19, 2024 15:01:05 GMT
Trying to say that real interest rates weren’t high because inflation was higher doesn’t really work. What it means in practice is that industry was being hit both by high inflation and high interest rates. Higher inflation doesn’t magically wipe out the hit from the high interest rates. Industry, already struggling with higher costs due to inflation, now had to pay more for the borrowing necessary to produce goods before selling them. This was devastating, as I saw working in a factory at the time, and as you can see by how unemployment shot up, and we had a recession. We agree on the impact of wage restraint on workers during a period of high inflation. This was not levied fairly either: in 1973 alone, teachers got a 30% pay rise, and doctors’ pay doubled over the decade. The pay restraint tended to apply to the working class. When eventually they have to strike because they cannot afford to live because inflation is thriugh the roof, the right then treat the (working class) unions as being vexatious. It was a disastrous right-wing policy from Labour that helped destroy the party as a force for assisting the working class. we agree also on how the increase in VAT further stoked inflation, and the cuts increased the damage further. Sorry, just because my third publication was about the crisis of Keynesian economics, a long quotation ("short" because it was well over a hundred pages) - will only come back to the discussion if there is interest about the other aspects of the Keynesian economics (and the connection between that and monetarism): In Keynes’s theory the interest rate is completely independent of the rate of profit, its size is exclusively regulated by the preferences of the speculators, that is, its manifestation form, the speculative demand for money and the speculative supply of money, therefore the state (which also acts a speculator), apart from the liquidity trap, has infinite power in determining the interest rates. This is how the interest rate becomes an exogeneous factor in the Keynesian theory. Therefore, at this point, Keynes is monetarist because on the one hand, apart from the liquidity trap, the important momentum of the Keynesian theory, the uncertain rate of profit, disappears, and on the hand because the state interve3nes through the manipulation of the total supply, and this is how it increases the total demand. In our view, contrary to Keynes’s assertion, this financing form does not cause inflation, or at least uncontrolled inflation, as long as the additional money finances real, future accumulation. In fact the state is not able to check if the increased volume of money serves this. If the additional creation of money happens when the general renewal and/or regrouping of invested capital is necessary, the state intervention expands the length of this process as it creates the situation in which profit could be realised without the change in the economic structure and/or introduction of new technology. If additional demand through the increasing of the volume of money appears against such commodities in whose production the invested capital is bigger than allowed by the profit conditions, that is productivity levels and ratios, then the additional demand sustains (or even increases) the level of profit, but this increased or sustained level of profit is fictive. The productivity differences between economic sectors (or companies) therefore are realised through the increase in prices. The increase of the level of prices restores the real level of profit, but at higher prices, therefore in a given sector the maintenance of production and employment can only be ensured through increasing rate of price increases. This, as it creates such competition relationships that makes capital uncertain and obstructs the flow of capital, appears in the disturbances of reproduction, in frequent and short surge and bust periods (this is what characterised the second half of the 1970s). Thanks very much for your response, Laszlo! As I recall it, you have made some of these points in the past before (and we have agreed on things like how Keynes is essentially monetarist, and how the stimulus doesn’t have to result in inflation), but here you are pulling them together, and flashing them out a bit. The final part, is the bit that I tend to struggle with. If I can roughly paraphrase: how a stimulus may be counter-productive, because in effect it props up zombie firms, instead of redeploying capital more efficiently? (I think your argument involves more than that, but I’m not quite following the prices thing) Not that I am saying this is necessarily wrong, but I’m still getting my head around it after many years. I certainly think there are cases where it doesn’t apply. For example, if you fail to prop up an industry on which a community depends, and the industry collapses, that community may not suddenly benefit from a redeploying of capital to leave them better off. The community may indeed suffer generations of unemployment. |
|
