Jump to content

General News Discussion


Barry Fish
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

Compared to what?
 

Well I was kind of hoping to discuss the economic policies, what was going on in the world at the time, and what those two things married together caused. 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

80s? Now? It's been crap for decades.

Has it? I don’t think it has. Unless I’ve missed something and Gordon Brown was right - we’ve just been meandering along on a stable and even keel - no more boom and bust…

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

All I know is how much harder it is for people to buy or even rent a decent home now, how often it takes 2 wages and working benefits just to survive.

That’s your fault - you bloody women demanded equal opportunities - winky smiley thing 

1 hour ago, feral chile said:

We all use our own experience to assess current situations. I'm from mining stock, where houses were historically cheaper than England, from communities that were destroyed in the 80s. Of course anything pre pit closures will seem like a golden age.

And of course people who thrived then, or later, will think things are better now.

I don’t think that’s true at all. Most people are capable of reading. Most people are able to empathise with what’s gone on before their time or elsewhere in the world/country/etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, feral chile said:

Yeah, started in 1979. Lucky us, perfect timing.

Most governments economic policies are a combination of reacting to previous policies, situations of the day, and idealism. Do you think all of Thatcher’s (Howe’s/Lawson’s/Major’s) policies were idealism? Or do you think it’s possible some of them were a reaction to events caused by the fiscal policies of the 1970s…?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see another Corbynite has resigned from the front bench at a time chosen to do as much damage to Keir Starmer as possible. 

As much as I’m an unlikely labour voter, I always like to see a strong opposition who can hold the government to task. Frankly, at the moment, Johnson and his team can do whatever the hell they like. Labour are too busy infighting and pissing off their own supporters to be able to achieve anything positive for the country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I see another Corbynite has resigned from the front bench at a time chosen to do as much damage to Keir Starmer as possible. 

As much as I’m an unlikely labour voter, I always like to see a strong opposition who can hold the government to task. Frankly, at the moment, Johnson and his team can do whatever the hell they like. Labour are too busy infighting and pissing off their own supporters to be able to achieve anything positive for the country. 

We can agree on this at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

Well I was kind of hoping to discuss the economic policies, what was going on in the world at the time, and what those two things married together caused. 

Has it? I don’t think it has. Unless I’ve missed something and Gordon Brown was right - we’ve just been meandering along on a stable and even keel - no more boom and bust…

That’s your fault - you bloody women demanded equal opportunities - winky smiley thing 

I don’t think that’s true at all. Most people are capable of reading. Most people are able to empathise with what’s gone on before their time or elsewhere in the world/country/etc 

Truthfully, when I read back to how bad things were in the 70s, I feel like I must have existed in a parallel universe. I only applied for one job at 16, straight from school, got it. Bought a big house, no sweat at all. No rich family handouts, nothing. Everything that came later was really hard. Redundancies,  homelessness, bankruptcy. 

So empathy works both ways. There are winners and losers within the UK economy, such is the nature of the beast, the inequality that creates wealth.

Oh, and the problem with equality is the levelling down necessary for the levelling up.

 

Edited by feral chile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheGayTent said:

Most governments economic policies are a combination of reacting to previous policies, situations of the day, and idealism. Do you think all of Thatcher’s (Howe’s/Lawson’s/Major’s) policies were idealism? Or do you think it’s possible some of them were a reaction to events caused by the fiscal policies of the 1970s…?

I pretty much think everything they did was idealism, just as I think austerity was. It was all about shrinking the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monetarism wasn't anything to do with the size of the state it was an attempt to bring inflation under control. 

I'm not old enough to remember the 70's but remember the early 80's. Everything was priced with pricing guns and I can remember certain items that had been on the shelf a few weeks a centimetre thick with pricing labels stuck on top of each other because the price had risen every few days.

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lost said:

Monetarism wasn't anything to do with the size of the state it was an attempt to bring inflation under control. 

I'm not old enough to remember the 70's but remember the early 80's. Everything was priced with pricing guns and I can remember certain items that had been on the shelf a few weeks a centimetre thick with pricing labels stuck on top of each other because the price had risen every few days.

Not monetarism particularly, but "there is no such thing as society".

I was a teenager in the 70s, so insulated from the worst of it, or something. My husband's a bit older, has no qualifications, and is dyslexic. He remembers getting work with ease, and changing jobs on a whim. Just going to the next one straight from the current one. So reading about the economics of the 70s and our lived life experience was very different. 

The 80s and 90s are the age I associate with financial hardship. The measures used to tackle inflation caused hardship for people who were at the lower end ofbthe payscale (like us) when interest rates soared. Now it's the price of houses. They were cheap in Wales in the 70s, but we had low wages, especially women.

I think there's a point I'm struggling to express here. How things look on paper regarding how well a country's doing needs to be balanced against inequality within. Any measures putting the squeeze on people is bound to hit the lower paid harder, they can't absorb it so well, so the country prospers/recovers at the expense of some of its nationals.

We fell off the laddercearly 90s after a decade of struggle, downsizing, and debt, and never really bounced back, so don't think we're being smug about the 70s.

Just a bit confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 5:46 PM, TheGayTent said:

Well I was kind of hoping to discuss the economic policies, what was going on in the world at the time, and what those two things married together caused. 

Has it? I don’t think it has. Unless I’ve missed something and Gordon Brown was right - we’ve just been meandering along on a stable and even keel - no more boom and bust…

That’s your fault - you bloody women demanded equal opportunities - winky smiley thing 

I don’t think that’s true at all. Most people are capable of reading. Most people are able to empathise with what’s gone on before their time or elsewhere in the world/country/etc 

This article resonates with me. 

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/past-times/2624645/fuel-supply-crisis/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starmer is in my view focusing on the right issues, but he is very bland. Working in community NHS I hear loads of people discuss politics and haven't heard anyone speak particularly highly about him, he has to hope people vote against Boris because I can't see them voting for him at present.

I think labour should be careful not to tie themselves in knots over issues like trans rights and middle East politics as these are not doorstep issues, but issues labour can only influence in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, feral chile said:

I still don’t follow? Unless you are saying you do remember how awful the 70s were? However, you didn’t care at the time because you were young and didn’t know any different? (I.e. you hadn’t experienced a thriving UK economy previously) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I still don’t follow? Unless you are saying you do remember how awful the 70s were? However, you didn’t care at the time because you were young and didn’t know any different? (I.e. you hadn’t experienced a thriving UK economy previously) 

I bit of both I think. I'm Welsh, our politics at the time (including our teachers) involved Welsh independence and radical socialism (miners). The community was very well organised, the mining community clubbed together for the families, hospitals, holidays, all sorts. Coal could be nicked from the local colliery. None of us had fridges, phones, colour televisions, just one coal fire in the whole house, nearly everyone worked in the pits. It was still open in the 1970s. Maybe we were insulated from it until the pit closed in the 80s? Or as part of the unrest, saw it differently?

Anyway, that radical spirit and organised community's long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

Starmer is in my view focusing on the right issues, but he is very bland. Working in community NHS I hear loads of people discuss politics and haven't heard anyone speak particularly highly about him, he has to hope people vote against Boris because I can't see them voting for him at present.

I think labour should be careful not to tie themselves in knots over issues like trans rights and middle East politics as these are not doorstep issues, but issues labour can only influence in power.

Seemed a good speech to me and labour now seem to be finally travelling in the right direction for the first time since they went for Ed Miliband over David.

The trans issue and cervix-gate worries me and definitely could be the thing that derails labour now the press have smelt blood. Some of the most leftie feminist women I know are prepared to vote tory over this.

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, lost said:

Seemed a good speech to me and labour now seem to be finally travelling in the right direction for the first time since they went for Ed Miliband over David.

The trans issue and cervix-gate worries me and definitely could be the thing that derails labour now the press have smelt blood. Some of the most leftie feminist women I know are prepared to vote tory over this.

Because the Tories are so woke on trans ? 

I think it was a good speech as well - was anyone listening though outside of people who care about politics ?   Doubtful.  Fuel was dominating the headlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Because the Tories are so woke on trans ? 

No more hardline:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53101071

by feminist I meant 3rd wave feminists who don't want penises in female only spaces (changing rooms, toilets, prisons etc..) not the newer 4th wave feminists ( though I'm generalising as i guess there are both opinions on both sides)

Anyway through out the conference most of the labours front bench solution seemed to be scarper when the issue was discussed. I wouldn't have a clue how many women support and how many are against and so how big a voter winner/loser it maybe.

Edited by lost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lost said:

No more hardline:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53101071

by feminist I meant 3rd wave feminists who don't want penises in female only spaces (changing rooms, toilets, prisons etc..) not the newer 4th wave feminists ( though I'm generalising as i guess there are both opinions on both sides)

Anyway through out the conference most of the labours front bench solution seemed to be scarper when the issue was discussed. I wouldn't have a clue how many women support and how many are against and so how big a voter winner/loser it maybe.

I think the trans issue angers / excites a very vocal minority.  I very much doubt it translates into election success / defeat. 

Edited by Barry Fish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think increasing the threshold as they have some stops another Corbyn.

Even with the original threshold Corbyn couldn't get the nomination without some MPs who didn't support him lending their nominations to widen the debate.

Rebecca Long-Bailey's poor showing against Starmer also suggests that the membership aren't just a bunch of hard left nutters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Even with the original threshold Corbyn couldn't get the nomination without some MPs who didn't support him lending their nominations to widen the debate.

Rebecca Long-Bailey's poor showing against Starmer also suggests that the membership aren't just a bunch of hard left nutters. 

I think Rebecca Long Bailey being awful also contributed. I agree with the argument that if you can't get 20 percent of your MPs on board how can you persuade the country.

I find it funny how Corbyn supporters are now blaming Starmer Brexit policy for 2019 as if the leader had no say in Brexit policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...