The Tories – for those of us old enough to remember 1st hand

The Tories – for those of us old enough to remember 1st hand

For those who are old enough and are bitter. Aren't you just angry about how your life turned out in general? What do you expect, spoonfed and hand-held through life? No one owes you anything. People loose their jobs, shit happens, you never know what lifes going to throw at you, take life as it comes.

Heck, its part of life. You can't spend your life blaming 'Maggie'. Who are people going to blame for the last 10yrs? 'the greedy Bankers'?

Move on. Bitter old men existed for hundreds of years. I hope I don't become bitter until I hit 60.

Hora that is just rubbish

That was my nephew from LSE being interviewed on Sky News a few minutes ago and making pertinent comments on the press coverage of the election. Is that a credential?

I remember our phone being tapped for about 5-6 years after my dad talked to some miners during the strike. I remember the food and clothes runs during the strike. I remember the violent attacks on the peace convoy. I remember the rewarding of greed and dismantling of the civil society.

Scargill was a far cannier operator than you realise edukator and knew the stakes that were being played for extended far beyond the mines.

Is that a credential?

What? you're related to someone who was on Sky? Erm. no.

was a far cannier operator than you realise edukator

Eh? How can you say that of someone who failed in everything he set out to achieve as a communist and union leader. Canny suggests succeeding using ruse and wile. He battered his head againt a brick wall and knocked himself out.

He was instrumental in the strike that brought down the Heath government. How canny was that? He stood for anti-democratic communism when communism was seen as the enemy by the vast majority of the British populaton.

I hope I don't become bitter until I hit 60.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think it might already have happened.

take life as it comes.

The rallying-cry/excuse of people without imagination or ambition.

ernie_lynch – Member
13% interest rates meaning £300+ repayments on a £30k mortgage.
I think you'll find that interest rates hit 17% under the Tories.

Give credit where credit's due …….. the Tories certainly know how to give us sky-high interest rates – not just sky-high unemployment. Although obviously both go hand in hand.

And inflation peaked at 26% under labour in 1975.

25% inflation when interest rates were 11% destroyed many small investors' savings and led to one Britain's upteen property booms and crashes hence the 40% negative equity another poster moaned about.

So what we are saying is that both Labour and the Tories have had sh*t economic policies then?

Good, I'm glad we sorted that one out. 🙄

How about concentrating on the impact that said economic policies have had on society then. (Tories may need to run away now)

Nope, read back, we're saying Labour had especially lousy economic policies and that the Tories, though far from perfect, did significantly better. My previous post also refers to 1975 when Labour were in power.

scruzer – Member
Ya dont need a long memory… Their (HERS!)legacy still sits infront of me right now. Deprived South Yorkshire mining communities (all around Donny at least)and no investment to replace what they destroyed. Anyone know Stainforth??

So a Labour govt has gained your communities exactly what in the last 13 years if there has been no investment to replace what the Tory policies of the 80s & 90's created?

Cost my old man his life after they shut the pits down!

Cost my old man his life after they shut the pits down!

The pits cost many more their lives when they were open.

empathy not your strong point then backhander.

You're not my friend today are you pigface?

Just making a point that whilst the pits may have bought economic advantages to some areas, they were unhealthy and dangerous places to work.
I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't have been closed.

Of course i am your friend just happen to find the above comment a bit crass. No offence intended 🙂

Backhander, should we close the forces down, for the same reason? 😐

westkipper;

I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't have been closed.

Really, this covers it mate.
In reflection, my earlier post could seem a bit harsh. I certainly didn't mean to upset anyone by it. Apologies to creaser.

Unless you lived in the mining areas, you have no idea of the bitterness the dispute caused – I hadn't understood it until I moved up here. I spent the Thatcher years in a non-mining, non-indutrialised town where we actually did OK through the 80s. Now I'm a bit older, better travelled and a lot wiser.

Of course, all this Tory hating pre-supposes that CallMeDave and his cronies won't have learnt anything from the mistakes of their Tory predecessors. I mean, it's not like Blair/Brown have repeated the mistakes of the Wilson/Callaghan era and left the country in a huge financial hole with growing industrial unrest and rising unemployment, is it?

Pembo – Member

ernie_lynch – Member
13% interest rates meaning £300+ repayments on a £30k mortgage.
I think you'll find that interest rates hit 17% under the Tories.

Give credit where credit's due …….. the Tories certainly know how to give us sky-high interest rates – not just sky-high unemployment. Although obviously both go hand in hand.

And inflation peaked at 26% under labour in 1975.

I said interest rates NOT inflation rate, there is a difference between the two.

Until New Labour came to power, interests rates were directly set by the government. In the early eighties interest rates hit 17% as the result of deliberately Tory government policy to reduce inflation. It had the most devastating effect on employment, and unemployment went up to over 3 million – the worst since the Great Depression.

The Tories argued that reducing inflation was more important than reducing unemployment – the Labour Party disagreed. And you can give me high inflation over high unemployment, any day of the week.

The high inflation rates of the 1970s, which occurred under both Labour and Tory governments, was not similarly directly linked to government policy. External factors as well as factors outside the direct control of both Labour and Tory governments, contributed to the inflation rates.

High inflation rates in the 1970s was a global phenomenon. All the advanced nations were vulnerable to it, including the United States which was under conservative administration. In fact the US suffered so much from high inflation that it was forced to introduce "The Nixon Shock" and dollar devaluation.

There were many reasons for the global economic mess of the 1970s, including the fact that all the major stock markets around the world crashed between 1973 and 1974. The Vietnam War contributed hugely to inflation and economic crises in the US. And most significantly, OPEC at a stroke, quadrupled the price of oil towards the end of '73. Britain produced no oil at that time, and the quadrupling of oil prices today, would have a simular effect on inflation across the world.

These were all things which, unlike the deliberate setting of sky-high interest rates in the 80s and 90s, was outside the direct control of both Tory and Labour governments. And did indeed lead to capitalism yet again (mostly in the Anglo-Saxon economies) attempting to re-invent itself – this time in the guise of monetarist "neo-liberalism". Which of course ultimately failed because the inherent contradictions of capitalism, can never be overcome……however revolutionary the capitalist class attempts to be. In the meantime, the most effective and acceptable model for capitalism, is the social-democratic Keynesian model.

Nope, read back, we're saying Labour had especially lousy economic policies and that the Tories, though far from perfect, did significantly better. My previous post also refers to 1975 when Labour were in power.

Significantly better? Amusing.

ernie – you seem to have missed the point that taking interest rate decisions out of the chancellor's hands and into the hands of the Bank of England was precisely so that the BoE would keep inflation low, rather than politicians being tempted to reduce interest rates to fuel an inflationary boom in the run up to an election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England

On 6 May 1997, following the 1997 general election which brought another Labour government to power, it was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, that the Bank of England would be granted operational independence over monetary policy. Under the terms of the Bank of England Act 1998 (which came into force on 1 June 1998), the bank's Monetary Policy Committee was given sole responsibility for setting interest rates to meet the Government's stated Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation target of 2.5%.[8] The target has now changed to 2% since the Consumer Price Index (CPI) replaced the Retail Prices Index as the treasury's inflation index.[9] If inflation overshoots or undershoots the target by more than 1%, the Governor has to write a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer explaining why, and how he will remedy the situation.

The handing over of monetary policy to the Bank of England had featured as a key plank of the Liberal Democrats' economic policy since the 1992 general election.[10] A Conservative MP Nicholas Budgen had also proposed this as a Private Member's Bill in 1996, but the bill failed as it had neither the support of the government nor that of the opposition.

Of course, not including house prices in the inflation measure used, and exporting our manufacturing to China, allowed the most recent boom to go under the radar.

And you can give me high inflation over high unemployment, any day of the week.

High inflation ultimately leads to high unemployment as many countries have found to their cost. Doing nothing about inflation not only gets you high unemployment but also compromises a country's ability to trade, the stability of its financial institutions and its social stability. Just off the top of my head the people of Germany between the wars, Argentinia (and other Latin American states) not so long ago and Hungary post war all suffered more than in any country with 10% unemployment but a stable currency.

ernie – you seem to have missed the point that taking interest rate decisions out of the chancellor's hands and into the hands of the Bank of England was precisely so that the BoE would keep inflation low, rather than politicians being tempted to reduce interest rates to fuel an inflationary boom in the run up to an election.

I wasn't making any point at all about "why" interest rate is no longer set by the government. I was simply stating that unlike now, in the 80s and 90s interest rates were set by the government. So the very high interest rates which those decades experienced, were the direct result of deliberate government policy to have high interest rates. In comparison, the inflation rates of the 70s was not.

But it is disingenuous of you to suggest that "taking interest rate decisions out of the chancellor's hands and into the hands of the Bank of England was precisely so that the BoE would keep inflation low, rather than politicians" as it is still the government and therefore politicians, who decide what the inflation rate should be – not the Bank of England. The government gives the BoE Monetary Policy Committee "inflation targets" which it wants it to meet. Ultimately the BoE is answerable to politicians who make decisions for political purposes – hence the BoE support for Northern Rock for example…….so not really a very 'independent' bank.

And of course the government has found new imaginative ways of stoking up inflation apart from playing about with interest rates, such as quantitative easing. Because contrary to what monetarist Tories tell us, inflation isn't the greatest evil – deflation is.

"allowed the most recent boom to go under the radar"

So no one noticed the growth in credit then……..that people were borrowing and banks were lending ? That should have provided a clue that we buying stuff we couldn't afford. It kept wages down though, didn't it ? But you're right of course, contrary to the monetarist myth, inflation isn't the only thing which matters.

.

Edukator – can you clarify what you mean by Germany between the wars, and Argentina not so long ago, having "stable currencies" ? Because whichever way I read it, I can't get it to make any sense………pardon me if I'm being a bit fick 😐

And btw, I haven't suggest that hyperinflation is good, merely that inflation isn't always necessarily bad, nor necessarily the worst problem.

Edukator – can you clarify what you mean by Germany between the wars, and Argentina not so long ago, having "stable currencies" ? Because whichever way I read it, I can't get it to make any sense

Probably because he said the exact opposite of that. Oh well.

you could get 10 players number 6 for 72p under the tories…

I'm not totally convinced anyone should be basing their choice of vote on what a party did some 20 or 30 years ago. Surely it's what they'll do (or at least you hope they'll do; let's be honest, none of them ever do) if they get elected that's the issue?

From a non-political point if view, I for one am not sorry to see the back of the coal industry. It is rare that I have to treat someone with pneumoconiosis nowadays, for the simple reason that the vast majority are dead!

Regardless of which political side of the fence you sit, the standard of living has improved immensely. Whether that is despite the best efforts of the Tories and entirely due to the wonderful work of socialists is a risible argument and one I'm pretty bored with, especially coming from the armchair (particularly 'leftie') pundits on here who are so blinkered they tend to ignore +ve and -ve aspects of both political camps to suit their arguments.

I will be out on my bike in an hour or so, breathing in relatively clean air on a rolling green countryside, something which could not have happened a few years ago.

THEN
NOW

It's not like the last 13 years have been a non stop period of enlightenment, peace and well being is it?

I'm not totally convinced anyone should be basing their choice of vote on what a party did some 20 or 30 years ago. Surely it's what they'll do (or at least you hope they'll do; let's be honest, none of them ever do) if they get elected that's the issue?

I really wouldn't have faith in trusting any party to do what they say they're going to do
I'd rather judge them on how they operate now & in the past

In the dying minutes of the last parliament the Tories still managed to put their big business chum ahead of everything else with underhand, greedy methods

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/13/cameron-pressure-identify-poverty-bill

From a non-political point if view, I for one am not sorry to see the back of the coal industry. It is rare that I have to treat someone with pneumoconiosis nowadays, for the simple reason that the vast majority are dead!…I will be out on my bike in an hour or so, breathing in relatively clean air on a rolling green countryside, something which could not have happened a few years ago.

Well, absolutely – and if we shut down and remediated all offices and factories, we would be sure there would be no more industrial injury, and you're right, there would be much more clean air and places for middle class IT spods to ride their bike around. 🙄

Konabunny

I'll keep my eyes open for some of these middle class IT spods in the next few hours and let them know that they should be 'down the pit' doing a proper job instead of enjoying the countryside. 😉

porterclough – Member

Edukator – can you clarify what you mean by Germany between the wars, and Argentina not so long ago, having "stable currencies" ? Because whichever way I read it, I can't get it to make any sense

Probably because he said the exact opposite of that.

Erm, I don't think he did…….but maybe he meant to ?

Actually I'm interested in why Edukator wants to mention "Argentinia and other Latin American states" at all, to back up his argument – as the example of Argentinia and other Latin American states so clearly undermines it.

Whilst a substantial number of voters in the UK and the US enthusiastically embraced monetarist neo-liberalism, the peoples of Latin America were somewhat more reticent. Therefore Washington had to force the neo-liberal experiment onto them against their will, through a series of brutal and bloody military dictatorships.

In this climate of fear where death squads operated freely and people simply "disappeared", the monetarists where able to fully implement their experiment without the risk of any opposition. It was, monetarist neo-liberalism in it's purest form……..what Thatcher and Reagan could only dream about.

The economic and social consequences of the neo-liberal experiment in Latin America, were absolutely catastrophic for it's people.

In the case of Argentina, it accumulated in the final complete collapse of it's economy, and the sight of banks locking their doors to keep people out. And the largest ever, sovereign default in history.

Argentina which had at the turn of the last century been the fourth richest country in the world, was utterly ruined. In a country which is the eighth largest in the world and has some of the most fertile land on the planet and half the population of the UK, children were dying of starvation on a weekly basis.

Luckily by then, Argentina had been returned to civilian rule. And after decades of economic crises with all it's social consequences of poverty and unemployment, the monetarist neo-liberal experiment was finally abandoned.

A newly installed social-democratic government was able to completely turn around the situation and within a couple of years poverty and unemployment had been cut by half. And within 4 years of being declared the largest default in history, Argentina had paid off all of it's foreign debt.

Argentina was able to do this because despite having it's economy shafted by the neo-liberals, it is intrinsically a wealthy country. Have a guess from this graph when the social-democrats took over from the monetarists !

Of course due to the fact that Argentina's recovery was very much export led, it has recently experienced some difficulty as a result of global recession. And wealthy Argentine Tories who had been utterly demoralised after the collapse of firstly their military government, and then their civilian government, have now regained their confidence, and have recently been using their wealth and power to sabotage and blackmail the current social-democratic government, as it continues to bring about social change. But the life of ordinary Argentines has immeasurably improved.

Interestingly enough Edukator, when inflation reached 5000% in Argentina, whilst it halved the value of wages, it did not increase unemployment significantly, which somewhat undermines your claim that "high inflation ultimately leads to high unemployment" (although I wouldn't condone hyperinflation !)

As does of course, the famous quote by a former Tory Chancellor that high unemployment was the price of low inflation :

"If higher unemployment is the price we have to pay in order to bring inflation down, then it is a price worth paying." – Norman Lamont, Chancellor of the Exchequer. 1992.

The greatest threat we face in Britain today, is high unemployment….with all it's consequences of poverty, low wages, social injustice, crime, racism, lack of social cohesion, etc. Not inflation.

what ernie says Edukator says makes no sense.

ernie_lynch – Member Edukator – can you clarify what you mean by Germany between the wars, and Argentina not so long ago, having "stable currencies" ? Because whichever way I read it, I can't get it to make any sense………pardon me if I'm being a bit fick

what Edukator said.

Edukator – Member Just off the top of my head the people of Germany between the wars, Argentinia (and other Latin American states) not so long ago and Hungary post war all suffered more than in any country with 10% unemployment but a stable currency.

ernie, if you miss out bits of a sentence, its no wonder things dont make any sense to you.

and also to the person who said he was born in 1977 and said he remembered Thatcher 'snatching the milk'
It really is amazing that you can remember something which happened during the 1970-74 goverment.

It really is amazing that you can remember something which happened during the 1970-74 goverment.

Is that true, because I certainly remember having free milk when I first went to school but then not getting it later on and I wasnt born till 1974.

Someone mentioned we shouldnt judge what the previous Tory gov did when deciding to vote, however I dont see that the Tories have significantly changed their tune as regards their aims/beliefs (for want of a better word) whereas Labour certainly did under Tory Blair prior to them getting voted in. Cameron certainly seems to be singing from a well used Conservative hymn book to me.

to the person who said he was born in 1977 and said he remembered Thatcher 'snatching the milk'. It really is amazing that you can remember something which happened during the 1970-74 goverment.

Actually, it was the mid 1980s before the Tory government really managed make any real progress in removing state-subsidised milk from state primary schools:

The 1980 Education Act added a further £25 million in EEC subsidies to LEAs to help subsidise milk in schools although six years later as part of an amendment they were told it could only apply to the very lowest income families.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1507023/Thatcher-the-snatcher-may-not-have-been-wrong.html

Unless your argument was that the Tories promised a policy in 1971 and only got around to anything near full implementation fifteen years later, and this is a good thing?

Lord Summerisle – Member

what Edukator said.

Edukator – Member Just off the top of my head the people of Germany between the wars, Argentinia (and other Latin American states) not so long ago and Hungary post war all suffered more than in any country with 10% unemployment but a stable currency.

ernie, if you miss out bits of a sentence, its no wonder things dont make any sense to you.

Nope, "but a stable currency" makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

If someone would care to explain what Edukator means, instead of just repeating it, I would be very grateful.

Because obviously Argentina is possibly the worst example of a "stable currency".

During the period of the neo-liberal experiment, crises ridden Argentina had to constantly reinvent it's currency. It went from the "Peso Ley" to the "Peso Argentino", to the "Austral", to the "Peso Convertible". It underwent 8 currency crises, and in a desperate attempt to deal with the instability of the Argentine currency, the neo-liberals ended up pegging it to the US Dollar. This did not in the long term stabilise the Peso, and in the crises of 2002 it was abandoned.

So unless I'm missing something, I can't see how the words "Argentina" and "stable currency" can be used in the same sentence. Unless of course, there is the inclusion of the word "not".

To me, the closure of the pits and the miner's strike is a very ugly time in our history. Towns that used to rely on mining are still fairly grim places, over 25 years on from the miner's strike.

Nevertheless, you have to remember the background. We were losing millions of working days a year to strikes in the 1970s – we have lost less working days since 1990 than we have in single years of the 70s. Ultimately, the unions had to be faced down, and the miners were unfortunate enough to be the people who took Thatcher on.