Anything Political

[Brew 5,409]

I don’t get the point of including 18th century conditions in post WW2 economics. 

 

The German economic miracle was in part due to the Marshall plan and the reunification only occurred in 1990. Nor should we forget the UK only cleared its war debts in 2006.

Quote:

No European country contributed anything to the huge war debt incurred by the UK with the USA.

 

You mention several points behind the economic growth in Europe yet they prove nothing. The same applies to the whole of the continent and it is how governments take advantage that drives things forward. To downplay that fact and offer spurious comparisons simply because it was mainly Tory governments carries little weight.

 

Did we squander out oil? It gave us years of prosperity. What else could we do with it?

 

I don’t think convenient is how the dead and injured would describe any war.

 

And Thatcher was prepared to negotiate which would not have gone down well and would have hurt her reputation with the country. Apart from  international kudos, I can't see how it applies to economic growth.

 

The Thatcher years I’m not going to rehash, I’m sure you are aware of my opinion

 

The link re; homelessness does nothing to counter my reply. It speaks of percentages not actual numbers. I did say that regrettably those numbers are rising – but actual numbers are less than we imagine.

…

Let's be clear here Jim. NOWHERE have I EVER said that I have a general problem with 'Big Business'.

 

Anyone persistently calling a company by pejoratively twisting their name and likening them to scavengers has a problem.

I’m also of the mind that it would be naïve in the extreme to imagine fraud will simply cease with a change of government, and I accept no accusation of collusion.

Much of your comment on this is rhetoric and straying from the topic.

…

The bit about Starmer and his gobbledegook.

 

You said if he spelled out his policies it would be jumped on by the ‘meeja’, and a demand for clarity about how they would be financed.

What’s wrong with that? What has he to hide? Are we banned from knowing how our money is spent? Are we banned for being allowed to question those decisions? 

 

Scandalous

 

I simply don’t buy or trust anything not out in the open. The secrecy is worse than Johnson lying through his teeth, how can anyone present a cogent argument about something they know nothing about?

 

He’s on to a landslide by doing nothing you reckon, well he should be good at that by now, it’s all he’s done since he became leader.

 

Starmer won’t win the election… Sunk will lose it.

 

[Brew 5,409]

I'm convinced at the moment Labour will win but equally sure Starmer is such an ineffectual leader challengers are biding their time so as not to rock the boat, but once in power he will go.

[letsavagoo 961]

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Really.. you should listen to yourself... 14 years of Tory graft, corruption, incompetence, failure and anti democratic activity accompanied by countless scandals and a dangerous drift to the right, barely draws comment from you.. yet the hint of a possible failing by a senior Labour member and you're practically wetting yourself...

Really. Wetting myself! Pathetic. 

I perhaps don’t mention Tory scandal as you do that very well without my input and let’s face it, they’re a pretty easy target . I just try to point out that you hatred for anything with a hint of blue is always vilified and not always correctly. Angela Raynor, non story or not was widely reported and as I said, had it been a Tory involved you would have, without doubt mentioned it. I don’t think I misreport what you post. It’s just left, left, left and left with a bit more left. I see little centre and rarely if ever a critisism of the left. 
 

4 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'll also point out that it was you who raised the ludicrous and nebulous concept of the 'Woke Left'.

I didn’t invent the term, it’s in wide in use.

 

On 4/3/2024 at 12:43 PM, DJ360 said:

I said that the right wing, (I.E' most of, the UK press) pursues what it chooses to define as 'Looney Lefty', Woke' etc.. far more vigorously than it does the Right.

Even you’re using  the term woke now. Shock horror.

[DJ360 6,721]

On 4/4/2024 at 4:17 PM, Brew said:

Which bit says it's not a Tory initiative?

 

No bit as far as I can see.  I don't understand your point.

 

There's no doubt they've flipped a bit, but I see nothing wrong with a review.  On the evidence of the last 14 years, reviews either reflect the veiws of those commissioning them, or they get shelved.

 

On 4/4/2024 at 5:05 PM, Brew said:

And the doubt and uncertainty you highlight is back, but hidden behind a banner headline claiming they will keep it as is.

 

Labour you say will make it work, how? Wil that be another secret they are keeping close to the chest?...

 

Whilst I've already accepted that Labour are not yet pronouncing on policy.. they have watched the Tories pinch a couple, so I can understand their reticence. I have no more idea than you on their exact plans. What more do you want me to say?

On 4/4/2024 at 5:05 PM, Brew said:

Anyone accepting the mishmash of statements from Labour is sleepwalking into the unknown.

 

As opposed to sleepwalking into the only too well known?

[DJ360 6,721]

On 4/4/2024 at 6:34 PM, Brew said:

I don’t get the point of including 18th century conditions in post WW2 economics. 

 

I think it was 19th C, but whatever.  I was simply trying to illustrate that having a major economic ranking is no guarantee that all citizens benefit.

 

On 4/4/2024 at 6:34 PM, Brew said:

Did we squander out oil? It gave us years of prosperity. What else could we do with it?

 

I'm not so sure. The UK started producing significant oil in around 1975, peaking in 1999. Those were extremely lean years for many in the UK.

 

Quote

 

Early 1980s recession

1980 Q1

1980 Q2

1980 Q3

1980 Q4

1981 Q1

1.25 years
(5 Qtr)[14]

1980 Q1: −1.7%

1980 Q2: −2.0%

1980 Q3: −0.2%

1980 Q4: −1.0%

1981 Q1: −0.3%

Deflationary government policies including spending cuts, pursuance of monetarism to reduce inflation, switch from a manufacturing economy to a services economy.Company earnings decline 35%. Unemployment rises from 5.3% of the working population in August 1979 to 11.9% in 1984.[18] Took thirteen quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak at the end of 1979.[12] Annual inflation was 18.0% in 1980, 11.9% in 1981, 8.6% in 1982 and 4.6% in 1983.[citation needed] Interest rates generally declined during the recession from a peak of 17.0% at the beginning of 1980 to a low of 9.6% in October 1982.[citation needed]

Early 1990s recession

1990 Q3

1990 Q4

1991 Q1

1991 Q2

1991 Q3

1.25 years
(5 Qtrs)[14]

1990 Q3: −1.1%

1990 Q4: −0.4%

1991 Q1: −0.3%

1991 Q2: −0.2%

1991 Q3: −0.3%

US savings and loan crisis, high bank rate in response to rising inflation caused by the Lawson Boom and to maintain British membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism.Company earnings decline 25%. Peak budget deficit c. 8% of GDP. Unemployment rises from 6.9% of the working population in 1990 to 10.7% in 1993.[18] Took eleven quarters for GDP to recover to its pre-recession peak in the Spring of 1990.[12] Annual inflation was 9.5% in 1990, 5.9% in 1991, 3.7% in 1992. and 1.6% in 1993.[citation needed] Interest rates were stubbornly high initially but declined from a high of 14.8% at the start of the recession to a low of 5.9% by the end of the recession,[citation needed] though interest rates were hiked twice during Black Wednesday.

 

 

Meanwhile, the Norwegians created a fund to 'save' much of their oil revenue, which was similar to ours and that fund is now one of the biggest in the World.

 

From: https://eandt.theiet.org/2021/01/20/north-sea-oil-tale-two-countries

 

Quote

What the two countries did with their surplus revenue has effectively mapped their economic futures for half a century. As the UK's former Secretary of State for the Environment (and later Defence) Michael Heseltine said recently, Britain under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher "squandered the windfall" on short-term consumerist policies such as subsidised housing and mortgage tax relief policies. Heseltine says he would have preferred to see the money invested in a 'sovereign wealth fund', a state-owned financial instrument for securing long-term benefits for the nation's citizenry.

This is exactly what Norway did, investing its surplus revenues in the so-called 'Oil Fund' which owns 1 per cent of the world's stocks, is valued at more than US$1tn and, according to The Economist, is the largest fund of its type in existence.

Today, the economic fortunes of the two countries differ vastly: in terms of GDP per capita Norway is currently the second wealthiest country on Earth (after Luxembourg), while the UK comes in 20th, with a GDP per capita of almost exactly half of Norway's - US$52,291 (£38,961) compared with $102,907 (£76,686) (projected figures for 2022).

 

I certainly didn't enjoy any noticeable prosperity from North Sea Oil, being made redundant several times between 1976 and 1981 and neither did many of the thousands of young people who I worked with from 1985 and who suffered some of the worst Youth Unemployment on record.

 

On 4/4/2024 at 6:34 PM, Brew said:

Anyone persistently calling a company by pejoratively twisting their name and likening them to scavengers has a problem.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to here, but I'll guess you mean Crapita. I'll continue to use that term , which came originally from Private Eye. They have an utterly appalling record of failure and worse and have succeeded, miraculously in bringing 'Outsourcing', already a hugely controversial concept, effectively Privatisation by Proxy, into utter disrepute.

 

The whole sorry story here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capita   

 

Quite breathtaking levels of incompetence and yet they continue to get Govt. contracts.

On 4/4/2024 at 6:34 PM, Brew said:

I’m also of the mind that it would be naïve in the extreme to imagine fraud will simply cease with a change of government, and I accept no accusation of collusion.

 

Well of course fraud won't stop, but don't you find it, to quote Dr Watson, as 'suggestive', that Crapita have such an appalling record and are still in business? What I'm referring to here are the levels of fraud an and misuse of public money enabled by both Privatisation and Outsourcing.

 

My argument is that Privatisation and Outsourcing have both provided huge opportunities for both incompetence and fraud,in the delivery of Public Services.  This can be seen on top of whatever fraud already exists in Private Business.  Crapita in particular seem to operate on the naive basis that they will make money by simply underbidding the existing Public Sector entity, employing cheap and undertrained staff and then just 'winging it'. They have repeatedly failed, but without consequence.

 

But I repeat, yet again..that I have NO problem with Big Business legally run, or Wealth, honestly earned.

 

Not sure what you mean by 'accusations of collusion', but maybe you are referring to my hint that 'corporate' wrongdoings might be 'tolerated' by some, by which of course I meant those running the Govt responsible for such stuff, and close to the beneficiaries. I'm stuggling to see how you could take that personally, but if you did then please accept that it was not my intention.

Again, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you saying you sold your shares in Crapita out of displeasure with their failings.

 

On 4/4/2024 at 6:34 PM, Brew said:

You said if he spelled out his policies it would be jumped on by the ‘meeja’, and a demand for clarity about how they would be financed.

What’s wrong with that? What has he to hide? Are we banned from knowing how our money is spent? Are we banned for being allowed to question those decisions? 

 

Scandalous

 

I simply don’t buy or trust anything not out in the open. The secrecy is worse than Johnson lying through his teeth, how can anyone present a cogent argument about something they know nothing about?

 

He’s on to a landslide by doing nothing you reckon, well he should be good at that by now, it’s all he’s done since he became leader.

 

Starmer won’t win the election… Sunk will lose it.

 

Ref. 'The Meedja'  Surely you see the 'voter psychology' here?  People have been so indoctrinated with the idea that Labour is a  profligate and high tax party, that the very word Socialist is almost as much a pejorative as 'Woke'..

It's a standard 'Tory Mantra' and even the Tories incompetence and crashing of the economy etc.. hasn't broken that myth.

So, Starmer is biding his time.  I'm not defending him, I'm just giving my take on it.

For what it's worth, I would favour some pretty radical approaches to sorting out our country, especially around Nationalisation, Education and Training and 'Legal Migration', but I'd expect mass press hysteria if Starmer hinted at any of them.

We are into pre-election mind games and personally I'd trust almost any party except for the Far Right more than I'd Trust more of the same.

[Brew 5,409]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

No bit as far as I can see.  I don't understand your point.

My point is a riposte to you asking me to read it again thus implying I've missed something and Labour does actually have their own idea rather than clinging to the Tory coat tails.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

There's no doubt they've flipped a bit, but I see nothing wrong with a review.

 

Correct there is nothing wrong with a review, except it's added as an afterthought. Labours headline is they will commit to the full Tory expansion plan.  Bridget Phillipson has said "Labour will not remove any entitlements promised to families in the future".

I remember you said something you said about removing doubt and uncertainty, fine that's all good then. Until you read further down the page where it seems her promise is dependent on reviewing the situation in October.

It may not be a lie but it is certainly deliberately misleading...

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Whilst I've already accepted that Labour are not yet pronouncing on policy.. they have watched the Tories pinch a couple, so I can understand their reticence.

 

In the light of recent (as in the above), discussions that's a surprisingly weak argument Col...

[DJ360 6,721]

On 4/4/2024 at 6:47 PM, letsavagoo said:

I just try to point out that you hatred for anything with a hint of blue is always vilified and not always correctly.

I'm afraid that sentence doesn't make sense.

 

On 4/4/2024 at 6:47 PM, letsavagoo said:

I don’t think I misreport what you post. It’s just left, left, left and left with a bit more left. I see little centre and rarely if ever a critisism of the left. 

 

Same as you accuse me.. you see what you wish to see.  You seem to miss the bit where I say I favour a mixed economy, a reduction in 'Legal' migration etc. (Nobody on here has an answer to Illegal Migration) And of course you will see 'left', I'm a left winger..what would you expect me to do.. quote Mein Kampf? You seem to stuggle with the concept of 'centre left'.

 

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre-left_politics

 

Quote

Centre-left politics is the range of left-wing political ideologies that lean closer to the political centre and broadly conform with progressivism. Ideologies of the centre-left include social democracy, social liberalism and green politics. Ideas commonly supported by the centre-left include welfare capitalism, social justice, liberal internationalism, and multiculturalism. Economically, the centre-left supports a mixed economy in a democratic capitalist system, often including economic interventionism, progressive taxation, and the right to unionize. Centre-left politics are contrasted with far-left politics that reject capitalism or advocate revolution.

 

From that definition, I'd argue that the Centre Left is more in favour of Democracy than the UK Conservative Right. YMMV. I'd also argue that it portrays anyone supporting Centre Left Politics as fundamentally decent, caring and intent upon improving things for ALL. Sadly, if you've been relying on the Conservatives to deliver, you've been disappointed, and now have a dilemma..

[Brew 5,409]

20 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

I'm stuggling to see how you could take that personally, but if you did then please accept that it was not my intention.

Again, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall you saying you sold your shares in Crapita out of displeasure with their failings.

 

Col, In all the time we have beenn putting the world to rights I never taken anything personally. Sometimes I make a poor choice of words.

I did sell a tranch of shares and yes it was a rather pointless protest at  their poor performance.

[DJ360 6,721]

9 minutes ago, Brew said:

My point is a riposte to you asking me to read it again thus implying I've missed something and Labour does actually have their own idea rather than clinging to the Tory coat tails.

 

I possibly took you comment on 'ideas' too literally, by which I mean they (Labour) have ideas of their own beyond just Childcare.

 

6 minutes ago, Brew said:

Col, In all the time we have beenn putting the world to rights I never taken anything personally. Sometimes I make a poor choice of words.

 

We all do.

 

8 minutes ago, Brew said:

I did sell a tranch of shares and yes it was a rather pointless protest at  their poor performance

 

I haven't followed their share price, so it's possible that you cut your nose off to spite your face.. but it was a noble gesture nonetheless and far from pointless.  We need more of such altruism.

[Brew 5,409]

2 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

haven't followed their share price, so it's possible that you cut your nose off to spite your face.. but it was a noble gesture nonetheless and far from pointless

But I bought more National Grid    

[DJ360 6,721]

Capitalist Running Dog!

[Brew 5,409]

51 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Meanwhile, the Norwegians created a fund to 'save' much of their oil revenue, which was similar to ours and that fund is now one of the biggest in the World.

 

With 45% of the North Sea reserves and a population half the size of London (5m) it would take a really determined effort by specially trained idiots not to have done so.

 

 

[DJ360 6,721]

But doesn't the fact that they even thought that way make you think?

 

They considered how their oil revenues could help ALL of their population.

I saw no evidence of such thinking here.

I still don't.

[Brew 5,409]

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

They considered how their oil revenues could help ALL of their population.

I saw no evidence of such thinking here.

I still don't.

With that much money and so few people, how could it be any different. and actually Norway has a surprising number of homeless considering the size of population.

 

The oil started in 1975 under Labour, Wilson, then Tory, then Labour then Tory again before Labour had another go.

Whether we squandered the riches is moot but whatever the answer, it was a joint effort

 

[Oztalgian 3,271]

8 hours ago, DJ360 said:

They considered how their oil revenues could help ALL of their population.

I saw no evidence of such thinking here.

I still don't.

Same here. 

We keep giving our resources away and stubbornly refuse to insist on adding value to it here in Australia.

If you are China you pay AU$3.80 per gigajoule for LNG. until 2027. Australian domestic consumers are paying around AU$10 a gigajoule. There is a risk that the East Coast and Southern Australia gas supplies will not be able to meet domestic demand in winter 2025 due to having to meet export contracts. Can someone tell me under what strange system of economics does this work? 

[Brew 5,409]

2 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Can someone tell me under what strange system of economics does this work? 

 

It's really quite good Oz................... for China,,,

 

[DJ360 6,721]

On 4/6/2024 at 9:10 AM, Oztalgian said:

Same here. 

We keep giving our resources away and stubbornly refuse to insist on adding value to it here in Australia.

If you are China you pay AU$3.80 per gigajoule for LNG. until 2027. Australian domestic consumers are paying around AU$10 a gigajoule. There is a risk that the East Coast and Southern Australia gas supplies will not be able to meet domestic demand in winter 2025 due to having to meet export contracts. Can someone tell me under what strange system of economics does this work? 

 

Pretty much all speculation on my part but I'd imagine there's a 'pay off' buried somewhere in a trade agreement with China.  Maybe something to do with securing Chinese investment in Oz.

 

There was a period here where UK Govts were falling over themselves to attract Chinese investment. I think that the penny might be slowly dropping, that the Chinese Govt. just doesn't play fair and the Huawei debacle with British Telecoms is a fine example.

[Brew 5,409]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Pretty much all speculation on my part but I'd imagine there's a 'pay off' buried somewhere in a trade agreement with China. 

Probably, China has just lifted tariffs on Australian wine.

 

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

That's a shame. We were getting some cracking deals on Oz reds the Chinese didn't want to buy. Their loss, our gain.

[DJ360 6,721]

Smart move by the CCP. Cheap heat and cheap booze will have the masses too sedated to cause bother.

[Brew 5,409]

Wes Streeting the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Social Care and hypocrite has declared he wants more private-sector involvement in the NHS. 

Can anyone who declared any who oppose his plan to be "middle class lefties. called Corbyn 'senile', admits to binge drinking when he goes out really be a Labour MP?

Surely he's a closet Tory!

No wonder then that Starmer is so reluctant to explain his policies in detail.

[Rob.L 1,088]

What the FT has quoted Streeting as actually saying appears to be at odds with what people claim he said.

“I can simultaneously want to reduce [NHS] reliance on the private sector by making sure it has the staff, the equipment, the technology it needs to treat patients on time, at the same time as recognising that there is currently some capacity in the private sector and we should seek to use it.”

 

https://www.ft.com/content/f1950c91-617a-46dc-ac36-2ee03d9b1e73

[Brew 5,409]

That's  not at odds with my post, which is quite accurate.

Though it sounds like a temporary solution it probably isn't, it's the thin end of a very big wedge. 

 

It would be easy to blame the Tories, but the NHS had a budget cut before it was even inaugurated by Atlee. Years of mismanagement and political interference have brought us to the parlous state of the NHS today. Now under the guise of reducing waiting times Labour proposes to spend money in the private sector, a quick fix solution that has every likelihood of becoming an expensive permanent policy.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,271]

On 4/8/2024 at 12:37 AM, Jill Sparrow said:

That's a shame. We were getting some cracking deals on Oz reds the Chinese didn't want to buy. Their loss, our gain.

Jacobs Creek Classic Shiraz is one of the best selling wines in the UK and costs around UK pounds 8.49. The same Bottle here is around AU$7.95 which is 4 quid in your money.

Some disturbing news though Jill. Apparently Chinese tastes are changing and they are now favouring lighter white varieties or non alcoholic wines, Vintners in red growing areas such as the Barossa Valley are concerned that the big bold gutsy Shiraz that we know and love are falling out of favour. I'm trying to do my bit to save it and relying on you to do the same. (Photo from Vin Trail)

[Jill Sparrow 10,304]

4 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

I'm trying to do my bit to save it and relying on you to do the same.

You can rely on me!!