Anything Political

[DJ360 6,730]

11 hours ago, Brew said:

Seriously you want to claim that without any knowledge or experience of them or their lives? How on earth can anyone say they are content with their lot when all we know is what we are told by some bozo of an arrogant anthropologist who looks at them through a microscope, totally misunderstands and writes warmly of their reliance on 'being one' with their environment, of the quaint customs and practices before returning to his nice suburban house and life.  Unless the observer is one of them the best that can be done is stand outside, look in and use a modern yardstick to measure their lives, totally missing the fact the tribe does not have a choice.

 

Really?  Are you seriously dismissing all Anthropologists as 'Arrogant Bozos'?  Are you not doing exactly what you accuse them of?

 

Of course some, possibly many remote tribes want to 'join in', but just as many don't, or want to at least preserve their culture.  I watched a programme years ago where Australians went into some remote part of New Guinea.  They taught the natives how to cut down bits of jungle and plant crops.  At first the natives co-operated.. but they soon drifted off.  It took the Aussies a little while to realise why.  The Aussies were teaching the natives to destroy their home.  The natives  knew how to plant what they needed in amongst the existing jungle, and also when to move on and allow a patch of jungle to regenerate.  In short, the Aussies couldn't teach them anything.

Only tonight I watched another prog about the way that the Canadian Govt' tried to suppress the 'savages' of the Pacific Northwest.  An utterly shameful way to treat people, including actually taking away their children and forcibly 'educating' them in residential schools to expunge their 'savage' culture.  The Canadian Govt. has apparently now expressed 'regret' for this behaviour.  The British Empire did similar all over the World.

Now.. remind me.. what is it that so many here in the UK object to about both immigration, and the EU?  Oh yes.. that's it.. ruining our British Culture...

Sauce for the Goose?

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

We like to blame ourselves for the damage we do to indigenous people, for disrupting their idyllic lifestyle etc. when in fact once tribes see what our civilisation has to offer they quickly swap animal skins for jeans, tee shirts and  demand the right to vote. Only a few weirdos make the journey in the opposite direction.

 

There is nothing 'in fact' in what you say.  We invade other people's spaces and many don't like it.  we destroy cultures and exploit people.  Yes.. some are happy to join in with us, but many aren't.

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

 

I think they are excellent examples of the way a socialist society evolves and the way capitalism develops and adapts. It clearly demonstrates humans natural tendency towards self first.

 

 

  It does to a degree.. but neither society was either socialist or communist.  They were both effectively dictatorships. Russia still is, but dictated to by a Gangster. China is a bit more of a mystery, but essentially a power elite maintained via a democratic centralist approach.  In other words.. you only get power by joining the party and you only change things by working your way to the top.

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

Millions of the poor and downtrodden denied the fruits of their labour, denied the right to own the means of production and share the rewards blah blah blah, it's an old song and we all know the words. Unless and until  the risks and responsibilities are shared it's never going to happen.

 

 

Tripe.  You are trying to put words into my mouth.  The reality is that when it comes to the means of production, the Tories have flogged them all off, so that where they were owned by us all, they are now owned by a few, or by a private company which turns out to be owned by a foreign Govt.  30 pieces of silver...

 

Admittedly, , a few state run enterprises have benefitted from and improved since privatisation.. but the Tories, in their infinite greed, looked for the money after Thatcher...  It clearly wasn't in UK Industry.. because Thatcher had abandoned and destroyed that.  So where was it? And they saw it in the 'Big Budget Items'.. Health and Education. so much of those were flogged off too... and we have all seen the results of that....

 

So.. we move on to all the other areas of public service which these crooks have chosen to sell off to their mates. Basicaly.. evry last bloody thing..

 

And yet.. their deep and abiding faith in the power of 'markets' and the amazing efficency of the 'private sector', have somehow failed to address the housing crisis, the health crisis, the social care crisis, the prisons crisis, the, wealth gap, the north south divide..etc.,etc.

 

One might be forgiven for thinking that not only do they not care. but also they are still actively engaged in stealing what is left of UK wealth for themselves. 

 

But.. lets come back to the whole Socialist,  Tory debate for a bit...

 

All I'm looking for is a shift in the balance of power between rich and poor. I'll come back to that later and I'll explain how the Tories have DELIBERATELY made the majority relatively poorer, compared to the small ultra rich minority.

[Brew 5,421]

9 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Of course some, possibly many remote tribes want to 'join in', but just as many don't, or want to at least preserve their culture.  I watched a programme years ago where Australians went into some remote part of New Guinea.  They taught the natives how to cut down bits of jungle and plant crops.  At first the natives co-operated.. but they soon drifted off.  It took the Aussies a little while to realise why.  The Aussies were teaching the natives to destroy their home.

 

 And it's not 'arrogant' ? They failed to realise the natives had no need for organised agriculture, they were self sufficient for food. They assumed they knew better and could introduce 20th century customs and practice into a hunter gatherer society, and that's not arrogant?

There was no sense of 'home' in many cases, when they used all the resources in one place, they simply moved to another. I maintain it was arrogant of the whoever made the program to assume they knew better and experiment with peoples lives for no good reason - just to see what happens.

The natives did however willingly take steel knives and modern textiles from the Aussies, for those they could see the advantages.

 

Did the indigenous people did not know of the alternatives, cities, sanitation, health care, clean water etc? Only when they can see clearly the choices, have the education to understand and still choose loincloths and monkey meat can it be said they are content with their lot. They want to preserve their culture? they have little of no sense of culture their world revolves around need and the fact they die if they don't meet those needs every day.

 

You also mention the Canadians suppressing the natives of the North West - and that's not arrogance in extremis? Was the Empire not built on our arrogance?

 

Anthropologists are in essence arrogant. They study people and societies likes entomologists study bugs. They stand  apart from people as though they themselves are not part of the human race and assume their education makes them better able to understand.

 

When I was a kid we watched documentaries and news clips of ye goode ole English yeoman, ploughing fields,  gathering harvests, beavering away at a workbench, happily smiling for the cameras whilst listening to works playtime and a condescending voice over told us how content workers were with their lot? Sure they were, that's why the football pools were so popular.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

There is nothing 'in fact' in what you say.  We invade other people's spaces and many don't like it.  we destroy cultures and exploit people.  Yes.. some are happy to join in with us, but many aren't.

 

There is nothing 'in fact' other than the vast majority of Africa, the how or why is in this instance irrelevant. There is not as far as I can see a great rush to return to the kraals and assegais of yesteryear.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It does to a degree.. but neither society was either socialist or communist.

 

Not your version Col or the version you would like to see but ask the 'average person in the street' what type of government they have and the majority will say communist. You simply can't deny a fact just because you don't like or agree with it. There are other examples, Cuba and Cambodia for instance where the governments  have declared themselves a communist state.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Tripe.  You are trying to put words into my mouth.  The reality is that when it comes to the means of production, the Tories have flogged them all off, so that where they were owned by us all, they are now owned by a few, or by a private company which turns out to be owned by a foreign Govt.  30 pieces of silver...

 

Not putting words in your mouth Col but merely repeating the dogma socialist have been quoting for years. 

The privatisation of the utilities was wrong, no argument. I worked in the electricity industry prior to 1990 and quite honestly it was a disgrace. It did all it was supposed to do and made huge profits for the exchequer but in terms of efficiency it would make Taylor turn in his grave. It was like a holiday camp but as I said at least it made money.

Others didn't, the railways were pretty poor and many claim lack of investment as the reason yet governments  poured millions in to prop them up. Others, ports, airports, coal, Leyland and so on, were a stranglehold on the economy and there was no good reason for state ownership.

 

I have trouble accepting the crown jewels were sold to their mates as though there is some sort of secret cabal wheeling and dealing behind the doors of number 10. I would also point out Blair was quite enthusiastic about introducing partial privatisation into the NHS.

Quote:  "By 2008 we could have as much as 40% of acute operations done in the private sector" Tony Blair. I'd hardly call him a mate of the Tories.

 

One point about privatisation is it gave the proletariat an opportunity to share in the ownership of the means of production, surely you approve of that. 

 

11 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And yet.. their deep and abiding faith in the power of 'markets' and the amazing efficency of the 'private sector', have somehow failed to address the housing crisis, the health crisis, the social care crisis, the prisons crisis, the, wealth gap, the north south divide..etc.,etc.

 

 

The social care crisis would not be such a huge crisis if we the people played fair! I'm sick of hearing people moan and groan and plot and scheme to avoid paying for elderly relatives care when they need it most. It's disgusting that people think they can just dump the old and infirm into council care then sit back and consider what to do with their inheritance. The strange thing is the old contribute to it by transferring asset ownership etc to the kids purely to avoid paying in the future - amazing! Other aspects of social care would not be under such a strain if we had a bit more respect and accepted more responsibility. 

The health crisis will always be with us, no matter how much money goes in it will never be enough.

The north/south divide again will always be so, it's difficult to judge if the economics are disproportionate but draw a Liverpool/Manchester line and  the majority of people live south of it, how can it ever be equal?

 

The wealth gap is the natural order of things. It may unpalatable to some to say it but it is. There always have and will always be rich and poor but we must at the same time accept 

to some in the world even the poorest in Britain live like lords.

 

I'll be interested to read how you think the Tories made us poorer deliberately. I can accept it may have happened as the result of a failed policy but to think someone in number 10 said "OK guys how can we make the people poorer", can't see it.

[DJ360 6,730]

Jim.. Sometimes when we get deep into these discussions.. I see the Engineer in you coming out.  Everything is either right or wrong and everything has a 'yes' or a 'no' answer.  Sadly, people, societies and politics aren't amenable to such obvious certainty and it's often much more about seeing trends, tendencies etc.

 

11 hours ago, Brew said:

Anthropologists are in essence arrogant. They study people and societies likes entomologists study bugs. They stand  apart from people as though they themselves are not part of the human race and assume their education makes them better able to understand.

 

The above is in no way a true reflection of either Anthropology, or Anthropologists.  I did not say it was Anthropologists who interfered in New Guinea, or who tried to suppress culture in the Canadian North West.  You just assumed so in your rush to 'diss' Anthropologists. In fact it was Governments, interfering , or in the case of the Canadians actually seeing themselves as vastly intellectually and morally superior. But also.. surely you see that any culture outside the Colonial powers' own was a threat? Just as our current racists and xenophobes fear anything different?.

 

Your description of both Anthropology and its practitioners is narrow, inaccurate and insulting.

Anthropology is the study of Humans.  Our history, development, customs, societal structures, belief systems, etc.. etc. Just like History, it is a way of helping to understand or decipher where we are now. and why. It is not just about studying remote tribes, though it is often very informative to study relatively small and less complex societies in order to gain insights into our own, much more diverse and complex present day mess. You are being very unfair to a whole area of study.

I don't recall much of what I read, but I do recall reading Witchcraft Among the Azande, by E Evans Pritchard.  Have a look here:  https://exemplore.com/magic/Book-Review-Witchcraft-Oracles-and-Magic-among-the-Azande

 

It used to be very fashionable to 'slag off' Sociology.  You are doing the same to Anthropology., yet, like all of the Humanities these are disciplines which add to our understanding of our own current situation.  Just because people. unlike objects... refuse to lie down and behave for those studying them.. does not mean we should stop trying.

 

11 hours ago, Brew said:

Not putting words in your mouth Col but merely repeating the dogma socialist have been quoting for years. 

The privatisation of the utilities was wrong, no argument. I worked in the electricity industry prior to 1990 and quite honestly it was a disgrace. It did all it was supposed to do and made huge profits for the exchequer but in terms of efficiency it would make Taylor turn in his grave. It was like a holiday camp but as I said at least it made money.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree with your characterisation of any industry as 'Like a Holiday Camp', but if, as you say.. it made money and worked.. what's not to like?  I think I can guess.... No Shareholders sitting on their fat arses and watching the fruits of someone else's labour pouring into their own coffers.  That is the ONLY reason why anyone would object to the Electricity Industry as you described it.

11 hours ago, Brew said:

Others didn't, the railways were pretty poor and many claim lack of investment as the reason yet governments  poured millions in to prop them up. Others, ports, airports, coal, Leyland and so on, were a stranglehold on the economy and there was no good reason for state ownership.

 

I'd argue that Railways are basic infrastructure.  Even the 'Mericuns cannot make their railways profitable, any more than we can extract a direct profit out of the M6. but in both cases, we would be stuffed without them.

I'd also argue that whilst state ownership might not be ideal in some industries. maybe including Car Manufacture. it beats the hell out of ownership by another State.. which is what we have now in many cases.

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

I have trouble accepting the crown jewels were sold to their mates as though there is some sort of secret cabal wheeling and dealing behind the doors of number 10. I would also point out Blair was quite enthusiastic about introducing partial privatisation into the NHS.

Quote:  "By 2008 we could have as much as 40% of acute operations done in the private sector" Tony Blair. I'd hardly call him a mate of the Tories.

 

One point about privatisation is it gave the proletariat an opportunity to share in the ownership of the means of production, surely you approve of that. 

 

Very naive on your part Jim.  Not something I'd often say.. but if you really don't see that there is a secret lobbying 'cabal' operating around Westminster with the primary objective of influencing Govt. Policy in favour of 'Big Money'. then there's no hope for you.  As for the issue of a few shares giving the 'Proletariat' a 'stake' in things.  Really? You know as well as I do that money goes to money.  The vast majority of those plebs who got a couple of Grand's worth of shares in Gas or whatever had little option but to flog them at the first sign of redundancy or recession.  They were bought up by all those cash rich speculators and in less than a generation, the Thatcherite experiment was revealed for what it was.. a bloody great con.

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

The social care crisis would not be such a huge crisis if we the people played fair! I'm sick of hearing people moan and groan and plot and scheme to avoid paying for elderly relatives care when they need it most. It's disgusting that people think they can just dump the old and infirm into council care then sit back and consider what to do with their inheritance. The strange thing is the old contribute to it by transferring asset ownership etc to the kids purely to avoid paying in the future - amazing! Other aspects of social care would not be under such a strain if we had a bit more respect and accepted more responsibility. 

 

Look at it another way. People work all their lives and pay taxes.  They get a bit of property and hope to leave something to their kids.  then. the Govt. privatises Social Care and old folk have to sell their homes to pay to be elsewhere.  Where did the taxes go?   You can tell me that the Taxes don't cover the Bill.. but that is not the issue.  How do we fund Adult Social Care?  You can't change the rules mid-stream.  You have to come up with a new and equitable system which people will buy into.

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

The health crisis will always be with us, no matter how much money goes in it will never be enough.

 

And yet our Tory friends thnk there's enough leeway for a profit..... 

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

The north/south divide again will always be so, it's difficult to judge if the economics are disproportionate but draw a Liverpool/Manchester line and  the majority of people live south of it, how can it ever be equal?

 

 

That's a very odd argument.  We have a NATIONAL economy on which taxes are levied etc.. Yet the North, especially since Thatcher.. has been disadvantaged by collapsing industry and lack of investment.  Of course there's a divide. and it is worse thanks to the Tories.

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

The wealth gap is the natural order of things. It may unpalatable to some to say it but it is. There always have and will always be rich and poor but we must at the same time accept 

to some in the world even the poorest in Britain live like lords.

 

This goes to the very core of what I'm arguing.  Yes.. there will always be rich and poor.. few would argue that.. but it is the HUGE and GROWING disparity in income between the rich and poor in the UK which is so offensive.  This has developed since Thatcher.. but much more in recent years. It is indisputable.  The rich are much richer and increasingly so.. while the rest of us are relatively poorer.  And this is ENTIRELY down to Govt. policy.

 

12 hours ago, Brew said:

I'll be interested to read how you think the Tories made us poorer deliberately. I can accept it may have happened as the result of a failed policy but to think someone in number 10 said "OK guys how can we make the people poorer", can't see it.

 

Really?  Let's put it this way.. they'd have to be even thicker than I think they are not to realise that what they were doing was going to make people poorer. Whether it was 'policy' or not is irrelevant. If they knew their actions were making people poorer and did nothing about it.. then they are guilty.

 

Let's see what they did:

Actually. lets not. Let's leave it till my next post.  There is so much that I'd be up all night detailing he malicious, doctrinaire, selfish and plain nasty measures these Tories have taken over the years which have not only made ordinary lives worse, but have also made Tory lives richer.

 

I'll be back.

 

 

[Oztalgian 3,298]

Brew and DJ360 I enjoy the thrust and parry of your political discussions and often after fact checking I learn so much.

 

I can report that privatisation of South Australia's electricity supply system has been an unmitigated disaster.

Historically our electricity was provided by the Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA) a state government owned entity. It largely used brown coal in power stations in the north of the state. At its peak it was widely held that it was one of the most efficient and cheapest energy networks in the world. The same price was charged for electricity regardless of where it was used in the state. During a state election in 1997 the then Liberal (Conservative) premier pledged not to privatise ETSA. However, after being re-elected proceeded with privatisation citing the dire financial situation that the state found itself following the State Bank crisis which nearly bankrupt SA. The premier broke his promise and the vertically integrated business was sold off as generators, transmission, distribution and retail entities in their own right. Many of these are partly owned by foreign entities. Since privatisation prices have risen steadily and in 2017 it was widely held that SA had the highest electricity prices in the world. Privatisation has been a great success. 51% of our distribution network is foreign owned (a Hong Kong entity) with a 200 year lease? The transmitter of electricity in SA is 46.5% owned by State Grid Corporation of China. All in all a resounding fail and only now are prices starting to stabilise of even fall.

 

Don't get me started on foreign ownership of agricultural land and water resources. A sovereign entity should control its' land, water, electricity, natural gas and oil reserves and other strategically important entities.

[Brew 5,421]

17 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

Sadly, people, societies and politics aren't amenable to such obvious certainty and it's often much more about seeing trends, tendencies etc.

 

Then perhaps it's time we had an engineer in charge. Someone who can see the problem and come up with a solution rather than a committee self centered, self indulgent empire builders who, 'see the trend, are aware of the nuances, pay tribute to the margins ad bloody infinitum - and do nothing but agree the menu for the next meeting. The solution may not always work, it doesn't always, so scrap it, change it and move on, at least have a go rather than all this intellectual claptrap politicians of all flavours trot out with monotonous regularity.

Sometimes we really do look for complex answers to simple problems. Time someone cut through the BS.

 

27 minutes ago, DJ360 said:

You just assumed so in your rush to 'diss' Anthropologists

 

These are my actual words Col (made small to save space)

And it's not 'arrogant' ? They failed to realise the natives had no need for organised agriculture, they were self sufficient for food. They assumed they knew better and could introduce 20th century customs and practice into a hunter gatherer society, and that's not arrogant?

There was no sense of 'home' in many cases, when they used all the resources in one place, they simply moved to another. I maintain it was arrogant of the whoever made the program to assume they knew better and experiment with peoples lives for no good reason - just to see what happens.

The natives did however willingly take steel knives and modern textiles from the Aussies, for those they could see the advantages.

Did the indigenous people did not know of the alternatives, cities, sanitation, health care, clean water etc? Only when they can see clearly the choices, have the education to understand and still choose loincloths and monkey meat can it be said they are content with their lot. They want to preserve their culture? they have little of no sense of culture their world revolves around need and the fact they die if they don't meet those needs every day.

You also mention the Canadians suppressing the natives of the North West - and that's not arrogance in extremis? Was the Empire not built on our arrogance?

There is no mention of anthropologists until after my little diatribe about arrogance. I don't mention them until the next paragraph when I shift focus and talk of them as being in the same vein. I could have made it clearer but sometimes in my efforts to be succinct I can take it to far.

 

I reject the idea that the this topic is in any way the same as current racists. The Canadians never saw (and still don't), the first nations as a threat, an embarrassment yes,  a problem that needed to go away certainly but I doubt there was any perceived threat culturally, economically or physically. They treated the problem in much the same way Britain did with unwanted children, we shipped them all over the world, so, out of sight,  out of mind and gave anthropologist food for thought for years to come. We were still doing it up to 1967.

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

Your description of both Anthropology and its practitioners is narrow, inaccurate and insulting.

 

Intentionally so though I'm not so sure it's all that inaccurate, your description reads like a university course pamphlet though it's probably more accepted than my somewhat jaundiced view. Studying small, less complex societies will teach us relatively little about  our own other than to say life was simpler years ago than it is now. Look past the hype and intellectual mumbo jumbo and see it for what it is.

 

The E.Evans is a colossal example of the arrogance I'm talking about. He went among the Azande and proceeded to challenge their belief system in order to better understand them?

I bet that went down a storm. A bit like telling Christians or Muslims it's all a load of baloney to gain a better insight of what makes them who and what they are. He claims he had no set opinion about the existence of witches or withcraft, then goes on to say they 'clearly do not exist'.

Like Schrodinger's cat you change things the moment you look at it and the book itself has a section charting the changes since the study.  At the end of the day what did the book teach us? What in reality can a primitive tribe teach us other than some twerp wittering on about being at one with nature. I say leave well alone and let them develop and evolve as they will.

 

1 hour ago, DJ360 said:

I'm not sure I'd agree with your characterisation of any industry as 'Like a Holiday Camp',

 

You really had to be there. When a crew tells you they didn't carry out your order because they didn't think it necessary so went home. An industry that paid billions to the treasury because the profits they made were obscenely higher than they were allowed to make under the charter, where 10 men did a job that only needed 6. Pet peeve...The only reason I objected to the setup was the sheer waste of money, resources, manpower and my frustration that everything took so damn long to get anything done.

 

I rather think those who 'told Sid' would disagree with your description of having fat arses. I like everyone else who worked there had, according to rank (something I vehemently disagreed with), free shares and an opportunity to buy an option on more. I seized it with both hands, took up the option and still have them, National Grid did the same.

 

The only reason we don't make a profit from the M6 is no one has tried. It will happen when 'pay per mile' comes along and yes Highways England are working on it. There's more to smart motorways than cameras and fancy signs.

You're right railways are part of the transport infrastructure but they are running better now than ever they did under BR with the bonus we don't give them anywhere near as much public money.

Letting foreign companies in is a mistake in my opinion but it has to be said the Brits had first dibs and turned them down. 

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Ifyou really don't see that there is a secret lobbying 'cabal' operating around Westminster

 

I see the open groups of lobbyists who work for various factions, many with no particular political affiliation, what I don't see is a cabal. Lobbyist are not exclusively Tory nor are they solely for the purpose of promoting 'big money'. 

I

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

As for the issue of a few shares giving the 'Proletariat' a 'stake' in things.  Really? You know as well as I do that money goes to money

 

I can think of no other way of giving workers an interest in the means of production, an idea long cherished by socialists.

You're almost right, money does not 'go' to money, money 'makes' money if those who have it use it wisely. Thousands were given a chance of having more than were ever  likely to see without winning the pools. I would suggest that it was far from the 'vast majority' who were forced let them go. 

Some did well from privatisation, many probably selling the shares and buying their council house at a huge discount - and some were broke by the end of the week. Try as you might you can't blame government for what people did with their windfall.

 

There are no pejorative phrases you can use about Thatcher I've not heard and agreed with. She started the rot it's true but Blair/Brown don't come out as squeaky clean either when it comes to privatisation as you well know,

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Look at it another way. People work all their lives and pay taxes.  They get a bit of property and hope to leave something to their kids.  then. the Govt. privatises Social Care and old folk have to sell their homes to pay to be elsewhere. 

 

Lets look at it another way. The govt is not their mam,  girlfriend, wife or nanny. If people can't be arsed to make provisions for themselves don't expect anyone else to do it. If they want to p*** it up the wall fine, don't come crying just because they are down to their last few hundred thousand and want to hold it back for the kids.

Quite a few in care no longer have capacity so someone, usually an offspring, has power of attorney. I'd be ashamed at the shenanigans some of them get up to so they avoid paying for a supposedly loved ones final years.

I know there are financial limits and restrictions but I also know there is a whole industry aimed at avoiding them.

 

I've yet to see where it is written we have an inalienable right to pass on to the next generation anything more than our good wishes.

 

For those who genuinely cannot afford it then fine I have no problem, that's what the system was designed for and not a dumping ground for the no longer useful.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

22 hours ago, Brew said:

The health crisis will always be with us, no matter how much money goes in it will never be enough.

 

And yet our Tory friends thnk there's enough leeway for a profit..... 

 

Profit is the lowest of the considerations when viewing privatisation of the NHS. I think it's nearer the truth to say govt is looking at the albatross round it's neck called the health service and want out. Who to they don't care, nor do they care if there is profit to be made, they simply want out but no govt dare do it. Labour of course are happy to keep throwing billions at a creaky out of date and badly managed institution rather than face the problem.

Note, I'm NOT advocating a privatisation. It was once the envy of the world and shining example of how it should be done. It could be again.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

That's a very odd argument.  We have a NATIONAL economy on which taxes are levied etc.. Yet the North, especially since Thatcher.. has been disadvantaged by collapsing industry and lack of investment.  Of course there's a divide. and it is worse thanks to the Tories.

 

It's not an odd argument it's an economic argument. Who in their right mind will setup a business in the north knowing full well the majority of customers are in the south. Any business will tell you the transport and delivery of goods is huge part of the cost of sales on the balance sheet. That's why there are large industrial parks and distribution centers all over central England. If we consider manufacturing and export then delivery is mostly by containers. Usually through Southampton, Tilbury or Felixstowe, again  in the south.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Yes.. there will always be rich and poor.. few would argue that.. but it is the HUGE and GROWING disparity in income between the rich and poor in the UK which is so offensive.  This has developed since Thatcher.. but much more in recent years. It is indisputable.  The rich are much richer and increasingly so.. while the rest of us are relatively poorer.  And this is ENTIRELY down to Govt. policy.

 

You take exception to the degree of separation between rich and poor, fine but where do you draw the line. Is it when you have a 100 pound more than me, or a 101? Overly simplistic but I'm sure you get my point. As for the super rich and those with 'obscene' amounts of money there really aren't as many as we think. 

 

Thatcher, though I'd like to find a reason to blame her, had almost nothing to do with rich getting richer, it's been going on for centuries. The gap may be accelerating but that has little to do with the blessed Margret and more to do with life in the 21st century.

[Brew 5,421]

4 hours ago, Oztalgian said:

Don't get me started on foreign ownership of agricultural land and water resources. A sovereign entity should control its' land, water, electricity, natural gas and oil reserves and other strategically important entities.

 

I quite agree Qz though I don't know much about the system or setup 'down under' so I did as you do and went fact checking.

Australia in the list of the 25 most expensive electrical supply costs comes in at number 12,  just a few pennies above the UK at number 16. Comparing country by country though can be misleading, sometimes variations within individual states can have a significant effect.

 

Foreign ownership has to wrong but if Qz is anything like the UK locals had a chance and turned it down.

The EMEB went private, was sold to the Americans, then back to the Brits (Powergen) before being sold on to the Germans (EoN). It is now back in US hands, (Western Power). Other regional distributors were similar. The Germans and the French also have a significant stake in the industry. 

[Ayupmeducks 1,730]

Prices vary heavily this side of the pond, I know PG&E customers in California pay twice as much as we pay, our utility is a CoOp, all the customers are shareholders and it's run none profit, so we have some of the cheapest charges in the US per KW/Hr.

 

[Ayupmeducks 1,730]

@ Oz, I used to work for the Electricity Commission of NSW for seven years at one of their NSW Collieries. We supplied Wallerawang Power Staion just west of Lithgow.

When I started there in early 80's, our coal prices were the cheapest in the world!! $13 a metric Tonne delivered to the station!! Colliery in the world at that time could produce coal at that price, let alone delivered and make a profit. We managed both, the mine was an efficient profit making set up.

[Oztalgian 3,298]

11 hours ago, Brew said:

It will happen when 'pay per mile' comes along and yes Highways England are working on it.

Yes Brew, it is inevitable as more and more cars become electric the revenue from fuel excise and its VAT/GST component will fall.

Our new car uses 40% less fuel than the previous model so the tax take from our car has significantly reduced. As many new cars are equipped with GPS it will be relatively easy to tax them on a per mile basis.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

Then perhaps it's time we had an engineer in charge. Someone who can see the problem and come up with a solution rather than a committee self centered, self indulgent empire builders who, 'see the trend, are aware of the nuances, pay tribute to the margins ad bloody infinitum - and do nothing but agree the menu for the next meeting.

 

No.  Because quite apart from you now taking to 'dissing' all politicians, while you give Anthropologists a break.. what you seem to be advocating is some sort of Dictatorship.  How many of those have we had?  Those who were convinced that they alone had the answer and were so convinced by their own intellectual superiority that they  set about circumventing legitimate decision making 'for the good of all'. I hesitate to use the biggest name of all for fear of invoking Godwin's Law.  Engineering, which is just applied science, is, like science, morally neutral and therefore completely devoid of empathy. I cannot imagine living in a society which was devoid of empathy, however 'logical' it might seem.

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

The E.Evans is a colossal example of the arrogance I'm talking about. He went among the Azande and proceeded to challenge their belief system in order to better understand them?

 

No.  To better understand US. But whatever.. we clearly need to agree to disagree.

 

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

You really had to be there.

 

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

.The only reason I objected to the setup was the sheer waste of money, resources, manpower and my frustration that everything took so damn long to get anything done.

 

 

And yet, you've already said they paid millions to the exchequer.  They also presumably all earned decent money.. which they spent 'down the pub' or in sahops or wherever.  All good.. And think of the Tax take! 

 

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

Lets look at it another way. The govt is not their mam,  girlfriend, wife or nanny. If people can't be arsed to make provisions for themselves don't expect anyone else to do it. If they want to p*** it up the wall fine, don't come crying just because they are down to their last few hundred thousand and want to hold it back for the kids.

 

Riddled with massive assumptions.. .. not least that figure of 'few hundred thousand' but the bottom line is that the present/recent Govt. want to change the rules BEFORE people have been given the opportunity to make alternate provision.. just as they have already done with State Pensions.  One day I'll tell you about my own experiences with 'Adult Social Care' and Nottm City Council.

One other point.  Alzheimer's Disease is a Health Condition.. until it comes to Social Care. when it no longer counts.

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

Profit is the lowest of the considerations when viewing privatisation of the NHS. I think it's nearer the truth to say govt is looking at the albatross round it's neck called the health service and want out. Who to they don't care, nor do they care if there is profit to be made, they simply want out but no govt dare do it. Labour of course are happy to keep throwing billions at a creaky out of date and badly managed institution rather than face the problem.

Note, I'm NOT advocating a privatisation. It was once the envy of the world and shining example of how it should be done. It could be again.

 

On your first point.. organisations (And reputedly Trump.. though I doubt he actually knows what he is blathering about as he reflexly utters his drivel) are queueing up to get access to NHS Funding.  You seem to deny a simple truth.. wherever there is money.. there is opportunity for profit.  And the NHS, well run or badly run, fully funded or under funded, represents a massive budget.  The speculators and the Tory's 'hangers on' can't stop salivating...

You characterisation of the Lbour position is both pure speculation, and contradictory.. since you claim that Labour wanted privatisation too.

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

It's not an odd argument it's an economic argument. Who in their right mind will setup a business in the north knowing full well the majority of customers are in the south. Any business will tell you the transport and delivery of goods is huge part of the cost of sales on the balance sheet. That's why there are large industrial parks and distribution centers all over central England. If we consider manufacturing and export then delivery is mostly by containers. Usually through Southampton, Tilbury or Felixstowe, again  in the south.

 

Liverpool? 

But basically you are saying the North.. on which the Industrial Revolution was built, and which for decades, if not centuries, 'put the Butter on the South's bread' can now just be ignored and left to rot?

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

You take exception to the degree of separation between rich and poor, fine but where do you draw the line. Is it when you have a 100 pound more than me, or a 101? Overly simplistic but I'm sure you get my point. As for the super rich and those with 'obscene' amounts of money there really aren't as many as we think. 

 

Yes.. I do.  I take deep exception when people who could definitely buy and sell me, and most likely you, demand tax cuts, while others work several zero hours jobs just to keep a tatty roof over their heads and put cheap food on the table.. ( if they have a table).  The basic point here is that to any one with any sense of moral decency, there IS a line and someone has to draw it.  I really and honestly do not give a flying **** how much money someone has. I care how many people DON'T have enough.  I have already said this but it bears repeating.  I have seen and worked with numerous families and individuals who have all kinds of issues which are not self inflicted, but which place them permanently at the bottom of the heap.  This is not a sign of a decent society.

On 6/1/2020 at 1:17 PM, Brew said:

Thatcher, though I'd like to find a reason to blame her, had almost nothing to do with rich getting richer, it's been going on for centuries.

 

The above is frankly rubbish.  The whole point is that up until Thatcher.. things were evening up a bit. OK.. it wasn't all sweetness and light, but it was NEVER as bad as portrayed in the press, and in any case many of Britain's economic problems in the 70s were the result of external forces..  Then Thatcher (Very close to Godwin here..)  jumped in and started the reversal of all the gains ordinary people had made , esp. since WW2.  Because SHE and ONLY SHE knew what we needed.  I hated her, Unions and most right thinking workers hated her. Even many 'old school' Tories hated her.

And I still haven't fully laid out how the Tories have attacked everything that made Britain a fair, tolerant and tolerable country until 1979.

 

I'll be back.

[DJ360 6,730]

And in other news...

 

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology... we have all had the opportunity to watch a black US Citizen being murdered.. slowly, by a Police Officer with at least 5 previous complaints of Police Brutality against him.

 

Geoge Floyd was already under arrest and handcuffed as Chauvin continued to keep a knee on his neck despite Floyd's and bystander's pleas.

 

It seems Floyd was 'suspected' of trying to pass a forged note.    He wasn't even proven to be doing so.  Just.. 'suspected'. Think about that.. It's something any of us could unwittingly do..  And whatever Floyd was guilty, or not.. of doing.. does not carry the Death Sentence.. even in the increasingly right wing Trumpian Nightmare that is the current US.

 

And.. although I've not followed too closely.. I've not heard anything from that Cretin Trump expressing regret at the death of one of his fellow citizens, suggesting that enquiries might be made or even acknowledging that there might just be something wrong with U.S. society. 

 

And I've certainly not seen that idiot Trump acknowledge that protesters might just have a point..

 

No.. instead I have seen that sub-human, self obsessed  , posturing  excuse for a human being declaring war on his own citizens because he is too stupid, arrogant, insensitive and megalomaniacal to admit that something in HIS America might just be, unlike him.. less than perfect.

 

How do you tolerate this?

 

How do you defend this ?

 

You have to get rid of this moron, for the sake of yourselves and the World.

[Brew 5,421]

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I hesitate to use the biggest name of all for fear of invoking Godwin's Law.  Engineering, which is just applied science, is, like science, morally neutral and therefore completely devoid of empathy. I cannot imagine living in a society which was devoid of empathy, however 'logical' it might

 

I'm not suggesting a dictatorship of any sort and especially not a national socialist one. My point is the government is stuffed with talking heads, law degrees being the common denominator. I merely suggested that perhaps someone with a more analytical mind might be a better decision maker.

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

No.  To better understand US. But whatever.. we clearly need to agree to disagree.

 

 

Having gone back and read more I'm even more convinced of my view. Is it standard anthropological practice to try and become a witch doctor in order to challenge the status quo? I despair of people like him.

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

And yet, you've already said they paid millions to the exchequer.  They also presumably all earned decent money.. which they spent 'down the pub' or in sahops or wherever.  All good.. And think of the Tax take! 

 

The workers screwed and fiddled the system to the extent they operated a virtual closed shop to protect their high wages but it's way to complex to detail here. Suffice to say in the 80's and high unemployment think of the good men they kept on the dole...

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

On your first point.. organisations (And reputedly Trump.. though I doubt he actually knows what he is blathering about as he reflexly utters his drivel) are queueing up to get access to NHS Funding.  You seem to deny a simple truth.. wherever there is money.. there is opportunity for profit.  And the NHS, well run or badly run, fully funded or under funded, represents a massive budget.  The speculators and the Tory's 'hangers on' can't stop salivating...

You characterisation of the Lbour position is both pure speculation, and contradictory.. since you claim that Labour wanted privatisation too.

 

I'll ignore the barb about Trump, pursuing that serves no purpose. IF the NHS was privatised then obviously whoever took it on would be in it for the profit, I don't deny it.

What I was saying was that our govt, are not bothered about making a profit from the sale, the returns would come from not having to support the NHS. 

 

Again you misinterpret me and now you're putting words in my mouth'

 

The NHS  to the Labour party is the jewel in the crown, and rightly so. I have never suggested they wanted to sell it off, I gave a quote by Tony Blair when he proposed partial privatisation that there could be 40% of acute operations done in the private sector. It didn't happen but no one can deny the leader of the Labour party was open to some sort of quasi private arrangement.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But basically you are saying the North.. on which the Industrial Revolution was built, and which for decades, if not centuries, 'put the Butter on the South's bread' can now just be ignored and left to rot?

 

Liverpool docks are small by comparison but the Tories are investing 400 million into an expansion scheme which should help, however the same argument stands. It's easier to to reach them from the midlands than Teeside. 

You know your history and Adam Smith (in the 'Wealth of Nations'), gave the same argument I use. Navigable rivers, canals and good roads meant transportation cost were lower than elsewhere. Coal was abundant as was water to power the mills. There are other reasons...but they no longer apply.

 

Leaving them to rot? hardly but this is the twenty first century and supporting something just because 'it's centuries old' won't wash, especially a system that was built on the back of virtual slave labour.

 

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I have seen and worked with numerous families and individuals who have all kinds of issues which are not self inflicted, but which place them permanently at the bottom of the heap.  This is not a sign of a decent society.

 

There you have me at a disadvantage. I have no knowledge or experience in my adult life of the poverty you describe. I absolutely take your word for it but can I ask, quite seriously, how many and what percentage of the general public are we talking about. Yes one is too many but lets try and stay in the real world. There will always be people who fall by the wayside and we as a society should have a safety net for such instances. Sadly much as we aim for it we are never going to be perfect.

The 'tatty' roof and doubtful furniture I have seen, but not since I was a child.

3 hours ago, DJ360 said:

many of Britain's economic problems in the 70s were the result of external forces..

 

The majority of the forces in play were unions and management locked in a battle to preserve out dated and in the case of Red Robbo and Jack Dash, outlandish practices. In this instance i can quote from actual experience. There were some external forces, mainly from the other half of the 'special relationship' but those influences were minor compared to the home grown variety.

Having said that we need to recognise that a weak parliament led by  Callaghan (Labour) presided over one of the biggest rises in inflation we have ever seen and at the same time we had a period of the lowest growth in GDP often returning negative figures. It was Callaghan that introduced wage restraint and caused  the 'Winter of Discontent.' It was Callaghan that  devalued the pound and made him resign his post.  He went to the IMF cap in hand for a loan and agreed some crippling terms to get it.

The sectarian violence in Ireland kicked off on his watch.

 

So I refute that it's rubbish and we were doing fine until Thatcher, we weren't,' not by a long way.

 

I won't argue she did an awful lot of damage but she has been made a scapegoat for far more than she should. If there was a way to blame her for the weather we would find it.

I had cause to work in the docks, mainly Liverpool and London and in the car industry. The only manufactures I did not visit regularly were Aston Martin and Alvis, so quite a bit of experience.

You say things were never as bad as portrayed, I can assure you at times they were worse. 

 

 

[DJ360 6,730]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

What I was saying was that our govt, are not bothered about making a profit from the sale, the returns would come from not having to support the NHS. 

 

Well as a Government. no..  But as representatives of a party which has undeniable and deeply entrenched links with 'big business' both here and abroad... they have proven themselves all too eager to push UK Govt. funded 'business' in the direction of their 'associates'.  No doubt it is all technically legal and above board (as tends to happen when you are also making the rules.) but it stinks and it is obvious.

 

I'll be back.

 

[Brew 5,421]

Hmm, just to be clear, are we now talking about other than the NHS? Which govt funded business are we talking about, who are the associates and what were the alternatives? Whether it stinks or to what degree it is obvious rather depends on ones viewpoint and  political propensity.

I also think what you're  saying can equally apply to any government, not just the Tories. Businesses exist to make money and they court and curry favour with the government of the day regardless of left or right leanings if they can see an advantage to do so.

[DJ360 6,730]

On 6/4/2020 at 1:12 AM, Brew said:

Hmm, just to be clear, are we now talking about other than the NHS?

 

Yes.

I'm not going to deny that there has always been a degree of corruption/favouritism and what amounts to 'backhanders' from all flavours of Govt as long as our Parliamentary Democracy has existed.

 

But.. if you wanted to set a political equivalent of a 'Restore Point' for the UK.. I'd suggest 1979, and the election of one Margaret Hilda Thatcher as PM.

This was the woman who broke the previous 'consensus' and set out to attack the foundations of Democracy in the UK.  Sounds a bit dramatic that doesn't it?  But, it was she who decided that the Unions needed to be crushed. Not for the benefit of the country.. but for the benefit of her distorted view of this country.

 

You see I never bought into the 'Unions have too much power' bollox.  Think about it.  It was never true and never could be true.  How could a few leaders of a few wage slaves have the resources to defeat the big money?  Frankly.. they couldn't. and they didn't.  But, just as with the later 2008 'Crash' they got the blame for the parlous state of the UK economy and UK industry in the 1970s.

 

So if it wasn't the Unions... who was it?  Answer.. just as with the Wall St. Crash, the 2008 Crash etc.. it was the greed driven machinations of the international financiers which caused the problem. but it was the ordinary working people and their representatives who were blamed, by Govt., and by their toadying tame press.  And even when the workers weren't cited as the cause.. as per 1929. their suffering was the preferred solution.

 

T'was just the same in the 1970s.  Massive inflation caused by economic mismanagement., oil crises etc.. but blamed on workers.  And when workers fought back against inflation wrecked wages and sought increases.. they were accused of CAUSING the inflation.

 

There's a background to my political thinking.

 

I'll expand later.

[Brew 5,421]

A

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But.. if you wanted to set a political equivalent of a 'Restore Point' for the UK.. I'd suggest 1979, and the election of one Margaret Hilda Thatcher as PM.

This was the woman who broke the previous 'consensus' and set out to attack the foundations of Democracy in the UK.  Sounds a bit dramatic that doesn't it?  But, it was she who decided that the Unions needed to be crushed. Not for the benefit of the country.. but for the benefit of her distorted view of this country.

 

Probably the most blinkered view you have ever poster here Col. Back to 1979? surely you're joking. I take it the post I made that included mention of record inflation, wage restraints, IMF loans, three day weeks and devaluation. etc can be blithely glossed over as a bit of a blip then!

To say Thatchers view of what was best for the country is distorted can’t be substantiated, it’s simply a mantra accepted by socialists who have no proof that her actions not in the national interest as she saw it.

Post '79 the electorate must have agreed with her, Labour suffered the most humiliating defeat since the war.

I really don't want to defend Thatcher any more, it's really hard work so I'm staying with the period pre 79.

 

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

You see I never bought into the 'Unions have too much power' bollox.  Think about it.  It was never true and never could be true.  How could a few leaders of a few wage slaves have the resources to defeat the big money?  Frankly.. they couldn't. and they didn't.  

But, just as with the later 2008 'Crash' they got the blame for the parlous state of the UK economy and UK industry in the 1970s.

 

An old argument based purely on numbers - it was true, they could and they did!  Consider the miners strike. How could an industry with fewer than 300 000 members bring down a government representing 50 odd million people?

Simple answer, by creating a situation with the help and backing of the TUC that the voters of this country found intolerable. No electricity, rubbish piled in the streets...…….. They totally subverted the democratic process, an unelected body that forced a government into decisions they didn't want to take.

Having defeated Heath they then ruled the roost almost with impunity until the 80's

There was a phrase, can't remember the exact words, but it accused the unions of having power without the responsibility. Any who cannot recognise that fact is either naïve or wasn't there!

Too much power?  Blair and Brown both served as PM, neither were in a rush to restore the unions to there former glory and power. They recognised that by any standard they were dangerously out of control.

 

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

So if it wasn't the Unions... who was it?  Answer.. just as with the Wall St. Crash, the 2008 Crash etc.. it was the greed driven machinations of the international financiers which caused the problem

 

Greed driven? possibly but you can't really blame Financiers for bailing out given the situation Robinson, Dash and their militant cohorts created in every part of industry, so yes, unions (mostly), were to blame.

 

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

but it was the ordinary working people and their representatives who were blamed, by Govt., and by their toadying tame press.  And even when the workers weren't cited as the cause.. as per 1929. their suffering was the preferred solution.

 

1929 was nothing like the 70's.

 

Toadying tame press? we are talking of 1979 and the preceding years, a time when the biggest selling newspaper in the country was solid Labour, has been since I was born.

 

Their preferred solution? You say that as though unions and bolshie management had no part to play, that everything was due to the government, which may I remind you, was Labour for the greater part of the previous 15 years. You hint the solution was grinding poverty 'ala 1929 - it was nothing of the sort.

 

16 hours ago, DJ360 said:

 

T'was just the same in the 1970s.  Massive inflation caused by economic mismanagement., oil crises etc.. but blamed on workers.  And when workers fought back against inflation wrecked wages and sought increases.. they were accused of CAUSING the inflation.

 

No one blamed workers or government for the oil crisis and I rather think that 11 years of Labour boom and bust policies may have had something to do with the runaway inflation -  plus unions were forcing wage rises of 13%  and more, how can you maintain they did not contribute?

 

A societal reset to 1979... I think not.

[philmayfield 6,144]

I used to travel a lot on business in Europe during the Thatcher years. So many times I was told by the Europeans 'I wish we'd got a Mrs Thatcher!'

[Brew 5,421]

I've just read my post again and must apologies for the bad spelling and punctuation. It seems I'm getting worserer as I get olderer...

[DJ360 6,730]

4 hours ago, Brew said:

Probably the most blinkered view you have ever poster here Col. Back to 1979? surely you're joking. I take it the post I made that included mention of record inflation, wage restraints, IMF loans, three day weeks and devaluation. etc can be blithely glossed over as a bit of a blip then!

 

It all happened. (Well.. most of it.. much of the Winter of Discontent stuff was press hysteria and here, in the revolutionary epicentre that is Merseyside, I saw nothing.  

But that's not the issue.  We are clearly debating the cause.  According to Thatcher and many who bought her simplistic tripe.. the cause was union power.  That is, I still maintain.. utter drivel. Yes Red Robbo and a few others stood out and I wouldn't agree with their tactics any more than I agree with some of the more extreme methods of the current George Floyd protesters, but it doesn't follow that they are the problem.. rather.. they are a symptom.

 

Also, apart from the fact that Robbo didn't represent the bulk of workers in the UK, there was the same blight of press exaggeration and lies, just as now, when anything left wing even begins to gain traction.

 

Workers faced with extreme inflation see their efforts eroded in a real and crippling way.  Most have few reserves and do not embark on strike action on a whim.  I lived this, along with repeat redundancies throughout the 70s.  I was paying 15% mortgage interest at some point.

 

So, Thatcher came to power and proceded to attack the Miners, not by meeting the unions head on as such, but by accellerating pit closures by trumping up lies about profitability which might have fooled the dim but didn't fool me.  The whole environmental issue over coal wasn't strongly on the radar back then.  Be clear here.  Scargill shot himself and the whole mining industry in the foot by using his clearly undemocratic 'rolling strike' methodology in the last strike because he knew he couldn't carry another majority for a strike.  It was he who divided the miners. But that didn't make Thatcher right.   Meanwhile, assorted Thatcher apologists and sycophants were trotting out tripe based on simpistic coal cost comparisons.  E.g. Cheap Polish Coal  at £10 per ton was seen as preferable to quality British Coal at a quid or so more per ton.

No accounting whatever for the fact that the Polish coal was crap and that the UK miners it displaced would still need feeding.

And furthermore, even if Thatcher's logic had been right.. i.e. that Coal wasn't profitable.. then she should have looked to mitigate the damage caused by closing an industry which supported the economies of parts of Scotland, Yorks, Notts, Derbys, Staffs, Wales, Kent and other areas.  She did nothing and consigned literally hundreds of communities to poverty.  She was inhuman.

[Oztalgian 3,298]

Here is one for Brew and DJ360...… Turn your speakers up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOCWUgwiWs

 

 

[Brew 5,421]

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

It all happened. (Well.. most of it.. much of the Winter of Discontent stuff was press hysteria and here, in the revolutionary epicentre that is Merseyside, I saw nothing.  

 You have got to be joking! I was travelling the length and breadth and saw and experienced a fair bit. Don't say Merseyside did not have power cuts, I know they did.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

But that's not the issue.  We are clearly debating the cause. 

 

The cause of what? we started with government funded businesses, moved to  a suggestion that 1979 was worth revisiting  and now seem to be well on the way to the financial status of the NCB and Maggie was a monster.

 

2 hours ago, DJ360 said:

but it doesn't follow that they are the problem.. rather.. they are a symptom.

 

Proving causality after so long would be difficult so we must agree to differ. Suffice it to say Jack Dash in particular was causing mayhem quite some time before he and Robinson came to the public notice.

I don't claim either of them represented the bulk of workers but I do say they and their acolytes had a disproportionate amount of influence. Workers came out on strike for the most outrageous of demands, many of them disagreeing  but had little choice but to obey the call.

London dockers went on strike to demand the right to  handle ALL goods within a mile of the docks is one instance I can recall. Liverpool dockers demanded each wharf and shed had an entire spare crew on standby in case  someone needed to 'relieve themselves'. After Fords caved in to a demand for an 8% increase in pay, unions upped their demand and forced Vauxhall to give a 13.5% increase and so on it went...

Causality? it would need a far more in depth discussion then these pages can support.

 

We have accountant members who can explain better than I the contribution accounting method used to make pits unviable. Whilst legal it was in my opinion a fiddle.

 

Scargill was single minded to the point of stupidity, he could see no further than the end of his nose. However the claims he made, seemingly outlandish at the time were later to be proved true. Greatrex led the challenge to the NUM NEC and succeeded in seceding to form the UDM. Ostensibly still within the NUM but independent in it's decision making. It was I think a major mistake to split.  Greatrex was later known for advising his political masters how to reduce mine workers power, he also went to jail for stealing from union funds.

[Brew 5,421]

5 hours ago, philmayfield said:

I used to travel a lot on business in Europe during the Thatcher years. So many times I was told by the Europeans 'I wish we'd got a Mrs Thatcher!'

 

In her first term she was greatly admired by many, the subsequent years went south though. I voted both for and against her.

[DJ360 6,730]

21 hours ago, Brew said:

The cause of what? we started with government funded businesses, moved to  a suggestion that 1979 was worth revisiting  and now seem to be well on the way to the financial status of the NCB and Maggie was a monster.

 

I'll admit that I've not been on good debating form for a few days.  As such I haven't developed my argument yet and am only dealing with one or two points at a time but lets start by clarifying my meaning over 1979.

 

I'm not for a moment suggesting we should return to those days.  I simply chose 1979 as it marked a major political re-alignment in the UK.  Probably the most significant since the immediate post WW2 election.

 

I'll say once more that the extremes of unionism etc., can all be seen as symptoms of a wider reaction to the industrial chaos and decline, rise of foreign competition, oil crises and all the rest of the stuff which fuelled inflation. Where we seem to disagree is whether inflation was the cause of, or caused by, increasing wage demands across the board.. i.e. not just in the big car plants etc.. which were never out of the news.

 

Thatcher.. helped by circumstances and a right wing jingoistic press... destroyed the former 'consensus politics'.  Prior to her 'reign', both main parties accepted the bulk of the status quo re: Unions/Welfare State/Public Ownership etc., etc.  She wrecked all that.  She didn't change it.. improve it.. 'rationalise it' or whatever.  She wrecked it.

 

Let me just get this out of the way... I detested Thatcher with every fibre of my being.  I hated her policies, but more than that I hated her World Class Faux Sincerity, her ghoulish seeking out of mostly hospital based 'photo opps', her nauseatingly patronising tone, her totally OTT misappropriation of the words of St Francis of Assisi and her utterly bizarre  adoption of the 'Royal We'.  I thought I'd never see her like again.. and then along came another megalomaniacally disturbing freak in the form of one Donald Trump..

 

But...  Moving on... and trying to get back on track in the debate about privatisation/asset stripping....

 

Thatch was responsible for privatising utilities etc.  We are now seeing the results of that policy as we are now in hock to Russia for energy and to China and France for building our new Nuclear Power stations.  And the bulk of the shares flogged off at the time are now back in the hands of large companies and institutions.

 

There are many other aspects to this though.  the Tory conviction that Private is always more efficient for e.g.  Well if your objective is to run something cheap.. then maybe so.. but that's no consolation if by doing so you create an entity which fails in its primary objective.. but does so cheaply.

 

At this point it might be opportune to bring in 'Right to Buy'.  In itself and on the face of it a reasonable idea.  Give the plebs the opportunity to get on the property ladder by allowing them to buy their 'social housing'. probably at a discount. Yep.. all well and good until we get to th bit where Councils are prohibited from using the cash generated from Right to Buy to build more Social Housing.  So we see the beginnings of the current housing crisis...

 

'Internal Markets' is another lunacy supposed.. I suppose.. to increase efficiency.. but in reality.. if you'll pardon the profanity.. just bollox.

 

I'd argue that Tories following on from Thatcher went beyond 'Privatisation'.  That could be seen as an 'ideological' policy... (albeit one which in terms of vital infrastructure is just barmy.) 

 

The post Thatcher Tories went way beyond alleged ideology and embarked upon an orgy of privatisation.  They flogged off everything.  But it was no longer just ideology.. it was now pure assett stripping.

 

I'll continue later.

[Brew 5,421]

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

I'm not for a moment suggesting we should return to those days.  I simply chose 1979 as it marked a major political re-alignment in the UK.  Probably the most significant since the immediate post WW2 election.

 

I'm not going to rehash my argument about the period in question but '79 was as you say a major re-alignment.

The term 'Thatcherism' had not  been invented and she had earned the somewhat disparaging soubriquet  'Thatcher the milk snatcher' - yet she won a crushing victory in the general election. That fact alone clearly demonstrates the depth of feeling and dissatisfaction among voters about the previous 11yrs of Labour and 4 yrs ineffectual Tory rule.  

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Where we seem to disagree is whether inflation was the cause of, or caused by, increasing wage demands across the board..

 

The cause of inflation is complex and it's too simplistic to blame a single party/union/industry. The strikes, the ridiculous demands, management intransigence and a weak government all contributed to a feeling of frustration with the voters that change was needed. Had the unions not stuck so rigidly to their socialist dogma, had management been more enlightened, things may well have been different - but  they didn't and they weren't.

 

10 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Prior to her 'reign', both main parties accepted the bulk of the status quo re: Unions/Welfare State/Public Ownership etc

 

I remember no consensus, consensus implies agreement and acceptance. What I do remember is decision making not by the elected body but by unelected lobbyists who used the threat of industrial action  to influence a minority government. I also remember the election phrase  "Who governs Britain"? not a question you would ask if there were not underlying reasons.

She didn't wreck the consensus, there was none to wreck.

11 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Thatch was responsible for privatising utilities etc.  We are now seeing the results of that policy as we are now in hock to Russia for energy and to China and France for building our new Nuclear Power stations.  And the bulk of the shares flogged off at the time are now back in the hands of large companies and institutions.

 

Privatisation was not Thatchers idea, Drucker mooted it in the 60's and I doubt he was the first.

 

An argument can be made that the only utility that should be in public ownership is water, it is the only one essential to life. Without electricity there is no water so is maybe essential by association. Gas is not essential, without it we would be cold and uncomfortable but we won't die. Really there was no good reason for the public ownership of airlines, railways and steel among others. Taking rail as an example privatisation has been a roaring success! Yes there are problems but passenger numbers are the highest they have ever been and public subsidy is at its lowest.

 

Judging by the millions who applied for shares there were not too many voices raised in serious objection to the privatisation program, indeed it gained in popularity after the 1st privatisation (BT) open to the public - it also gained traction as government policy in many other countries. 

 

We need gas from Russia. Now that the North Sea reserves have all but gone where else can we get it? We can argue all day long about what successive governments did but the fact remains it's gone and we have to deal with it.

 

There is, as far as I know, only 1 nuclear station with Chinese part ownership plus 1 proposed and the future of that is far from certain

Most of the other proposals have been scrapped or mothballed.

 

As for the shares being back in the hands of large companies, what's wrong with that? It's not some dark secret plot to gain control it's a simple sale, an offer and acceptance. No one was forced to sell their shares. Selling them due to job losses may have taken place but I would suggest that in the majority of cases it a simple case of taking the profit.

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

the Tory conviction that Private is always more efficient for e.g.  Well if your objective is to run something cheap.. then maybe so.. but that's no consolation if by doing so you create an entity which fails in its primary objective.. but does so cheaply.

 

Struggling with this bit Col, which entity has failed in it's objective?

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Yep.. all well and good until we get to th bit where Councils are prohibited from using the cash generated from Right to Buy to build more Social Housing.  So we see the beginnings of the current housing crisis.

 

I see no housing crisis unless you mean it is difficult to buy a house after the '08 crash, I don't see that as a 'crisis'. We have plenty of housing stock and everywhere you look there are more and more being built. Home ownership is not essential, desirable yes but not essential. Germany seems to manage quite well with the lowest percentage of home ownership in Europe.

The housing 'crisis' will disappear the moment we let go of the ridiculous stigma attached to renting a property rather than owning one.

 

12 hours ago, DJ360 said:

Internal Markets' is another lunacy supposed.. I suppose.. to increase efficiency.

 

It is a business model only understood by business gurus and authors, usually American, of obscure books taught to students who completely fail to see the point but learn to talk the talk. The only thing I can think of is internal markets are to blame for the total shambles in the administration of the NHS since they adopted it.

 

In my industry it was, like BS5750 total quality, 'seamlessly integrated'. So seamless in fact no bugger noticed and took not a blind bit of notice. The most common adjective to describe it was - crap!

[Oztalgian 3,298]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

Judging by the millions who applied for shares there were not too many voices raised in serious objection to the privatisation program,

Not very often I feel the need to chip in on politics discussions but this time I feel I must.

Privatisation of public assets is one of the biggest cons ever perpetrated on joe public, getting them to buy shares in something they already own.