BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .

Subject: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 07:46 AM

. . . we're all getting well and truly shafted by privatised British Gas!

A billion pounds worth of profits will ease the agony of the shareholders as they ponder the suffering of all those pensioners who will freeze to death over the winter.

Nice one Mrs. Thatcher, you must be so proud.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: r.padgett
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 01:18 PM

Yes I totally agree

Privatisation of gas in Uk totally unnecessary as with elecricity

A Conservative con job to raise finance for a Conservative government to opt out of their responsibilities

Shares in national ultilities ridiculous, shares for the common man no no no a total gamble

Renationalise gas and electric and make government responsible and let them hang!! ~ no above inflation rises needed when industries make billions on the backs of hard up people

A State funeral for Maggie Thatcher I am furious!!

the miners of GB are still rattled by her comments that they are the "Enemy within" when in fact the people of GB are now the people without and are the ones with their hearts in the right place

She has never know Community and worked only for the well offs!

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 01:33 PM

These, presumably, are the miners whose work to rule brought about the necessity of the "Three Day Week"

Long before Maggie Thatcher came to power!

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 02:49 PM

Who wanted only, like other workers by hand and brain, the ownership of the means of production and benefits of the fruits of their labours.

The right place for Thatcher will be seen on Nov 5th, be she alive or be she dead.

Can we re-nationalise telecomms and railways too please?

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: r.padgett
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 04:31 PM

There is a lot more grief to come yet caused by the dependence on Middle East oil instead of more accessible natural resources

No more coal ~ where were the developments to make coal greener and more efficient? Lost to Union bashing and all the millions of pounds investment buried in the coal mines on closure

Where was the gradual reduction in coal mining capacity, lost to Communities "decemated" and I don't mean one tenth by Union bashing police tacts

Yes I know Scargill, and the others were to blame for many things, but Thatcher and her predecessor were "class people" and unable to grasp and talk with workers who made this country great and had the ability to motivate people who were fearful of their jobs

Now its time for them [politicians] to seek a rethink of what happend historically

Her actions were not the be all and end all, she created much unhappiness and unrest which will be felt for very many years to come and this honour of a State funeral should not to my mind be seen to have been earned on the backs of jobless miners

Shame on you Gordon Brown!

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 07:28 PM

""Thatcher and her predecessor were "class people" and unable to grasp and talk with workers who made this country great and had the ability to motivate people who were fearful of their jobs""


Her predecessor was James Callaghan (Labour), and before him Harold Wilson (Labour), neither of whom were able to talk to the workers, which was the original cause of the thirty and forty percent wage rise demands, and subsequent multiple strikes which crippled British industry. For Christ's sake, there were strikes over whether one man could handle both nuts and bolts, and one union wanted two men on a production line, one handling each. Job demarkation was the cause of as many stoppages as wages

Yes, I do know that Ted Heath (Tory) made a very brief appearance in a terminally crippled government which was itself destroyed by the Unions.It was Wilson and Callaghan who presided over the period during which the pound was devalued, billions were borrowed from the IMF, and inflation rose to 21.9% at the 1979 election when Mrs. Thatcher became PM.

If you are going to throw mud, you will find that there's more than one plastered target. The left wingers on this forum are always screaming about short memories.

The foregoing are FACTS which they themselves carefully "forget", when mudslinging at Mrs. T.

Also it should be noted that Wilson was arguably the most dishonest sleazeball in a long line culminating in Blair/Brown.

A look at the names on his outgoing honours list will show exactly what I mean by that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: folk1e
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 07:38 PM

We have just seen (or not as the case may be) the sale of "Norweb" to two banks(USA and Australian). United Utillities have sucked the bones and spat what was left out! They now have a contract to "run" the electric in the norweb area for 6 years and own none of it!
Norweb shares were £7 at the time of sale. UU shares are now £7! (they started off at £4 ...... but they paid a dividend of nearly 10%!

Anybody else have a problem with that?



as to Maggies state funeral ....... can we do it this week?

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Stu
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 04:32 AM

Don T: I was too young to remember the details of political life in the Heath/Wilson years (I remember the Leyland strikes well - we lived a few miles away from the Solihull plant), but along with millions of others I suffered the direct consequences of the tidal wave of misery Thatcher inflicted on the country.

What we are seeing now is the inevitable consequence of the dogged pursuit of unregulated capitalism when mixed with privatisation of national assets: the poor will suffer more and more and until there is some sort of state intervention that's what will happen. Of course, the Thatcherite adherents in New Labour have made matters worse by not cutting the link between gas and oil prices, but let's not forget we are dealing with the consequences of the privatisation of British Gas in the 1980's.

To paraphrase Jeremy Hardy, her grave will become the biggest latrine in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: G-Force
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:58 AM

A billion pounds profit sounds like a lot of money. But what is it really, as a percentage of turnover? That's the figure you never hear. It might not seem so excessive expressed that way.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:01 AM

Well Said Don T and G-Force.
Am I the only person who remembers the acrimony between Scargill and his predecessor, Joe Gormley that was the real cause of the Miner's strike?
Gormley's strike brought down the Heath Government, a feat Scargill was determined to emulate to prove that he was as good as him.
After Wilson got back to No.10 he gave the miners EVERYTHING they had been demanding.
As a consequence a lot of pits that were marginally in profit before Gormley's strike went into the red afterwards and pits that were already in the red went even further with the consequence of staring the worhtwhile pits of investment funds.
For Scargill to claim his strike was over pit closures is laughable in the light of the decimation of the industry carried out by Weggie Benn.
Thank God Maggie had the guts to stand up to him and his misled followers.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:07 AM

From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 31 Jul 08 - 02:49 PM

"Who wanted only, like other workers by hand and brain, the ownership of the means of production and benefits of the fruits of their labours."


Richard, I am a worker. I am the son of a pitman and a pitman's daughter.
I class myself as Educated Working Class.
As such I have little interest in having "ownership" of the means of my employment.
All I ask for is that I have competant managers above me (Fat chance with Notwork Fail I must admit) and that I get a fair days pay for a fair days work in decent working conditions.

Other than that I don't give a toss about who owns the company and I certainly do not give a toss about outdated Marxist claptrap like that!!

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Stu
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:25 AM

" I certainly do not give a toss about outdated Marxist claptrap like that"

Nothing outdated about Richard's views - they are coming back in vogue as people realise that unregulated capitalism is failing as a economic and social system. In fact, Marxism is beginning to gain acceptance amongst some of the middle classes as it dawns that the inequities and injustices of 21st Century Britain become more apparent daily.

There is an alternative to the feeding frenzy in progress as shareholders capitalise on the misery of the general population who rely on companies held in common ownership but were sold off for short-term gain.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:56 AM

Sapper82 is right about Scargill and his desperation to outdo Gormley. He attempted to win two ballots for strike action against revisions to working practices, lost both and then launched a strike against pit closures without even seeking the mandate of a ballot. (At that time a ballot was not compulsory under law and ws required only by the NUM's own rulebook. No union outside the coal industry had such a requirement.)

Even worse, Scargill called that strike precisely when Thatcher wanted him to - when summer was approaching and coal stocks had been built to their highest-ever levels.

So yes, Scargill was a disaster. I always wished Mick McGahey had beaten him to the presidency and it would have been a diferent story altogether. BUT....

Overwhelmingly the mineworkers who stayed out for that whole bitter year did so out of a genuine concern to preserve their jobs and the communities that had been built around the coal industry. They failed to understand Thatcher's obsessive determination to crush the industry at any price, just as she did her very best to destroy Britain's railway infrastructure and dispense with the nation's publicly owned housing stock.

I'm happy to see the deep-mined coal industry all but gone - working conditions were never going to be better than deplorable, and I was always amazed at the determination of mineworkers to preserve such jobs. But running the industry down should have been a managed process. And blaming Tony Benn for any part in the mess that actually happened is frankly infantile. (Tony Benn's appearance at the recent Warwick Folk Festival was the only one to get a standing ovation from a full house in the main-stage marquee.)

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 08:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn) - PM
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:56 AM

"just as she did her very best to destroy Britain's railway infrastructure"

Really? So who gave the go-ahead for the ECML Electrification and the largest programme of rollingstock replacement since the '60s?????

Bu then again, why let the facts get in the way of a good leftie rant??

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 08:57 AM

I will also add to the above the extension of GER electrification to Norwich, started in the late '80s and will try to ignore the Beeching decimation that, though initiated by Macmillan, was almost entirely carried out by Wilson's Minister of Transport, the T&GWU (a mainly road transport union) sponsored Barbara Castle.

Going back earlier, the Great Northern Suburban Electrification was given the go-ahead by the Tory Heath Government in August 1971.

Tories anti-railway? Or yet another Left Wing myth people choose to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Stu
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:17 AM

"and I was always amazed at the determination of mineworkers to preserve such jobs"

Because they were fighting for more than their jobs - they were trying to protect their communities. The mines were the centre of the entire local economy and the social structure of the local communities was based around the mines too, they pervaded every aspect of people's lives.

This was never really understood by the Tories, although I suspect Thatcher understood this fact perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn) - PM
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:56 AM

"And blaming Tony Benn for any part in the mess that actually happened is frankly infantile."


Why?? Tony Benn never made a correct decision during his entire ministerial career!!
To me, Tony Benn epitomises all that is detestable about the Labour Party!
A Middle Class champaign socialist pontificating on how the Working Class ought to live; Son of a senior Labour Party grandee; his own nearly as useless son given a leg up by his influence;

The Labour Party may claim to be the party of the working class, but in reality it has ever been the party of the guilt ridden Middle Class riding on the back of the working class.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM

ECML electrification? Oh, big deal, Sapper82. Yes, we certainly had a worldclass railway after that. But go easy with the exclamation marks - you're getting a bit over-excited.

While you were swooning over ECML electrification, freight was moving from rail to road as never before, in direct consequence of Thatcher's policies - or "market forces" as they liked to say. I can't think of any country in the world that finished up with decent railways purely on the strength of "market forces."

I don't have much time for most Labour politicians, but the only one I would single out for a major contribution to the present mess is Robin Cook who could have thwarted privatisation Mk2 simply by saying that Labour would unravel the deal on compulsory-purchase terms once they they came into office in 1997. He fretted that they would not be able to find the money, but they would not have needed to. Such a pronouncement would have blighted all prospect of the sell-off in the first place. And the handful of people who made millions out of onselling what they had bought at minimal risk and knock-down prices would have had to turn to some other racket for their easy profits.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 11:41 PM

Benn middle class? Please - the son of a title holder, with an inherited title and inherited estates - he was upper class. But at least he was upper class with a conscience, whereas Thatcher's grocers were moneygrubbers grinding the faces of the workers, stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:57 AM

""stealing from the poor to give to the rich.""

And so we've come full circle, back to Gordon Brown.

Can you say "TEN PENCE TAX BAND"?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 01:00 PM

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn) - PM
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 05:05 PM
SNIP
While you were swooning over ECML electrification, freight was moving from rail to road as never before, in direct consequence of Thatcher's policies - or "market forces" as they liked to say. I can't think of any country in the world that finished up with decent railways purely on the strength of "market forces."
SNIP


And what exactly WERE those "Market forces?" Might the move to road have possibly had somehting to do with the incessant union disputes accompanied by strikes and work to rule? Remember the ASLEF Flexible Rostering dispute? The disruption of that strike must have forced MILLIONS of tons of freight onto the road.

Ironic that a BBC R4 News team went to Westbury Depot, one of the most millitant of during the dispute, a year after the strike ended, to be told by the drivers there that they actually liked the system!

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 02:32 PM

It's a waste of breath, Sapper. When Mrs. T has passed on and is no longer able to sue for libel, they'll be blaming her for World War II.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:54 PM

With drooling admirers like you around Don, did Thatcher really need to buddy up with people like Pinochet? Or is Pinochet another of your Gods? Thatcher enjoyed the best years of North Sea oil and gas revenues, sold off the family silver (Macmillan's phrase I believe?) and still managed to leave the country in a mess. Or have you forgotten the state of the economy in 1991? She ensured that the gap between rich and poor grew wider - faster in fact than in any developed country except New Zealand - largely by reducing taxes on income and increasing them on spending (VAT etc).

Major and Blair allowed that trend to continue, but then Blair was a committed Thatcherite himself, noticeably more so than Major. At least Major and Blair played instrumental parts in bringing stability to Northern Ireland. And Labour not only introduced a minimum wage but also created more than two million jobs. (So much for Tory whining that a minimum wage would drive up unemployment.)

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 06:19 AM

Not a drooling admirer, Peter. Just a fair minded human being who believes in blaming the right person when things go wrong.

Maggie Thatcher did a lot of pretty dreadful things, and I don't have a problem with castigating her for THOSE.

I won't, however, sit back and say nothing when people like you blame her for the actions of predecessors such as Labour's James Callaghan, and Harold Wilson.

I lived through those times, and there is nothing wrong with MY memory of daily strikes as our industry died because the unions wouldn't allow the same man to insert both screws and bolts, or my memory of trying to get by when the value of the pound was suddenly down twenty percent, and inflation ensured that the devaluation continued at over twenty percent until 1979.

As to your comment about creating jobs, don't confuse job creation with the removal from the unemployment figures of thousands by the simple expedient of reclassification.

Job seekers, trainees, kickstart, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Stu
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 10:05 AM

"don't confuse job creation with the removal from the unemployment figures of thousands by the simple expedient of reclassification"

Something Thatcher did herself of course - I was on two YOP schemes, and they were nothing short of slave labour.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 11:29 AM

""Something Thatcher did herself of course - I was on two YOP schemes, and they were nothing short of slave labour.""

Sorry to disappoint you, but TOPS and YOPS courses preceded Thatcher by some years.

I qualified as a Carpenter & Joiner from a TOPS course in 1978, and YOPS courses were already in operation then Thatcher became Prime Minister in the general election of 1979.

The culprit you seek is one James Callaghan, if memory serves HE was LABOUR.

And before you point out that she did not get rid of them, don't bother. I can point to numerous things that New Labour screamed about while in opposition, and didn't change when in government.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 01:16 PM

Clearly you have bitter personal memories Don. But you will find that most of the reclassification of unemployment data did indeed occur under Tory governments. In any case that does not have any bearing on Labour's achievement of creating two million jobs since 1997. OK, 1978-79 was not Labour's finest hour, but the Wilson governments had some notable achievements. Heath's did too for that matter.

Thatcher, more than anyone in my lifetime, pressed for and brought about a qwuantum shift of emphasis away from society and on to personal greed. This was as significant its way as the Atlee government's measures which gave us a welfare state. The difference is that Attlee was motivated by a commitment to the common good.

Thatcher calculated, correctly, that enough people would benefit to keep her in office, and Blair took note. Both were indiferent to the consequences for families disadvantaged by their policies. As the gap between haves and have-nots grew wider, they simply built an ever higher wall between the two. That wall is our prisons. (In America the gap between rich and poor is even wider, so of course they have to have more prisons.)

Since your memory has a long reach, Don, I wonder if you can remember Bevan's extraordinarily persistent fight to create a national health service, and where the Tories figured in that fight?

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 03:37 PM

"In any case that does not have any bearing on Labour's achievement of creating two million jobs since 1997."

Unfortunately, Labour have made no attempt to track how many people (legal or otherwise) they have let into this country since then, so an extra 2 million jobs does not necessarily mean that unemployment (whether listed as such or as unemployment/'disability'/training or whatever) has been reduced.

Labour admit that they don't have the figures, and they revise the figure for illegal immigrants upward every time they are shown to be totally false.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 04:52 PM

""It does go back a long way Peter, but as a seven year old boy, I wasn't too aware of politics".

I can imagine though, that the Tories, and indeed many Labour MPs showed reactions ranging from doubt to horror, as one might expect, when considering as profound a change as that must have been.

In the 50+ years that I have been politically aware, however, I have found that I have been more in command of my own economic situation whenever there has been a Tory government, and I am true working class, never having earned more than about half the national average wage, and currently languishing, thanks to Gordon Brown, on rather less than one third.

I am currently driving a car kindly lent by a very good friend, because it takes two months or more to raise the £150 needed to repair my own. Had it not been for this kind assistance, I would have been forced to give up the part time job that makes financial survival possible. At 68 I should be able to retire, but that is just a distant dream, since Gordon lost half my pension.

Reasons to be Tory Part 1.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: GUEST,Simon
Date: 03 Aug 08 - 05:08 PM

The past won't change anything. What I would like to know is why the current state of economy doesn't affect the billions of pounds they are pumping each year into the military occupations of Iraq and Afganistan?

Who cares if they call themselves labour or conservative, the perpetrators are war criminals and need to be stopped and brought to account.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Aug 08 - 06:38 AM

Nigel, I don't mind at all if most of the new jobs have gone to immigrants, and it certainly doesn't lessen the achievement of creating them - at the same time as introducing a minimum wage that the Tories told us would wipe out jobs. I have no time for Little Englanders (and very little for those who say "I'm not a Little Englander, BUT....")

Don, I'm glad you can afford to own a car. I walk, cycle and - since last month - use my bus pass. I'm also pleased that you are willing to accept support from friends (and presumably to give it when you are in a position to do so). That's what society's all about.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: r.padgett
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 03:56 AM

Of course our current credit difficulties are down to house ownership and the greed of trying to sell our HOMES for a profit!

No control of ability to repay the mortagage based on a multiple of salary/wages [law needs to be in place on this and tightened up]

No controlling body for Estate agents and banks who are simply driven by profit motivation [needs tightened law]

The need for Local Authorities to release capital from Council Houses and rebuild rental property [sold off by M Thatcher]

Builders are crying off as they are not making ENOUGH profit, it makes me wonder if there has been some collusion to increase the property base values to make new housing more expensive and thus let new houses be more expensive [perish the thought]

Shares and the Stock Exchange fluctuations cannot be ridden out by personal investors and it is to my mind and conviction that Shares directly held are no good to to individuals

The Stock market drops in 2000 saw a quarter drop in funds held including Personal Manaaged Funds, no small wonder then that retirement cash was redirected to housing thus once again fuelling house price increases

Final salary pension schemes in danger of going bust and companies opting out were fortunate in Gordon bringing in "The Safety Net" as not to coould have cost very many millions to the government ~ where however is the safety net for those on personal money purchase arrangements

No wonder retirement funds are at their lowest as they cannot be trusted where linked to the Stock Exchange

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Stu
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 04:54 AM

"Sorry to disappoint you, but TOPS and YOPS courses preceded Thatcher by some years"

Don't worry Don - I was deeply involved with the Young Conservatives during this period and I saw the true face of Thatcherite politics up close and personal (I posted the story on the "Reasons for being a Conservative" thread so won't repeat it here). It's why I'm a Marxist now.

The YOPs (it became the YTS the year after I was on it) was not designed to give you real world work experience but to give tighfisted employers cheap labour and take as many young people off the jobless lists as possible. By the time I was forced onto it, the Tory government was using it for a dumping ground for jobless young people - I was due to go to college but due to (then unexplained to me) family events we moved away from the are I was brought up in and I was dumped right into a shite job regardless of my career aspirations.

This was designed to manipulate the employment figures - so I'm not disappointed Don, as I was actually going through the process at the time, so can speak from personal experience.

Reasons not to be a Tory part 674.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 04:17 PM

Petr K(Fionn):
If that "little Englander" jibe was aimed at me then you're 100% wrong, but as Meatloaf almost said "None outa two ain't bad"

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 04:22 PM

It was, Nigel, but sorry if I misunderstood you.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Aug 08 - 06:21 PM

"the value of the pound was suddenly down twenty percent, and inflation ensured that the devaluation continued at over twenty percent until 1979."

Don, even with your blinkers on you know better than that. Maybe you did not choose apt words, but what you have actually said is gibberish.

As for training schemes, you know several youngsters (well they were then) who benefitted greatly from whatever they were called about 8 years ago - Mark, Rachel's former bassist, who would have been hired muscle (in the worst sense of the term) if Jacqui had not got him onto a scheme and into the music course at NWK college - Paul, Rachel's former bassist, who would have been a psychological wreck and probably a parricide if Jacqui had (etc) - and not a few other of her friends.

Most of all - if you want a state graduated pension - who created it, and who took it away???

Oh, and if GB took the 10% rate band away (although he did put in place in stead a whole range of other supports) who gave it to us in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 02:41 PM

Fact Richard.

Harold Wilson devalued the pound, and added to that devaluation the inflation rate at the time totalled to a twenty percent drop in value over that year.

1979 election- At that point inflation stood at 21.9%, and Callaghan had borrowed several BILLION pounds from the IMF, which, incidentally, the Tories repaid, before going on to hand Tony B. Liar an inflation rate of just 2.5% in 1997.

Gordon is busy losing control of that as we speak.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Stu
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:04 PM

"Gordon is busy losing control of that as we speak."

Now that we do agree on : )

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:39 PM

Don, devaluation and inflation are not the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:26 PM

""Don, devaluation and inflation are not the same thing.""

Now you are insulting me.



N.B.   WILSON devalued the pound, with the inane assurance "The pound in your pocket is worth the same as it has always been". He did not complete the statement with the obvious truth "When you take it out and spend it, THATS when it'll be worth less", but then he never DID know what he was talking about....... With me so far?

In the same year inflation rose to over 16%   Still there?
The combined effect was that the pound at the end of that year would purchase 20% less goods than at the start.

CALLAGHAN presided over an increase of INFLATION to 21.9% at the time when he was deservedly kicked out of office, and replaced by the dreaded Maggie.


A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 01:19 PM

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: stigweard - PM
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:04 PM

"Gordon is busy losing control of that as we speak."

Now that we do agree on : )


I don't. He never had control in the first place.
Whilst the global slump my not be his fault, the fact that the UK is not in a position to weather the storm is.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: sapper82
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 01:27 PM

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: stigweard - PM
Date: 01 Aug 08 - 07:25 AM

" I certainly do not give a toss about outdated Marxist claptrap like that"

Nothing outdated about Richard's views - they are coming back in vogue as people realise that unregulated capitalism is failing as a economic and social system.


Regarding unregulated capitalism, I would most certainly agree with you on that one.
Capitalism certainly needs to be constrained to prevent abuses.

However, just as there are many forms of Socialism, there are also many forms of capitalism. I doubt very much if a Victorian capitalist mill owner, on the lines of Salt perhaps or the Quaker industrialists, would agree with the current business ideals.

However, I fail to see how the claptap ideas of a German Jewish Refugee will improve matters.

Subject: RE: BS: If you see Sid tell him . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 10:43 PM

Don, it would be possible to argue that Wilson's actions together resulted in a 20% reduction in the real worth of earnings (it might be an unsuccessful argument, or a successful one, but that is not the point). But it wasn't and still isn't what you said.

Sapper, it is really very simple. The point of capitalism is to take from the poor to give to the rich. The point of any kind of socialism or communism is the opposite. Can you really not see where the justice lies?

What do you thnk really drove the sub-prime market? It was always bound to fail. If you lend money to a man who cannot afford to repay it, and then charge him more as a result, are you making default on his loan more or less likely? So what drove it? Why, the fee-hunters, of course - they are long gone with their commissions in their pockets, while lender and borrower alike fight to the death over the remaining bare bones.