Now we're going back to the 1970s

[hobnob]

Correct. But his immediate predecessors (hint: plural, surnames start with S and R) outperformed Truss several times over. Plus her ideas were sound, but she was too inept to enact them properly. S and R didn't even have ideas, only dogma.

If you're referring to Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, both of their surnames start with an S, not an R.

[malvolio]

If you're referring to Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer, both of their surnames start with an S, not an R.

Let me help. Starmer and Reeves. Both now elsewhere.

HTH. BIDI.

[NotAllThere]

Let me help. Starmer and Reeves. Both now elsewhere.

HTH. BIDI.

Let me help. You refered to Andy Burnham's predecessors.

1. Starmer
2. Sunak
3. Truss
4. Johnson.

They were Prime Ministers.

Reeves was Chancellor of the Exchequer. She was not Andy's predecessor.

HTH BIDI.

[malvolio]

Let me help. You refered to Andy Burnham's predecessors.

1. Starmer
2. Sunak
3. Truss
4. Johnson.

They were Prime Ministers.

Reeves was Chancellor of the Exchequer. She was not Andy's predecessor.

HTH BIDI.

I do know who the various people involved are, what they did, and what their names are.

So in your expert opinion Reeves and Starmer have noting to do with the decisions over UK finances following the 2024 election? The ones that now put us in a worse position that we were following Truss's failure.

Or is working out the cryptic clue I left about initials just too difficult?

I really do despair. It is impossible to hold a decent argument these days, much less hold an opinion that doesn't align to the pervading groupthink.

[hobnob]

I do know who the various people involved are, what they did, and what their names are.

So in your expert opinion Reeves and Starmer have noting to do with the decisions over UK finances following the 2024 election? The ones that now put us in a worse position that we were following Truss's failure.

Or is working out the cryptic clue I left about initials just too difficult?

Just to be clear, I'm being completely sincere in this post. I'm not being sarcastic in the slightest.

When I read your previous post, it genuinely didn't occur to me that you were referring to Rachel Reeves. I think it's fair for you to say that she had an influence on the economy (as Chanceller of the Exchequer), but she wasn't Burnham's predecessor because she wasn't Prime Minister.

I thought that you'd given R as the initial by mistake, because you were thinking of Rishi Sunak's first name rather than his surname. Here's a screenshot from my browser history, where I went off to Wikipedia just to check that I hadn't forgotten someone. I checked the page for Sunak in case I'd got it wrong (i.e. if "Rishi" was actually his surname), and I only posted here after that.



(Note that it's dated 23rd July, i.e. from Thursday rather than today.)

This has nothing to do with your opinions, or "the pervading groupthink". I.e. the point wasn't that I disagreed with you (although I do), it's that I didn't understand what you wrote.

Maybe this is my fault, and it should have been obvious who you meant. However, I think you could have phrased your post more clearly, which would have avoided this confusion. Honestly, it would have been quicker for you to just type "Reeves and Starmer" rather than "hint: plural, surnames start with S and R".

[NotAllThere]

Maybe this is my fault, and it should have been obvious who you meant. However, I think you could have phrased your post more clearly, which would have avoided this confusion. Honestly, it would have been quicker for you to just type "Reeves and Starmer" rather than "hint: plural, surnames start with S and R".

Not your fault at all. Mal always doubles down when he screws up. He hasn't learned that when you're in a hole you really need to stop digging.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I really do despair. It is impossible to hold a decent argument these days, much less hold an opinion that doesn't align to the pervading groupthink.

I agree but probably not for the same reasons. Oddly, any attempt to challenge/question/disagree with points made by some posters is met with a series of weird unrelated and condescending posts instead of addressing the actual issues raised.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Honestly, it would have been quicker for you to just type "Reeves and Starmer" rather than "hint: plural, surnames start with S and R".

Of course it would, but that would have been a clear way to communicate, not a faux-intellectual bit of arse.

[malvolio]

I agree but probably not for the same reasons. Oddly, any attempt to challenge/question/disagree with points made by some posters is met with a series of weird unrelated and condescending posts instead of addressing the actual issues raised.

Probably true. The "issue" was that the 70s were a disaster, the 80s got us out of it, the 90s went quite well until socialism reasserted itself and the 2000s have been a story of continual decline. given that, any attempt to take us back before the 80s would be a disaster. That, sadly, appears to be a controversial view.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Probably true. The "issue" was that the 70s were a disaster, the 80s got us out of it, the 90s went quite well until socialism reasserted itself and the 2000s have been a story of continual decline. given that, any attempt to take us back before the 80s would be a disaster. That, sadly, appears to be a controversial view.

I don't think it's a controversial view at all, in fact it's exceedingly common to encounter such blanket assertions online from people with right wing views, of which there's no shortage.

Just as it would be a mistake to pretend everything Thatcher did was evil and wrong, it would be silly to imagine that some of the worst aspects from the last 40 or so years can't (and shouldn't) be attended to.

Also the idea that "socialism reasserted itself" seems a little far-fetched to me, although it's straight from the Trump playbook where anything to left of him is Marxism.

We're a mixed economy, have been since at least WW2, and arguably since industrialisation. We aren't, and never have been, a broadly Socialist state.

The Overton window has moved to the right since the early 1980s, so that even mildly socialist ideas have been characterised as extreme left, even though a lot of them wouldn't be out of place in modern liberal democracies elsewhere in the world.

It is a characteristic of Trump and increasingly the right wing in this country to pretend to be anti-establishment and some kind of persecuted minority, but it's not founded in reality at all.

One thing that Thatcher understood and practised really well was the idea that once your policies are unpopular enough to threaten your power, you need to get new ones (or have a war). The myth of her never changing direction is just that, a myth perpetuated by her apologists.