Now we're going back to the 1970s

[DoctorStrangelove]

Are there still Gnomes in Zurich?

Askin' for a friend who remembers 35p/£ income tax. .

And "Crisis? Wot Crisis?".

Ah, it'll be so refreshing to go back to that. .

I'm waiting for "The White Heat of the Technological Revolution" and "The Pound in your pocket".

Them were the days. .

[courtg9000]

It could get worse, much worse...........

[malvolio]

There was a post on FB earlier today listing the things that changed under Thatcher's government, comparing where they started to where they finished. Rather blew a hole in comrade Burnham's fantasy critique of the last 40-odd years.

We're going to be led by someone who lost to both Millipede and Corbyn and failed in all the departments he was put in charge of.

He may actually have some good ideas - if he ever deigns to tell us what they are - and some real statesmen/women in his cabinet. I'm not holding my breath.

[jamesbrown]

There was a post on FB earlier today listing the things that changed under Thatcher's government, comparing where they started to where they finished. Rather blew a hole in comrade Burnham's fantasy critique of the last 40-odd years.

We're going to be led by someone who lost to both Millipede and Corbyn and failed in all the departments he was put in charge of.

He may actually have some good ideas - if he ever deigns to tell us what they are - and some real statesmen/women in his cabinet. I'm not holding my breath.

He will struggle to be more hated than Starmer. His policies will almost certainly be pretty tulipe for a majority here that prefer to keep more of their money and there are not good signs that he will take any politically difficult decisions either, such as ditching the pensions triple lock, increasing military spending and cutting back on welfare spending. He's too much of a crowd pleaser for that. I expect the polling will go rapidly south in due course, but I think that's true of literally anyone who attempts to govern this clowncar country. May as well accept that you're going to be hated by a majority and have the self confidence to ignore that (again, softball interviews with your political supporters are not a good sign in that regard) and address some of the BS spending commitments, the triple lock being top of the list.

[courtg9000]

London can teach us the lesson.
Boris "I dropped 2 bra sizes during covid" Johnson was an alright London mayor. He was liked somewhat.
He became Prime Minister and borked it.
London got Sadiq Khan who made a massive mess of London.
Andy Burnham went to Manchester, got liked and somewhat respected.
Will he do a Boris at Number 10 and bork it?
I think so.
History has shown it.
London is about to get much worse with Lord Khan (Soon to be).
London will be more borked than before.
Ken Livingstone had 2 attempts to completely bork London and he got close both times. Khan will probably get even more time now he will be a Lord
Burnham probably won't be as disliked by the public as Starmer but he won't be far off.
The big question remains is who is going to come in and make a pigs breakfast of Manchester?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

There was a post on FB earlier today listing the things that changed under Thatcher's government, comparing where they started to where they finished. Rather blew a hole in comrade Burnham's fantasy critique of the last 40-odd years.

We're going to be led by someone who lost to both Millipede and Corbyn and failed in all the departments he was put in charge of.

He may actually have some good ideas - if he ever deigns to tell us what they are - and some real statesmen/women in his cabinet. I'm not holding my breath.

Thatcher made a lot of changes, no argument. Whether they have been an overall improvement is subject to debate, and we don't (and can't) know what would have happened if we'd not had our Thatcher revolution (like France).

I see one of Burnham's early ideas is to scrap digital ID.

"I take the view that it is part of being a good citizen, proving who you are, day in day out"—is a direct quote from Andy Burnham from March 2006. At that time, he was the junior Home Office minister under Tony Blair, leading the previous Labour government’s efforts to introduce national identity cards.

This suggests that he's not much for conviction, more for popularity - either within his party or the greater audience, which doesn't make him much different from most politicians.

[sadkingbilly]

you're all DOOMED! - DOOMED i tell ye!

[malvolio]

Thatcher made a lot of changes, no argument. Whether they have been an overall improvement is subject to debate, and we don't (and can't) know what would have happened if we'd not had our Thatcher revolution (like France).

.

We would have been in the same position as Greece and Italy were at that time. What happened was we went from no money (literally) and no industry to having paid off the national debt. Yes, getting there hurt a lot of people but the government were very clear that was a necessity and, unlike anybody in the last 20 years or so, they had the guts to do unpopular things. But if you weren't trying to earn a living and generally get on with life in the mid to late 70s, under Tory and Labour, you have no idea just how awful it really was.

It's worth remembering that Blair stuck to the Thatcher/Major reforms for several years. It was only when Brown started the borrow-to-spend/PFI-to -hide-the-bottom-line nonsense that things started to go wrong. Most of our current woes stem from there, not helped by the 2024 budget et seq.

Burnham may be right about what is wrong now, but he is deluded about the real casus of it.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

As I said, we don't and cannot know because that isn't what happened.

I think a lot of young people today trying to get a start and make a living might question how Thatcherite policies have helped them - especially in relation to housing. Also the water privatisation (i am old enough to remember that odious toad Ridley saying "Perrier" when asked where the competition would come from) hasn't been much of long term success has it? I am not saying everything she did was bad, but history tends to be written by the victors and whatever else it did, Thatcherism destroyed a lot.

Also, Thatcher increased taxes, not just in absolute terms (which would make sense with an expanding GDP), but as a proportion of GDP. Not something many of her apologists like to accept.

[malvolio]

As I said, we don't and cannot know because that isn't what happened.

I think a lot of young people today trying to get a start and make a living might question how Thatcherite policies have helped them - especially in relation to housing. Also the water privatisation (i am old enough to remember that odious toad Ridley saying "Perrier" when asked where the competition would come from) hasn't been much of long term success has it? I am not saying everything she did was bad, but history tends to be written by the victors and whatever else it did, Thatcherism destroyed a lot.

Also, Thatcher increased taxes, not just in absolute terms (which would make sense with an expanding GDP), but as a proportion of GDP. Not something many of her apologists like to accept.

Yes, taxes went up. They were spent in useful directions though, unlike today.

Housing is a whole other mess though, with multiple causes. Right to Buy is only one element of that.

But enough of the theory. What did Thatcher destroy?