Brexit - The UK and the EU

Leitmotif

Eating his po boy w/oyster,petrosyan caviar,& gold
Messages
4,612
Ratings
2,715
Fear not gentle reader, for the time approaches when the Augean stable will be cleansed.
I hardly believe its gonna be possible. The EU without UK will be hard to control, and the UK without the EU will be more than likely lose most of the control that it had, little control anyways.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,714
Ratings
1,768
I hardly believe its gonna be possible. The EU without UK will be hard to control, and the UK without the EU will be more than likely lose most of the control that it had, little control anyways.
Not really, the Brits never had any sway in the EU. The legislation that gets passed has in many cases, the vast majority, gone against the votes of the UK MEPs and UK national interests.
That's just cod outrage, bread and circuses, nothing more.

 

Leitmotif

Eating his po boy w/oyster,petrosyan caviar,& gold
Messages
4,612
Ratings
2,715
Not really, the Brits never had any sway in the EU. The legislation that gets passed has in many cases, the vast majority, gone against the votes of the UK MEPs and UK national interests.


That's just cod outrage, bread and circuses, nothing more.



Im talkig about the warmongering against russia and shit like integrity initiative.
 

formby

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,411
Ratings
1,290
How Thatcherism produced Corbynism

Nearly 30 years after Thatcher fell, Britain risks becoming ungovernable

By John Gray

Not long after she won a large majority in the general election of June 1987 and formed her third government, I had an exchange with Margaret Thatcher. I had heard she was planning to abolish academic tenure. I had no thought of changing her mind, but I was curious how she would respond to the fact that most of the handful of the academics who publicly supported her defended tenure because they feared the pressures they would face in a profession that was becoming ever more monolithically Left-liberal or socialist.

Might she not lose the support of this group if she pushed ahead with her plan? Thatcher was unmoved. Looking at me coolly, she said: “We’ll win without you.” Our conversation was over.

By 1987, Thatcher was in control of her party. This was far from being the case when she became leader in 1975. When, in April of that year, Keith Joseph submitted the first major policy paper under her leadership, entitled “Notes towards the definition of policy” — a reference to TS Eliot’s Notes Towards a Definition of Culture (1948) – her Shadow Cabinet ridiculed it.

Ranging far beyond specific policy proposals, the paper argued for a radical reorientation in Conservative thinking. Britain had been in decline since the Second World War, and fundamental change was necessary. The Keynesian state that managed the post-war settlement must be rolled back. Public spending and the money supply had to be reduced, along with taxation, regional subsidies abolished and the power of trade unions curbed. (Boldly, Joseph also floated the possibility of introducing a British Bill of Rights and even decriminalising drugs.) What was needed in this time of national crisis was not the pursuit of consensus, but regime change—a move from one national settlement to another.

Framing Eliot’s analysis of cultural decline in political terms, Joseph’s paper wrote off the entire post-war exercise in reconstruction as a failure. The Shadow Cabinet was aghast. Joseph’s way of thinking, one member declared, was “a recipe for disaster”. But it was the self-styled exponents of pragmatism who were undone by events. With the financial crisis of 1976, Labour was forced to negotiate a loan from the IMF to stave off what was believed to be looming national bankruptcy. Britain’s post-war settlement had reached its limits. The question was no longer whether radical change could be avoided but what sort of change it would be.

Perhaps you need to have lived through this period to understand the mood at the time. Stories of uncollected rubbish in the streets, power cuts and people hoarding candles are not the stuff of urban legends. These things did in fact occur. Businessmen such as Jim Slater and James Goldsmith talked of a crisis of capitalism, while many in universities expected a dramatic shift to socialism. Wild rumours circulated of coups and counter-coups. Yet the political class and the academy were wholly unprepared for the regime shift that actually occurred.

Deploying a few simple ideas and policies, Thatcher demolished much of what remained of the post-war settlement. She left the NHS and the welfare state largely intact, and spending on public services increased during her time in office. But by rejecting the belief that government should actively promote full employment, privatising swathes of industry, selling off large parts of the social housing stock and curbing trade unions she altered Britain fundamentally.

Many doubted whether a lower-middle-class woman backed by a few fringe intellectuals could survive the rigours of practical politics. In the academy, the programme Thatcher implemented came as a bolt from the blue. An intelligentsia that was confident it understood the logic of world history was left gawping blankly when the social order it took for granted in Britain was suddenly dismantled, and looked on thunderstruck when communism collapsed and versions of the Thatcherite programme swept across the world. Beginning as a particular response to British difficulties, Thatcherism morphed into a universal ideology.

In Britain, as elsewhere, the Thatcherite project was self-undermining. While the country Thatcher brought into being was very different from the one she inherited, it was nothing like the country she intended to fashion. Insofar as it ever existed, her Britain was a country of dutiful middle-class families prudently saving for the future. But rather than consolidating and expanding this middle class, she consigned it to the memory hole. More individualist, post-Thatcher Britain is also less bourgeois.

Aside from their homes, few middle-class people have assets of any importance. Beyond the public sector, pensions are dependent on the vagaries of the market. Without job security, much of the middle class lives only months from penury. Incomes have increased for many, but so has debt. While distancing Labour from its past and turning it into an overwhelmingly middle-class party, Tony Blair continued the hollowing out of middle-class life that Thatcher began.

A type of capitalism emerged in which the practices that shaped bourgeois life as it had been known in the past – saving for the future, pursuing a lifelong career, self-sacrifice for the sake of family stability – became redundant or dysfunctional. Adapting to ceaseless change came to be regarded as the primary virtue. Accelerating and accentuating processes that globalisation was driving anyway, Thatcher created a society she could not have imagined.

Nearly 30 years after she was toppled from power in November 1990, the insecurities of post-Thatcher Britain have produced Corbynism — a type of Leftism ideally suited to the ambitions and illusions of the penniless bourgeoisie. The idea that Labour has reverted to the far-Left politics of the late Seventies and early Eighties, which has become commonplace on the Right, is at best a half-truth. Like the neo-liberals against whom they constantly rail, Corbynites regard the working class with distaste and disdain as an obstacle to progress. With their retrograde attachment to national identity and borders, the proper role of these remnants of industrial society is to submit to re-education by the party. Otherwise they are useless or dangerous.

This is a Leninist rather than a Marxian way of thinking, and underlines the differences between the far Left then and now. Owing more to Trump than Trotsky, Corbynite Labour is shaped more by identity politics and inchoate populist anti-capitalism than by any coherent socialist ideology.

As led by Michael Foot, sections of Labour cherished fond illusions about the Soviet Union and Mao’s China being imperfect embodiments of a socialist future. But the party did not automatically endorse terrorism directed against Western countries and contained little, if any, of the reflexive anti-Semitism that is today embedded at its highest levels. The Trumpist indifference to fact that is regularly displayed by the Labour high command today was unknown, and there was no personality cult surrounding the leader. In all these respects, Corbynism is very much of the present time.

A Corbyn government would mark a decisive shift from the regime that has been in power for nearly 30 years. Whether this would be a shift to another settlement is an altogether different matter. Another scenario looks more plausible. Having left behind the Thatcher regime, Britain could find itself unable to forge any new governing consensus.

A party that lacks a realistic policy programme cannot produce a regime shift in Britain comparable to that effected by Thatcher. Right or wrong, Thatcher’s core policies were practicable. Corbyn’s flagship policies — large-scale renationalisation, subsidies for selected industries, abolition of student fees – are not. Thirty years ago, influenced by the maverick Cambridge economist Wynne Godley, the Labour Left imagined an autarchic economy that would enable a socialist experiment in Britain to proceed behind a wall of tariffs and capital controls.

A similar insulation from world markets would be needed today. But globalisation is far more advanced than it was then, and both capital and production are much more mobile. The immediate effect of a Corbyn government would be capital flight on an unprecedented scale. Sterling and gilts, property and equity markets would be in danger of collapse. If Corbynite Labour persisted in the attempt to enact its policies, much of the already half-pauperised bourgeoisie would be ruined.

Yet, as Matthew Goodwin has shown in his piece How Corbynomics is winning over Britain, this unworkable economic programme is supported by large numbers of middle-class voters. Alienated from Thatcherite capitalism by their daily experience of its failings, “they are clearly willing to roll the dice on an alternative settlement”. With no alternative vision or programme, some Conservatives resort to the ideologue’s excuse that “true capitalism” has not yet been tried. But voters are not interested in a rerun of Thatcherism, and there are few signs of any new thinking. In practice, all Conservatives can do is mount a last-ditch stand on behalf of a status quo that much of Britain rejects.

It is impossible to know what will emerge from Theresa May’s seeing off the no-confidence motion against her. What is clear is that the Brexit process as crafted by her has been derailed. An ultra-soft “Norway” deal — by now probably the least divisive compromise — may be done, or a second referendum held. But another referendum is not in Labour’s interest, since the party will have to leave behind its carefully crafted ambiguities on Brexit and risk a backlash in its Leave constituencies.

Nor is the result of such a referendum at all foreseeable. The decision to leave could be reaffirmed and the political class plunged into an even more intractable quandary, or a decision to remain could be narrow and leave the country more divided than before. The prospect of a disruptive no-deal Brexit has not been removed. Parliament may have seized control only to find itself incapable of converging on any course of action. In these circumstances the DUP and an alliance of ultra-Brexiteers and hard Remainers could side with Labour and the other opposition parties and trigger a general election. In these circumstances, a Corbyn government could well come to power. If it did, however, it would find itself facing a country that had ceased to be governable.

As Labour struggled with the constraints and compromises of power, sections of its mass membership would sniff betrayal and peel off to form more ideologically intransigent groupings. Working-class voters disgusted by the derailing of Brexit would be tempted to support an EDL-like version of UKIP or some new party formed from splintering Tory Brexiteers. The far Right would for the first time be a major political force. Britain would be what hard Remainers have always wanted, a European-style polity.

When Thatcher told me she would win without her academic supporters she was right. She departed from office earlier than she wished, but shaped a settlement that endured for a generation. Now that settlement is history, and there is no new one on the horizon.

source: https://unherd.com
 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,387
Ratings
3,928
Meanwhile at Gatwick airport:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-sussex-46564814

  1. Army called in after tens of thousands of passengers affected by drone sightings at Gatwick Airport
  2. Gatwick's runway remains closed after the drones were seen nearby
  3. Flights are unable to take off or land
  4. About 110,000 passengers on 760 flights were due to use the airport on Thursday
  5. Gatwick Airport said police did not want to shoot the drones down because of the risk from stray bullets
  6. Sussex Police: 'Nothing to suggest that this is terrorism-related'
  7. Passengers due to travel have been told to check the status of their flight
  8. Live updates throughout the day
And we thought TM not being able to get out of her car was bad...
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,714
Ratings
1,768
Im talkig about the warmongering against russia and shit like integrity initiative.
I wouldn't be worrying too much about the EU's threat to Russia, in the 2020's the EU will be too busy managing the collapse of the welfare states, internal security issues and the collapse of the dreams of empire.

How Thatcherism produced Corbynism

Nearly 30 years after Thatcher fell, Britain risks becoming ungovernable

By John Gray

Not long after she won a large majority in the general election of June 1987 and formed her third government, I had an exchange with Margaret Thatcher. I had heard she was planning to abolish academic tenure. I had no thought of changing her mind, but I was curious how she would respond to the fact that most of the handful of the academics who publicly supported her defended tenure because they feared the pressures they would face in a profession that was becoming ever more monolithically Left-liberal or socialist.

Might she not lose the support of this group if she pushed ahead with her plan? Thatcher was unmoved. Looking at me coolly, she said: “We’ll win without you.” Our conversation was over.

By 1987, Thatcher was in control of her party. This was far from being the case when she became leader in 1975. When, in April of that year, Keith Joseph submitted the first major policy paper under her leadership, entitled “Notes towards the definition of policy” — a reference to TS Eliot’s Notes Towards a Definition of Culture (1948) – her Shadow Cabinet ridiculed it.

Ranging far beyond specific policy proposals, the paper argued for a radical reorientation in Conservative thinking. Britain had been in decline since the Second World War, and fundamental change was necessary. The Keynesian state that managed the post-war settlement must be rolled back. Public spending and the money supply had to be reduced, along with taxation, regional subsidies abolished and the power of trade unions curbed. (Boldly, Joseph also floated the possibility of introducing a British Bill of Rights and even decriminalising drugs.) What was needed in this time of national crisis was not the pursuit of consensus, but regime change—a move from one national settlement to another.

Framing Eliot’s analysis of cultural decline in political terms, Joseph’s paper wrote off the entire post-war exercise in reconstruction as a failure. The Shadow Cabinet was aghast. Joseph’s way of thinking, one member declared, was “a recipe for disaster”. But it was the self-styled exponents of pragmatism who were undone by events. With the financial crisis of 1976, Labour was forced to negotiate a loan from the IMF to stave off what was believed to be looming national bankruptcy. Britain’s post-war settlement had reached its limits. The question was no longer whether radical change could be avoided but what sort of change it would be.

Perhaps you need to have lived through this period to understand the mood at the time. Stories of uncollected rubbish in the streets, power cuts and people hoarding candles are not the stuff of urban legends. These things did in fact occur. Businessmen such as Jim Slater and James Goldsmith talked of a crisis of capitalism, while many in universities expected a dramatic shift to socialism. Wild rumours circulated of coups and counter-coups. Yet the political class and the academy were wholly unprepared for the regime shift that actually occurred.

Deploying a few simple ideas and policies, Thatcher demolished much of what remained of the post-war settlement. She left the NHS and the welfare state largely intact, and spending on public services increased during her time in office. But by rejecting the belief that government should actively promote full employment, privatising swathes of industry, selling off large parts of the social housing stock and curbing trade unions she altered Britain fundamentally.

Many doubted whether a lower-middle-class woman backed by a few fringe intellectuals could survive the rigours of practical politics. In the academy, the programme Thatcher implemented came as a bolt from the blue. An intelligentsia that was confident it understood the logic of world history was left gawping blankly when the social order it took for granted in Britain was suddenly dismantled, and looked on thunderstruck when communism collapsed and versions of the Thatcherite programme swept across the world. Beginning as a particular response to British difficulties, Thatcherism morphed into a universal ideology.

In Britain, as elsewhere, the Thatcherite project was self-undermining. While the country Thatcher brought into being was very different from the one she inherited, it was nothing like the country she intended to fashion. Insofar as it ever existed, her Britain was a country of dutiful middle-class families prudently saving for the future. But rather than consolidating and expanding this middle class, she consigned it to the memory hole. More individualist, post-Thatcher Britain is also less bourgeois.

Aside from their homes, few middle-class people have assets of any importance. Beyond the public sector, pensions are dependent on the vagaries of the market. Without job security, much of the middle class lives only months from penury. Incomes have increased for many, but so has debt. While distancing Labour from its past and turning it into an overwhelmingly middle-class party, Tony Blair continued the hollowing out of middle-class life that Thatcher began.

A type of capitalism emerged in which the practices that shaped bourgeois life as it had been known in the past – saving for the future, pursuing a lifelong career, self-sacrifice for the sake of family stability – became redundant or dysfunctional. Adapting to ceaseless change came to be regarded as the primary virtue. Accelerating and accentuating processes that globalisation was driving anyway, Thatcher created a society she could not have imagined.

Nearly 30 years after she was toppled from power in November 1990, the insecurities of post-Thatcher Britain have produced Corbynism — a type of Leftism ideally suited to the ambitions and illusions of the penniless bourgeoisie. The idea that Labour has reverted to the far-Left politics of the late Seventies and early Eighties, which has become commonplace on the Right, is at best a half-truth. Like the neo-liberals against whom they constantly rail, Corbynites regard the working class with distaste and disdain as an obstacle to progress. With their retrograde attachment to national identity and borders, the proper role of these remnants of industrial society is to submit to re-education by the party. Otherwise they are useless or dangerous.

This is a Leninist rather than a Marxian way of thinking, and underlines the differences between the far Left then and now. Owing more to Trump than Trotsky, Corbynite Labour is shaped more by identity politics and inchoate populist anti-capitalism than by any coherent socialist ideology.

As led by Michael Foot, sections of Labour cherished fond illusions about the Soviet Union and Mao’s China being imperfect embodiments of a socialist future. But the party did not automatically endorse terrorism directed against Western countries and contained little, if any, of the reflexive anti-Semitism that is today embedded at its highest levels. The Trumpist indifference to fact that is regularly displayed by the Labour high command today was unknown, and there was no personality cult surrounding the leader. In all these respects, Corbynism is very much of the present time.

A Corbyn government would mark a decisive shift from the regime that has been in power for nearly 30 years. Whether this would be a shift to another settlement is an altogether different matter. Another scenario looks more plausible. Having left behind the Thatcher regime, Britain could find itself unable to forge any new governing consensus.

A party that lacks a realistic policy programme cannot produce a regime shift in Britain comparable to that effected by Thatcher. Right or wrong, Thatcher’s core policies were practicable. Corbyn’s flagship policies — large-scale renationalisation, subsidies for selected industries, abolition of student fees – are not. Thirty years ago, influenced by the maverick Cambridge economist Wynne Godley, the Labour Left imagined an autarchic economy that would enable a socialist experiment in Britain to proceed behind a wall of tariffs and capital controls.

A similar insulation from world markets would be needed today. But globalisation is far more advanced than it was then, and both capital and production are much more mobile. The immediate effect of a Corbyn government would be capital flight on an unprecedented scale. Sterling and gilts, property and equity markets would be in danger of collapse. If Corbynite Labour persisted in the attempt to enact its policies, much of the already half-pauperised bourgeoisie would be ruined.

Yet, as Matthew Goodwin has shown in his piece How Corbynomics is winning over Britain, this unworkable economic programme is supported by large numbers of middle-class voters. Alienated from Thatcherite capitalism by their daily experience of its failings, “they are clearly willing to roll the dice on an alternative settlement”. With no alternative vision or programme, some Conservatives resort to the ideologue’s excuse that “true capitalism” has not yet been tried. But voters are not interested in a rerun of Thatcherism, and there are few signs of any new thinking. In practice, all Conservatives can do is mount a last-ditch stand on behalf of a status quo that much of Britain rejects.

It is impossible to know what will emerge from Theresa May’s seeing off the no-confidence motion against her. What is clear is that the Brexit process as crafted by her has been derailed. An ultra-soft “Norway” deal — by now probably the least divisive compromise — may be done, or a second referendum held. But another referendum is not in Labour’s interest, since the party will have to leave behind its carefully crafted ambiguities on Brexit and risk a backlash in its Leave constituencies.

Nor is the result of such a referendum at all foreseeable. The decision to leave could be reaffirmed and the political class plunged into an even more intractable quandary, or a decision to remain could be narrow and leave the country more divided than before. The prospect of a disruptive no-deal Brexit has not been removed. Parliament may have seized control only to find itself incapable of converging on any course of action. In these circumstances the DUP and an alliance of ultra-Brexiteers and hard Remainers could side with Labour and the other opposition parties and trigger a general election. In these circumstances, a Corbyn government could well come to power. If it did, however, it would find itself facing a country that had ceased to be governable.

As Labour struggled with the constraints and compromises of power, sections of its mass membership would sniff betrayal and peel off to form more ideologically intransigent groupings. Working-class voters disgusted by the derailing of Brexit would be tempted to support an EDL-like version of UKIP or some new party formed from splintering Tory Brexiteers. The far Right would for the first time be a major political force. Britain would be what hard Remainers have always wanted, a European-style polity.

When Thatcher told me she would win without her academic supporters she was right. She departed from office earlier than she wished, but shaped a settlement that endured for a generation. Now that settlement is history, and there is no new one on the horizon.

source: https://unherd.com
Not only Thatcher, the USA also handed large swathes of the academy over to the Left and now academia is riddled with nonsense and dangerous ideology. It's starting to seep into the hard sciences too. Very worrying and hence we are in the mists of a cultural war. The conservatives and what was once the liberal consensus have been found wanting in underestimating the tide and the threat.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,987
Ratings
13,859
Nearly 30 years after she was toppled from power in November 1990, the insecurities of post-Thatcher Britain have produced Corbynism — a type of Leftism ideally suited to the ambitions and illusions of the penniless bourgeoisie. The idea that Labour has reverted to the far-Left politics of the late Seventies and early Eighties, which has become commonplace on the Right, is at best a half-truth. Like the neo-liberals against whom they constantly rail, Corbynites regard the working class with distaste and disdain as an obstacle to progress. With their retrograde attachment to national identity and borders, the proper role of these remnants of industrial society is to submit to re-education by the party. Otherwise they are useless or dangerous.
i want whatever drugs john grey was on when he wrote this steaming pile of horseshit.
 

Rambo

The Trollest Of Trolls
Moderator
Messages
27,987
Ratings
13,859
Perhaps you could tell us which bits are 'steaming horseshit' and why?
jesus where to start?

-the idea that somehow taking care of the "ambitions and illusions of the penniless bourgeoisie", which lets be honest is just fancy prose for 'poor people', is a bad thing?

- "The idea that Labour has reverted to the far-Left politics of the late Seventies and early Eighties, which has become commonplace on the Right, is at best a half-truth." so is he saying here that the right is now somehow adopting far-left politics?

-"Like the neo-liberals against whom they constantly rail, Corbynites regard the working class with distaste and disdain as an obstacle to progress." so if this devil Corbyn hates the penniless bourgeoisie, and he hates the working class, well then who on earth are his constituents? they all can't just be nazi's can they?

-"With their retrograde attachment to national identity and borders" - wait, what?

-"the proper role of these remnants of industrial society is to submit to re-education by the party. Otherwise they are useless or dangerous." YES. this is my favorite part. just get these poor fucking people out of my way so that i can get back to fox hunting and having servants from lower classes like my parent did. but not borders. no, that's something the left does now, i guess.

this was fun. bring me more horrid writing to critique.
 

formby

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,411
Ratings
1,290
jesus where to start?

-the idea that somehow taking care of the "ambitions and illusions of the penniless bourgeoisie", which lets be honest is just fancy prose for 'poor people', is a bad thing?

- "The idea that Labour has reverted to the far-Left politics of the late Seventies and early Eighties, which has become commonplace on the Right, is at best a half-truth." so is he saying here that the right is now somehow adopting far-left politics?

-"Like the neo-liberals against whom they constantly rail, Corbynites regard the working class with distaste and disdain as an obstacle to progress." so if this devil Corbyn hates the penniless bourgeoisie, and he hates the working class, well then who on earth are his constituents? they all can't just be nazi's can they?

-"With their retrograde attachment to national identity and borders" - wait, what?

-"the proper role of these remnants of industrial society is to submit to re-education by the party. Otherwise they are useless or dangerous." YES. this is my favorite part. just get these poor fucking people out of my way so that i can get back to fox hunting and having servants from lower classes like my parent did. but not borders. no, that's something the left does now, i guess.

this was fun. bring me more horrid writing to critique.
Read the article again.

BUT. THIS. TIME. PROPERLY.
 

Kingstonian

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,087
Ratings
522
Thatcher squandered vast North Sea oil revenues on defeating the power of the Trades Union.

She achieved that, but laid waste to vast swathes of manufacturing industry. Nothing has been put in place to deal with the aftermath.

London and the South East were not so badly affected because the City of London and services provide much of the employment. Apart from the large scale selling off properties to foreigners, of course, and laundering of dirty money.
 

formby

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,411
Ratings
1,290
let me read it upside down like a normal person.
Look, your first mistake is to quote out of context.

Your second, is that you really don't really understand the article. And the reason you don't, is because you aren't familiar enough with British history over the last 40 odd years.

Now I don't necessarily agree with what Gray has written. I like him as a thinker, but he can, at times, strike, too Ballardian a note.
 

formby

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,411
Ratings
1,290
Thatcher squandered vast North Sea oil revenues on defeating the power of the Trades Union.

She achieved that, but laid waste to vast swathes of manufacturing industry. Nothing has been put in place to deal with the aftermath.

London and the South East were not so badly affected because the City of London and services provide much of the employment. Apart from the large scale selling off properties to foreigners, of course, and laundering of dirty money.
The thing is, she didn't lay waste vast swathes of manufacturing, they collapsed because she withdrew the money that was propping them up. If a business is viable it doesn't just collapse. The rot set in much earlier, well before Thatcher, she just delivered the coup de grace. You could argue that the decline could have been better managed.

Your point about North Sea Oil is a fair one.
 

Kingstonian

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,087
Ratings
522
The thing is, she didn't lay waste vast swathes of manufacturing, they collapsed because she withdrew the money that was propping them up. If a business is viable it doesn't just collapse. The rot set in much earlier, well before Thatcher, she just delivered the coup de grace. You could argue that the decline could have been better managed.

Your point about North Sea Oil is a fair one.
Lots of industry survives with the assistance of government - pump priming, a Keynesian outlook.That was the way of the world in the post war economies of Western Europe. So she might not have actively laid waste, but the impact was the same.
 

formby

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,411
Ratings
1,290
Lots of industry survives with the assistance of government - pump priming, a Keynesian outlook.That was the way of the world in the post war economies of Western Europe. So she might not have actively laid waste, but the impact was the same.
Yes, but the Keynesian consensus was over before she took power. Callaghan pointed this out at a Labour party conference around the time of the IMF crisis.

Labour also wanted to the reduce the power of the unions (Castle's In Place of Strife white paper 1969) but much of this was kiboshed too. The warning signs were there, and acknowledged, well before Thatcher. Again she just provided the reckoning.

There is a huge literature about why British manufacturing declined. A look at the collapse of the motorcycle industry is both tragicomic and instructive.
 

formby

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,411
Ratings
1,290
Here's a interesting chart showing the decline of deep coal mining in the UK. Look at the figures carefully, especially the figures for 83 and 94.

In 1994, 7000 men working in 16 pits produced almost 50% of the coal that it took 148000 men in 170 pits to do just over a decade earlier.

And this inefficiency was not just seen in coal mining.

_104717786_deepmines.jpg
 
Last edited:

Fwiffo

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
6,836
Ratings
1,969
Deal or no deal? EU bewildered by Brexit confusion

"'Bobs' are quite the topic of discussion in the UK right now - people 'bored of Brexit', desperate to read, talk and hear about something, anything, else.

But if Bobs are big in the UK, spare a thought for their numbers in the EU.

And I'm not talking men and women at European bus stops. I'm talking about EU governments.

All EU leaders - without exception - go on their winter holidays, delighted to turn their back for 10 days at least on the countless Brexit summits, phone calls and meetings.

'The British prime minister will be hard-pushed to persuade [French President] Emmanuel Macron to return to Brussels for her any time soon,' one well-placed source told me. Brexit seems to him like a bad version of the never-ending story. 'The UK doesn't know what it wants but Mrs May keeps coming back to the EU anyway, asking for more, more and more.' 'Patience is thin.'"

We're not Bobs here...
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,714
Ratings
1,768
Brexit: US ambassador to UK Johnson warns on trade deal

"Donald Trump's offer of a 'quick, massive, bilateral trade deal' will not be possible if Theresa May's EU withdrawal agreement is approved, the US ambassador to the UK has warned."
Of course not, May's agreement is slavery to the EU. I just watched her New Year message, that rancid bad breathe delivery, always pleading and the eyes of a traitor.
 
Top Bottom