If we can replace imports with locally manufactured goods, the unemployed will then
- earn a regular wage / salary
- pay taxes and NI contributions and pay into a pension for retirement
- be able to pay their bills without state help
- have money left over to spend, a boost for other areas of the economy
What's hard about that?
If it sounds like the pre-globalisation 1970s, as the article states
"What was lost? As Beth Butler, a teacher during the 70s, puts it “A zest; a get-up-and-go; an optimism. People seemed to become gradually more passive under Thatcher, as though the colour had gone out of their lives…People were interested in what they had for themselves, rather than doing things together”.
That's supported by the UK happiness score that put us above the EU average, but below the average on having people that can help they in the event of a problem and a sense of attachment to their local community.
If we can replace imports with locally manufactured goods, the unemployed will then
- earn a regular wage / salary
- pay taxes and NI contributions and pay into a pension for retirement
- be able to pay their bills without state help
- have money left over to spend, a boost for other areas of the economy
What's hard about that?
If it sounds like the pre-globalisation 1970s, as the article states
"What was lost? As Beth Butler, a teacher during the 70s, puts it “A zest; a get-up-and-go; an optimism. People seemed to become gradually more passive under Thatcher, as though the colour had gone out of their lives…People were interested in what they had for themselves, rather than doing things together”.
They left this part out:
Beth Butler, 78, lives in Chepstow in Monmouthshire. A former teacher, she remembers the power of the trade unions in the early 1970s: "One example springs to mind that was entirely typical," she says. "Our union – the NATFHE [the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education] – came to us one day and asked us to go out on strike for an increase in the wages of the cleaners and auxiliary staff at our college. That was fine, and we did it – but a short while later, the union steward came back and said that the teachers should now strike to get an increase in our own salaries. That was crazy – it was reinstating the discrepancy between our salaries that we'd just managed to narrow.
"We refused to strike," she adds, "but it was a big thing to refuse to do what your union told you to do. Unions were all- and over-powerful in the 70s. It was a closed shop: if you didn't do what they told you to, they would kick you out and then you'd lose your job – and wouldn't be able to find another because employers wouldn't employ anyone who wasn't in the union.
"It really was the iron hand of communism creeping in and grasping everyone by its throat, and that created an atmosphere of fear that came close to hysteria. But it was also a bit of a joke, the way they would force employers to split jobs," she says. "So, for example, they would have to employ one person to heat the rivet, a second person to hand the warmed rivet to a third person, who would hit it into the hole."
Beth Butler, 78, lives in Chepstow in Monmouthshire. A former teacher, she remembers the power of the trade unions in the early 1970s: "One example springs to mind that was entirely typical," she says. "Our union – the NATFHE [the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education] – came to us one day and asked us to go out on strike for an increase in the wages of the cleaners and auxiliary staff at our college. That was fine, and we did it – but a short while later, the union steward came back and said that the teachers should now strike to get an increase in our own salaries. That was crazy – it was reinstating the discrepancy between our salaries that we'd just managed to narrow.
"We refused to strike," she adds, "but it was a big thing to refuse to do what your union told you to do. Unions were all- and over-powerful in the 70s. It was a closed shop: if you didn't do what they told you to, they would kick you out and then you'd lose your job – and wouldn't be able to find another because employers wouldn't employ anyone who wasn't in the union.
"It really was the iron hand of communism creeping in and grasping everyone by its throat, and that created an atmosphere of fear that came close to hysteria. But it was also a bit of a joke, the way they would force employers to split jobs," she says. "So, for example, they would have to employ one person to heat the rivet, a second person to hand the warmed rivet to a third person, who would hit it into the hole."
No denying some unions were their own worst enemies back then. if they had accepted the (very mild) proposals of "In Place of Strife" (Barbara Castle - 1969) we could have avoided the horrors of Thatcherism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife
Yes I can remember the power cuts and the "winter of discontent" very well.
Poor british management must also share the blame, British Leyland and Rootes Group were just 2 examples of hopeless mismanagement that lead to disaster.
Here is an item about Lord Stokes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Stokes
In 1979 we went from one extreme to the other. You can't blame the unions for everything that went wrong back then.
If we can replace imports with locally manufactured goods, the unemployed will then
- earn a regular wage / salary
- pay taxes and NI contributions and pay into a pension for retirement
- be able to pay their bills without state help
- have money left over to spend, a boost for other areas of the economy
What's hard about that?
If it sounds like the pre-globalisation 1970s, as the article states
"What was lost? As Beth Butler, a teacher during the 70s, puts it “A zest; a get-up-and-go; an optimism. People seemed to become gradually more passive under Thatcher, as though the colour had gone out of their lives…People were interested in what they had for themselves, rather than doing things together”.
Of course some bad things were going on in those days, no denying of that. But most people had a reasonably secure long term job to look forward to in those days and a future. What future does the young graduate, loaded up with student loan debt drifting from one short term job to another have today? Three years of university followed by decades of stacking shelves in Tesco or serving in McDonalds?
Yes but less people would be able to afford to buy those goods as they would be far more expensive than the present imports.
"Deficit in Goods. Since the process of de-industrialisation accelerated in the early 1980s, the UK has had a large deficit in goods. The UK still manufacturers goods, but we have become a net importer – especially of manufactured goods (e.g. clothes, computers, cars). The graph below shows the sectors with the biggest deficit".
(see graph)
"For example, this shows the UK had a deficit of £12.56 bn for finished manufactured goods in Q2 of 2012. The UK is also a net importer of oil and food".
This is not sustainable, didn't this country "max out its credit card" in 2008.
Robert Peston wrote this in 2008 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fblogs%2Fthereporters%2Frobertpeston%2Fnewcapitalism.pdf&ei=jqq5U8eYHKi47AbcmYDACQ&usg=AFQjCNF-h-EOEPq3HOnUrHX8rWiCAm-1pg&bvm=bv.70138588,d.ZGU&cad=rja
"To put it in crude terms, for much of the past decade, millions of Chinese slaved away
on near subsistence wages and still managed to save, both as a nation (China ranks
£1,400bn in foreign exchange reserves) and as individuals. And to a large extent they
were working to improve our living standards, because they made more and more of
the stuff we wanted at cheaper and cheaper prices - and clever bankers took their
savings and lent the cash to us, so that we could buy the houses we cherished, the cars we desired, the flat-screen TVs. This imbalance - between the savings of China, India, Japan and Saudi and our
indebtedness, between their massive trade surpluses and our deficits - was never
sustainable. At some point, the Chinese were bound to say, “we’d like some of the
cake now please, which means you’ll have to have a bit less”.
How we still afford all the imports I cannot understand...
"The authorities in the US and the UK wereaware of the dangers of allowing the
financial and trade deficits with China and other exporting nations to persist. They
could have corrected these deficits by using tax and interest rate policies to reduce our rampant consumption. But they chose not todo so, because it all looked too difficult.
Our own Government turned a blind eye to all the evidence that a rampant lending
binge was taking place, because the Exchequer was receiving all those lovely tax
revenues from the housing and City bubbles – and because there was kudos to be had from the world renown of our financial services industry"
Financial services industry or a bankrupt pile of toxic waste?
If you have time listen to the Sir James Goldsmith interview and tell me where he was wrong.
Beth Butler, 78, lives in Chepstow in Monmouthshire. A former teacher, she remembers the power of the trade unions in the early 1970s: "One example springs to mind that was entirely typical," she says. "Our union – the NATFHE [the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education] – came to us one day and asked us to go out on strike for an increase in the wages of the cleaners and auxiliary staff at our college. That was fine, and we did it – but a short while later, the union steward came back and said that the teachers should now strike to get an increase in our own salaries. That was crazy – it was reinstating the discrepancy between our salaries that we'd just managed to narrow.
"We refused to strike," she adds, "but it was a big thing to refuse to do what your union told you to do. Unions were all- and over-powerful in the 70s. It was a closed shop: if you didn't do what they told you to, they would kick you out and then you'd lose your job – and wouldn't be able to find another because employers wouldn't employ anyone who wasn't in the union.
"It really was the iron hand of communism creeping in and grasping everyone by its throat, and that created an atmosphere of fear that came close to hysteria. But it was also a bit of a joke, the way they would force employers to split jobs," she says. "So, for example, they would have to employ one person to heat the rivet, a second person to hand the warmed rivet to a third person, who would hit it into the hole."
I did a craft union apprenticeship in the late 60's, and it was nothing like the above tale.
Seems quite logical to me that a union would want to improve the pay of all workers, but while maintaining the differential between cleaners and teachers pay. However, it seems Ms Butler didn't see it that way - perhaps she was just generally anti-authority and a bit of a maverick who liked to stand out from the crowd with little thought for the value of standing together for the sake of the majority.
Later when moving from the Midlands to the South West of England where Unions were thin on the ground, the old timers talked of working for a family business where if you upset the boss you were not only out on your ear, but would find it almost impossible to find work because you would be blacklisted by local employers, who with no formal authority, dominated the local labour markets by running what was in effect a cartel.
So there are two sides to every story.
The lifestyles of working people progressed by leaps and bounds in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.
Unions went out of favour in the 70's, and look at the prospects for young people now!
If they have a job at all it's likely to be poorly paid and insecure, and if they get into education they end with a millstone of debt around their necks. Millions of young people have little hope of owning a home, or being able to comfortably support a family.
New Labour sold out on working people, and the only viable option we have now is to vote for a muppet like Miliband.
Time to start teaching young people the true facts re the history of Britain, not biased propaganda.
I did a craft union apprenticeship in the late 60's, and it was nothing like the above tale.
Seems quite logical to me that a union would want to improve the pay of all workers, but while maintaining the differential between cleaners and teachers pay. However, it seems Ms Butler didn't see it that way - perhaps she was just generally anti-authority and a bit of a maverick who liked to stand out from the crowd with little thought for the value of standing together for the sake of the majority.
Later when moving from the Midlands to the South West of England where Unions were thin on the ground, the old timers talked of working for a family business where if you upset the boss you were not only out on your ear, but would find it almost impossible to find work because you would be blacklisted by local employers, who with no formal authority, dominated the local labour markets by running what was in effect a cartel.
So there are two sides to every story.
The lifestyles of working people progressed by leaps and bounds in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.
Unions went out of favour in the 70's, and look at the prospects for young people now!
If they have a job at all it's likely to be poorly paid and insecure, and if they get into education they end with a millstone of debt around their necks. Millions of young people have little hope of owning a home, or being able to comfortably support a family.
New Labour sold out on working people, and the only viable option we have now is to vote for a muppet like Miliband.
Time to start teaching young people the true facts re the history of Britain, not biased propaganda.
you might also like to watch this short video which explains very clearly how banks actually work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKdxAVW-_U - this is actually true! A "promissory note" is basically an iou.
and this one about how the british economy was saved from total collapse in 1914, some important forgotten history here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXI38ey-nY#t=56
The "Bradbury pound" worked in 1914 and would end austerity now.
What the north actually needs IS thatcherising, if you will.
The thriving south, based on a thriving capitalist private sector goes well. The north continues with its inefficient socialist experiment. A dose of capitalism might sort it.
What the north actually needs IS thatcherising, if you will.
The thriving south, based on a thriving capitalist private sector goes well. The north continues with its inefficient socialist experiment. A dose of capitalism might sort it.
You mean "based on an unsustainable housing bubble"? Financial speculation with other peoples' money is not the basis for a sound economy.
What the north actually needs IS thatcherising, if you will.
The thriving south, based on a thriving capitalist private sector goes well. The north continues with its inefficient socialist experiment. A dose of capitalism might sort it.
What the hell are you talking about? The main reason we have such disparities between regions is because the SE of England attracts most of the investment, a lot of the talent, and most of the attention of government. This has been true for decades now.
Most other countries could go on if their capital was nuked. Our country would be pretty much finished, economically at least, if that happened.
What we need is some serious devolution of power and investment to the regions. I find it completely bonkers that many regions of England have higher populations than Wales, and one or two even the whole of Scotland, and yet they have nowhere near the same powers.
Comments
That's supported by the UK happiness score that put us above the EU average, but below the average on having people that can help they in the event of a problem and a sense of attachment to their local community.
They left this part out:
Beth Butler, 78, lives in Chepstow in Monmouthshire. A former teacher, she remembers the power of the trade unions in the early 1970s: "One example springs to mind that was entirely typical," she says. "Our union – the NATFHE [the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education] – came to us one day and asked us to go out on strike for an increase in the wages of the cleaners and auxiliary staff at our college. That was fine, and we did it – but a short while later, the union steward came back and said that the teachers should now strike to get an increase in our own salaries. That was crazy – it was reinstating the discrepancy between our salaries that we'd just managed to narrow.
"We refused to strike," she adds, "but it was a big thing to refuse to do what your union told you to do. Unions were all- and over-powerful in the 70s. It was a closed shop: if you didn't do what they told you to, they would kick you out and then you'd lose your job – and wouldn't be able to find another because employers wouldn't employ anyone who wasn't in the union.
"It really was the iron hand of communism creeping in and grasping everyone by its throat, and that created an atmosphere of fear that came close to hysteria. But it was also a bit of a joke, the way they would force employers to split jobs," she says. "So, for example, they would have to employ one person to heat the rivet, a second person to hand the warmed rivet to a third person, who would hit it into the hole."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/13/margaret-thatcher-three-generations-views
No denying some unions were their own worst enemies back then. if they had accepted the (very mild) proposals of "In Place of Strife" (Barbara Castle - 1969) we could have avoided the horrors of Thatcherism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Place_of_Strife
Yes I can remember the power cuts and the "winter of discontent" very well.
Poor british management must also share the blame, British Leyland and Rootes Group were just 2 examples of hopeless mismanagement that lead to disaster.
Here is an item about Lord Stokes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Stokes
In 1979 we went from one extreme to the other. You can't blame the unions for everything that went wrong back then.
Yes but less people would be able to afford to buy those goods as they would be far more expensive than the present imports.
Have a look at this.
http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5776/trade/uk-balance-of-payments/
"Deficit in Goods. Since the process of de-industrialisation accelerated in the early 1980s, the UK has had a large deficit in goods. The UK still manufacturers goods, but we have become a net importer – especially of manufactured goods (e.g. clothes, computers, cars). The graph below shows the sectors with the biggest deficit".
(see graph)
"For example, this shows the UK had a deficit of £12.56 bn for finished manufactured goods in Q2 of 2012. The UK is also a net importer of oil and food".
This is not sustainable, didn't this country "max out its credit card" in 2008.
Robert Peston wrote this in 2008
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fblogs%2Fthereporters%2Frobertpeston%2Fnewcapitalism.pdf&ei=jqq5U8eYHKi47AbcmYDACQ&usg=AFQjCNF-h-EOEPq3HOnUrHX8rWiCAm-1pg&bvm=bv.70138588,d.ZGU&cad=rja
"To put it in crude terms, for much of the past decade, millions of Chinese slaved away
on near subsistence wages and still managed to save, both as a nation (China ranks
£1,400bn in foreign exchange reserves) and as individuals. And to a large extent they
were working to improve our living standards, because they made more and more of
the stuff we wanted at cheaper and cheaper prices - and clever bankers took their
savings and lent the cash to us, so that we could buy the houses we cherished, the cars we desired, the flat-screen TVs.
This imbalance - between the savings of China, India, Japan and Saudi and our
indebtedness, between their massive trade surpluses and our deficits - was never
sustainable. At some point, the Chinese were bound to say, “we’d like some of the
cake now please, which means you’ll have to have a bit less”.
How we still afford all the imports I cannot understand...
"The authorities in the US and the UK wereaware of the dangers of allowing the
financial and trade deficits with China and other exporting nations to persist. They
could have corrected these deficits by using tax and interest rate policies to reduce our rampant consumption. But they chose not todo so, because it all looked too difficult.
Our own Government turned a blind eye to all the evidence that a rampant lending
binge was taking place, because the Exchequer was receiving all those lovely tax
revenues from the housing and City bubbles – and because there was kudos to be had from the world renown of our financial services industry"
Financial services industry or a bankrupt pile of toxic waste?
If you have time listen to the Sir James Goldsmith interview and tell me where he was wrong.
I did a craft union apprenticeship in the late 60's, and it was nothing like the above tale.
Seems quite logical to me that a union would want to improve the pay of all workers, but while maintaining the differential between cleaners and teachers pay. However, it seems Ms Butler didn't see it that way - perhaps she was just generally anti-authority and a bit of a maverick who liked to stand out from the crowd with little thought for the value of standing together for the sake of the majority.
Later when moving from the Midlands to the South West of England where Unions were thin on the ground, the old timers talked of working for a family business where if you upset the boss you were not only out on your ear, but would find it almost impossible to find work because you would be blacklisted by local employers, who with no formal authority, dominated the local labour markets by running what was in effect a cartel.
So there are two sides to every story.
The lifestyles of working people progressed by leaps and bounds in the 50's, 60's, and 70's.
Unions went out of favour in the 70's, and look at the prospects for young people now!
If they have a job at all it's likely to be poorly paid and insecure, and if they get into education they end with a millstone of debt around their necks. Millions of young people have little hope of owning a home, or being able to comfortably support a family.
New Labour sold out on working people, and the only viable option we have now is to vote for a muppet like Miliband.
Time to start teaching young people the true facts re the history of Britain, not biased propaganda.
Start here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs
A excellent place to start.....
you might also like to watch this short video which explains very clearly how banks actually work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHKdxAVW-_U - this is actually true! A "promissory note" is basically an iou.
and this one about how the british economy was saved from total collapse in 1914, some important forgotten history here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsXI38ey-nY#t=56
The "Bradbury pound" worked in 1914 and would end austerity now.
"We need every school in the north to teach the truth about Thatcherism as a basic doctrine"
Fixed it for you.....
Do we need more financial whizz-kids in the City?
The thriving south, based on a thriving capitalist private sector goes well. The north continues with its inefficient socialist experiment. A dose of capitalism might sort it.
You mean "based on an unsustainable housing bubble"? Financial speculation with other peoples' money is not the basis for a sound economy.
What the hell are you talking about? The main reason we have such disparities between regions is because the SE of England attracts most of the investment, a lot of the talent, and most of the attention of government. This has been true for decades now.
Most other countries could go on if their capital was nuked. Our country would be pretty much finished, economically at least, if that happened.
What we need is some serious devolution of power and investment to the regions. I find it completely bonkers that many regions of England have higher populations than Wales, and one or two even the whole of Scotland, and yet they have nowhere near the same powers.