25 Years since Maggie

[Dandyman]

and just for the record...

1979 Tories 43.9% of votes cast

1983 Tories 42.4% of votes cast

1987 Tories 42.2% of votes cast


It may be the way the system works, but I don't see any ringing endorsement from the British public there.

 

[looney]

Dandyman
now compare those results to any other elections, do you see ANY ringing endorsements?

 

[Simster]

The same arguements used to apply to agriculture which employed well over 50% of the population in 1850, it is now less than 2%. Its called progress which means you have to adapt. contrary to the Vulgar Marxist veiw Services do generate wealth which at the end of the day is what is needed to pay for everything.

Read my response to bracknell to see why he is wrong.

Bollocks looney. Thatcher's answer to an increasingly uncompetitive UK manufacturing base was to let it go to the wall and spout her "you can't buck the market, we can't compete with the far east" bullshit.

Well I guess nobody told the Germans or the Dutch then, because manufacturing and engineering is VERY strong in both of those economies. I'm afraid the Tories were an example of lazy, thoughtless government that did NOTHING to help its own industry.

 

[GUNTER]

Maggie Maggie Maggie

OUT OUT OUT!

 

[looney]

Bollocks looney. Thatcher's answer to an increasingly uncompetitive UK manufacturing base was to let it go to the wall and spout her "you can't buck the market, we can't compete with the far east" bullshit.

Well I guess nobody told the Germans or the Dutch then, because manufacturing and engineering is VERY strong in both of those economies. I'm afraid the Tories were an example of lazy, thoughtless government that did NOTHING to help its own industry.

Let it go to the wall? She did her best to rescue it! Hence privatisation after years of decline under state ownership. Jobs going east in manufacturing is a long term trend, look at the change in the structure of employment in europe and you will see a lag but the same thing.

Newsflash! We still are strong in Engineering with most top companies based in the UK including R+D in things such as Formula 1. You will also note that we have always been strong in finance and still are, Germans Engineering and still are. We also have more people working than Europe, We also have a higher % of women working than in europe(bar Sweden).

Oh and we cant compete with the far east unless you wanted to see wages slashed by 80%, the trick is to create new jobs as the old ones go. Thats what it Always been about. Innovation and aplication of new technology.

 

[Simster]

Let it go to the wall? She did her best to rescue it!

How exactly? I see no evidence.

Hence privatisation after years of decline under state ownership. Jobs going east in manufacturing is a long term trend, look at the change in the structure of employment in europe and you will see a lag but the same thing.

I wasn't arguing about finance or women. And do you really believe that simply privatising any industry is a recipe for success? I believe in privitisation where the market is competitive. If not, the only difference is that a few select fat bastards take the profits instead of the country at large. See the railway industry for details.

Newsflash! We still are strong in Engineering with most top companies based in the UK including R+D in things such as Formula 1.

I think you're scraping the barrel there. What about a proper industry like car manufacturing, or ship building - or building industrial equipment like turbines (which is now nearly always built in Germany).

Oh and we cant compete with the far east unless you wanted to see wages slashed by 80%, the trick is to create new jobs as the old ones go. Thats what it Always been about. Innovation and aplication of new technology.

I agree with that, but how do you encourage innovation? If your industry goes to the wall, then who pays for the innovation? How many millions of pounds are Austin Rover spending right now on innovation? If successive governments had helped rebuild that company, it might now be a major powerhouse.

 

[Dr Schnell]

Well great, we're even worse than I thought.

It seems strange to see India as a richer country than us though. It must be one of the few places that has a greater inequality than us.

You will note that the GDP estimates on this website are not on a per capita basis. India's estimated total GDP is about 1.74 times that of the UK. It is very difficult to determine with any precision India's population but conservative estimates suggest that it is over 1 billion. This is about 17 times the size of the UK's population. If India's GDP matched the UK on a per capita basis it should be around $25,000 billion in total or two and a half times the total GDP of the US (assuming the US figures are correct). The per capita comparison should be sufficient to argue that India is not currently as wealthy as the UK. However, if current economic growth rates for India continue at the same levels and we see further improvements in economic conditions such as another upgrading of Indian governement debt, India will soon have to be recognised as one of the world's leading economic powerhouses (although it will take some time before they reach the UK's per capita GDP levels).

Sticking with the GDP per capita theme, if you measure the UK against many of its EU counterparts we don't measure up too well - Germany, Sweden, Finland, possibly France and I think Ireland all outstrip us. Outside the EU, the US, Canada, Japan and Switzerland (to name but a few) all exceed our GDP per capita by quite some way.

 

[looney]

I believe in privitisation where the market is competitive.

You dont understand markets, Markets make firms more competative.

If not, the only difference is that a few select fat bastards take the profits instead of the country at large. See the railway industry for details.

See every other privatised industry.

I agree with that, but how do you encourage innovation? If your industry goes to the wall, then who pays for the innovation? How many millions of pounds are Austin Rover spending right now on innovation? If successive governments had helped rebuild that company, it might now be a major powerhouse.

f***! Do I really have to answer Circular nonsensical arguements? If it had innovated in the first place it wouldn't have gone to the wall or would have been less likely to. Instead of sitting on their arses waiting for fat lumps of government money to bail them out. That 2 quotes Ive put above where your logics back to front!

I think you're scraping the barrel there. What about a proper industry like car manufacturing, or ship building - or building industrial equipment like turbines (which is now nearly always built in Germany).

Proper Industry? They are all proper as they all pay taxes that pay your dole, Manufacturing snobbery, how sad.





I haven't got time to refight battles that have been won, The left was arrogant, Incompetent and it was out of date. Get the f*** over it. If I have time tomorrow I'll add some more

 

[looney]

You will note that the GDP estimates on this website are not on a per capita basis. India's estimated total GDP is about 1.74 times that of the UK. It is very difficult to determine with any precision India's population but conservative estimates suggest that it is over 1 billion. This is about 17 times the size of the UK's population. If India's GDP matched the UK on a per capita basis it should be around $25,000 billion in total or two and a half times the total GDP of the US (assuming the US figures are correct). The per capita comparison should be sufficient to argue that India is not currently as wealthy as the UK. However, if current economic growth rates for India continue at the same levels and we see further improvements in economic conditions such as another upgrading of Indian governement debt, India will soon have to be recognised as one of the world's leading economic powerhouses (although it will take some time before they reach the UK's per capita GDP levels).

Sticking with the GDP per capita theme, if you measure the UK against many of its EU counterparts we don't measure up too well - Germany, Sweden, Finland, possibly France and I think Ireland all outstrip us. Outside the EU, the US, Canada, Japan and Switzerland (to name but a few) all exceed our GDP per capita by quite some way.

Yes very good Dr shnell but you'll have to strip out Irelands Euro subsidy and add our Euro payments for a more accurate look.

GNP per Capita would be better than GDP me thinks, as we are one of the largest overseas investors in the world.

 

[Dandyman]

Dandyman
now compare those results to any other elections, do you see ANY ringing endorsements?

05 July 1945 Labour 47.8% of votes cast.

25 Oct 1951 Labour 48.8 % of the votes cast (although they "lost")

26 May 1955 Tories 49.7% of the votes cast


Possibly not ringing endorsements but rather more credible, IMHO

 

[looney]

Didn't Labour lose the 51 election? I thought their biggest win was 1945, sorry those figures look a bit iffy IMO.

 

[zefarelly]

Looney, I know jack shit about economics outside of my own wallet, but I agree with you on the whole, my gripe is that by running a country in such a way we are creating a huge imbalance, a few fat cats creaming off the profits at the general publics expense, I'm sure its always been the same, and I'm certain that as its mostly political, it goes in circles . . . .maybe we can bounce this thread in 30 years !!!
the thing that worries me is our financial foundation is no longer solid, its all guessing and gambling, we dont have the solid matter of agriculture and manufacturing to fall back on, and we will always need those products, I'm convinced there will come a time when the trend reverses, people are already turning back to growing their own food in the garden for example, only a very minor step, but at least you know nobodies pumped it full of shit (apart from next doors cat )

as for 43% of the vote Dandyman . . .what percentage bothered turning out to vote ?:

 

[zefarelly]

I think Ireland has seen a huge input from the EU . . .hence all the developement and jobs out there at the moment . . . .some of the engineering agencies I keep an eye on have loads of work over there, so I ont think theyre a very reliable GDP indicator at the moment, and they probably didnt register on the scale 5 years ago . . .apart from income generated by a few shyte albums by the Coors and U2 !

 

[Dandyman]

Didn't Labour lose the 51 election? I thought their biggest win was 1945, sorry those figures look a bit iffy IMO.

The 1951 election was decided by the vagaries of the electoral system. Labour got 48.8% of the votes and 295 seats. The Tories got 48.0% of the votes and 321 seats. The previous year Labour got 46.1% and 315 seats and the Tories 43.5% and 298 seats. Attlee decided to go the country as he felt his majority over all other parties was too small.

 

[looney]

The worst fat cat is Gordon Brown, We still have agriculture for food but its not a main wealth generator any more nor is metal banging.

Things change and their are usually costs and benefits attached, thats progress. Personally I'm a bit worried that my futurist stance is shared by blair as well as my veiws on the war on terror. Maybe I spent so long hating old labour that I forgot to look in the mirror and see new labour emerge.

 

[Dr Schnell]

Yes very good Dr shnell but you'll have to strip out Irelands Euro subsidy and add our Euro payments for a more accurate look.

GNP per Capita would be better than GDP me thinks, as we are one of the largest overseas investors in the world.

Agreed Looney

 

[Dandyman]

...
as for 43% of the vote Dandyman . . .what percentage bothered turning out to vote ?:

The turnout in 1979 was 72%, 72.7% in 1983 and 75.3% in 1987 (Thatcher's lowest share of the vote)

 

[zefarelly]

so its still actually less than 1/3rd of the voting populus . . . . .not very good really.

I really dont care for politics any more, It used to interest me, but everything is so corrupt and everyone has an alterior motive, I just try and ignore it, unfortunately it seems so does everyone else, which is why no one bothers voting and the countries run by halfwits !

compulsory voting anyone ?

 

[Titanic]

and just for the record...

1979 Tories 43.9% of votes cast

1983 Tories 42.4% of votes cast

1987 Tories 42.2% of votes cast

It may be the way the system works, but I don't see any ringing endorsement from the British public there.

1997 Labour 43.2% of votes cast - 419 seats (63%) Turnout: 71%

2001 Labour 40.7% of votes cast - 412 seats (62%) Turnout: 59%

So in 2001 Labour got a massive 167 seat majority in the House of Commons, with the backing of 24% of the voting electorate!

 

[Dr Schnell]

Looney, I know jack shit about economics outside of my own wallet, but I agree with you on the whole, my gripe is that by running a country in such a way we are creating a huge imbalance, a few fat cats creaming off the profits at the general publics expense, I'm sure its always been the same, and I'm certain that as its mostly political, it goes in circles . . . .maybe we can bounce this thread in 30 years !!!
the thing that worries me is our financial foundation is no longer solid, its all guessing and gambling, we dont have the solid matter of agriculture and manufacturing to fall back on, and we will always need those products, I'm convinced there will come a time when the trend reverses, people are already turning back to growing their own food in the garden for example, only a very minor step, but at least you know nobodies pumped it full of shit (apart from next doors cat )

as for 43% of the vote Dandyman . . .what percentage bothered turning out to vote ?:

Zefarelly,

Advanced economies no longer base their wealth on the agricultue sector, although I agree there is still plenty of opportunity for wealth creation in the manufacturing sector. One of the problems with the UK economy back in the 70's was that our manufacturing sector lacked productivity (often due to low investment by publicly owned industries or unions which had too much control contributing to higher labour costs - I'm thinking particularly of British Steel, British Coal, BAe, all the major utilities, all the major ship builders, all the major car manfacturers) or tended to be concentrated in those areas which were not technology intensive (low-grade steel production, coal production). As the global economy opened up we found it harder to compete with other countries in low-tech manufacturing, particularly as these countries' labour costs are substantially lower than ours.

I think there is a future for manufacturing in this country if we concentrate on the high-tech end of the sector. For us to succeed in this area we will need to invest more heavily in training and educating our labour force. This will have to involve a complete change in culture. Currently we undervalue science based degress (the government and the private sector underinvests in science degrees at our universities, particularly when compared to the US, Germany and Japan; as a nation we tend to sneer at scientists rather than celebrate them; science is too male-dominated in the UK; too many engineering graduates struggle to find jobs once they have left uni and are paid derisory sums once they find employment) and encourage too many students to do degrees which have no bearing on the jobs they eventually do.