Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

As I ve said before blaming Thatcher for Britain’s woes negates the many other people and factors that have led us to where we are.

In which case, I think you may have misread what I wrote, Paulo.

I spoke about neoliberalism and the timing of when it became the orthodox political ideology in the UK.

TBH I just quoted the whole lot to carry on the discussion. Apologies

No worries. Sorry not to have got your drift.

p.s. This does not absolve her of her responsibility - though, as you rightly pointed out, others are also (ir)responsible and continue to be so.

[Awol]

No we shouldn’t. But go to the small border towns of Scotland like Hawick. They were royally f•••ed by the closure of the railways by good old Wilson. Or some one like Red Robbo. Or say Eden’s failings at Suez, etc, etc. Strikes me that we remember our childhood’s best, and so for most people Thatcher sticks in the claws as being why Britain is not what it should be, but it allows the others to be given a get out of jail free card

Indeed. No one seems to mention the utter disatser Thatcher inherited from the previous mob. Looking at individuals out of context of the broader historical narrative inevitably leads to flawed conclusions.

[TrentVilla]

but to say that the organisation didn’t do good is just wrong.

I never said that though.

Anyway as you say wrong place for this discussion or for what this discussion has moved on to.

[TrentVilla]

No we shouldn’t. But go to the small border towns of Scotland like Hawick. They were royally f•••ed by the closure of the railways by good old Wilson. Or some one like Red Robbo. Or say Eden’s failings at Suez, etc, etc. Strikes me that we remember our childhood’s best, and so for most people Thatcher sticks in the claws as being why Britain is not what it should be, but it allows the others to be given a get out of jail free card

Indeed. No one seems to mention the utter disatser Thatcher inherited from the previous mob. Looking at individuals out of context of the broader historical narrative inevitably leads to flawed conclusions.

Fair comment, same can be said today I guess about the mess the current government inherited but then likewise you could talk about the mess labour inherited in 1997.

I do think it is possible to look at individual characters within a broader historical context and see the damage or good that they did in their time and even taking into account what Thatcher inherited I think the damage she did is clearly visable.

[peterms]

No we shouldn’t. But go to the small border towns of Scotland like Hawick. They were royally f•••ed by the closure of the railways by good old Wilson. Or some one like Red Robbo. Or say Eden’s failings at Suez, etc, etc. Strikes me that we remember our childhood’s best, and so for most people Thatcher sticks in the claws as being why Britain is not what it should be, but it allows the others to be given a get out of jail free card

Though since "a day away from Hawick is a day wasted", possibly the good citizens saw it as a mixed blessing.

Thatcher was qualitatively different to others. When Callaghan and Healey presided over the invitation to the IMF to come in and advise us on how to sort ourselves out in the wake of the oil crisis (a bit like asking Jeremy Clarkson for advice on routing cycle paths), they weren't engaged in planned class warfare against the weak.

Thatcher brought to British politics a sneering, spiteful, vindictive hatefulness which, overlaid on her small-town petit-bourgeois class hatreds, translated into years of the most wilfully socially divisive policies we have ever seen.

Where other politicians might be disliked, resented, mocked, Thatcher is one of the few who were genuinely and deeply hated.

[PauloBarnesi]

No we shouldn’t. But go to the small border towns of Scotland like Hawick. They were royally f•••ed by the closure of the railways by good old Wilson. Or some one like Red Robbo. Or say Eden’s failings at Suez, etc, etc. Strikes me that we remember our childhood’s best, and so for most people Thatcher sticks in the claws as being why Britain is not what it should be, but it allows the others to be given a get out of jail free card

Though since "a day away from Hawick is a day wasted", possibly the good citizens saw it as a mixed blessing.

Thatcher was qualitatively different to others. When Callaghan and Healey presided over the invitation to the IMF to come in and advise us on how to sort ourselves out in the wake of the oil crisis (a bit like asking Jeremy Clarkson for advice on routing cycle paths), they weren't engaged in planned class warfare against the weak.

Thatcher brought to British politics a sneering, spiteful, vindictive hatefulness which, overlaid on her small-town petit-bourgeois class hatreds, translated into years of the most wilfully socially divisive policies we have ever seen.

Where other politicians might be disliked, resented, mocked, Thatcher is one of the few who were genuinely and deeply hated.

Well then when Wilson decided to carry out the Beeching cuts (which he promised not to), was that not an attack on the whole of Britain? When Wilson decided to make crooks and cronies ennobled, did he not piss on us all? Or the wonderful 1965 circular 10/65?

And if one wants to talk about class war; what was Scargill involved in? Was he interested in democracy? Or someone like Red Robo?

And as AWOL noted, Thatcher was a reaction to what had come before her. I am not trying to defend Thatcher, but it seems to me that people need to really look at some of the other bastards.

[peterms]

Well then when Wilson decided to carry out the Beeching cuts (which he promised not to), was that not an attack on the whole of Britain? When Wilson decided to make crooks and cronies ennobled, did he not piss on us all? Or the wonderful 1965 circular 10/65?

And if one wants to talk about class war; what was Scargill involved in? Was he interested in democracy? Or someone like Red Robo?

And as AWOL noted, Thatcher was a reaction to what had come before her. I am not trying to defend Thatcher, but it seems to me that people need to really look at some of the other bastards.

...and I'm not trying to defend Wilson. He promised to halt the closures, and broke his promise. In other echoes of the present day, the decisions were taken for cost-saving reasons but the assumed savings never quite materialised; and decisions about long-term capital investment were taken for short-term reasons, leading to an outcome which looks wrong today.

Scargill and Red Robbo are an entirely different kettle of fish to Thatcher. Industry-specific, in one case quite local as well, engaged in essentially defensive rearguard actions in the face of the restructuring of traditional and pretty outmoded forms of production. Simply no comparison.

[PauloBarnesi]

Well then when Wilson decided to carry out the Beeching cuts (which he promised not to), was that not an attack on the whole of Britain? When Wilson decided to make crooks and cronies ennobled, did he not piss on us all? Or the wonderful 1965 circular 10/65?

And if one wants to talk about class war; what was Scargill involved in? Was he interested in democracy? Or someone like Red Robo?

And as AWOL noted, Thatcher was a reaction to what had come before her. I am not trying to defend Thatcher, but it seems to me that people need to really look at some of the other bastards.

...and I'm not trying to defend Wilson. He promised to halt the closures, and broke his promise. In other echoes of the present day, the decisions were taken for cost-saving reasons but the assumed savings never quite materialised; and decisions about long-term capital investment were taken for short-term reasons, leading to an outcome which looks wrong today.

Scargill and Red Robbo are an entirely different kettle of fish to Thatcher. Industry-specific, in one case quite local as well, engaged in essentially defensive rearguard actions in the face of the restructuring of traditional and pretty outmoded forms of production. Simply no comparison.

Not saying one should compare, but all of them are responsible for in some part the state we are in. Why did Wilson inflict 10/65 on us? Why did Scargill not have a democratic vote? Why was Red Robbo so keen to continue to strike (so much so the union got rid of him)?

And as I said; was Thatcher a reaction to what was already happening?

[peterms]

Not saying one should compare, but all of them are responsible for in some part the state we are in. Why did Wilson inflict 10/65 on us? Why did Scargill not have a democratic vote? Why was Red Robbo so keen to continue to strike (so much so the union got rid of him)?

And as I said; was Thatcher a reaction to what was already happening?

10/65? Comprehensive schools? I imagine because it was part of the policy approach at the time, wasn't it? Hardly a personal crusade on Wilson's part (Crosland, maybe).

Scargill - tactical error, as many said at the time.

Robbo - no idea. Though I'm sure he would be delighted to be bracketed with Thatcher in terms of impact.

Of course Thatcher was a reaction to circumstances at the time. If the times weren't favourable (and if she hadn't been lucky) she would still have been working on putting more air bubbles into ice cream on an industrial estate somewhere, an outcome much to be preferred.

My point was that far more than other figures, she brought a spitefulness which made her hated.

[blandy]

And as I said; was Thatcher a reaction to what was already happening?

People are not a reaction to anything.

I do accept some of her behaviour was in reaction to what was happening. However, her views and attitudes were not.

If you feel for example "the Union leaders like Scargill wielded too much power over the previous gov't", one action would be to reduce the power they have. Another action would be to destroy an industry in the way Peter described a few pages ago, with what these days is called "collateral damage" being the miners, their families and mining towns. Scargill was culpable as well, but he was also right about Thatcher and what she wanted to do.

Her views and actions and ethos and behaviours throughout her time as PM were not all in reaction to what was happening, they were by and large a representation of her mentality and attitude. Quite appropriate she's now apparently as mad as a box of frogs. Serves her right, the evil witch.

[Jon]

Quite appropriate she's now apparently as mad as a box of frogs.

Now? :winkold:

[blandy]

Mad /deranged - different in my view

[PauloBarnesi]

And as I said; was Thatcher a reaction to what was already happening?

People are not a reaction to anything.

I do accept some of her behaviour was in reaction to what was happening. However, her views and attitudes were not.

If you feel for example "the Union leaders like Scargill wielded too much power over the previous gov't", one action would be to reduce the power they have. Another action would be to destroy an industry in the way Peter described a few pages ago, with what these days is called "collateral damage" being the miners, their families and mining towns. Scargill was culpable as well, but he was also right about Thatcher and what she wanted to do.

Her views and actions and ethos and behaviours throughout her time as PM were not all in reaction to what was happening, they were by and large a representation of her mentality and attitude. Quite appropriate she's now apparently as mad as a box of frogs. Serves her right, the evil witch.

I do believe people and their behaviour is a reaction to upbringing and what came before. Thatcher and her policies were a reaction to things before her and her belief system. She might have been mad, but clearly tapped into a mentality that a part of the population bought into (clearly a young David Cameron and a young Tony Blair did)

As for the union thing; my whole feeling is that the industrial disputes of the 60s, 70s and 80s **** everyone. **** the industry, **** the workers, **** the country. Both Thatcher and Scargill should take blame. Its been widely reported that the Coal Board wanted closures to invest in the remaining mines, but by the end of the strike, the industry was financially ****. And the same goes for other industries; the newspapers, the car industry, the rail industry.

Anyway its all gone now. Germany has modern vibrant industry. Why the hell don’t we?

[peterms]

I do believe people and their behaviour is a reaction to upbringing and what came before. Thatcher and her policies were a reaction to things before her and her belief system. She might have been mad, but clearly tapped into a mentality that a part of the population bought into (clearly a young David Cameron and a young Tony Blair did)

As for the union thing; my whole feeling is that the industrial disputes of the 60s, 70s and 80s **** everyone. **** the industry, **** the workers, **** the country. Both Thatcher and Scargill should take blame. Its been widely reported that the Coal Board wanted closures to invest in the remaining mines, but by the end of the strike, the industry was financially ****. And the same goes for other industries; the newspapers, the car industry, the rail industry.

Anyway its all gone now. Germany has modern vibrant industry. Why the hell don’t we?

Well, if I can indulge in a few random musings around these points.

Thatcher wasn't mad, just bad. Despite her confrontational style, her utter lack of empathy with people, her innate racism, her inability to understand or practice management styles other than "dominate and crush", and her utter lack of any wider perspective about what might be best for the country, she was lauded as a hero by the usual sections of the press. It's maybe not surprising that young authoritarians with a similar will to power should look up to her and seek to copy her. I blame the social workers, myself.

As for the industrial stuff - Britain in the 60s was a basket case. From a post-war base of old and tired plant, we didn't renew quickly enough to keep up with other countries. In the 70s and 80s, you could walk in to factories and see equipment which might better have been on display in the local museum, while the directors enjoyed cordon bleu lunches in private dining rooms. It seems like the "wealth creators" were out to lunch or on the golf course for those 30 or 40 years, because they certainly weren't repositioning the manufacturing sector to respond to new challenges. Feasting off the decaying corpse would be more like it.

Throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, various industries faced a necessary restructuring. That's what "the white heat of the technological revolution" was supposed to be about. There are various ways to approach this, from consensus to diktat. We seem to have done things in a way which resulted in a lot of conflict. It's interesting to see that Germany seem to have reduced labour costs and improved productivity over the last couple of years through a consensual approach.

In my view both unions and management spent too much time preserving old ways of doing things, whether working practices or outmoded capital equipment. As a country, we do seem to spend more time looking back than forward.

Oh, on the rail thing - I learn that Beeching was appointed by a Tory minister, Marples, who was a director of a company which constructed roads.

[snowychap]

There are various ways to approach this, from consensus to diktat. We seem to have done things in a way which resulted in a lot of conflict. It's interesting to see that Germany seem to have reduced labour costs and improved productivity over the last couple of years through a consensual approach.

Were the Hartz reforms really a consensual approach?

[kidlewis]

Member of the public ordered to buy a dictionary after calling someone a racist

[peterms]

Oh dear. Mr Osborne's claims about the degree of the problem and there being no alternative start to unravel.

George Osborne accused of misleading public over UK bankruptcy claim

Treasury select committee says chancellor 'used inflammatory language to justify massive public spending cuts'

The chancellor, George Osborne, came under fire today from MPs on the Treasury select committee, charged with "misleading the public" for claiming the UK was near bankruptcy in the weeks after he took office. He was accused of using inflammatory language to justify massive public spending cuts.

The committee chairman, Tory MP Andrew Tyrie, said Osborne's claim that Britain had been "on the brink of bankruptcy" was "a bit over the top". He also challenged the chancellor's claims that his emergency budget had been progressive, accusing him of "over-egging it a bit".

Tyrie's comments followed heated exchanges during which Osborne was tackled over his handling of plans to cut central and local government spending. The chancellor has repeatedly justified the cuts as a reasonable response to unprecedented debt levels and the threat from credit ratings agencies to downgrade the UK's blue-chip AAA rating.

Tyrie said Osborne's inflammatory language was counterproductive. "Maybe the tough measures on the deficit and also the effort to make the budget fair would have come across more clearly if they hadn't been obscured in debate of claim and counter-claim," he said.

"I think there is something there to look at when making these remarks, which do look to me more like the language of opposition than government. Tell it as it is."

Labour MPs on the committee said it was false to describe Britain as on the edge of bankruptcy when other major economies such as France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the US had higher debts.

Giving evidence about the spending review, Osborne insisted he had been forced to take drastic action to take the country out of the "financial danger zone". He admitted the overall debt levels remained below those of the UK's main rivals, but the annual deficit last year of 11.4% was the highest in the G20 and needed to be cut back quickly.

Osborne, who said the next budget will take place on 23 March, insisted that the situation he inherited had been "incredibly serious".

"The largest bond investor in the world was saying that UK gilts were a no-go area, sitting on a bed of nitroglycerine," he said. "I have done everything I can to move Britain out of the financial danger zone."

He said Britain was being spoken of in the same terms as Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain – known by the acronym "pigs" – which were facing sovereign debt crises.

"Then there was another acronym doing the rounds which was 'stupid' and the 'u' in 'stupid' was the United Kingdom," he said. He also denied that his budget was not progressive, insisting that if all the measures were taken together – including some inherited from Labour – they would hit the richest hardest.

"I believe the richest pay more than the poorest, not just in cash terms but as a proportion of their income," he said.

Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP for Streatham, asked whether Osborne still believed that any decision by the Bank of England to pump more money into the economy would be an admission of failure, and if he would consider his own policies to have failed if the bank followed the US Federal Reserve's strategy and put billions of pounds into the economy.

Osborne said it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter before the bank's interest rate decision , due to be announced one hour after the committee meeting finished.

[peterms]

There are various ways to approach this, from consensus to diktat. We seem to have done things in a way which resulted in a lot of conflict. It's interesting to see that Germany seem to have reduced labour costs and improved productivity over the last couple of years through a consensual approach.

Were the Hartz reforms really a consensual approach?

Not really; quite divided opinions. But a bit more consensual than some of our approaches.

There does seem to my limited viewpoint to be more interest in identifying a common ground over there than over here, though.

[peterms]

This is a significant judgement and an indication of how social care will be delivered in future. Where there used to be personal assistance to use the toilet, now you can expect to lie in bed and piss into a pad.

Well, as long as we're all in this together, what? A small price to pay as long as the bankers can still get their bonuses. The money's much better used on that.

Local councils have been given the green light by the courts to cut social care services to elderly and disabled people previously assessed by law as needing them.

In a test case involving care support for a woman who was one of Britain's leading ballerinas, the appeal court ruled that Kensington and Chelsea council in west London acted lawfully and reasonably in withdrawing some services to save money.

The judgment could affect services to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable adults, including care at home, meals-on-wheels, escorted transport and places at day centres.

Councils face a 26% cut in grants over the next four years, although the government says it is providing enough funding for social care to be protected. The focus until now has been on tightening eligibility for people not yet receiving services.

The Kensington and Chelsea ruling appears to clear the way for councils to cut services already being provided, even if the individual's needs are unchanged.

Luke Clements, professor of law at Cardiff University and a leading expert on care legislation, described the judgment as "chilling". He said: "There are two problems with this approach: one, a narrow legal one and the other that it is an indictment of any society that lays claim to be civilised."

The test case involved Elaine McDonald, 67, who was a Scottish Ballet principal ballerina considered by some critics to be Britain's finest classical ballerina of her day.

After a stroke in 1999, McDonald has restricted mobility and needs support to continue living on her own in her Earl's Court flat. Problems with her bladder mean she needs to use the toilet frequently at night.

In 2008, after falling and breaking her hip at night, she was assessed by Kensington and Chelsea as having an eligible need for support both during the day and "assistance at night to use the commode".

Once an "eligible" need is determined, a local authority must by law provide services to meet that need. Kensington and Chelsea provided a sleep-in care worker seven nights a week.

Subsequently, the council decided McDonald's needs could be met more cheaply – saving £22,000 a year – by supplying her with incontinence pads for use at night. Before a legal challenge could be started, care cover was cut to four nights a week as a first step.

The challenge, taken on McDonald's behalf by the Disability Law Service (DLS), a charity, and backed latterly by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, reached the appeal court for judicial review earlier this year. The case has been watched closely by councils across the country.

The court's reserved judgment finds that the council was wrong to reduce the care in the way it did, but upholds its action in later reviewing McDonald's case and concluding that she had a "more general" eligible need for night support that could be met by the provision of pads.

The judgment, by Lords Justice Rix and Wilson and Sir David Keene, says the council acted "cautiously and generously" in seeking to accommodate McDonald's needs and wishes and reached a reasonable decision.

"The evidence is that the use of pads in circumstances such as those which afflict Ms McDonald is a widespread, satisfactory and accepted practice. Although it does not suit Ms McDonald's preferences, and it cannot make for perfection in a difficult situation, it provides safety and a large degree of independence and autonomy."

Douglas Joy, senior solicitor at the DLS, said the case could have widespread consequences and efforts were being made to take it to the supreme court for a definitive ruling.

Kensington and Chelsea had not conducted a formal reassessment of McDonald's needs but merely reviewed her care plan, Joy said. "We're very concerned at the implication that local authorities may be able to implement reassessments by stealth in this way. What previously would have been an update, or a check on how things were going, could now be assumed to be an assesment."

McDonald, who is still receiving the four-nights-a-week care and relying on a friend to help her on other nights, said she considered it an affront to her dignity to be expected to sleep in incontinence pads.

"They say they have taken account of my personal integrity. That's absolutely and completely untrue. I don't see what's dignified about having somebody cleaning me up and clearing up the mess in the morning.

"I can speak up for myself, but what worries me is what's going to happen to people who can't, people who might have dementia, if they are treated like this?"

Kensington and Chelsea, which is Conservative-controlled and Britain's wealthiest borough, said the case was "immensely important". It was pleased that the appeal court had acknowledged the difficult decisions it had to make and its duty to consider the use of available resources for others in need.

"Everyone understands that this resident has a strong preference for a night-time carer," said Julie Mills, the council's cabinet member for adult social care. "However, the sad reality is that urinary problems are a very common feature of growing older.

"The financial costs of providing personal care of this kind would be prohibitive and would compromise our ability to look after our vulnerable residents."

[PauloBarnesi]

Oh, on the rail thing - I learn that Beeching was appointed by a Tory minister, Marples, who was a director of a company which constructed roads.

Absolutely. However Labour went to the elections say they would fight them, only to then carry them out and fail to do what Beeching had said which was to invest in what remained. Harold was probably more interested in the Beatles or looking after his cronies.