Hatfield has last laugh on Thatcher.

Rochdale_Pioneers

nickmason wrote: »

But can you also stop your deliberate "dark-arts" politicking:
"1000 years" - where's this quote from, apart from a dogwhistle against third reich within the labour party spin machine.

I call it "satire". On other fora there are some posters who were scathing of anyone who paid any attention to the polls before Christmas, the 20 point swing back towards Labour dismissed as a freak. Now that the polls have swung 20 points back towards the Tories this trend is solid and absolute and will absolutely not be subject to any further changes. My point is that the polls are more fluid than they have ever been, with no guarantee of future results.

nickmason wrote: »

"[always money for tax-cuts] - not that your type will see them" - I assume you know baileysbattlebus and his/her type. Or is this just trying to enforce the message so that when there is hardship you can claim that the proceeds of that hardship are going to others - the privileged few - and perpetuating the dishonesty of the labour government that the budget deficit - state overspending - is a hangover from their profligacy that we're all going to have to pay for?

I was quoting Cameron talking to the electorate, not anyone in particular. The Tories have form in pursuing tax cuts for the wealthy in preference to tax cuts for the rest of us. Their crusade against IHT for example - only 7% of the population ever pay this, but it was spun as if owning a house currently valued above the current threshold means that most people have to pay it. IHT is and will continue to be a tax cut for the privelaged few, yet is seen as more important than tax cuts for the low paid. Labour are at least being honest saying taxes will go up, the Tories will campaign on tax cuts we can't afford and give them to people who don't need them.

As for the budget deficit, I take it you mean the level of government borrowing which at the start of this mess was lower than the level of government borrowing inherited from the Tories? And since the crisis set in the Tories have loudly opposed the VAT cut and quietly supported all of the structural spending. And loudly called for money to be spent on loan guarantee schemes and other such things. So how different are you saying public finances should be? You mentioned the Labour Party spin machine, yet you perpetuate the Tory lie that Labour increased UK government borrowing.

nickmason

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

I call it "satire". On other fora there are some posters who were scathing of anyone who paid any attention to the polls before Christmas, the 20 point swing back towards Labour dismissed as a freak. Now that the polls have swung 20 points back towards the Tories this trend is solid and absolute and will absolutely not be subject to any further changes. My point is that the polls are more fluid than they have ever been, with no guarantee of future results.

"Fair do's" - I thought when writing that I might have been rising to the bait of satire, but I have a resistance to dogwhistle politics (and yes, I know all parties are now using them) especially when applied to the Tories=Fascists meme.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

As for the budget deficit, I take it you mean the level of government borrowing which at the start of this mess was lower than the level of government borrowing inherited from the Tories?
....
You mentioned the Labour Party spin machine, yet you perpetuate the Tory lie that Labour increased UK government borrowing.

We've done this to death. "Government borrowing" is inprecise. I suggest a reasonable reading is that:
1) the level of total debt, and our indebtedness relative to other countries, is contested by different people on this board. I'm not, therefore, talking about that.
2) the fact that we are running a huge budget deficit, and intending to continue that, is pretty uncontested. That's what is going to need to be rectified in the medium term. And will be left to the next government. Who will then be blamed for it.

Anyhow, if your first point was satire, rather than dog-whistle, my anger is less, and can we agree to disagree moderately?

Rochdale_Pioneers

nickmason wrote: »

We've done this to death. "Government borrowing" is inprecise. I suggest a reasonable reading is that:
1) the level of total debt, and our indebtedness relative to other countries, is contested by different people on this board. I'm not, therefore, talking about that.

With respect to the people doing the contesting they are maliciously distorting the figures for political ends. If you apply the same methodology to the UK as you do to other nations, we have less government debt than France Germany America etc. Thats a fact as used by the EU, IMF etc.

nickmason wrote: »

2) the fact that we are running a huge budget deficit, and intending to continue that, is pretty uncontested. That's what is going to need to be rectified in the medium term. And will be left to the next government. Who will then be blamed for it.

And again its a question of comparatives. The UK is not isolated from the world. We went into the recession with substantially less state debt than our major competitors (US, Germany, Japan). We now have a substantial deficit as tax receipts slow and spending increases. This is not unique to the UK, and we are seeing the recessions in those other 3 countries slowing their economies faster than our own. That means their tax receipts will also slow. We're spending large amounts of money alright, as are they. Our recent aquisitions (the banks) have their liabilities added to public debt at 100% (ie all assets are worthless) and not their assets which is a completely unreal scenario. We are then compared to other country's debt levels without their own bank liabilities added - apples compared to oranges.

So whilst I don't dispute for a second that our economy is (a) slowing and (b) becoming more indebted, its slowing slower than our competitors and with a level of debt still substantially less than our competitors. Compare the changing position of the UK economy to the changing positions of other economies and we're not actually that bad. Which is why our credit rating is holding up whilst others are slipping. Which is why the EU puts other countries onto the "too much debt" list and not the UK. Some people have no interest in comparing the UK economy to others unless it backs up their political argument that (a) we're uniquely screwed and (b) its uniquely Brown's fault.

nickmason wrote: »

Anyhow, if your first point was satire, rather than dog-whistle, my anger is less, and can we agree to disagree moderately?

I'm here to debate. I don't expect to agree with everyone, but I do expect to have some lively discussions around the facts. Where it so often breaks down on here is where people call each other names, hide behind sock puppets or keep saying the same thing over and over and over again with no interest in listening to anything else being said - especially views and facts that disagree with their world view.

nickmason

In a stable world, absolute measures of economics seemed useful.
In this world, relativism seems to be surging in use.

I wonder whether that's because it is - as some would have it - a useful smokescreen, or rather is it a case of "devil take the hindmost" - that the various economies are doing what they can to avoid being those that implode.

Not sure of the economic theory (or absence thereof) behind this as an idea, certainly wasn't in any of my economic text-books, but then I think they're all being rewritten at the moment. It seems broadly to me that to get out of this trouble we need to reduce the level of global indebtedness. Could be through global inflation away of debts, or it could be by some having to be written off - and so the race is on to make sure that that pain is not felt "at home".

Anyhow it reminds of that story of two men being chased by a tiger, and one asks the other "why are we running, we'll never outrun that tiger" - to which the other responds "I'm not trying to outrun the tiger, I'm trying to outrun you."

nickmason

fc123 wrote: »

I may run a 'Lost Skills Centre' on (or near) Chesil Beach when I am an old lady.
If I can keep the skills here via selling products that people want to buy at a price that pays...then that's a bonus.....and the exp shed on Chesil beach can be purely for leisure.
Seems to me that that is the key.

I have never known a miner but I know ~(and include myself) of those who had to either give up or try to compete on a different level.

I was about 8 when we went on a sailing holiday to Poole (just up from Chesil as it happens) and I was taught by a hulk of a man called Gaz. He'd left the pits and become a sailing instructor. He couldn't understand those that stayed behind, thought they were mad.

Okay, it's only one apocryphal story, but pretty formative in my world-view.

Tribulation

nickmason wrote: »

I was about 8 when we went on a sailing holiday to Poole (just up from Chesil as it happens) and I was taught by a hulk of a man called Gaz. He'd left the pits and become a sailing instructor. He couldn't understand those that stayed behind, thought they were mad.

Okay, it's only one apocryphal story, but pretty formative in my world-view.

But it's much more complicated than that in reality. How would you feel if the town you lived in closed?

A mining towns whole economy was based around the mines.

While some people under say 35 may find it simple enough to up and go, the reality is, for an awful lot of people things simply weren't that simple.

If they owned their houses, how could they sell them? Who would want to buy them?

If they rented and had families, where would they find houses to rent in other towns etc when they hadn't the right skills to do any jobs etc.

If your a 45 yr old miner with a family, what were you supposed to do?

I don't disagree one little bit that the unions needed taken down a peg or two. I also think the mines needed modernising etc. But I still say it would have been cheaper and fairer to have gone the modernisation route than shut down whole communities who have been the back bone of the entire industrial revolution.

I don't know where we import our coal from but if you look at some of the places that export, they have either very poor safety records (in this modern day and age) or have killed and destroyed to get to the mines in the first place. Could this be why their coal is cheaper?

Columbia, loads of villages destroyed and blood shed http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia128.htm

Chine, numerous people killed, extremely poor safety record

etc etc etc