Economic mess daunting - Cameron

ad9898_3

1echidna wrote: »

This of course ignores the advance of science. The future 'camel' may be a genetically modified super camel and he will have his nano technology super devices or at least his solar powered communication devices and computers.

I do agree though that oil and gas were of great importance to the UK economy in the eighties.

bo_drinker

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true.

The idea most people have is if you stop the immigrants coming in and tinker round the edges (things that'll save a few million or even a billion here and there like stopping people suing the NHS) that it'll fix itself.

Unfortunately what is required is another Thatcher - someone who is prepared to say, 'We can't afford this and it has to stop now' and then actually stops the spending despite the political pain. I think Cameron won't be prepared to take the pain.

Many people loathe Thatcher for her policies despite there being no alternative except national bankruptcy. I got invited recently to join a 'celebration' in Trafalgar Square on the day that she dies. People want to dance on her grave 19 years after she left power!

Where can I blag an invite to the Trf Sq Bash?? :rotfl:
Joking apart it seems that tinkering around the edges etc as you say will do nothing now, things have gone too far. But who is there out there prepared to take the bull by the horns and do some real good, or at least have a good go. Most MP's are completely out of touch more than ever and along for the ride/ expenses, Vince Cable seems on the ball but he is a small fish in a big pond

1echidna

ad9898 wrote: »

For a few lines, that is an awful lot of fail!

Seriously though it is not at all wise to attach any certainty to extrapolations into the future when there are many unknown developments which may affect what happens.

ad9898_3

1echidna wrote: »

For a few lines, that is an awful lot of fail!

Seriously though it is not at all wise to attach any certainty to extrapolations into the future when there are many unknown developments which may affect what happens.

I was only kidding, you make good points, my concern is 'the time' that is left, I've said it many times, can we adapt ???, sure, but the time is very very short, and in my humble opinion there is not enough of it. I have read many many papers on renewables and such like, unfortunately they stand no chance of proviiding grid level energy to 6 billion people in the time before energy costs go through the stratosphere. If there were only 2 billion people, we would make it for sure, 6 billion ??, no chance.

bluey890

Generali wrote: »

The people who lost their jobs were either working in nationalised industries that were bankrupting the country due to the huge subsidies that had to be paid to them or were supplying those firms or their workers. The only way mass unemployment could have been avoided was by continuing to spend as Labour had done. They'd already had to call in the IMF. How do you (or other Thatcher haters) propose the subsidies to nationalised industries could have been continued under those conditions?

Gen, thinking Thatcher isn't right to lead the economy doesn't mean I hate her.

I don't hate anyone in this life.

Generali

bluey890 wrote: »

Gen, thinking Thatcher isn't right to lead the economy doesn't mean I hate her.

I don't hate anyone in this life.

Fair enough, sorry for describing you in that way.

I'm guessing that kennyboy66 would describe himself as such though along with a good number of other British people.

bluey890

Generali wrote: »

Fair enough, sorry for describing you in that way.

I'm guessing that kennyboy66 would describe himself as such though along with a good number of other British people.

No worries. My thoughts are Thatcher would be too much of a short sharp shock leading to strikes. Prefer slightly more gradual change, so as to avoid social unrest, rising crime, and larger bust than necessary. A smooth adjustment where possible.
appreciate that the where possible is a huge caveat

michaels

I agree with the rest of the post but I think the North Sea Oil thing is often misunderstood (see the exchange rate comments below). - Yes there was revenue but on the back of GBP becoming a petro-currency Britain's manufacturing was priced out of the market - a lot of the reason why we went theough such an abbrupt switch frmo a manufacturing economy to a services one wth the huge social upheaval that entailled. The ramifications are still felt today, our manufacturing that remains lacks the scale and economy wide importance to do anything but continue to decline and our societyhas moved to the point where manual jobs are considered lesser to service industry ones with a heavy media bias leading to the college course selection against science and engineering that we see today.

I may post something on topic as well in a bit.

ad9898 wrote: »

Although I'm a fan of Thatcher's guts in dealing with the problem, she had an ace up her sleeve, it was called North Sea oil, this time there are no cards to play, it's going to get very painful for lots of people.

kennyboy66_2

Generali wrote: »

Fair enough, sorry for describing you in that way.

I'm guessing that kennyboy66 would describe himself as such though along with a good number of other British people.

Well I won't be cracking open the champagne when she dies, if thats what you mean.

I've said before that I think privatisation, union legislation and shifting taxes from direct to indirect ones were really good achievements, and the change in certain parts if the Bristsh physche from inevitable decline was a great one.

However I find the argument that she and her government could do no wrong pretty laughable.
The 1979 - 1982 "monetarist experiment" targeting M3 was an unmitigated disaster, the kind you might get from a communist government

Generali

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Well I won't be cracking open the champagne when she dies, if thats what you mean.

I've said before that I think privatisation, union legislation and shifting taxes from direct to indirect ones were really good achievements, and the change in certain parts if the Bristsh physche from inevitable decline was a great one.

However I find the argument that she and her government could do no wrong pretty laughable.
The 1979 - 1982 "monetarist experiment" targeting M3 was an unmitigated disaster, the kind you might get from a communist government

I don't think that the Thatcher Government could do no wrong. For example, shadowing the DEM in the late 80s was a massive error which undid a lot of very good work.

AIUI, monetarism had been insisted upon by the IMF and was implemented by the Labour Government of the late 70s. It was continued by Howe as Chancellor of course.

I find it amazing that Thatcher's Governments are villified in the UK while the Tory and Labour Governments of the 60s and especially 70s which came close to destroying the country are largely ignored in popular history.