When did UK governments lose their way?

ronib

MaizieD and Euan Blair’s model is aimed at providing apprenticeships with a degree qualification attached to them. So it’s vaguely ironic that Euan Blair stands to make millions on the backs of the less advantaged but it would be great if it worked to be fair.

But the point is that our laws allow this.

An illustration from the Open Democracy website. They looked into the use of covid loans to business during the pandemic.

They found that many companies appeared to use their loans to increase executive pay and give dividends to shareholders. And for share buybacks.

It's worth reading

www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/covid-19-furlough-business-rates-relief-inequality/

MaizieD and Euan Blair’s model is aimed at providing apprenticeships with a degree qualification attached to them. So it’s vaguely ironic that Euan Blair stands to make millions on the backs of the less advantaged but it would be great if it worked to be fair.

Best not to sidetrack I suppose but political positions do give very handsomely across the political divide. Seems to be built in to the system of inequality which we’re currently thinking about.

Just for once you're not sidetracking, ronib. This is part and parcel of what I have said two or three times already. It's not Euan Blair's political connections that means he can make money even though his company is loss making (which could ne a 'loss' for tax purposes). It's that he started with the great advantage of wealthy parents and is living in a country where the governance is weighted in favour of the already wealthy.

They are in positions of power and have the ear of government, they can afford expensive and extensive lobbying, they can give big donations to political parties and MPs with the expectation that their donations will be 'value for money'. They expect, and mostly get, governance which is run to their advantage.

No amount of 'mitigation' for the poorer members of our society can outweigh the influence of the wealthy over our laws and regulations.

People have invested in his company - why - I don't know. A bit like Elon Musk who makes losses but still people invest.

Dinahmo I don’t understand how Euan Blair’s apprenticeship training degree program has posted 6 years of losses, apparently still making Euan richer than his father.
Best not to sidetrack I suppose but political positions do give very handsomely across the political divide. Seems to be built in to the system of inequality which we’re currently thinking about.

When did UK governments lose their way?

When Thatcher was elected and saw the salvation of the UK on the “service economy” .

It’s been a great success hasnt it, all its given us is high wages for the few rich and poverty wages for those providing the services.

Anniel The bulk of Callaghan's and Healey's wealth came from their homes. As does that of most people. Healey's estate was worth £2.7 million and Callaghan's was worth £1.9 million.

Callaghan's home was bought in 1968, with the aid of a mortgage and was estimated to be worth between £20k and £30k when they moved in.

ronib

Mark Thatcher’s net worth £60 million? Euan Blair considerably more.

What does that have to do with anything? At least Euan Blair hasn't been arrested for trying to fund an illegal coup.
In 2004 Thatcher was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment for that little activity. The prison term was suspended.

Sir Bernard Ingham suggested, in the run up to the 1987 election, that the best thing he could do would be to leave the country.

I'm not at all sure what Healey's and Callaghan's backgrounds have to do with anything, apart from being an attempt at some kind of distraction.

What exactly do you mean by "to restructure the NHS"? I happen to agree that it needs restructuring too - for a start, commissioning (with its crony contracts and fragmentation) and the involvement of the private sector needs to be reversed.

I also think there needs to be a strengthening of the idea of a "healthcare system for all".

I suspect that's not what you mean.

Yes Anniel we definitely agree with you. We have dire Nhs provision in the South East and no sign of any improvement.

How very sensible of you at the age of 89 to spend your time out of the Uk.

Will any of you ever agree that we need to restructure the NHS and look at more successful Health services overseas?

Nope!

For the simple reason that taxation doesn't fund spending. A fact that people are finding incredibly hard to understand, of course, but a fact nonetheless.

I have explained loads of times how state spending on the NHS, and many other public services, would be beneficial to the economy and it would actually increase the tax take without having to increase anyone's taxation.

Owning a farm doesn't make anyone a bloated plutocrat. That is not what is at issue here. The issue is that Thatcher's policies redistributed the national wealth up to the already wealthy and did very little to benefit the rest of the population. They contributed to financial and social inequality and the distress they caused to the poor and unemployed has left a long legacy of disengagement and resentment.

There is a vast difference between people failing to make use of opportunities and there being no opportunities for people to make use of.

Reading this thread with interest and I see many blame Margaret Thatcher for a lot that is wrong. First, Callaghan and Healey who were PM and Chancellor were wealthy. They both owned farms in Sussex which was a very expensive area. But really spammygirl who say she will vote Labour to get a”properly funded health service” needs to think again. Will any of you ever agree that we need to restructure the NHS and look at more successful Health services overseas? No UK government has the courage to tell the truth and change the whole system. The NHS gets about a third of money collected by central government. So spammygirl how do we properly fund the NHS? Are you willing to give more of your income in taxes? I am close to 89 and am still paying tax, although I am currently living overseas. I am happy to pay my share but raising rates of income tax will not be popular. The Conservatives have been too long in office and are very mediocre but I do not see Labour as a party fizzing with good ideas. We’re doomed I tell you, doomed ( Dads Army?)

janipans

I think we need radical reform.
Abandon Lib/Lab/Con etc completely - ie NO parties!
There should be local elections where we vote for a person, and what they stand for (not a party) and the winners of those elections should then be selected to serve as our government.
Those elected, should choose a leader to be PM.
All issues to be discussed and voted on, on their own merit and the majority vote carried. Less time spent bitching and sniping, more time collaborating together and getting the job in hand done!

Absolutely agree with you. That way you'd also have a wider pool of people and skills to choose from when filling posts. Under the present system, it seems that MPs can be moved from, say, Education to Health and be expected to be an expert. Hopefully it would also mean less arguing for its own sake across party divisions.

growstuff

The problem is that inequality goes deeper than something which can be overcome by a few mitigations. It's systemic and is perpetuated by inheritance. If the little sperm which has produced you happens to have been made by the Duke of Westminster, you're always going to have an advantage.

More equal educational opportunities, healthcare and initiatives such as Sure Start are a good place to start, but it's a bit like battling the wind and waves in a storm compared with being in an indoor swimming pool.

You’re right of course, but given that isn’t going to happen broadening opportunities is at least a step in the right direction.

Maizie I read 'The Price of Inequality' and agree with you that it's essential reading for anybody interested in structural inbalance (inequality).

The problem is that inequality goes deeper than something which can be overcome by a few mitigations. It's systemic and is perpetuated by inheritance. If the little sperm which has produced you happens to have been made by the Duke of Westminster, you're always going to have an advantage.

More equal educational opportunities, healthcare and initiatives such as Sure Start are a good place to start, but it's a bit like battling the wind and waves in a storm compared with being in an indoor swimming pool.

Mollygo

Firstly, I apologise, I should have said brightest and least able rather than poorest. It was never meant to be a comment on their financial viability.
Re how would I make it a more equitable society?
Better brains than mine have struggled with that, and I don’t know how to do it. There needs to be a way to improve things for the poorest and the not so poor that wouldn’t immediately be hijacked by those with the time and resources to skim off an unwarranted share. e.g. building reasonable cost houses for first time families, which are snapped up by those who don’t need them and sold on at inflated prices. But I don’t know how to do that.

Surestart and Community First. I thought Community First was a charity. I didn’t know it was anything to do with the government.
I regretted the closing of Surestart, but the Family Hubs that are set up in many places weren’t just a rebranded Surestart. They cater for a wider range of ages and offer a wider range of support to children and parents.
Our SENDCO and children’s mentor direct parents both in school and preschool towards the help they need and there is always information on the website and our local FB page. The idea that there was nothing after Surestart is misleading and in some places, it was no longer meeting the needs of the poorest families, so something had to be done.

Communities First was a Welsh initiative, aimed at addressing poverty. It wasn’t perfect, but did make impact. It was closed in 2018 because Westminster funding of the Welsh Government meant it was no longer affordable.
I think one of the best ways of addressing poverty is through very local schemes aimed at specific communities, and the funding available to Local Authorities throughout the UK now means that these services are extremely limited, because they only have funds to provide core activity.
The same issues apply to funding for family support schemes, the services have to be gate kept because the funding is so limited that they are unable to develop initiatives with financial implications. In England, is the total allocation from Westminster protected to the level it was under SureStart?

Grany

A young chap in Question Time audience said. "I can't see what's different between conservatives and "Labour Party "I don't know who to vote for and I shouldn't have to feel like that" says a lot of what young people think about the state of politics in this country now.

That’s cos they haven’t looked into it, they google everything else so maybe show more interest and google political stuff.
So many young just aren’t interested enough but moan if they don’t like things.A lot can’t be arsed to vote either.

Mark Thatcher’s net worth £60 million? Euan Blair considerably more.

Maybee70 Thatcher was also involved with lobbying the Saudi Arabians to sell them British fighter jets. There were also allegations of payment of large bribes by BAE in order to secure the contracts. Some years later, following investigations BAE paid a fine of nearly £300 million.

Son Mark was an international "fixer" and involved in weapons deals between South Africa and the Saudis, and was a consultant for Cementation who were trying to get a contract worth 300 million to build a university in Oman. Mts Thatcher flew out to Oman to lobby on behalf of Cementation

Here's an extract from the journal Arabian Business concerning the lobbying

Senior advisors to Mrs Thatcher, who was prime minister 1979 to 1990, believed her son’s business dealings were “driven by greed” and his mother’s attitude towards them “conveyed a whiff of corruption”, according to The Guardian.

Her principal private secretary Sir Clive Whitmore said, “Mark was driven by greed and reluctant to pass up any opportunity,” according to the biography.

Another of her private secretaries, Robin Butler, who served in 1984, claimed that competing bidders for a Cementation construction deal in Oman had complained that Mrs Thatcher used her influence with the Sultan of Oman to help the company that Mark was working for win the contract.

Butler said: “He thought that Mrs Thatcher’s behaviour in Oman had conveyed a whiff of corruption, though she might not have regarded it as such. She had wanted to see Mark right. She sought the deal for Mark. She excluded everyone from her talks with the Sultan. Mark was dealing with Brigadier Landon, who was the Sultan’s go-between. She behaved in the most peculiar way. I suspected the worst.”

These deals were subject to investigation by the National Audit Office. The 20 year period before the papers are released is long gone. The papers for the Cementation deal are not being released until 2053!

There needs to be a way to improve things for the poorest and the not so poor that wouldn’t immediately be hijacked by those with the time and resources to skim off an unwarranted share.

It really all boils down to economics, doesn't it?

In a way it's about the wealthy effortlessly creaming off more and more wealth from the less wealthy because the political system is more geared to allow them to acquire more and more than it is to a more equitable distribution of wealth.

I wouldn't particularly want to start by crudely taking excessive wealth from one sector to redistribute, but I would like to see them have fewer opportunities to cream off that wealth. Progressive taxation, closing tax avoidance loopholes, equalising tax across the different income streams, curbing excessive executive pay. Curbs on profiteering...

And of course, I would want to see more put into public services and fairer pay deals for working people at lower levels.

I'm reading Joseph Stigliz's ;The Price of Inequality' and it's fired me up. I haven't got to his suggested solutions yet; I'm sure they'll be interesting.

Callistemon21

Hetty58

It all started to go downhill with Thatcher - but there was, at least, a veneer of respectability, a sense that (although misguided) they believed they were working in our interests.

Now, we've got to the stage where they don't even bother to act the part, don't seem to care what we think - and don't even try to follow through their promises. It's just sad when you have to vote for the lesser evil, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher was probably the least disingenuous, most honest politician in recent times.

Whether or not you liked or really disliked her and her policies, she was acting in what she thought were the best interests of the country and not in her own interests which so many politicians of all parties seem to o.

She was so nice that she went on to make a fortune helping to sell cigarettes to third work countries. All heart was Thatcher…

Firstly, I apologise, I should have said brightest and least able rather than poorest. It was never meant to be a comment on their financial viability.
Re how would I make it a more equitable society?
Better brains than mine have struggled with that, and I don’t know how to do it. There needs to be a way to improve things for the poorest and the not so poor that wouldn’t immediately be hijacked by those with the time and resources to skim off an unwarranted share. e.g. building reasonable cost houses for first time families, which are snapped up by those who don’t need them and sold on at inflated prices. But I don’t know how to do that.

Surestart and Community First. I thought Community First was a charity. I didn’t know it was anything to do with the government.
I regretted the closing of Surestart, but the Family Hubs that are set up in many places weren’t just a rebranded Surestart. They cater for a wider range of ages and offer a wider range of support to children and parents.
Our SENDCO and children’s mentor direct parents both in school and preschool towards the help they need and there is always information on the website and our local FB page. The idea that there was nothing after Surestart is misleading and in some places, it was no longer meeting the needs of the poorest families, so something had to be done.

One of the first things I would do in government is to restart the Surestart and Communities First initiatives, and widen eligibility.

The problem for me is, desirable as these initiatives are, that at the end of it the poor would still be poor and less able to access the resources and advantages available to those with more wealth.