But does he really 'understand'?

LizzieDrip

*Maizie D* hear, hear! 👏👏👏

Sadly, many people are expecting this Labour government to overturn the results of 50 years of ideologically market driven economic policy overnight. It’s impossible!

I second that "hear, hear".
👏👏

I remember well that period running up to the election that installed Thatcher's government - at the time I was working behind the counter of an outside cafeteria in a park in Twickenham where there were quite a few well-heeled who came to drink our 'special' Earl-Grey tea at weekends. Lots of political discussions back and forth.

The thing is, it was the well-heeled Earl-Grey tea-drinkers mostly who were warning about the iniquity of Margaret Thatcher's ideology.

Yes, and the end of 'society'. Everything was given a price and nothing a value, so secure tenancies with fair rents became a thing of the past, and, like dominos, securities of all kinds went with them.

Families had to pay rent to those who'd bought the houses they would once have rented from the council, for more money and with no security. They could no longer manage on one salary, so both parents had to work, and pay out most of their earnings for childcare. Men lost their 'place' as breadwinner and more families split, as women realised they could support their children without them. Greater independence for women on one had, but less security for families on the other.

Everyone had to work for longer and longer hours to pay their own mortgage if they were lucky, and to pay the mortgages of other people if they weren't. The legacy of the policy that bought Thatcher so many votes is still advantaging some over others generations later, and many of the beneficiaries persist in saying that they have worked hard, as though those on the losing side have not.

At the same time as they tell everyone about how they were able to manage on one average salary, forgetting that their mortgage was comparatively cheap (enough to be payable by one person on an average salary), and that although interest rates were high when they were paying the mortgage they were also high when they could afford to save. They criticise families with two working parents, and mothers (rarely fathers) who use breakfast clubs and nurseries so they can get to work in time - which they have to do to earn enough to pay higher and higher rents. Saving for a deposit is all but impossible when rents are high and interest rates low, but young people are blamed for buying ready-made coffee or eating avocados.

And heaven forfend that any of the beneficiaries' money is used for the greater good, even after they're dead. Even a tax free million pounds is not enough, so they post about finding ways to get out of paying more tax on the money they were basically given for living where they did.

I'm not saying all Tory voters are like this - I know they aren't. But I also know many others who claim to be in favour of fair competition yet fail to recognise that the system that put them where they are has done so by disadvantaging many others. Hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance? I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters, really.

I very much hope that the new government can reverse some of this. Not because I want a race to the bottom - I absolutely don't. I think we should all keep what we earn, and be able to improve our lives by our own efforts. I would just like to see unearned money shared out more, and to stop the system where some are working really hard to pay the bills of others.

Oh. I thought I had quoted the post about how Thatcherism was about individualism at the top of my post.

Doddledog yes, yes, yes👏👏👏

The main reason conservatives were elected back then was because of Labour’s inability to control the unions. Back then Labour’s efforts were put in to curbing wage increases. The U turn in policy since those days is good news for present day unions now Labour have plenty of money to fulfil their demands, since they were suffering the same attempts to curb them. under the last government.

IMO that phrase ‘everything has been given a price and nothing a value’ succinctly answers the earlier question ‘how did we end up like this?’

RosiesMaw2

It’s like “That’s a very good question…” or “I’m glad you asked me that…” - regular ploys to allow “thinking time”.
I’m leaning towards team platitude

Yes, lots of politicians do it, usually when they don't have a clue and are scrambling around for a politician's answer.

“ The legacy of the policy that bought Thatcher so many votes is still advantaging some over others generations later, and many of the beneficiaries persist in saying that they have worked hard, as though those on the losing side have not.” Doodledog

On the council estate I came from 90% of the homes were purchased by Labour supporters, Tories had already saved up their deposits and moved on to buy their own homes freeing a house for another couple. Thatcher knew exactly how to bribe those socialists…and some of them are still moaning that their kids can’t get a council house!

Really? Are there stats for the voting intentions of people who buy houses? Who knew?

I spoke of my own estate of around 40 homes Doodledog, people I still see, those whose funerals I still attend, send Christmas cards to, and have coffee with when I pop to see my Dad.

At the last election and previous ones their homes had Labour posters in the windows as they always did and I doubt very much they are shy Tories!

You must live in a very politically aware area. I tend to see a poster in maybe one in 100 houses round here - definitely not 90% of them.

In any case, I don't blame people for buying council houses. It was a no-brainer for the people concerned, but we are living with the consequences of the policy many years later.

Voting Labour is not synonymous with communism, and even communists have human levels of self-interest. People do what they can at the time, and it doesn't make sense to criticise them for that - the criticism is for the policies, not the people.

I agree with your sentiments Doodledog and that is why I blame Thatcher in the main but self interest meant the end of society, as mentioned by the first paragraph in your post 10.42.

Having been reprimanded on GN for referring to the continuing impact of actions of PMs prior to the last conservative government, I am delighted to see that its now allowed by the same people who criticised me for doing it.
Even better since I agree with all the complaints about governments back as far as when Harold Wilson was in power.

LizzieDrip

Doddledog yes, yes, yes👏👏👏

... and 4 'yesses' from me, too!

The legacy of the policy that bought Thatcher so many votes is still advantaging some over others generations later, and many of the beneficiaries persist in saying that they have worked hard, as though those on the losing side have not.
Doodledog
👏👏👏

I remember a conversation in my cafeteria-in-the-park days that went something like this:

"It's time the unions were put a stop to - and people realise that this current socialism doesn't work"

... this - from a woman who'd had all the advantages of that socialism-that-didn't-work and the rights under which she'd prospered which those unions had fought for.

You can hear the ladder clattering down as she self-righteously pulled it away.

Mollygo

Having been reprimanded on GN for referring to the continuing impact of actions of PMs prior to the last conservative government, I am delighted to see that its now allowed by the same people who criticised me for doing it.
Even better since I agree with all the complaints about governments back as far as when Harold Wilson was in power.

I can't be exact, but I do believe that most governments leave legacies that have had a negative impact on society and which can't be overturned at the drop of a hat - or even ever. And that certainly includes Blair's New Labour.

So I personally think you've been unfairly reprimanded.

LizzieDrip

IMO that phrase ‘everything has been given a price and nothing a value’ succinctly answers the earlier question ‘how did we end up like this?’

Yes you are right. Everything is about money and self self self.

Compete, thrive, step on others.

None of us can know what another person understands. All we can do is be as clear as possible when we speak and pay as much attention as possible when we listen. Political advisers are very aware of the phrases which will sway people's thinking (if only subconsciously). We all want other people to understand us, especially when they're making big decisions which affect our lives, so just hearing the word gives us a little splash of positive dopamine! Personally, I'd rather navigate Starmer's vocabulary than hear the endless evasive, self-serving lies of the last lot.

“You can hear the ladder clattering down as she self-righteously pulled it away.” Dickens

“Yes you are right. Everything is about money and self self self.

Compete, thrive, step on others.” Eggplant

It turns out Thatcher had it right with her no such thing as society when so many put their own interests before the greater good.

Ah well- Donald Trump thinks he is a nice man. Make of that what you will.

Thatcher's vanquishing of the unions may have appeared to been a good thing in many people's eyes, but it was the economic ideology she embraced and implemented that has been the cause of the UK's deterioration over the last 40 years.
The ideas that drove it were:

a) that nationalisation caused the nationalised sectors to become inefficient and expensive; that the private sector was more efficient because of the need to compete by holding prices down and making whichever service they were providing more attractive to the consumers the company needed in order to make their profits.

b) that people should not become dependent on the state to provide for their needs; that people should work and strive to provide for themselves and their families without calling on the state for help

c) that markets should be minimally regulated because regulation interfered with their efficient operation

d) that loss making industries should be allowed to wither and die rather than be supported by the state when we could import their products more cheaply and 'the market' would ensure that the vacuum created by their loss would be filled by eager entrepreneurs setting up innovative and profitable businesses to provide wealth and employment to the areas where industry had been.

e) that taxation should be light because it would free money up for consumers, which would increase demand and lead to growth, and it would incentivise businesses and the wealthy to invest more money in the country.

Well, we all know what happened with that, don't we?

Not only was privatisation a failure in many cases, but suppression of the unions and generous tax regimes for businesses and the wealthy concentrated money upwards and diminished 'workers' share of the national income.

These make interesting reading. All but the 1990s one has a table showing the share of national income. Notice how it shrinks for the employed and increases for business in the 1980s...

The House of Lords Library has produced a series of papers on the economy of each decade from 1950 to 1990

lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1950s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1960s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1970s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1980s/
lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-1990s/

I think that joining the EU and the oil revenues masked our decline but it is now quite obvious.

GrannyGravy13

I watched him being interviewed on GMB by Susanna Reid this morning, hats off to Sir Starmer, in 10 minutes he managed to get in £22 million black hole 9 times, stabilising the economy 11 times.

He did refuse to apologise regarding removing the WFA.

He did say all pensioners are getting a £440 increase in their pensions next year, which is incorrect only this born after 1953 and on the new state pension will receive that amount others a lot less.

And only those who have paid into National Insurance for the required number of years will get £440 next spring ( as the weather begins to warm up). Of course many older women who paid "married women's stamp" and women who took time off from work to have and bring up children, will not get anywhere near that . There are more women than men who do not have a full pension pot. Women are being penalised more than most men by the stripping of the WFA for those unable to claim Pension Credit etc. makes me very angry. Misogamy is alive and well even with a Labour government in power. 😡

2507C0

GrannyGravy13

I watched him being interviewed on GMB by Susanna Reid this morning, hats off to Sir Starmer, in 10 minutes he managed to get in £22 million black hole 9 times, stabilising the economy 11 times.

He did refuse to apologise regarding removing the WFA.

He did say all pensioners are getting a £440 increase in their pensions next year, which is incorrect only this born after 1953 and on the new state pension will receive that amount others a lot less.

And only those who have paid into National Insurance for the required number of years will get £440 next spring ( as the weather begins to warm up). Of course many older women who paid "married women's stamp" and women who took time off from work to have and bring up children, will not get anywhere near that . There are more women than men who do not have a full pension pot. Women are being penalised more than most men by the stripping of the WFA for those unable to claim Pension Credit etc. makes me very angry. Misogamy is alive and well even with a Labour government in power. 😡

It is very important that future generations are taught to understand that the pension is a contributory benefit, and that what they get out is based on what they pay in.

It is already going to be difficult for them to retire below the age of 70 without making extra provision. It has to be made clear that if they pay in less they can't expect to take out the full state pension as though they had made full contributions. I think that everyone should get a free pension forecast (with advice) every ten years - maybe at the age of 30 and on every '0' birthday afterwards - so people know in plenty of time if their contributions are going to fall short. That way they can make them up over time, and make informed decisions about taking time out of the workplace or cutting their contributions.

I know the married woman's stamp no longer exists, but many women seem to assume that their husbands' contributions cover theirs if they opt out of working. Legally, of course, they don't - so again, proper advice is necessary so they aren't going to find themselves short-changed if their husbands don't (or can't) provide for them in retirement, and they can make provision for if they are widowed or divorced in older age.

Alternatively, we could work towards a system where everyone gets a pension regardless of contributions, and there is no NI element. The funding would have to come from increased taxation, however, and the burden of that couldn't fall only on those in work, or those spending the earnings of someone else on a 2 for 1 deal. I can't see a pension poll tax being popular either, but a system where some people expect to get something for nothing whilst others have to pay just can't work. Even if the economics hold up, the basic unfairness would make it unfeasible - who is going to volunteer to be in the 'worker' cohort?

I suspect that this sort of thing comes under the 'difficult decisions' that the government is talking about. Yes, they will be difficult for some, but overall, much fairer. The difficulty is knowing how they can best be phased in without disadvantaging people retrospectively.

He did say all pensioners are getting a £440 increase in their pensions next year, which is incorrect only this born after 1953 and on the new state pension will receive that amount others a lot less.
And that applies even to those who paid NI for the full number of years.
I get the I had to wait or I had to pay in for more years but that doesn’t change the fact that some pensioners, even those who have paid the full number of national insurance contributions are still getting £52 a week less to live on, whilst paying the same electricity, the same gas, same food bills, as those born after 1953.
Actually, some of the same living expenses that MPs can claim subsistence or allowance for.

I’ve made that point several times on other threads Mollygo, but I’m glad you’re making it again. There are many, many pensioners who will receive far less than the £440 Starmer said they would receive and he claimed the £440 as a fact.

Someone has passed KS those figures and so that’s what he says, it’s only true for some younger pensioners.